Criminal Justice

iResearchNet




Criminal Justice > Criminology > Criminology and Criminal Justice Education > Teaching Criminology

Teaching Criminology




Teaching criminology presents distinctive pedagogical challenges that arise from the discipline’s subject matter, its diverse student populations, and its dual obligation to develop both scholarly analytical capacity and professional competence. As a pedagogical concern central to Criminology and Criminal Justice Education, effective teaching in the field requires instructors to bridge the gap between abstract theoretical reasoning and concrete institutional realities, to manage classroom dynamics around emotionally and politically charged topics, and to cultivate the critical thinking skills that enable graduates to evaluate evidence, question assumptions, and apply scholarly knowledge to the complex problems of crime and justice. Within the broader field of Criminology, the quality of teaching determines whether the discipline’s accumulated knowledge — its theories, its empirical findings, its methodological standards, its policy insights — is effectively transmitted to the students who will carry that knowledge into academic careers, professional practice, and informed citizenship.

Introduction

Criminology occupies an unusual pedagogical position among the social sciences. Its subject matter — crime, violence, punishment, victimization, policing, incarceration — is inherently dramatic, politically charged, and personally relevant to many students in ways that topics in economics, political science, or sociology may not be. Students enter criminology courses with strong preexisting opinions about crime and punishment, shaped by personal experience, media consumption, family background, and political identity (Mackey & Courtright, 2000). Many have chosen the major because of career aspirations in law enforcement, corrections, or law — practical motivations that may coexist uneasily with the critical analytical orientation that academic criminology seeks to develop. Some students have direct personal experience with the criminal justice system as victims, offenders, or family members of incarcerated individuals, bringing perspectives that enrich classroom discussion but also create emotional dynamics that require sensitive management.

These characteristics make teaching criminology both more engaging and more difficult than teaching many other academic subjects. The engagement is real: students care about crime, they have opinions about policing, they are curious about why people commit offenses and how society should respond. The difficulty is equally real: precisely because students care deeply and arrive with strong prior beliefs, they may resist evidence that contradicts their assumptions, react defensively to theoretical perspectives that challenge their worldviews, or dismiss scholarly nuance in favor of the simple narratives that popular culture and political discourse provide (Farnworth, 1992). The pedagogical challenge is to channel students’ inherent engagement with the subject matter into the kind of rigorous, evidence-based analytical thinking that distinguishes educated understanding from uninformed opinion.




The scholarly literature on teaching criminology and criminal justice — published primarily in the Journal of Criminal Justice Education and presented at ACJS conferences — has grown substantially over the past two decades, producing an evidence base for pedagogical practice that faculty can draw upon even if many do not. This article examines the major dimensions of teaching criminology: instructional approaches and active learning, the challenges of teaching theory and methods, the management of sensitive and controversial topics, teaching across institutional contexts, assessment and evaluation practices, and the professional development of criminology instructors.

Instructional Approaches and Active Learning

Beyond the Lecture: Engaging Students as Analysts

The traditional lecture format — in which the instructor presents content and students passively receive it — remains the dominant instructional mode in many criminology courses, particularly at the introductory level where class sizes may exceed one hundred students. Lectures have genuine pedagogical value: they can efficiently convey large amounts of information, provide expert synthesis that textbooks cannot replicate, and model the analytical reasoning that students are expected to develop (Bligh, 2000). But research on learning consistently demonstrates that passive reception of information produces weaker retention, shallower understanding, and less transferable knowledge than active engagement with content — a finding that applies across disciplines and that has particular relevance for criminology, where the goal is not merely to transmit facts about crime and justice but to develop the capacity for independent analytical thinking (Freeman et al., 2014).

Active learning approaches that have been applied in criminology courses include case-based instruction, in which students analyze specific crimes, court decisions, or policy scenarios through multiple theoretical lenses (Brundage, 2017); simulation exercises, in which students role-play criminal justice decision-makers — judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, parole boards — and experience the pressures and tradeoffs that shape institutional behavior (Hemmens, 2008); problem-based learning, in which students work in groups to address defined crime problems using research evidence and analytical frameworks; and service-learning projects that connect classroom instruction to community-based experiences with criminal justice agencies or victim service organizations (Rockell, 2009). Each of these approaches requires students to apply knowledge rather than merely absorb it, producing the deeper learning that active cognitive engagement generates.

