Essential Civic Education Textbook Pdf Download

Civic education is currently a field of vibrant research and practice that is producing significant pedagogical innovation. However, it is a contested field with intense discussions about its goals and what teaching and learning processes should be privileged. These discussions reflect a transition from "traditional" models of civic education to "new civics" that considerably extend the definitions of civic participation and the purposes of civic education.

Discover the world's research

• 20+ million members
• 135+ million publications
• 700k+ research projects

Join for free

295

22

Civic Education

Autonoma University of Madrid, Spain

Harvard University

Deusto University, Bilbao, Spain

Civic education is currently a field of vibrant research and

practice that is producing significant pedagogical innovation.

However, it is a contested field with intense discussions about

its goals and what teaching and learning processes should be

privileged. These discussions reflect a transition from "tradi-

tional" models of civic education to "new civics" that con-

siderably extend the definitions of civic participation and the

purposes of civic education. Underlying this transition is a

basic tension between pedagogy that emphasizes the acqui-

sition of knowledge through teacher instruction and peda-

gogy that emphasizes praxis, interaction with tools, objects,

experiences, and people as the means to gain understanding.

The former implies a "top-down" model, the latter, a more

"bottom-up" model. In civic education they parallel a tension

between seeing the purpose of civic education as increasing

knowledge primarily about the nation's political institutions

and history, and the purpose being to develop understanding,

skills, agency, and motivation through hands-on experiences

with civic issues and actions.

In this chapter we discuss the contributions of educational

and developmental psychology to this renewed understand-

ing of civic education, in particular, to redefining key learn-

ing processes, curriculum orientations in formal and informal

learning environments, and different pathways to develop-

ment. To conclude, we consider three examples of emerging

research and practice that relate to "new civics": Civic educa-

tion through new media, student engagement in critical delib-

eration of controversial issues, and how historical narratives

and concepts are used in the construction of civic identity.

Developmental Theory and Civic Education

Models of human development are the infrastructures

that inform civic education. Advances in developmental

psychology are affecting how civic education is conceived.

For example, the term "political socialization," widely used

in several social sciences, assumes a social learning theory

model, in which the passive individual is molded by environ-

mental factors such as conditioning and reinforcement; civic

education is one agent of that molding process. However, for

several decades, the emergent cognitive model within devel-

opmental psychology has cast the individual instead as an

active agent in learning, selecting, organizing, and making

meaning of experience and information. Further, this active

model of the person has been extended by a neo-Vygotskian

perspective which takes account of the individual's cultural

context and experience.

Cultural models of development focus on the growing

individual's social and cultural context, the narratives, val-

ues, knowledge, and norms of action to which the growing

individual is exposed in different sociocultural settings,

interactions, and experiences that promote or inhibit effec-

tive and relevant learning. Learning results not only from

formal teaching of information, but also from individuals'

interaction, dialogue, and performance of action within their

social context. Meaning and understanding, therefore, are

co-constructed and negotiated in social and cultural interac-

tions, not merely processed in individual cognition. In cog-

nitive developmental approaches, the individual actively is

successively restructuring and reflecting, producing increas-

ingly complex and abstract understanding. Within culturally

oriented approaches, the active process also involves negoti-

ating meaning through dialogue with others and with cultural

resources.

These theoretical developments transform a view of civic

education that was focused on the teaching and learning of

factual knowledge and conventional values, primarily aim-

ing to socialize the students as newcomers into an existing

Carretero, M., Haste, H. & Bermudez, A. (2016). Civic Education. In L., Corno & E.M. Anderman

(Eds.) (2016) Handbook of Educational Psychology, 3rd Edition, Chapter 22, pp. 295-308.

London: Routledge Publishers.

Mario Carretero, Helen Haste, and Angela Bermudez

296

sociopolitical order. More cognitive developmental perspec-

tives orient research and practice to new sets of questions:

What elements of civic education are necessary to scaffold

active learning and deep understanding? What happens in

civic learning with increasing age? What happens in civic

learning with increasing opportunity to engage with civic

issues? The pedagogic implications are that education should

focus on fostering in students an increasingly sophisticated

and mature understanding of civic matters, and provide the

right kinds of experiences and contexts for learning to facil-

itate active, effective, and meaningful processing. This takes

civic learning beyond factual knowledge, to include concep-

tual understanding, cognitive and socioemotional skills, and

moral judgment.

First, educators need to recognize and take account of

the cultural messages and resources available to the grow-

ing individual (for example, linguistic, non-linguistic, and

institutional messages about ethnicity, power, dominant val-

ues, and norms of behavior). Second, effective civic learning

needs to use the resources of the cultural context, to facilitate

interaction, critical reflection, and negotiation, for example

with media and through experience and engagement with

actual civic life. This includes paying attention to classroom

and school climate (Campbell, 2008; Thapa, Cohen, Guffey,

& Higgins D'Alessandro, 2013), community experience, ser-

vice learning, family interactions, cultural narratives, norms

and expectations, socioeconomic factors, and increasingly

social media.

The Building Blocks of Civic Learning

We can think of the dimensions of civic learning as build-

ing blocks that contribute in different ways to achieving the

goals of civic education, reflecting different models of devel-

opment. These are: civic knowledge and understanding; civic

skills; civic values, motivation, and identity; and civic action.

We will consider these also in the context of emergent devel-

opmental theories.

Civic Knowledge and Understanding

Civic education typically has concentrated on conveying

factual knowledge about democratic institutions, processes,

and elements of national history. However, there is a grow-

ing consensus that citizens also require more diverse civic

knowledge and understanding such as controversial issues,

intergroup relations, local processes, or community affairs

(Alexander, Pinson, & Yonah, 2011; Amadeo, Torney-

Purta, Lehmann, Husfeldt, & Nikolova, 2002; Hess, 2009;

Levinson, 2012). There is also growing consensus that

civic knowledge alone is not enough to foster active and

responsible civic engagement. There is a relation between

civic knowledge and voting: those who intend to vote tend

to have better knowledge (Carnegie Corporation of New

York and CIRCLE Center for Information and Research

on Civic Learning and Engagement, 2003) and knowledge

is needed for routes to political participation, monitoring of

government actions, and exercising rights and responsibili-

ties (Cox, Jaramillo, & Reimers, 2005). However, an active

civil society requires also understanding of concepts and

principles, the skills for reflective and responsible action,

willingness to engage, and commitment to democratic values

(Sherrod, Torney-Purta, & Flanagan, 2010; Torney-Purta,

Lehmann, Oswald, & Schulz, 2001). Discrete knowledge

becomes more meaningful as it is integrated with conceptual

understanding. For example, students may "know" the list

of core human rights, but they may not understand what the

concept of "rights" actually entails, why they were codified

in a particular historical time, or how they relate to specific

conceptions of state.

