1

The Responsibility of Civic Education in the United States: An Overview of How Civic
Education Controls Voter Registration in the United States








Ryan Kermode
POSC 295: Research Methods in Political Science
December 7, 2013




2



Each year the Institute of Education Science administers a test called the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) to children in grades 4, 8 and 12. The schools in
which this test is given are randomly selected throughout the United States. These schools
chosen come from different backgrounds ranging from private schools in rich communities to
large public schools in poor areas. A portion of the test given to these students is a civics test,
which tests the students ability to understand the basics of government and civic duty as a
citizen. The follow statement is provided by the NAEP explanation of the civics test: The
NAEP civics assessment measures the civics knowledge, skills, and dispositions that are critical
to the responsibilities of citizenship in Americas constitutional democracy.
1
The exam is
broken down into three categories that test the students ability to understand how the American
government works, how to interpret the constitution, and the basics of how to be a civic civilian
who participates in politics.
For 8
th
grade students, the scoring criteria is broken down into three categories: basic,
proficient and advanced. In order to be considered within the basic level, a student must score
within the range of 134-177, to be considered proficient the student must score within the range
of 178-212, and advanced 213 and above.
2
When reviewing national data produced from the
NAEP test, within public schools in the United States that took the test, the average score in
2010 was 150.
3
According the grading criteria, a score of 150 is considered to be within the
range of basic. Scoring within the Basic criteria means the student has a basic understanding of
how to define government, politics, democracy and understands the basic documents that created
this country. The separating factor between basic and proficient is the ability for students to
decipher fact from fiction within politics.

1
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/civics/whatmeasure.aspx
2
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/civics/achieve.aspx
3
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/report.aspx
3



In an article written in The New York Times titled, Failing Grades on Civics Exam
Called a Crisis by Sam Dillon, the author allows the audience to understand the problems
America faces by having these low scores on civics exams. Dillon writes, fewer than half of
American eighth graders knew the purpose of the Bill of Rights [and] only one in 10
demonstrated acceptable knowledge of the checks and balances among the legislative, executive
and judicial branches.
4
While there can be an infinite amount of reasons why not knowing the
answers to these questions is not good for the American society as a whole and the future of our
children, the following research and thesis is focused around the idea behind one of the questions
administered to 8
th
and 12
th
grade students taking the NAEP.
Figure 1
5
shows the exact picture that is given to 8
th
grade students along with multiple
questions testing their ability to interpret voting registration. The questions that go along with
this document are deemed as being hard on a scale measured by the Institute of Education
Science itself; other questions in the same category include topics such as Importance of Role
as an US Citizen and International Effects of WWII.
6
On top of being an issue itself that voter
registration analysis is deemed as being difficult, over half of the students in 8
th
grade that took
the exam got this question wrong or a question similar to voter registration analysis. The problem
behind the voter registration dilemma in the United States is not one based upon race, gender,
age, socioeconomic status or which state a citizen lives in; it is right here buried within
Americas flawed education system. This research thesis begins to develop the idea that many
researches try to understand yet few stop and look at before embarking on elaborate dissertations
about socioeconomic disparities or race inequalities and racial profiling at voting booths; the
problem lies within the lack of civic education at a young age for American students.

4
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/05/education/05civics.html
5
Refer to Appendix A
6
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/itmrlsx/search.aspx?subject=civics
4



Past Research Review
In the United States voter registration is not a mandatory duty as a citizen. American
citizens serve no mandatory duty to vote in any election throughout their time living within the
country. A study done by the Bipartisan Policy Center, showed that from the 2008 election, there
were 8 million more eligible voters, yet the percent of voters within the entire eligible pool
dropped.
7
In 2012, only 57.2% of eligible American voters voted in the Presidential election.
This statistic became the basis for my research, which is to discover the underlying issue of why
only half of the eligible voters in America voted for the one person that controls the most
powerful country in the world. While most studies focus on age, gender, socioeconomic status,
state residency and voting restriction laws, I believe the problem boils down to education.
The importance of this research is understood from the study previously discussed by the
Bipartisan Policy Center. This study identified that 93 million eligible voters did not vote, but
this is not where the problem ends. Among the US population, around 313 million in 2012, only
219 million voters were eligible to vote; this leaves 94 million citizens who are not eligible to
vote plus the 93 million eligible voters who did not vote-totaling around 59.74% of the
population (187 million) not voting in the 2012 election. Here lies the importance of researching
voter turnout in American elections.
The next variable of interest within my research is levels of education in the United
States. I believe this variable is where my research stems away from the past studies, which
focus on the effect of socioeconomic status on voter turnout (Estrada Correra 2012). This study
focuses on the relationship between voter turnout being affected by the amount of foreclosures
within a neighborhood as discussed in their thesis where they state they wish to investigate
whether voters in communities with high rates of foreclosure will find it more difficult to