The implementation of active learning in criminology faces practical obstacles that vary across institutional contexts. Large lecture courses, which are common at public universities where criminology is a popular major, limit the feasibility of small-group activities, individual feedback, and the classroom discussion that case-based instruction requires. Faculty workloads at teaching-intensive institutions, where course loads of four or five sections per semester are common, leave limited time for the preparation that active learning pedagogies demand — designing case studies, constructing simulations, supervising service-learning placements, and providing the detailed feedback on student work that makes these activities educationally productive rather than merely time-consuming (Southerland, 2002). Graduate teaching assistants can extend instructional capacity, but their availability depends on program size and funding levels, and their effectiveness depends on training and supervision that many programs do not systematically provide.

Experiential and Community-Based Pedagogies

Experiential learning — broadly defined as learning through direct experience and reflection on that experience — has become an increasingly prominent pedagogical approach in criminology education, building on John Dewey’s foundational argument that education occurs most powerfully through the interaction of experience and reflection rather than through the passive reception of transmitted knowledge (Kolb, 1984). Beyond the formal internships and fieldwork placements discussed elsewhere in this category, experiential pedagogies can be integrated into regular coursework through structured observations, field visits, ride-alongs, courtroom attendance, and community engagement projects that bring students into contact with the criminal justice system’s operations and the communities it affects. A policing course that includes a structured observation at a police department — in which students observe booking procedures, patrol briefings, or community meetings and then analyze their observations through theoretical frameworks — produces different and deeper learning than one that relies exclusively on textbook descriptions of police operations (Stichman & Farkas, 2005).

Service-learning, which combines community service with structured academic reflection, has been applied in criminology courses with particularly promising results. Students who tutor incarcerated individuals, volunteer with victim advocacy organizations, participate in reentry mentoring programs, or assist with community crime prevention initiatives develop both practical understanding and personal engagement with criminal justice issues that classroom instruction alone cannot replicate (Hirschinger-Blank, Simons, & Kenyon, 2009). The pedagogical power of service-learning lies in the reflection component — the structured requirement that students analyze their service experiences through the theoretical and empirical frameworks they have learned in class, connecting personal observation to scholarly knowledge in ways that deepen both. Without this reflective structure, service-learning risks becoming volunteerism that produces good feelings without intellectual growth; with it, service-learning becomes one of the most effective pedagogical tools available to criminology instructors.

The civic dimension of experiential pedagogy deserves explicit attention in a field whose subject matter is fundamentally about the exercise of state power and its effects on communities. Students who engage directly with communities affected by crime and criminal justice — who sit with victims, listen to formerly incarcerated individuals describe their experiences, observe the conditions in which probationers live and work — develop a visceral understanding of the human stakes of criminal justice policy that statistics and case studies convey only abstractly (Ross & Elechi, 2002). This experiential knowledge can motivate deeper engagement with scholarly research, more thoughtful policy analysis, and a stronger sense of professional responsibility — qualities that enhance both academic performance and professional effectiveness. Faculty who incorporate experiential components into their courses contribute not only to student learning but to the discipline’s broader goal of connecting scholarly knowledge to the lived realities of crime and justice.

Teaching Theory and Methods

Making Theory Accessible and Relevant

Theory courses present some of the most significant pedagogical challenges in criminology education, as discussed in detail in the article on criminology theory in education within this category. The challenge of making abstract theoretical concepts accessible and relevant to students who may have entered criminology with practical career goals rather than intellectual curiosity requires pedagogical strategies that bridge the gap between theoretical reasoning and the concrete phenomena that students find compelling. Cooper, Walsh, and Ellis (2010) found through survey research that criminology faculty varied substantially in their assessment of which theoretical tradition held the most promise for the field, suggesting that theory instruction is shaped as much by instructor commitments as by empirical evidence. Faculty who teach theory effectively use multiple pedagogical approaches to make the theory-practice bridge: they illustrate theoretical concepts with vivid real-world examples, they require students to apply theories to current events and case studies, they facilitate classroom debates in which students argue for competing theoretical explanations of the same phenomenon, and they design assessments that require application and analysis rather than memorization and recall (Williams & Robinson, 2004).