The ability to understand civic and social concepts pro-

gresses in parallel with the development of conceptual think-

ing (Barrett, 2007). Students initially understand concepts

in terms of more concrete characteristics and gradually pro-

gress to understand more abstract dimensions (Carretero,

Castorina, & Levinas, 2013; Van Sledright, 2008). From

representing civic and social concepts as static and isolated

there are gradually established increasingly complex concep-

tual networks in which different elements are interconnected,

and in which every social and civic element is dynamically

defined by its relation with other aspects of reality (Barrett,

2007; Berti & Andriolo, 2001). The pedagogical strategies

employed and educational environment in which students

learn significantly influence the level of sophistication of

their conceptual understanding (Barrett & Davies, 2005;

Berti, 2002).

This development is reflected in the conception of social

institutions, as illustrated by several examples:

1. For younger students, civic institutions and social realities are

embodied by those who represent them. Later they come to

understand the societal functions of institutions within a wide

range of systems and structures.

2. Younger students tend to believe that the various levels of social

order are diverse and disconnected realities. For instance, cultural

changes have no connection with political or economic factors,

revolutions are simple confrontations between groups rather than

structural changes affecting all aspects of society.

3. Social change is difficult to understand because things are as they

are, social situations are immutable, and little change is possible.

4. Younger students tend to think that civil rights depend on the

willingness of individuals or social institutions. With further con-

ceptual development they understand that their existence rests on

political, economic, social, and cultural factors forming a multi-

causal structure.

5. Younger students understand a country's presidency only in

terms of an individual and they also may have difficulty in under-

standing that a modern nation-state is not simply a territory or a

group of inhabitants but an abstract concept that only emerged in

modern societies.

Civic Skills

A variety of skills are necessary for effective participation

in civic life. For example, youth are expected to make sound

political choices, to take part in processes of collective

Civic Education 297

decision making, conflict resolution, and negotiation, in the

discussion of controversial social and political issues, or the

monitoring of government action on behalf of public inter-

ests. Whereas knowledge and conceptual understanding

make up the declarative dimension of civic learning (know

what), civic skills make up the procedural dimension that

refers to what students should be able to do (know how).

Civic skills are often divided into intellectual skills, partic-

ipatory skills, and socioemotional skills (Fine, Bermudez, &

Barr, 2007).

Cognitive skills refer to the capacities that enable citizens

to analyze and synthesize information and arguments, as well

as evaluate, reach conclusions, take and defend positions on

matters of public concern (Kirlin, 2003). Examples include

considering different perspectives (Hess, 2009), interrogat-

ing and interpreting political communication (Amadeo et

al., 2002), and supporting positions with evidence and good

argumentation (Youniss, 2011).

Participatory skills refer to a variety of social capacities

for working with others that enable citizens to influence pub-

lic and civic life by building coalitions, seeking consensus,

negotiating differences, and managing conflict. Kirlin (2003)

proposes a typology that includes skills for communication

(public speaking, petitioning, lobbying, protesting), organi-

zation (mobilizing, securing funding, leading meetings), and

collective decision making (coordinating perspectives, eval-

uating alternative solutions, etc.). Chi, Jastrzab, and Melchior

(2006) add skills for group membership and for conflict reso-

lution. The Latin American module of the International Civic

and Citizenship Study measures skills for: (a) living together

in peace (peaceful resolution of conflict, assertiveness,

communication); (b) democratic participation (collective

decision-making processes, advocacy, persuasive communi-

cation); and (c) plurality and diversity (multiperspectivity,

confronting discrimination, and exclusion).

Socioemotional skills refer to the interpersonal capacities

for handling oneself in healthy relationships with family,

peers, and community members. Examples include dealing

positively with peer pressure, developing non-abusive rela-

tionships, avoiding risky behavior, and coordinating one's

needs with the needs of others (Diazgranados & Selman,

2014; Selman, 2003). For many, these interpersonal skills

feed into wider societal dynamics and a culture that sus-

tains "democracy as a way of life" (Sinclair, 2004; Sinclair,

Davies, Obura, & Tibbits, 2008).

Civic Values, Motivation, and Identity

A third dimension of civic learning comprises the devel-

opment of values, motives, and identities that dispose citi-

zens towards engaging effectively in democratic practices

(Youniss & Levine, 2009). Traditional civic education

approaches sought to instill in students civic values and

attitudes regarded as essential for a virtuous citizen, such as

taking responsibility for civic actions like voting and help-

ing others, upholding the law, and monitoring current affairs

in the media (Lickona, 1997). The preferred pedagogical

strategies employ exemplar role models, illustrative story

telling, negative and positive reinforcement of behavior.

Indeed, it is important to transmit to younger generations

a host of democratic values that societies have struggled to

construct, such as tolerance and respect for diversity, concern

with the rights and welfare of others, freedom, or justice.

However, in the more active model of the learner found

in cognitive developmental and cultural psychology the

appropriation of values is rooted in active meaning making

and negotiation within social contexts. For this reason, these

approaches privilege active pedagogical strategies such as the

discussion of hypothetical or real moral dilemmas implicit in

interpersonal and civic situations (Kohlberg, 1984; Power,

Higgins, & Kohlberg, 1989; Selman & Kwok, 2010), the

reflective analysis of moral contents in literature, or the crea-

tive production of personal moral narratives (Selman, 2003).

These approaches foster a reflective appropriation of social

values and the development of moral judgment.

Moral values play an important role in motivating civic

action because they make civic issues personally relevant

and provide a sense of purpose for civic action. It is evident

that this profile of engagement is only partially accounta-

ble in terms of knowledge. Whereas young people express

very little interest in conventional "politics" or in joining a

political party, they are concerned about and active in many

community and environmental issues (Haste & Hogan, 2006;

Seider, 2012; Westheimer, 2008). Because community-based

and single issues are frequently seen as morally charged

they may contribute to a sense of personal responsibility.

Motivations may come from a variety of interests, such as the

common good, group solidarity, contesting oppressive prac-

tices, or gaining power (Flanagan, 2013; Haste, 2010; Haste

& Hogan, 2006; Tausch et al., 2011; Yates & Youniss, 1999).

Affect and civic identity play significant roles. These are

often absent when conventional civic education is defined in

relation to macro political processes such as voting, rather

than on what actually motivates behavior. For effective

education it is essential to start from where young people's

concerns and interests are, and to understand what are the

different factors that motivate them to engage (Youniss,

2011). Individual and collective identities are increasingly

recognized as key elements in the definition of civic motiva-

tion and commitments. For this reason, identity is crucial to

why, when, and how people become engaged, and the mean-

ing they make of such engagement in their particular socio-

cultural contexts (Haste, 2010).

Civic identity is not a fixed individual trait of the person's

psychology, but rather an active and fluid psychosocial pro-

cess though which citizens make sense of themselves in rela-

tion to their social reality, and negotiate their place and role

within their civic communities. Thus, civic identity reflects

the interplay between individual traits and preferences, and

the different contexts in which the citizen is formed (Haste,

2014; Haste & Abrahams, 2008; Jensen, 2010; Kassimir &

Flanagan, 2010; Seif, 2010).