7
http://bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/2012%20Voter%20Turnout%20Full%20Report.pdf
5



participate in election (2012). Both authors develop a hypothesis that the housing crisis of 2006
affected the voter turnout in 2008. While the election is different from the previous report
discussed, the importance is the lens the two authors take, or how they frame the research design.
The construction of their research design focuses on the traditional political argument against
voter registration regulations, which is that lower-income populations have a tougher time
registering to vote in elections due to their socioeconomic status.
The lack of what the authors call social capital and civic engagement within
communities that are of lower income and do not have a traditional community essence (2012).
For these authors the link between socioeconomic status and political participation is the concept
of social capital, which is defined as being, connections among individualssocial networks
and norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them. Social capital can be
understood as the connections an individual or a family has to the outside world, and in this case,
the political world. A neighborhood that has lawn signs, political roundtable discussions, visible
bumper stickers, news media and other political stimulants, is typically going to have more
voters than a neighborhood that does not have social capital connecting them to the political
sphere in the country. Neighborhoods that do not have political relevancy are ones that are faced
with daily economic anxieties and have larger problems to deal with such as their house
foreclosing, excessive debt and job loss, rather than registering to vote (2012).
However, what the argument fails to mention is that civil engagement and social capital
have a deep foundation within civic education. Many other research projects believe that voting
stems from the idea of civic responsibility is directly linked to lower income populations. The
connection rests on the evidence that these neighborhoods have high populations of Hispanics
and African Americans who feel less of a connection to their country because of lack of social
6



capital and economic issues. These studies place these populations into the general mold that
socioeconomic status determines the quality of life including education as being a part of this
puzzle. However, what researches do not do is realize that the solution is education. Educated
citizens can have less of a stress when figuring out how to register to vote, can feel more
connected with their political society and can spread that connection through their social capital
network in order to have their family and friends become more aware of the political reality
surrounding them.
Studies take this step to understand why poorer citizens do not vote and base it on the fact
that voter registration is the root of the problem due to its difficult nature (Burden 2013). This
research design rests on the fact that registration lowers turnout by about 2 percentage points
(2013). The argument continues by stating how registration burden depresses turnout
particularly among some disadvantaged subgroups of the population because the registration
process has early closing dates, residency requirements, felon disenfranchisement laws and
policies for purging the voter rolls (2013). The authors follow in the footsteps of the latter study
on foreclosures by claiming the root of the problem is the electoral system for being the reason
why people do not vote. This begins to create a slew of arguments that give rise to racial and
ethnicity arguments about the voting system in the United States, due to the low voter turnout in
lower income neighborhoods (2013). However, this new study shows how in North Dakota even
with no voting registration laws, there is still lower turnout rates than other states with voter
registration laws (2013). The authors then make their thesis that the size and capacity of voting
administrations across the nation as the root of the problem to why voter registration makes
turnout lower. Both studies create a band-aid solution to the true rotting civic education system
in the country.
7