The sequencing of theoretical instruction within the curriculum affects how students experience and retain theoretical knowledge. Programs that frontload theory in a single required course and then never revisit theoretical concepts in subsequent courses produce students who may remember theory for the examination and forget it afterward (Cullen, Agnew, & Wilcox, 2014). Programs that integrate theoretical references throughout the curriculum — requiring policing courses to ground strategy discussions in deterrence and routine activities theory (Cohen & Felson, 1979), corrections courses to connect programming to social learning and cognitive-behavioral frameworks (Andrews & Bonta, 2010), juvenile justice courses to apply developmental and life-course perspectives (Moffitt, 1993) — produce students who learn to use theory as an analytical tool rather than treating it as isolated content to be memorized and discarded (Cordner & Shain, 2011). This integrative approach requires coordination among faculty, which is itself a challenge in departments where individual courses are treated as independent fiefdoms rather than components of a coherent educational experience.

The teaching of research methods and statistics presents parallel challenges of accessibility and relevance. Students who experience methods courses as abstract, mathematically intimidating, and disconnected from their substantive interests often develop anxiety and resistance that undermine learning (Tewksbury, DeMichele, & Miller, 2005). Effective methods pedagogy addresses this challenge by using criminal justice datasets and research questions as the vehicle for teaching statistical concepts — analyzing sentencing data to teach regression, studying victimization patterns to teach survey methodology, evaluating policing interventions to teach experimental design (Bachman & Schutt, 2020). This applied approach transforms methods courses from abstract exercises in statistical technique into substantive investigations that happen to develop methodological skills — a reframing that makes the material more engaging and the learning more transferable. Buckler (2008) documented substantial variation in methodological orientations across criminal justice programs, suggesting that the teaching of methods reflects institutional culture as much as disciplinary consensus about essential competencies.

Teaching Controversial and Sensitive Topics

Criminology courses regularly engage with topics that are controversial, emotionally charged, or personally sensitive for students — race and policing, sexual assault, domestic violence, mass incarceration, the death penalty, immigration enforcement, police use of force, school shootings, and drug policy, among others. Teaching these topics effectively requires instructors to create classroom environments that encourage honest engagement with difficult material while maintaining the analytical rigor that distinguishes scholarly inquiry from political debate (Barak, 2007). The challenge is to avoid both the sanitization of controversial topics — treating them so carefully that the discussion becomes superficial — and the weaponization of controversy — using emotionally charged material to provoke reactions rather than develop understanding.

The teaching of race and crime presents particular pedagogical challenges because the topic intersects with students’ personal identities, political beliefs, and lived experiences in ways that can produce defensive reactions, emotional distress, or interpersonal conflict. White students may feel accused or uncomfortable when presented with evidence of systemic racism in criminal justice, interpreting structural analysis as personal indictment (Chesney-Lind, 2006). Students of color may feel burdened by expectations that they share personal experiences, validate scholarly findings with lived testimony, or represent their racial group in classroom discussions. Faculty must manage these dynamics while maintaining the intellectual standards that prevent classroom discussions about race from degenerating into exchanges of opinion unsupported by evidence (Gabbidon & Greene, 2019). Potter (2015) has argued that intersectional pedagogy — teaching that examines how race, gender, class, and other dimensions of identity interact to shape criminal justice experiences — provides a framework for engaging with complexity that single-axis analyses of race or gender cannot achieve.

Effective strategies for teaching controversial topics include establishing discussion ground rules that emphasize evidence-based argumentation and mutual respect; using structured activities — fishbowl discussions, think-pair-share exercises, anonymous polling — that allow students to engage with sensitive material without the pressure of public self-disclosure; assigning readings that present multiple scholarly perspectives on contested questions rather than single authoritative accounts (Tonry, 2011; Alexander, 2010); and modeling the analytical posture that the discipline values — taking evidence seriously, acknowledging uncertainty, distinguishing empirical questions from normative ones, and treating disagreement as an opportunity for analytical refinement rather than a problem to be suppressed.