Civic identity includes the person's sense of agency and

efficacy. Agency refers to the sense of being a meaningful

Mario Carretero, Helen Haste, and Angela Bermudez

298

actor, responsible to one's community welfare. Efficacy

refers to the confidence in one's ability to take action, effect

change, and achieve the desired results. In the civic realm,

efficacy also involves the belief that it is possible and worth

trying to make a difference through public action and may

determine whether a felt concern gets translated into engage-

ment. Through civic practice students develop a positive

sense of agency and efficacy (Beaumont, 2010; Haste, 2004,

2010; Kahne & Westheimer, 2006; Levinson, 2010, 2012).

Civic Action

Opportunities for experiencing civic action constitute a fourth

building block of learning (Beaumont, 2010; Levinson, 2010;

Torney-Purta & Barber, 2011). Students interact in a variety

of civic environments long before they become formal polit-

ical citizens, providing opportunities for age-appropriate,

relevant, and meaningful learning. For example, in schools

and local communities, students are constantly confronted

with situations that call them to stand up against prejudice,

discrimination, and harassment (Selman & Kwok, 2010).

School government affords opportunities for demonstrating

civic voice (Oser, Althof, & Higgins-D'Alessandro, 2008).

Families, peer groups, and social media often become sites

for discussing controversial issues (Lievrouw, 2011). Young

people bring to the classroom a wide variety of experiences

with civic life; effective civic education needs to recog-

nize their complexity, and rich teaching opportunities for a

meaningful learning process (Rubin & Hayes, 2010; Rubin,

Hayes, & Benson, 2009).

Experience with real-life civic action is important to cul-

tivate civic identities that provide authentic and effective

sources of motivation, purpose, responsibility, agency, and

efficacy. "Hands-on" pedagogy helps students to grasp the

deeper meaning of knowledge and concepts and to develop

an increasing mastery of skills. Civic action can provides the

means for reflective practice necessary to connect abstract

ideas with real-life situations (Bennett, Freelon, & Wells,

2010; Hart & Gullan, 2010; Levinson, 2012; Kahne &

Westheimer, 2006).

Studies of service learning found that adult civic partici-

pation was linked to community engagement in adolescence

(Yates & Youniss, 1999; Youniss &Yates, 1997). Recent

work on youth organizing in action has explored the evo-

lution of a program and the ways that both individual and

community development unfolds within it (Cammarota &

Fine, 2008; Ginwright, 2008). An example is Ginwright's

(2010) study of a black youth community initiative in

Oakland, California. Community-based civic action is par-

ticularly salient among communities marginalized from the

conventional political system, for example, among Native

Americans (Martin & Chiodo, 2008).

This form of civic engagement focuses on cooperation

around targeted problem solving regarding issues of common

concern. Participation requires and fosters many democratic

qualities: coming together, working with others, mediating

differences, managing conflict, and establishing shared goals

in order to regulate, direct, and develop common affairs with

a marked sense of "public good" (Bloch-Schulman, 2010;

Kassimir & Flanagan, 2010; McIntosh & Youniss, 2010;

Zukin, Keeter, Andolina, Jenins, & Della Carpini, 2006).

The data suggest that a distinct sense of social responsibility

underlies community activism, characterized by a commit-

ment to partner with others in understanding problems, and

responsiveness in developing and implementing solutions.

Furthermore, community activism builds a strong sense of

belonging to local environments and interdependence within

them (Kassimir & Flanagan, 2010).

Youth participatory action research (YPAR) is an emer-

gent version of community action, based in part on Freirian

principles. The goal of YPAR is to generate positive identity,

agency, and efficacy in the community through the owner-

ship of local knowledge and expertise and integrating it with

relevant scholarship. YPAR projects are student-led, but with

advisory guidance from researchers; they draw upon unique

local knowledge. The local actors are trained in skills, includ-

ing exploring scholarly work, but the collaborative project is

faithful to the authentic experience and interpretation of the

community (Brown & Rodriguez, 2009; Cammarota & Fine,

2008; Flanagan & Christens, 2011). YPAR presents a chal-

lenge to conventional research models because of its strong

ethnographic stance, but it also challenges the implicit deficit

and pathological models that inform much work on minority

and underprivileged groups.

Conceptions of Democracy and "Good

Citizenship"

In the last three decades, definitions of civic processes have

expanded to include many more forms of participation, such

as community involvement, and to recognize the importance

of unconventional civic action such as protest. Plural and

multifaceted characterization of civic engagement has rede-

fined how we understand, investigate, and practice "civic

education" (Sherrod et al., 2010). A fundamental discus-

sion concerns the goals of civic education. What purpose is

served by having an educated citizenry? What are the per-

ceived threats posed by civic ignorance and apathy? What is

a "good citizen"?

The "Good Citizen"

Westheimer and Kahne (2004) found three distinct concep-

tions of a "good citizen" underlying both young people's

concepts and the agendas of civic education programs: the

personally responsible citizen, the participatory citizen,

and the justice-oriented citizen. Personally responsible cit-

izenship emphasizes being kind to other people, helping

others in need, telling the truth, following the rules, main-

taining harmony, and keeping the community clean and

safe. Participatory citizenship prioritizes engagement with

national, state, or local issues, working with community

organizations and local government on relevant issues, and

getting involved in improving and strengthening one's own

community. Justice-oriented citizenship focuses on think-

ing critically about systemic problems in society and the

Civic Education 299

possibilities of social transformation, and supporting social

protest that challenges inequalities, even if this involves

questioning law or authority.

These are not mutually exclusive. Individuals as well as

educational programs may support, engage with, or promote

more than one and they often intersect. For example, helping

the underprivileged out of compassion leads at least some

students to recognize that their plight reflects injustice (Yates

& Youniss, 1999). Facing History and Ourselves, a curric-

ulum for the study of racism and societal violence within a

social justice agenda, builds purposeful connections with

issues of discrimination and violence in interpersonal rela-

tionships, fostering students' understanding that they have

various widening "circles of moral obligation" (Fine, 2004.

Conceptions of Democracy and Agendas for Civic

Education

Not all civic education takes place within systems of rep-

resentative democracy. However, most current literature

on civic education assumes democracy as the model and/or

context for civic education (Gutmann & Thompson, 2004;

Nussbaum, 2006). There is no single definition of "democ-

racy." At the very least we can distinguish four conceptions,

each of which informs different emphases of civic education

programs: procedural democracy, deliberative democracy,

democracy as social justice, and democracy as a mode of

living. Each of these models of democracy privileges par-

ticular kinds of civic engagement, which in turn implies that

civic education pursues different goals and engages different

learning processes.

Procedural democracy, which underlies many civic edu-

cation efforts, defines democracy as a system of political

organization and decision making based on representative

and participatory procedures that are grounded on principles

of freedom, equality, and the rule of law. Civic education

programs informed by this conception aim to provide stu-

dents with the knowledge necessary to engage with formal

institutions and mechanisms for political participation such

as voting in elections or campaigning for parties.

Deliberative approaches to democracy share the underly-

ing principles of procedural democracy, but they emphasize

two core ideas that push the idea of "democracy" further.