The research construction then takes a toll when researches focus on the importance of
civic education on voter turnout in America (Perrson 2013). However, the important aspect of
the study lies within the definition of what the education variable is when conducting the
quantitative research: education is only a proxy for social status and has no direct causal effect
to voter turnout (2013). The study believes that education is only relative to ones environment
meaning that there is no absolute education that will affect voter turnout (2013). In other
words, if two children were taught the same information, but one lived in the urban
neighborhoods of Los Angeles and the other in a wealthy Connecticut neighborhood their
education would differ based upon their environment, not based on the material they learn. The
argument is similar to the past two articles discussed due the definition of what education is. The
study argues that education is a label that adds to an individuals wealth, it is not about the
knowledge and power gained through education; it is just a label showing socioeconomic status
(2013). In this case, it is once again easy for arguments to be made that education is based on
wealth, communities, location and other socioeconomic factors that also contribute to voter
turnout. However, what this author does not focus on is the knowledge gained from education
whether it is in that Los Angeles public school or a private school in Connecticut because the
basics of voting and the American government do not change on a state-to-state level. The voting
regulations may differ from state to state, but the basics of how to vote, where to register, whom
to vote for, and why to vote for certain candidates are concepts and ideas that can be learned
through civic education.
Further research studies have state the importance of the effect of civic education on
voter turnout (Richie 2007). The study develops the idea that since it is required to vote in the
US, civic education can provide a motivation to vote. Civic education, in this study, can be the
8



answer to registration of high school students during civics classes and Constitution Day
assemblies [and] classes that explain voting mechanic and the powers of local, state, and federal
elected officer and dispel common myths (2007). The variable does begin to get closer to the
one I wish to discuss in my research, but still treats education as solely a way to make
registration easier. The research design treats education as being classrooms that allow for voter
registration opportunities to coming directly to the student thus relating to the past arguments
that the underlying issue of voting is within voter registration regulations and rules being
inaccessible to people.
The educational variable is also tested in other studies, in which researches test the civic
engagement of eager college students and their impact on voter turnout (NAEP 2013). What is
important in this piece of past research is the lack of focus of civic education for those who do
not have the opportunity to go to college or any other form of higher education. While it is
important for college students to be exposed to civic education, it is also important for younger
citizens to be exposed at a young age in order to ignite the drive and passion for being involved
in the American political world before they enter college. This study also assumes that all college
students have a drive that can be curbed into political passion, which is not entirely true (2013).
Many college students have no interest in politics because they have not been exposed to it until
they are 20 years old and now with the ability to pick and choose the classes they want, they may
not choose to take civic education. However, the concept of civic duty and responsibility is the
important concept to be expunged and applied to the current research.
The concept of civic duty and responsibility is a focus of political psychologists who
wish to understand the social interaction of the individuals place in the larger picture of what a
society is (Loewen 2012). This research design takes a more psychological lens on American
9



politics and voting and sheds light on the importance of innate duty and responsibility in a citizen
and the impact it can have on voting. The research study can be understood in the current
discussion as what would happen if the past studies on civic education were implemented and
what would happen in America eventually if younger students were exposed to civic education.
The study goes further to discuss that once this trend of duty succeeds within American culture,
it can be genetically proven that this sense of duty will be innately passed down to generations to
come (2013). For my research, I will not focus deeply within the scientific proof of this, but it
can be insightful when understanding the lasting legacy of civic education on generations to
come.
Hypothesis & Variables
Taking the concepts, ideas and methods used in the past research, my research begins to
develop as a new entity that looks solely at the importance of civic education. The past research
focuses on education as being a piece of the puzzle that an individual identifies their
socioeconomic status with. This socioeconomic status determines the capacity for an individual
to understand what is going in the political world based upon their education and social capital of
the area they live within. Typically, when education is used as a variable in determining voter
registration and turnout analysis, the approach assumes education to symbolize the
socioeconomic status of that individual. This is assume because those with a higher quality of
life have better education and go further with their education. However, with my education
variable, I wish to prove two main hypotheses:
The younger a student is exposed to civic education, the more likely they are to register
to vote and have a general understanding of political campaigns and general knowledge about
the American political system.
10