The teaching of victimization-related topics — sexual assault, intimate partner violence, child abuse, homicide survivorship — requires particular sensitivity because some students will have direct personal experience with these forms of violence (Campbell, 2008). Trauma-informed pedagogy recognizes that course content can trigger traumatic responses in students who have experienced the phenomena being discussed, and it adapts instructional approaches accordingly — providing content warnings for potentially triggering material, offering alternative assignments for students who find specific topics distressing, and connecting students with campus counseling resources when needed (Belknap, 2015). This approach does not avoid difficult topics but addresses them with awareness that the classroom contains individuals for whom the material is personal rather than purely academic — an awareness that enhances rather than compromises pedagogical effectiveness.

Teaching Across Institutional Contexts

Online, Hybrid, and Nontraditional Formats

The growth of online criminology education has created teaching challenges that extend beyond the transfer of lecture content to digital platforms. Effective online instruction requires fundamentally different pedagogical design — course structures that create engagement without physical co-presence, assessment mechanisms that maintain academic integrity without in-person proctoring, and interaction models that build intellectual community among students who may never occupy the same physical space (Saulnier, 2015). The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the adoption of online and hybrid formats across higher education, providing criminology faculty with forced experience in remote teaching that many had previously avoided. The results were mixed: some faculty discovered that online tools enabled pedagogical innovations — asynchronous discussion forums that gave every student a voice, recorded lectures that students could revisit at their own pace, digital polling that enabled formative assessment in real time — while others found that the absence of physical classroom dynamics diminished the spontaneity, energy, and personal connection that make face-to-face teaching most effective.

The quality of online criminology instruction varies enormously across programs and depends critically on institutional investment in course design support, faculty training, and technology infrastructure. Programs that employ instructional designers to collaborate with faculty on course development, that provide training in online pedagogy rather than simply requiring faculty to teach online, and that maintain small section sizes that enable meaningful instructor-student interaction produce online courses that can approach the educational quality of well-taught residential courses (Frost & Clear, 2012). Programs that view online education primarily as a revenue-generating mechanism — assigning large sections to adjunct instructors with minimal design support and limited institutional investment — produce online courses that may satisfy credit-hour requirements without delivering genuine educational value. Robinson and Rudes (2012) examined the pedagogical challenges specific to online criminal justice education, finding that maintaining academic rigor while accommodating the diverse technological access and digital literacy of online student populations required deliberate instructional design choices that many programs had not systematically addressed.

Community Colleges and Graduate Seminars

Community colleges serve a substantial proportion of criminal justice students — including many who will transfer to four-year institutions to complete bachelor’s degrees and some who will pursue associate degrees as terminal credentials for entry-level employment. Teaching criminology at the community college level involves distinctive challenges: student populations are typically more diverse in age, work experience, and educational preparation than those at four-year institutions; class sizes may be large; institutional resources for faculty development and library access may be limited; and faculty — often employed on adjunct contracts with heavy teaching loads and minimal institutional support — may lack the time and resources for the pedagogical development that effective teaching requires (Morn, 1995). Community college criminology instruction deserves more scholarly attention than it has received, given the number of students it serves and its role as the entry point to criminal justice education for many first-generation college students and students from underrepresented backgrounds.

Graduate-level teaching in criminology operates under fundamentally different pedagogical assumptions than undergraduate instruction. The seminar format — small groups of advanced students reading primary texts, presenting their analyses, engaging in scholarly debate, and producing original written work — is the dominant instructional mode in doctoral programs and in many master’s programs (Steiner, Wright, & Toto, 2020). Effective seminar teaching requires faculty to function less as lecturers who deliver content and more as facilitators who guide intellectual inquiry, challenge students’ analytical reasoning, model scholarly argumentation, and provide detailed feedback on written work that develops students’ capacity to produce publishable scholarship. The mentoring relationship between faculty and doctoral students extends the pedagogical relationship beyond formal coursework into dissertation supervision, co-authorship, conference preparation, and job market navigation, creating a teaching-mentoring continuum that is more intensive and more consequential than any classroom experience (Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2009).