First, theorists stress the pervasiveness and importance of

conflict, moral controversy, and dissent in social and polit-

ical life (Gutmann & Thompson, 2004; Rawls, 1993). In

practice procedural democracy privileges majority views,

achieving consensus, compliance with convention, and keep-

ing order. This emphasis on system stability may marginalize

alternative views on public issues that are in the minority,

controversial, novel, or particularly complex. Gutmann and

Thompson also argue that the conventional mechanisms of

procedural democracy, such as participation in elections or

interest group bargaining, are not the most adequate to han-

dle essential moral disagreements. Therefore, it is important

that citizens have wide and active engagement in the deliber-

ation of public issues. Civic education grounded on this per-

spective of democracy focuses on developing the capacities

for critical inquiry and moral and political argumentation,

and strengthening students' voice to participate effectively

in controversial dialogue (Hess, 2009; Hess & Gatti, 2010;

Ruitenberg, 2009; Stitzlein, 2012).

Proponents of democracy as social justice argue that

focusing on political procedures does not adequately rep-

resent the complex, unequal, and conflictive nature of citi-

zenship in contemporary societies. An "authentic" or "deep"

democracy must be committed to assert moral equality and

to protect dignity in equal terms for all (West, 2004). Unless

socioeconomic (distributive) justice is guaranteed, the essen-

tial values of democracy are at stake. Civic education pro-

grams informed by democracy as social justice stress the

importance of developing students' capacity to critically

understand the multiple forms of systemic violence, oppres-

sion, and exclusion (Blades & Richardson, 2006). They also

emphasize helping youth to become agents of social change,

capable of confronting these barriers (Arnot & Swartz, 2012;

Cammarota & Fine, 2008; Levinson, 2012; Swartz, 2006).

As Llewellyn, Cook, and Molina's (2010) work illustrates,

putting social justice at the heart of student learning means

preparing students to analyze power relationships, investi-

gate the ambiguities of political issues, and embrace oppor-

tunities for social change.

A fourth conception defines democracy as a mode of liv-

ing founded on values of inclusiveness, pluralism, fairness,

cooperation, dialogue, and non-violent resolution of conflict

(Biesta & Lawy, 2006; Nussbaum, 2006). Civic education

programs informed by this perspective aim to develop stu-

dents' sensitivity, habits, and capacities necessary to build

and preserve relationships and connection across lines of

difference (Noddings, 2005; Sinclair, 2004; Sinclair et al.,

2008).

These different conceptions of democracy have implica-

tions for the definition of the knowledge, skills, and attrib-

utes privileged in civic education programs. For example, all

models require civic knowledge. Yet, the contents empha-

sized are more or less comprehensive, with procedural views

emphasizing knowledge of political institutions and consti-

tutional procedures, deliberative models adding knowledge

of current public issues, and social justice models adding

knowledge of socioeconomic dynamics. Likewise, proce-

dural models emphasize the development of cognitive skills

for effective analysis of information, whereas deliberative

and social justice models emphasize skills for critical inquiry

and controversial dialogue. In turn, models based on the idea

of a democracy as a way of life emphasize the development

of cognitive and socioemotional skills necessary for fair and

caring resolution of conflict.

Changing Patterns and Definitions of Civic

Engagement: Educational Implications

Worldwide, major changes in the extent and style of youth

participation, the targets of concern, and particularly the

means of expressing political action have broadened the

definition of civic participation (both action and targets of

engagement) beyond voting or conventional partisan support;

Mario Carretero, Helen Haste, and Angela Bermudez

300

this is an essential component of "new civics." These changes

support the psychological and pedagogical claim that civic

motivation should be harnessed through young people's own

concerns and that education should take account of routine

experiences of the young, for instance, their use of tech-

nologies and media (Haste, 2004; Haste & Hogan, 2012).

Bermudez (2012) synthesizes four key transformations that

are particularly salient in the literature: Beyond electoral pol-

itics; voice as agency; local focus; and affirmative and trans-

formative action.

Beyond Electoral Politics

The political process has been redefined beyond electoral

activity in representative democracies, to include the variety

of efforts to affect government and the formation of public

policy, whether through formal institutions, or through alter-

native channels such as social movements, protest activity,

and grassroots organizing (Hart & Gullan, 2010; Haste,

2010; Seif, 2010). This transformation supports a more com-

prehensive definition of the knowledge content of civic edu-

cation, as well as the attention given to participatory skills

and to the development of a civic identity.

Voice as Agency

It is increasingly recognized that citizens participate in the

public sphere by expressing their views about contested

issues, mobilizing and organizing to make their voices heard.

In particular, new communication technologies afford a vari-

ety of effective means to mobilize others and express alter-

native ideas (Banaji & Buckingham, 2013; Earl & Kimport,

2011; Facer, 2011; McLeod, Shan, Hess, & Lee, 2010). This

attention to voice as an important quality of good citizenship

coincides with the increasing educational emphasis on the

development of skills for the deliberation of controversial

issues, participatory skills for working with others, and the

attention to civic issues that are relevant to students' sense of

civic identity (Apple, 2010; Haste, 2010)

Local Focus

A shift in youth focus towards local matters reflects the

increasing relevance of personal civic purpose. Civic

engagement is increasingly associated with community prac-

tices rather than only conventional politics such as voting

in elections (Fox et al., 2010; Kassimir & Flanagan, 2010).

Pedagogically, this relates to the rise of civic education

strategies such as action projects, youth-led and communi-

ty-based research, and service learning (Cammarota & Fine,

2008; Flanagan & Christens, 2011).

Affirmative and Transformative Action

Civic engagement has typically been conceived as system-

affirmative activities that build on and sustain the prevail-

ing sociopolitical order. However, grassroots organizations,

social movements, and political activists highlight structural

inequalities that must be recognized and transformed in truly

democratic societies. For pedagogy, this implies critical

inquiry and social justice agendas (Cammarota, 2007; Fox

et al., 2010; Jensen, 2010; Levinson, 2012; Russell, Toomey,

Crockett, & Laub, 2010; Seif, 2010).

The Importance of Context in Civic Education

Context matters. How civic institutions develop and operate

depends on sociohistorical context. Likewise, policies and

practices in civic education vary across social and cultural

contexts. For example, in violence-ridden societies, prioritiz-

ing learning how to manage interpersonal conflicts may be

seen as a precursor of managing group conflicts. In the inno-

vative K-12 curriculum established in Colombia a decade

ago conflict management and human rights education were

two core-organizing criteria of civic education (Jaramillo,

2005). In many Asian societies it is explicitly the obligation

of a good citizen to take care of the community and to be

proactive in maintaining social harmony, even prioritizing

this above individual needs (Kennedy, Fairbrother, & Zhao,

2014).

Civic learning is therefore mediated by the individu-

al's experience of membership in multiple cultural groups

within larger communities, such as gender, ethnic, religious,

or political groups. The meaning that people make of these

experiences depends on how they construct and negotiate

their identities in each of the groups to which they belong.