Null Hypothesis: There is no relationship between exposure to civic education and
whether or not an individual will register to vote or have an understanding of political
campaigns and general knowledge about the American political system.
Socioeconomic factors (employment) and Race (Hispanic) are not the reason why
individuals do not vote, or do not know how to register to vote; it all boils down to civic
education.
Null Hypothesis: Socioeconomic factors (employment) and Race (Hispanic) are the
reason why individuals do not vote, or do not know how to register to vote, thus proving it does
not have to do with civic education.
For the first hypothesis, the variables being used will be from two separate datasets.
Beginning with the NES2008 database variables: campaign attention and levels of education will
be used. This will assess how ones level of education determines whether or not an individual is
more or less likely to pay attention and understand what is going on with a campaign, and in this
case the 2008 Presidential election. The second database is the American National Election
Studies dataset ANES 2012 Time Series Study and the variables that will be used are: voter
registration and levels of education. This will determine if an individual is more or likely to
register to vote depending on their education. The interaction between these two variables will
also help develop the main argument that those in higher education are more likely to register to
vote because they have been exposed to civic education and those who have not had higher
education are less likely to register to vote because they have not been exposed to civic
education.
For the second hypothesis the variables being used will all be from the second data set
provided by the American National Election Studies. The variables for this hypothesis will still
11



be voter registration and levels of education, but now the research will control for two new
variables: employment and race. The employment variable is categorized if an individual is
employed or unemployed and the race variable is categorized as being if the individual is
Hispanic or not. The purpose of controlling for these two variables is to make an argument
against the past research. As previously discussed, the main arguments behind the past research
is the idea that socioeconomic status and ethnicity are the determining factors if someone will
register to vote, while education is just a small piece of the puzzle of the overall socioeconomic
status of an individual. In order to show that these two factors do not have an impact on the
overall relationship of voter registration and education levels, my research will control for these
two variables when arguing that education is prominent issue with voter registration.
Within the NES2008 dataset, the independent variable will be levels of education. I have
chosen this variable because it is the only variable acknowledging education within the dataset
that can be used to measure what I am trying to assess. The dependent variable chosen within
this dataset is campaign interest. I have chosen this variable because I am trying to make
conclusions about civic education and civic engagement (participating and general knowledge
about politics), so in order to get close to measuring this concept I have chosen the variable of
campaign interest. Campaign interest is the amount of attention and interest an individual has of
the 2008 Presidential campaign. This variable allows my research to assess the civic engagement
the individual has based upon their education as well.
Within the ANES database, the independent variable will be levels of education. I have
chosen this variable because it is the closest source that could be found in order to determine
civic education and help draw conclusions for civic education. Since there is no sufficient data
12



that directly shows how many students have received civic education or if they have not, the next
best variable to assess is overall levels of education.
The dependent variable being used is voter registration. As previously discussed, the
combination of both campaign interest and voter registration makes an overall variable of civic
engagement. However, since the two variables being assessed are in two separate datasets there
is no way to combine both variables, thus having them being used in two separate studies. I have
chosen voter registration as the dependent variable within this dataset because it is the closest
source to measure an individuals civic engagement and knowledge of how and where to vote.
This variable shows
The two control variables are: employment and Hispanic. The control variable for
employment assess whether or not an individual is employed or unemployed while the control
variable for Hispanic assess whether or not the individual is Hispanic or is not. These two control
variables are measuring the same concept, which is socioeconomic status. The past research has
indicated that voter registration and civic engagement is largely based on an individuals
socioeconomic stats (which is why I chose employment status) and Race (which is why I chose
Hispanic variable) because typically Hispanics and African Americans live in poorer areas with
low social capital and poor education systems, which determines whether they vote or not.
However, I use these variables to disprove these claims by showing how the sole deciding factor
is level of education.
Research Design
As discussed in the previous section, the way in which I will approach my research
design is to first assess the relationship between the campaign interest and levels of education in
the NES2008 dataset. For these two variables, the research design will be to do a cross tabulation
13