Assessment, Technology, and Faculty Development

Assessment Practices and Learning Outcomes

Assessment practices in criminology courses shape what students learn as much as instructional methods do, because students allocate their study effort toward what is tested. Courses that assess learning through multiple-choice examinations testing factual recall — names, dates, definitions, theory labels — incentivize memorization and surface-level learning (Bloom, 1956). Courses that assess learning through analytical essays, research papers, case analyses, and applied projects — assignments that require students to apply theoretical frameworks, evaluate empirical evidence, construct arguments, and address real criminal justice problems — incentivize the deeper learning that the discipline values. The shift from recall-based to application-based assessment represents one of the most consequential pedagogical reforms available to individual faculty, though it requires substantially more grading time and thus encounters practical resistance in programs with large class sizes and limited teaching support (Southerland, 2002).

Rubric-based assessment, in which the criteria for evaluating student work are made explicit before the assignment is completed, improves both the quality of student work and the reliability of grading (Stevens & Levi, 2013). Students who know that their case analysis will be evaluated on the accuracy of their theoretical application, the quality of their evidence evaluation, the sophistication of their argument structure, and the clarity of their writing produce better work than those who receive vague instructions to “analyze a criminal justice issue.” Rubrics also facilitate consistency when multiple sections of the same course are taught by different instructors or when graduate teaching assistants share grading responsibilities, addressing a quality control challenge that is particularly relevant in large programs where the same course may be offered in many sections.

The assessment of learning outcomes at the program level — rather than the individual course level — has gained importance as higher education accreditation bodies have increased their emphasis on evidence of educational effectiveness. Programs that can demonstrate, through systematic assessment data, that their graduates have achieved specified competencies — theoretical literacy, methodological skill, analytical writing ability, evidence evaluation capacity, ethical reasoning — are better positioned to justify their existence and their resource claims than programs that rely on anecdotal evidence or course completion rates as indicators of educational quality (Pridemore, Makel, & Plucker, 2018). The development of program-level assessment frameworks for criminology is an emerging area of educational practice that connects individual course-level assessment to broader questions about what the discipline’s educational enterprise is accomplishing.

Technology in Teaching and Faculty Development

The integration of digital technology into criminology teaching has expanded the pedagogical toolkit available to instructors while creating new challenges in course design and delivery. Learning management systems — Canvas, Blackboard, Moodle — provide platforms for distributing course materials, facilitating online discussion, administering assessments, and tracking student engagement. Polling technologies enable real-time formative assessment during lectures, allowing instructors to gauge student understanding and adjust their instruction accordingly. Video resources — recorded lectures, documentary clips, interview footage, virtual courtroom and prison tours — provide visual and experiential supplements to text-based instruction that can enhance engagement and accessibility for diverse learning styles (Lanier & Briggs, 2014).

Crime mapping exercises using GIS software, statistical analysis projects using real criminal justice datasets in R or SPSS, and interactive simulations of criminal justice decision-making provide technology-enhanced active learning opportunities that connect technical skill development to substantive criminological questions. The National Institute of Justice‘s CrimeSolutions website, which rates criminal justice programs and practices based on available evidence, provides a teaching resource for courses on evidence-based practice — students can evaluate programs listed on the site, assess the quality of the evidence underlying effectiveness ratings, and analyze why some interventions work while others do not (Weisburd, 2015). These technological tools enhance instruction when they are integrated purposefully into pedagogical designs that connect technical activities to learning objectives — and undermine instruction when they substitute technological novelty for intellectual substance.

Faculty development in criminology teaching has received less systematic attention than research mentoring, though its importance for educational quality is equally significant. Most criminology faculty enter their teaching careers with minimal formal preparation for the classroom — having been trained as researchers through doctoral programs that may provide teaching assistantship experience but rarely include formal coursework on pedagogy, course design, or assessment (Cohn & Farrington, 2014). The result is that many faculty learn to teach through trial and error, modeling their instruction on the courses they experienced as students and receiving feedback primarily through student evaluations whose validity as measures of teaching effectiveness is contested. University-based centers for teaching and learning provide workshops, consultations, and peer observation programs that can improve teaching quality for faculty who participate, but participation is typically voluntary and does not systematically reach the faculty who most need support.