Engaging civically is not the same for members of minority

and discriminated groups that perceive themselves as "out-

siders" as it is for members of majority and dominant groups

that take their citizenship for granted. For example, students

from communities that the system has not served well often

fail to connect to civics education that privileges obedience

and conformity to middle-class white values (Banks, 2001

Janmaat, 2008; Jensen, 2010; Russell et al., 2010).

We need to understand what are relevant experiences,

whether within a formal or informal educational setting,

and how to promote these for effective education. Biesta and

Lawy (2006) argue that educational research, policy, and

practice should not focus on teaching one predetermined

canon of citizenship, but focus on understanding how young

people's learning of democracy is situated in wider social

orders in which the lives of young people unfold. Research

across diverse populations demonstrates the plurality of civic

practices and developmental paths (Kahne & Sporte, 2008;

Kassimir & Flanagan, 2010; Seif, 2010; Zaff, Malanchuk,

& Eccles, 2008). For instance, Martin and Chiodo (2008)

studied the perceptions of eighth- and 11th-grade American

Indian students regarding citizenship. American Indian stu-

dents saw citizenship as grounded in community service,

and volunteering in tribal activities or participating in their

local tribal organization as more relevant alternatives to con-

ventional political activity such as voting and running for

political office.

Civic learning is determined by the number, variety,

and quality of the opportunities provided to students.

Opportunities for civic engagement available to youth are

Civic Education 301

not evenly distributed by social class, race, or ethnicity.

Also, some young people's lived experiences result in deci-

sions to civically disengage. Two sets of factors contribute

to a lower rate of civic engagement among low-income

and minority young adults: cumulative disadvantage—

especially parental education—and different institutional

opportunities for civic engagement, especially between col-

lege and non-college youth (Biesta & Lawy, 2006; Flanagan

& Levine, 2010; Kahne & Sporte, 2008; Zaff, Kawashima-

Ginsberg, & Lin, 2011).

Recognizing the contextual nature of civic education

will contribute to aligning teaching practices and programs

more effectively with the democratic ideals of pluralism and

equality. Llewellyn et al. (2010) examined the perspectives

on civic learning of teachers and students in four secondary

schools in Ottawa, Canada. They found that, while students

in their study had a breadth of knowledge about current civic

issues that were relevant to them, civic education paid lit-

tle attention to that. Both teachers and students claimed that

this made it very difficult to encourage youth participation in

democratic processes.

Mason, Cremin, and Warwick (2011) use an ecological

systems approach to explore the civic learning experiences

of three different groups of young people living in areas

of socioconomic disadvantage in Britain. They analyzed

young people's exper iences of expressing their voice, civic

participation, volunteering, and altr uism; their motivations

for civic participation; and the challenges they face that

may prevent civic participation and action. While there is

variation in levels of civic engagement, their findings sug-

gest that the lived experiences of some students lead them

to decisions to civically disengage. Young people who were

minimally engaged had more direct experience of crime,

prejudice, poor education, and intrusive policing. Students

commented on how several interactions with teachers,

police officers, neighbors, and employers had taught them

to disengage and keep their heads down. For example,

some students explained that they were unhappy that the

system for providing meals at their school had been modi-

fied in response to healthy-eating drives. The students were

not opposed to healthy eating per se, but they were upset

that they had not been involved in making a decision that

affected them. They rejected that the change was done to

them rather than with them and their response was to delib-

erately boycott the school's meal service. The lack of con-

sultation was described as a demotivating lesson that taught

that they could not make a difference.

Finkel and Ernst (2005) conducted a study that exam-

ined the effects of a postapartheid civic education program

(Democracy for All) on South African high-school students

in the late 1990s. The results show that exposure to civic

instruction (i.e., passive or lecture-based instruction) has

relatively strong effects on political knowledge, while hav-

ing no impact on political attitudes, values, and participa-

tory dispositions such as civic duty, tolerance, institutional

trust, or the acquisition of civic skills. These dimensions

of civic learning require high degrees of active, participa-

tory methods that give students the opportunit y to practice

democratic participation, exercise democratic skills, and

adopt democratic values (e.g., role playing, dramatiza-

tions, group decision making, mock elections, mock tri-

als, classroom discussions of political and social issues).

Importantly, the effect of such methods is also seen for

political knowledge.

Similarly, an evaluation of Project Citizen civic education

program in Bosnia found that active involvement by students

in developing and implementing actual public policy recom-

mendations had a positive effect on several democratic ori-

entations (Soule, 2000).

The Process and Outcomes of Change: Three

Examples

To exemplify this period of expansion and redefinition of

civic education, we explore three examples. The first is the

role of new media, the second is the importance of critical

enquiry, and the third concerns how history teaching reflects

goals of civic education.

The Increasing Role of New Media in Education

New media present highly innovative opportunities for

civic education. They challenge many traditional ways of

teaching, as well as contribute to extensive democratiza-

tion in society at large. These tools make possible radically

new practices of civic engagement and civic education;

their potential has yet to be fully realized. While in many

non-Western countries, and in lower-socioeconomic groups

everywhere, there is less access to computers, cell phones

increasingly with internet access are now nearly univer-

sally available and in developing countries are used for

many activities performed on PCs in industrialized coun-

tries. Such access will increase rapidly, as will the form and

scope of media interaction.

The democratization facilitated by new media has been

widely evident in rapid mobilization of social movements,

in mainstream political activity such as electioneering, and

in the huge volume of information and opinion conveyed

through Twitter and blogging. These put the power of com-

munication in the hands of ordinary citizens rather than only

corporate media. How this power is used and how effective

it is may be problematic; there are educational implications

of preparing young people for selection, critical judgment,

and online discussion (Apple, 2010; Banaji & Buckingham,

2013; Earl & Kimport, 2011; Facer, 2011; Haste, 2010;

McLeod et al., 2010).

Facer (2011) summarizes the democratization benefits as

"emerging networked publics and the related tools to sup-

port accountability, social movement-building and democ-

racy" (p. 89). New media provide public spaces, schools

can be sites for "doing" democracy, and inside and out of

school new media provide places for social and civic learn-

ing. Citizen journalism leads to new forms of accountability,

individual action can easily be aggregated, and traditional

institutions can be bypassed. These are all tools for decision

making and deliberation.

Mario Carretero, Helen Haste, and Angela Bermudez

302

The "bottom-up" potentials of new media challenge

non-collaborative learning models where the teacher's role

is as conduit of the canon (Bers, 2008). When knowledge

can be accessed by the individual learner via the internet,

the teacher's role may shift from authority to choreogra-

pher. Collaborative learning, the creation of learning spaces,

and the production of understanding require praxis, not just

assimilation. New media hugely enlarge the scope of these

learning contexts in all fields. This also reflects the shift to

recognizing that learning must start from where the learn-

ers are, what their activities are, and what engages them

(Rheingold, 2008). This is especially important in the civic

domain. There is often a gap between the highly skilled and

intensive out-of-school technology use and how technology

is used in a traditional teaching framework.