between the two variables of campaign interest and level of education. For this test, the
dependent variable is campaign interest and the independent variable is education level because
the interest is in assessing how the level of an individuals education determines their interest in
the 2008 Presidential campaign. After doing a cross tabulation, a Chi-Square test needs to be
assessed in order to determine if there is a relationship between the two variables.
For the next data analysis portion, the research design will switch to the ANES dataset as
previously discussed. For the next two variables I will assess a cross tabulation between voter
registration and levels of education. Voter registration is the dependent variable and levels of
education is the independent variable. After doing a cross tabulation, a Chi-square test needs to
done in order to determine if there is a relationship between the two variables.
From this cross tabulation, the research will then go further and control for employment.
The control variable of employment will be applied to the cross tabulation between voter
registration and levels of education. From this cross tabulation with the employment control
variable, a Chi-square test must be performed in order to assess if there is a still a relationship
between voter registration and levels of education even when employment status is controlled
for.
The final study will be the same method as previously discussed for controlling for an
employment variable, however this time it will be controlling for the Hispanic variable. This
variable is testing whether or not the individual is Hispanic or not. The research will do a cross
tabulation of voter registration and levels of education while controlling for if the individual is
Hispanic or not. After doing the cross tabulation, a Chi-square test is necessary in order to
determine that there is still a relationship between voter registration and levels of education.
Data Analysis
14



For this case, the dependent variable is campaign interest and the independent variable is
levels of education.








Interpretation
Based upon the p-value I am going to reject the null hypothesis of there being no
relationship. Based upon the data there is a positive strong relationship between education and
campaign interest. The higher the education the more interest there is within campaign interest
and education levels. The higher the education, the more likely an individual is likely to be
15



interested in a campaign and understand what is going on. Individuals who have completed
college or any form of higher education have a percent difference of 81.4% when comparing
those who have a high campaign interest (90.7%) and those who have low campaign interest
(9.3%). Individuals who have not completed high school have a less percent difference in terms
of campaign interest with just a difference of 56.6%; even though this percent difference is still a
large difference, when comparing with those who have attended college, it is viewed as being
small.

Second Case
For this case, the dependent variable is voter registration and independent variable is
levels of education.







Interpretation
16



Based upon the p-value there is an interaction between the two valuables. This
relationship is a strong positively related because the higher the education the individual has
completed the more likely they have voted. The higher the education, the bigger the gap there is
between those who have registered to vote and those who have not. Less than HS: 43.2%; HS or
GED: 66.8%; Higher than HS: 86.2%-thus signifying that the more education an individual has,
the more likely they are to vote based on the data presented. The percent difference rising
demonstrates the positive relationship between the variables and also shows how those with less
education are less likely to vote because it is not that rare for individuals with less than a high
school degree to not be registered to vote, while those who have obtained higher education
there is a much more likelihood that they will register to vote because it is rare within this
portion of the population to not be registered.
Another important interpretation that can be made from this data that helps to support my
argument is the percent difference within the category of those who have registered to vote. One
of the main arguments I present within this research is that those who attend school after high
school are much more likely to register to vote, know whats going on politically and actually
vote than those who do not. This can been seen within the percent differences of those who have
voted. Between those who have not graduated high school and those who havethere is a 14.7%
difference; however, the percent difference between those who have graduated high school and
those who have obtained higher education the percent difference is 41.1%. This helps to support
the argument that those who attend college and are exposed to civic education have a much more
likelihood to vote.

Controlling for Employment
17



For this case, the dependent variable is voter registration, the independent variable is
level education and the control variable is employment status.


18




Interpretation
To begin, the above data can be understood as having a relationship due to the p-value
being 0.000, thus signifying the rejection of the null hypothesis and accepting that there is a
strong relationship between the two variables when controlling for employment.
Similar to the interpretation that I have done before, the main purpose of controlling for if
the individual is employed or not is to show a control variable that represents a characteristic of a
socioeconomic status. Since the study does not necessarily have a variable for socioeconomic
status, since there are multiple variables that make this up, this variable will work to show how
someones socioeconomic status applies to voter registration and education.
Beginning with those who are employed, the relationship is a positive one in which the
higher the education the more likely that individual is to vote. The positive relationship can be
19



seen within the percent differences between those who have registered to vote and those who
have not. For those who have not finished high school: 30.8%; for those who have completed
high school: 51.2%; for those who have attended higher education: 78.8%. This increase of
percent differences between those who have registered and those who have not, shows how even
when controlling for employment there is still a positive relationship. This helps to defend my
argument that while socioeconomic factors are important factors to ones judgment about
politics, the overall factor is ones education. Another conclusion that can be made from this data
is similar to one made previously about the importance of civic education as seen within higher
education. The percent differences of those who are employed and have registered to vote is also
a positive relationship. For those who have not graduated high school and those who have
graduated: 13.8%; for those who have graduated high school and those who have attended higher
education: 46.3%--thus signifying that those who have attended higher education are more likely
to register to vote than those who have not because of their lack of exposure to civic education.
The main conclusions made from those who are unemployed is similar to the previous
section in the sense that the relationship still remains positive, which can be seen within the
percent differences between each category. For those who have not finished high school: 13.6%;
for those who have completed high school: 53.4%; for those who have attended higher
education: 74%.