Criminology-specific faculty development occurs primarily through the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, which has sponsored teaching workshops and panels at its annual meeting, and through the Journal of Criminal Justice Education, which publishes research on pedagogical practice in the discipline (Kim, Cwick, & Gertz, 2016). The American Society of Criminology has given less systematic attention to teaching, reflecting its stronger orientation toward research — a prioritization that may inadvertently communicate that teaching is less professionally valuable than scholarship. Programs that invest in teaching development for their faculty — through teaching mentoring for new instructors, peer observation programs, curricular design retreats, and the integration of teaching quality into promotion and tenure evaluations — produce more consistent educational experiences for their students than those that treat teaching as a secondary professional activity whose quality is left to individual faculty initiative.

Table 1. Pedagogical Approaches in Criminology Education

Approach Description Strengths Challenges Best Applications
Traditional Lecture Instructor-centered content delivery Efficient information transfer; expert synthesis; scalable to large classes Passive learning; limited engagement; poor retention of complex concepts Introductory surveys, foundational content delivery
Case-Based Instruction Analysis of specific crimes, cases, or policy scenarios through multiple frameworks Develops analytical reasoning; connects theory to practice; engaging Requires preparation; difficult in very large classes Theory courses, sentencing, policing strategy
Simulation/Role-Play Students assume roles of CJ decision-makers Experiential understanding of institutional pressures; high engagement Time-intensive; requires careful facilitation; assessment challenges Courts courses, plea bargaining, parole hearings
Problem-Based Learning Small groups address defined crime problems using evidence Collaborative skills; research application; critical thinking Requires small groups; faculty facilitation; uneven group dynamics Capstone courses, advanced seminars
Service-Learning Community service combined with structured academic reflection Deep personal engagement; civic development; theory-practice integration Placement logistics; quality control; student safety; reflection structure Community corrections, victimology, juvenile justice
Technology-Enhanced GIS exercises, data analysis projects, simulations, online polling Technical skill development; real-time assessment; visual engagement Infrastructure requirements; learning curves; technology for its own sake Methods courses, crime analysis, evidence-based practice

Conclusion

Teaching criminology effectively requires more than subject-matter expertise; it demands pedagogical skill, emotional intelligence, and a commitment to the development of students’ analytical capacities that goes beyond the mere transmission of information. The discipline’s subject matter — inherently dramatic, politically charged, and personally relevant — creates both extraordinary engagement opportunities and distinctive pedagogical challenges that faculty must manage with intentionality and care. Active learning approaches, experiential pedagogies, application-based assessment, thoughtful management of controversial topics, and the purposeful integration of technology all contribute to educational experiences that develop the critical thinking, evidence evaluation, and ethical reasoning skills that criminology graduates need. The quality of teaching in criminology programs ultimately shapes whether the discipline’s scholarly knowledge reaches the students — future scholars, practitioners, policymakers, and citizens — who will determine how that knowledge is applied to the enduring challenges of crime and justice.