The MacArthur Foundation's Youth and Participatory

Politics research program, with nearly 3,000 U.S. respond-

ents, has been a major source of data on youth and media

in the civic context. For example, friendship-based, inter-

est-based, and politics-based digital participation are differ-

ent and also different media are used for different purposes

(Cohen, Kahne, Bowyer, Middaugh, & Rogowski, 2012;

Kahne, Middaugh, Lee, & Feezell, 2012). In one study, 41%

engaged in participatory politics, which include starting an

online discussion around politics, blogging on a political

issue, or sharing politics-related material. Weinstein (2014)

found that civically engaged young people vary in how they

wish to present their civic identity and activities; some are

happy to write about their civic interests in all their social

media, others separate the topics they address in different

media. Yet others avoid any overlap between social topics

and their civic identity.

The patterns of media use in civic engagement suggest

several education strategies. For example, Kahne, Lee, and

Feezell (2012) found that greater digital media literacy expe-

rience in high school and college, in a California sample, was

related to greater civic awareness, politically driven online

participation, and greater exposure to diverse points of view,

countering the view that young people select only those with

whom they agree.

Interactive media provide spaces for "communities of

practice" where learning and production of ideas and solu-

tions are collaborative, and where civic identities are con-

stituted through social practices. Ito (2010) argues that

"engagement with media (itself a form of mediated sociabil-

ity) is a constitutive part of how we learn to participate as cul-

turally competent, social and knowledgeable beings" (p.18).

Games are increasingly being developed to expose young

people to civic practices and to different community experi-

ences (Bennett et al., 2010; Salen, 2007). Kahne, Middaugh,

and Evans (2008) explored participation in games in which

players helped others, organized groups or guilds, explored

social or ethical issues, learned about a problem in society,

or had to make decisions about how a community, city, or

nation should be run. They found that game characteristics

and the context of play rather than the quantity of game play-

ing correlated with civic participation.

Critical Inquiry and the Discussion of Controversial

Issues

A significant body of theory and research stresses the impor-

tance of engaging students in rigorous critical inquiry and in

open classroom discussion about relevant civic issues (Hess,

2009; Nussbaum, 2006). This is particularly salient in civic

education informed by conceptions of democracy as delib-

eration and social justice that recognize the pervasiveness

and importance of conflict, controversy, and dissent in social

and political life, as well as the power relations and different

forms of systemic violence, oppression, and exclusion that

require change. In this spirit, Stitzlein (2012) argues that the

legitimacy of democratic governance depends on the state

obtaining the consent of the governed. But he points out that

this requirement also entails the reverse: the possibility of

dissent, or of raising disagreement and advocating for change

when the needs and rights of people are not adequately taken

care of. Critical inquiry and classroom discussion are also

relevant strategies for civic education programs that seek to

cultivate democracy as a way of living committed to values

such as inclusiveness, pluralism, cooperation, dialogue, and

non-violent resolution of conflict.

Generally speaking, deliberation processes engage people

in discussion with others about public issues that are con-

troversial but require collective decision making and action.

Unlike debates where participants trade claims and coun-

terclaims in an antagonistic process, deliberation requires

dialogue and collaboration in constructing solutions that are

infused with a perspective of "the public," and acceptable

for the multiple sides (Hess, 2009). Studies conducted in

different contexts demonstrate that engaging students in the

deliberation of civic issues has persistent positive effects on

different dimensions of civic learning. In a large-scale study

of civic education of 14-year-olds in 28 countries, Torney-

Purta et al. (2001) found that school-based experience of

open discussion is a significant predictor of civic knowledge,

tolerance, and support for democratic values. Kahne and

Sporte (2008) obtained similar results in an indepth study of

10 Chicago city high schools. Beaumont's (2010) study of

undergraduate students across the United States also shows

that it helps students to see politics as relevant to their own

lives and concerns and to gain an increased sense of political

efficacy.

Productive deliberation requires that participants have

basic knowledge, skills, and dispositions to participate in the

process of discussion, develop a sophisticated understanding

of the issues at stake, and arrive at fair decisions that rep-

resent diverse interests. In fact, political theories of delib-

eration presuppose that people have the cognitive capacity

to argue with reasons, evaluate claims and evidence, reflect

on their own assumptions, offer justifications, and consider

other perspectives (Reykowski, 2006; Rosenberg, 2007).

Developmental theory and research have established the

varied and complicated paths through which individuals

in different contexts develop these capacities. This raises

important challenges because in many situations students

Civic Education 303

seem not to be ready to engage in deliberation. For instance,

research on moral judgment shows that most people don't

develop a postconventional reasoning, yet this is what ena-

bles an individual to consider the perspectives of others out-

side of their own groups of membership or to consider claims

that go against the grain of societal conventions (Kohlberg,

1984). As several teachers report, students tend to vent their

opinions with passion but with little thorough analysis, and

quickly dismiss unfamiliar perspectives (Hess, 2009).

However, proponents of this kind of pedagogy argue that

it is in the actual practice of dissent and dialogue that par-

ticipants have the opportunity to develop these skills and

dispositions (Nussbaum, 2006; Rosenberg, 2007; Stitzlein,

2012). When students engage in guided process of discussion

with the aim of constructing a sophisticated understanding of

complex issues and agreeing on reasonable courses of action,

they practice how to listen, take different perspectives, ask

questions of others, explain and justify their claims, attempt

to persuade others, and challenge other viewpoints (Davies,

2008; Hess, 2009; Ruitenberg, 2009). Therefore, even if

students have not fully developed these capacities and dis-

positions, the process of deliberation creates a context and

a process that is favorable for their development. Likewise,

it is an effective strategy acquiring knowledge, build-

ing informed opinions, and strengthening students' voice

(Fishkin & Farrar, 2005).

Critical Enquiry

It is important to stress the role of critical inquiry in deliber-

ation. Critical inquiry engages with the complexities of civic

life and its conflicts, rather than oversimplifying the prob-

lems that emerge in it and dismissing or silencing those who

confront us (Nussbaum, 2006; Youniss, 2011). Pedagogy of

critical inquiry can purposefully teach students to use a vari-

ety of cognitive tools for such purpose. Based on an analysis

of different theoretical approaches and pedagogical models

of critical inquiry, Bermudez (2015) proposes that teachers

help students gain mastery of four cognitive tools for critical

inquiry that are particularly relevant in in the social domain:

Problem posing, reflective skepticism, multiperspectivity,

and systemic thinking (Bermudez, 2015). Each of these tools

serves to engage with a different dimension of the complex-

ity of civic issues.

Problem posing is the tool for raising questions about

issues that are potentially problematic, on which there is

no consensus, or on which existing consensus needs to be

disturbed. This resonates with Nussbaum's (2006) call for

education to increase the freedom of the mind from tradi-

tion, dominant views, and established order. But once a con-

troversy is raised, students must know how to analyze the

ambiguities of political issues. Reflective skepticism is the

tool that serves students through the careful examination of

the reasonableness and validity of the different claims made,

drawing upon both epistemological and moral criteria.