20



Controlling for Hispanic or Non-Hispanic:
For this case, the dependent variable is education level, the independent variable is voter
registration and the control variable is if the individual is Hispanic or not.



21




Interpretation
The main purpose for me to control for if the individual is Hispanic or not is to show how
the effect of how education still impacts the likelihood if someone is going to register to
vote/knows how to vote or not. The past research I have found takes the argument that voter
registration is based on socioeconomic status signifying that poorer neighborhoods with large
Hispanic and African American populations are less likely to vote because of them being poor.
However, as shown above the relationship still remains positive between education and voter
registration whether the individual is Hispanic or if they are not.
22



For this specific dataset, the p-value is less than 0.05 so I can reject the null hypothesis
and assume there is a strong relationship between the two variables even when I control for
Hispanic or non-Hispanic.
Similar to the dataset for social class, the percent difference between non-high school
graduates and high school graduates, and high school graduates and those who have received
higher education is a large difference within this dataset, this fortifying my argument about how
in higher education students are more likely to vote because they have been exposed to civic
education. The percent difference for Hispanics who have registered to vote that have not
graduated from high school with those who have graduated from high school is 10.6%, while the
percent difference for Hispanics who have registered to vote and graduated from high school
with those who have received higher education is 31.4%. These differences further fortify my
argument that I have made within the class interpretation that those who are in higher education
have been exposed to civic education and are more likely to register to vote.
Conclusion
Based upon the data analysis from the research study, there can be numerous conclusions
made from the provided data. Based upon the original hypotheses, the desired study was to find
the correlation between civic education and an individuals likelihood to register to vote and
participate in civic engagement within the American political world. Another hypothesis was to
test the effect of employment and race on the relationship between education and voter
registration as well.
The main conclusion that the research is trying to draw is to evoke a sense of realization
for the audience to understand that the problem of voter registration and turnout is solely based
from education. From the data, it can be seen those in college were the highest group to have
23



been registered to vote. This statistic alone can be assessed as showing how college students are
typically the one group that is exposed to a civic engagement environment and have civic
education through liberal arts general education programs throughout colleges in the United
States. Because these students have been exposed to civic education, this is the reason why they
have the highest rate of being registered to vote.
This data has also been controlled for race, Hispanic or not, and employment in order to
show that it is not socioeconomic factors that are the reason why people are not registered to
vote. Since controlling for these variable has still shown a casual relationship between education
and voter registration, the socioeconomic factors can be seen as not having an impact on why an
individual votes or does not vote. The singular most important fact then is an individuals
education.
Now that the outside variables have been cleared, the main thesis can be made about civic
education. Referring back to the previous discussion about higher education and exposure to
civic education, the purpose of this research is to show to policy makers and politicians that
something needs to be done in order to educate children at an earlier age with the basics of the
government and the political system itself. Most middle-school students can name the three
branches of government, yet they could not tell their teacher where the voting polls are located in
their neighborhood. Civic education cannot be exposed to students only attending higher
education due to the amount of students that can or do not attend higher education. Those who do
not attend higher education then have no civic engagement because they do not know anything
about the political world in America and they do not feel a civic duty towards their country. If
civic education is implemented at an earlier age, children will feel a sense of strong civic duty
24