References

  1. Alexander, M. (2010). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. The New Press.
  2. Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). Anderson Publishing.
  3. Bachman, R. D., & Schutt, R. K. (2020). The practice of research in criminology and criminal justice (7th ed.). Sage Publications.
  4. Barak, G. (2007). Doing newsmaking criminology from within the academy. Theoretical Criminology, 11(2), 191–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480607075847
  5. Belknap, J. (2015). The invisible woman: Gender, crime, and justice (4th ed.). Cengage Learning.
  6. Bligh, D. A. (2000). What’s the use of lectures?. Jossey-Bass.
  7. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Longman.
  8. Brundage, A. H. (2017). Using case studies in criminal justice courses: Best practices and student perceptions. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 28(3), 421–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2016.1247264
  9. Buckler, K. (2008). The quantitative/qualitative divide revisited. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 19(3), 383–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511250802476210
  10. Campbell, R. (2008). The psychological impact of rape victims’ experiences with the legal, medical, and mental health systems. American Psychologist, 63(8), 702–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.8.702
  11. Chesney-Lind, M. (2006). Patriarchy, crime, and justice: Feminist criminology in an era of backlash. Feminist Criminology, 1(1), 6–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085105282893
  12. Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588–608. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094589
  13. Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (2014). Publication productivity of criminologists. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 25(3), 275–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2014.921730
  14. Cooper, J. A., Walsh, A., & Ellis, L. (2010). Is criminology moving toward a paradigm shift? Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 21(3), 332–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2010.487830
  15. Cordner, G., & Shain, C. (2011). The changing landscape of police education and training. Police Practice and Research, 12(4), 281–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2011.587679
  16. Cullen, F. T., Agnew, R., & Wilcox, P. (2014). Criminological theory: Past to present (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
  17. Farnworth, M. (1992). Criminal justice pedagogy: Challenges for the 21st century. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 3(1), 95–114.
  18. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
  19. Frost, N. A., & Clear, T. R. (2012). New directions in correctional research. Justice Quarterly, 29(5), 619–649. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2012.667141
  20. Gabbidon, S. L., & Greene, H. T. (2019). Race and crime (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
  21. Hemmens, C. (2008). Waist deep in the Big Muddy: The JD/PhD and the “life of the mind.” Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 19(1), 19–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511250801892870
  22. Hirschinger-Blank, N., Simons, L., & Kenyon, A. (2009). An evaluation of a service-learning model for criminal justice undergraduate students. Journal of Experiential Education, 32(1), 61–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/105382590903200106
  23. Kim, B., Cwick, J. M., & Gertz, M. G. (2016). An assessment of professional engagement in the top-ranked criminal justice and criminology doctoral programs. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 27(4), 538–564. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2016.1188890
  24. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall.
  25. Lanier, M. M., & Briggs, L. T. (2014). Research methods in criminal justice and criminology: A mixed methods approach. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 25(2), 229–242.
  26. Mackey, D. A., & Courtright, K. E. (2000). Assessing punitiveness among college students: A comparison of criminal justice and non-criminal justice majors. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 11(1), 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511250000084561
  27. Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100(4), 674–701. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.4.674
  28. Morn, F. (1995). Academic politics and the history of criminal justice education. Greenwood Press.
  29. Mustaine, E. E., & Tewksbury, R. (2009). Trends in academic career productivity of graduates from top-ranked doctoral programs. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 20(3), 291–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511250903183129
  30. Potter, H. (2015). Intersectionality and criminology: Disrupting and revolutionizing studies of crime. Routledge.
  31. Pridemore, W. A., Makel, M. C., & Plucker, J. A. (2018). Replication in criminology and the social sciences. Annual Review of Criminology, 1, 19–38. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-032317-091849
  32. Robinson, M. B., & Rudes, D. S. (2012). The top 20 reasons students dislike studying CJ and criminology: Results from a pilot study. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 23(2), 201–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2011.606367
  33. Rockell, B. A. (2009). Challenging what they all know: Integrating the real/reel world into criminal justice pedagogy. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 20(1), 75–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511250802680823
  34. Ross, J. I., & Elechi, O. O. (2002). Student attitudes towards internships in criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 13(1), 199–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511250200085281
  35. Saulnier, A. (2015). Online and face-to-face course delivery: Lessons from the criminal justice classroom. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 26(2), 166–185.
  36. Southerland, M. D. (2002). Criminal justice curricula in the United States: A decade of change. Justice Quarterly, 19(4), 589–601. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820200095381
  37. Steiner, B., Wright, E. M., & Toto, S. (2020). What matters in doctoral education in criminology and criminal justice? Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 31(2), 153–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2019.1705987
  38. Stevens, D. D., & Levi, A. J. (2013). Introduction to rubrics: An assessment tool to save grading time, convey effective feedback, and promote student learning (2nd ed.). Stylus Publishing.
  39. Stichman, A. J., & Farkas, M. A. (2005). The pedagogical use of internships in criminal justice programs: A nationwide study. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 16(1), 145–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511250500082278
  40. Tewksbury, R., DeMichele, M. T., & Miller, J. M. (2005). Methodological orientations of articles appearing in criminal justice’s top journals. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 16(2), 265–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511250500082278
  41. Tonry, M. (2011). Punishing race: A continuing American dilemma. Oxford University Press.
  42. Weisburd, D. (2015). The law of crime concentration and the criminology of place. Criminology, 53(2), 133–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12070
  43. Williams, F. P., III, & Robinson, M. B. (2004). Theory of justice (3rd ed.). Anderson Publishing.

Related Articles