Multiperspectivity helps students to recognize different

and often contending viewpoints and to coordinate them in

multivocal accounts and integrative solutions. These are fun-

damental aspects of a civil capacity to hear the other side and

engage with conflict constructively in order to work towards

shared goals (Beaumont, 2010; Davies, 2008; Hess, 2009;

Mutz, 2006). Critical inquiry also requires that students

learn to reconstruct the wider societal systems and historical

process in which particular civic issues, institutions, prac-

tices, and principles are situated. This is the task of systemic

thinking. Several authors point out that traditional civics and

history education often teach concepts in a vacuum and pres-

ent one-dimensional and triumphalist views of democracy.

Their research shows that this does little to engage students'

interest or to help them understand the complexities of civic

struggles for freedom, inclusiveness, pluralism, or justice.

Furthermore, systemic thinking is also indispensable if stu-

dents are to understand that decisions taken today may have

long-term effects, or that current practices and situations are

the result of long-term and systemic dynamics. Similarly,

in order to understand the notion of "public interest," stu-

dents must learn to establish the interdependence that exists

between various elements in a society.

Pedagogical approaches that emphasize student engage-

ment in critical inquiry and deliberation resonate with three

other important features of "new civics." First, they focus

on issues of public concern that are highly significant to

students and strive to connect what students learn with their

own experience as emerging citizens (Beaumont, 2010;

Cammarota & Fine, 2008; Hess, 2009; Rubin & Hayes,

2010; Youniss, 2011).

Second, critical inquiry and deliberation provide a con-

structive pedagogical approach to teach about the obstacles,

flaws, and failures of democracy. Among others, Torney-

Purta (2002) stresses that students need to learn about prac-

tices such as corruption or the monopoly of power that pose

grave "threats to democracy." Others insist that they must

learn to confront structural inequalities, the various forms of

oppression and alienation that citizens endure in both emerg-

ing and established democracies (Fox et al., 2010; Levinson,

2010, Seif, 2010; Swartz, 2006). This relates to what Rubin

and Hayes (2010) characterize as teaching in contexts of

disjuncture in which many youths learn about democracy.

Left unexamined, the contradiction between the principles of

democracy and the lived experiences of students are likely to

generate frustration, despair, and disenchantment. However,

if addressed through critical inquiry and deliberation, there

are better chances of fostering in students a more sophisti-

cated understanding of the challenges and fragility of democ-

racy and of the need and possibilities of transformative civic

action (Alexander et al., 2011; Biesta and Lawy, 2006; Hart

& Gullan, 2010; Llewellyn et al., 2010).

Third, the practice of critical inquiry and deliberation con-

tinuously draws upon students' identities as they try to make

sense and negotiate the issues at stake. Bermudez (2012)

analyzed an extensive online discussion among high-school

students regarding issues such as slavery, current discrimi-

nation, and police brutality in the United States. Her study

describes how students engaged in discursive processes

Mario Carretero, Helen Haste, and Angela Bermudez

304

of negotiation, affirmation, recognition, and contestation

around competing identities, social narratives, value con-

flicts, and power differences. This process of negotiation sets

in motion a social dynamic that intertwines with the intel-

lectual dynamics of critical inquiry that affects how students

come to understand social and historical events.

Historical Narratives and Civic Education

The acquisition of historical concepts and narratives also

has clear implications for civic education. First, most social

concepts have a historical dimension that must be correctly

represented. Second, history education has always been

closely related to civic education through the development

of both nationalism and patriotism (Van Sledright, 2008).

Researchers identify two competing objectives of school his-

tory (Barton, 2008; Wineburg, 2001). We argue that history

taught in any national school system attends to two differ-

ent goals: to make students "love their country" and to make

them "understand their past" (Seixas, 2004). In practice,

more than half of school history content in most countries is

related to national history and not to world history. There is

an important contemporary debate about the presence of this

national canon in school history (Grever & Stuurman, 2007).

In recent decades, scholarship on history education has

recognized that this school subject may have an important

function in the formation of critical and autonomous citi-

zens (Barton, 2012). Because of this emerging conception,

history teaching is no longer structured merely around

superficial knowledge of political characters, dates, and sig-

nificant events of the past. Instead, the objective is for stu-

dents to understand both the processes of historical changes

and the influence of these processes in the present. In other

words, students can learn to think historically (Seixas, 2004;

Wineburg, 2001) through a constructive use of both declara-

tive and procedural historical knowledge (Monte-Sano, de la

Paz, & Felton, 2014; Seixas & Morton, 2013).

Numerous historians and educational researchers have crit-

icized school history curricula because of their nationalistic

and patriotic educational practices both in and out of school

(Berger, 2012; Carretero, 2011). This is particularly the case

for patriotic rituals such as the Pledge of Allegiance, contents

of national historical museums, and other informal educational

devices such as TV series and media in general. Such formal

and informal educational practices relating history educa-

tion to civic education purvey an essentialist understanding

of the concept and narrative of the nation (Lopez, Carretero,

& Rodriguez-Moneo, 2014a). That is to say, students tend to

think that nations, particularly their own nation, have always

existed and that things could not be otherwise.

Carretero and Bermudez (2012) have described four

dimensions of historical narratives:

1. The historical subject is established in terms of inclusion and

exclusion, radically opposing it to others as a coherent and homo-

geneous group. The national group is internally unified, and at

the same time, it is set apart as absolutely different from another,

often simplified, historical group.

2. Identification processes work in the narrative, attaching per-

sonal affect and value judgments to the unification and opposi-

tion mentioned above. The historical subject is referred to in the

first-person plural "us," often logically opposed to "them," and

valued more positively. A shared identity—a timeless national

identity—between the present storyteller and the past historical

subject is established.

3. The historical events are simplified around one common narrative

theme, such as the search for freedom or territory. As indicated

in other studies (e.g., Wertsch, 2002), this search only considers

the freedom of a specific group: the freedom of the historical sub-

ject. The narrative tends to minimize, and avoids mentioning, the

right to freedom of additional subjects, such as natives, slaves, or

women. Also, this particular freedom is considered in a teleologi-

cal way, as the pre-established outcome of the historical processes.

4. National identity is perceived as a natural property and a con-

dition pre-existing the nation, instead of being considered as a

consequence of social and historical processes.

The relation between identity and civic and historical

understanding is important and a challenge for pedagogy. In

one study, even though older students (11th-grade compared

to seventh-grade students) showed a better historical under-

standing, half still held an essentialist concept of the nation

(Carretero & Van Alphen, 2014). As Hammack (2010)

argues, identity can be at the same time both a burden and a

benefit in the process of historical comprehension. National

identification could both hinder and promote historical

and civic understanding. Lopez, Carretero, and Rodriguez-

Moneo (2014b) have shown that university students under-

stand much better the historical concept of nation when it

is not their own. These data highlight important questions

for the pedagogical relationship between civic and historical

understanding.