and have a vast amount of knowledge about the political system in order to understand where to
register to vote once they are of age.
The overall research design of this project is to explain the importance of civic duty and
engagement that Americans lack in this country. Millions of people have the ability to vote yet
they choose to stay at home and watch the results be reported on television. What most people do
not realize is that their vote can change who is the President of the United States if they felt a
more civic duty. The original idea behind my research was that I felt people do not vote because
they do not know what is the first step in registering to vote and the do not want to research how
to do so at this point either. I saw this as a problem because these people carry with them
opinions and a voice that is unheard yet they are a citizen. This research is the answer to the
problem of citizens not having a voice in the political world, which is education.
Validity
Internal Validity
The research has a high internal validity due to the casual relationship between the
independent and dependent variables used. The entire purpose of the research was to determine
that levels of education had an impact on whether someone is going to register to vote or shows
interest in politics. Through the cross tabulations and Chi-square testing, it can be proven that
education does have a casual effect on voter registration and campaign interest.
External Validity
The external validity of this research is high based upon the ability to generalize the
results to a larger population. External validity is based on the concept of being able to take the
interpretations gathered within personal research and being able to apply it to the larger public.
With this research design, the variables being used are applicable to all individuals within the
25



larger population, there are no restrictions as to why it could not be applied to the larger public
population.
Construct Validity
The construct validity is somewhat moderate for this research design. Since the variables
used are not exactly what I had wanted to measure it does not have perfect construct validity.
However, the variables I have chosen are the next best solution in terms of what I had to work
with so the research does have some construct validity. The tests used are all correct and show
relationships and do not have any missing cases or cases with lower than five individuals in each
category, thus showing that the statistical methods used are representative of the variable
interactions chosen.
Ethical Challenges
Within the research design I did face a few ethical challenges. Due to the fact that I did
not have the exact variables that I wanted to use in order to test the relationship I desired to
study, it was extremely tempting to alter and cook certain variables to get them to show what I
wanted to assess. It made it more difficult for my research design because I had to use two
separate datasets in order to find two variables that when combined could measure civic
engagement and knowledge, but because they were in two separate datasets I could not combine
them. Overall, I had ethical challenges about changing variables in order to get the results I
wanted, but did not in the end.




26



Bibliography
American National Election Studies (ANES; www.electionstudies.org). The ANES 2008 Time
Series Study [dataset]. Stanford University and the University of Michigan [producers].
American National Election Studies (ANES; www.electionstudies.org). The ANES 2012 Time
Series Study [dataset]. Stanford University and the University of Michigan [producers].
Berrang, Ashley. 2012. 2012 Election Turnout Dips Below 2008 and 2004 Levels: Number of
Eligible Voters I ncreases by Eight Million, Five Million Fewer Votes Cast: Bipartisan
Policy Center.
Burden, Barry and Jacob Neiheisel. 2013. "Election Administration and the Pure Effect of Voter
Registration on Turnout." Political Science Quarterly 66 (1): 77-90.
Dillon, Sam. 2011. "Failing Grade on Civics Exam Called a 'Crisis'." The New York Times, 1-3.
Estrada-Correa, Vanessa and Martin Johnson. 2012. "Foreclosure Depresses Voter Turnout:
Neighborhood Disruption and the 2008 Presidential Election in California." Social Science
Quarterly 93 (3): 559-576.
Institute of Education Sciences. "National Assessment of Educational Progress." National Center
for Education Statistics., accessed December/3, 2013, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/.
"National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)." National Center for Education
Statistics., accessed December/3, 2013,http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/.
Loewen, Peter and Christopher Dawes. 2012. "The Heritability of Duty and Voter
Turnout." Political Psychology 33 (3): 363-373.
Perrson, Mikael. 2012. "Is the Effect of Education on Voter Turnout Absolute Or Relative? A
Multi-Level Analysis of 37 Countries." Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties 23
(2): 111-133.
Richie, Robert. 2007. "Leave no Voter Behind: Seeking 100 Percent Voter Registration and
Effective Civic Education." Wiley Periodicals: 39-45.
The National Task Force on Civil Learning and Democratic Engagement. 2013. A Crucible
Moment: College Learning & Democracy's Future: The National Task Force on Civil
Learning and Democratic Engagement.
Estrada-Correa, Vanessa and Martin Johnson. 2012. "Foreclosure Depresses Voter Turnout:
Neighborhood Disruption and the 2008 Presidential Election in California." Social Science
Quarterly 93 (3): 559-576.

27



Appendix A
Figure One