Conclusion

Our goal with this chapter was to show the vibrancy of the

field of civic education both in research and in pedagogi-

cal innovation. This vibrancy manifests in the emergence

of "new civics," an approach to civic education that is

grounded in recognizing the actual civic experience of youth

in diverse sociocultural contexts, and seeks to engage stu-

dents in hands-on reflexive practice as a means to help them

make and negotiate meaning of civic issues, processes, and

opportunities.

First we discuss how current developmental psychology

contributes to transforming traditional civic education and

giving rise to "new civics." We emphasize how these per-

spectives recast the student as an active learner, and expand

the dimensions of civic learning to include a comprehensive

base of civic and historical knowledge and conceptual under-

standing and a variety of cognitive, participatory, and moti-

vational skills. A sociocultural perspective on development

predicates that effective pedagogy needs to attend to cultural

and context resources and engage students in critical reflec-

tion, dialogue, and negotiation around them.

Second, we explore issues that underlie the evolving defi-

nition of civic engagement. These include different meanings

Civic Education 305

of democracy, as well as changes in the extent and style of

youth participation, their targets of concern and particu-

larly their means of expressing political action, for example,

through new social media. A major consequence has been to

broaden the definition of a "good citizen," beyond participat-

ing in conventional practices such as voting and party politics.

These discussions expand the building blocks of civic learn-

ing, and the attention needed to hands-on learning through

reflective engagement with relevant civic experiences, civic

education through new media, and student engagement in

critical inquiry and the deliberation of controversial issues.

A pressing challenge for future work is to continue

expanding civic education grounded in students making and

negotiating meaning around age-appropriate and culturally

relevant civic experiences. This contrasts strongly with a

civic education agenda that is designed to socialize students

into a predefined political order, instead of considering what

actually motivates citizens' behavior and harnessing that to

foster a critical and transformative approach to civic life.

This brings also the challenge of recognizing and strengthen-

ing cultural diversity in the experience and meaning of civic

engagement, while equalizing the variety and quality of civic

learning opportunities across social groups.

From a pedagogical perspective, an important challenge

is to integrate the renewed building blocks of civic learn-

ing into a cohesive civic competence that sustains a demo-

cratic culture. An active civil society requires citizens who

have relevant knowledge and deep understanding, but also

the skills for reflective and responsible action, willingness

to engage, and deep commitment to democratic values. In

the absence of integration, factual knowledge, values, and

skills are reduced to discrete elements that may not be

applied or used consistently when needed. In contrast, when

they interact with each other around projects of actual civic

engagement, they transform into "usable knowledge" that is

relevant, transferable, and applicable in a variety of real-life

situations. This approach has a better potential of harnessing

the developmental potential of individuals, taking stock of

cultural resources made available to them. Particular atten-

tion must be given to research and practice that contribute

to developing in students a critical understanding of social

conflict and our means of resolution.

Acknowledgments

This paper was written with the support of projects EDU-

2013-42531 (DGICYT, Spain) and PICT 2012-1594

(ANPCYT, Argentina), both coordinated by the first author.

References

Alexander, H., Pinson, H., & Yonah, Y. (2011). Citizenship, education and

social conflict. New York: Routledge.

Amadeo, J., Torney-Purta, J., Lehmann, R., Husfeldt, V., & Nikolova,

R. (2002). Civic knowledge and engagement: An IEA study of upper

secondary students in sixteen countries. Amsterdam: International

Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. (IEA).

Apple, M. W. (2010). Global crisis, social justice and education. New

York: Routledge.

Arnot, M., & Swartz, S. (2012). Youth citizenship and the politics of belong-

ing. Comparative Education, 48(1) 1–10.

Banaji, S., & Buckingham, D. (2013). The civic web; young people, the

internet and civic participation. Cambridge, MA: M I T Press.

Banks, J. A. (2001). Cultural diversity and education: Foundations, curricu-

lum and teaching. Boston: Pearson, Allyn & Bacon.

Barrett, M. (2007). Children's knowledge, beliefs and feelings about nations

and national groups. NY: Psychology Press.

Barrett, M., & Davies, E. (Eds.). (2005). Children's understanding of soci-

ety. NY: Psychology Press.

Barton, K. C. (2008). Research on students´ ideas about history. In Handbook

of research in social studies education (pp. 239–258). In L.Levstik &

C.A. Tyson. NY, Routledge.

Barton, K. C. (2012). Agency, choice and historical action: How history

teaching can help students think about democratic decision making.

Citizenship Teaching and Learning, 7, 131–142.

Beaumont, E. (2010). Political agency and empowerment; pathways for

developing a sense of political efficacy in young adults. In L.R. Sherrod,

J. Torney-Purta, & C. Flanagan (Eds.), Handbook of research on civic

engagement and youth (pp. 225–258). New York: Wiley.

Bennett, W. L., Freelon, D., & Wells, C. (2010). Changing citizen identity

and the rise of participatory media culture. In L.R. Sherrod, J. Torney-

Purta, & C. Flanagan (Eds.), Handbook of research on civic engagement

in youth, 393–423.

Berger, S. (2012). De-nationalizing history teaching and nationalizing

it differently. In M. Carretero, M. Asensio & M. Rodríguez-Moneo

(Eds.), History education and the construction of national identities

(pp. 33–47). Charlotte CT: Information Age Publishing.

Bermudez, A. (2012). Youth civic engagement: decline or transformation?

A critical review. Journal of Moral Education 41 (4), 529–542.

Bermudez, A. (2015). Four tools for critical inquiry in history, social studies

and civic education. Revista de Estudios Sociales, 52.

Bers, M. U. (2008). Civic identities, online technologies; from designing civic

curriculum to supporting civic experiences. In L. Bennett (Ed.), Civic

life online; learning how digital media can engage youth (pp. 139–159).

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Berti, A. E. (2002). Children's understanding of society: Psychological stud-

ies and their educational implications. In Children's understanding in

the new Europe (pp. 89–107). Stoke on Trent, Trentham Books.

Berti, A. E., & Andriolo, A. (2001). Third graders' understanding of core

political concepts (law, nation-state, government) before and after

teaching. Genetic, social, and general psychology monographs, 127(4),

346–377.

Biesta, G., & Lawy, R. (2006). From teaching citizenship to learning

democracy: overcoming individualism in research, policy and practice.

Cambridge Journal of Education, 36, 1, 63–79.

Blades, D., & Richardson, G. (2006). Introduction: troubling the canon of

citizenship education. In G. Richardson & D. Blades (Eds.), Troubling

the canon of citizenship education (pp. 1–9). New York: Peter Lang.

Bloch-Schulman, S. (2010). When the "best hope" is not so hopeful, what

then? democratic thinking, democratic pedagogies, and higher educa-

tion. Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 24, 4, pp. 399–415.

Brown, T. M. & Rodriguez, L. F. (Eds.). (2009). Youth in participatory

action research. New directions for youth development. San Francisco,

CA: Jossey Bass.

Cammarota, J. (2007) A social justice approach to achievement; Guiding

Latino/a students toward educational attainment with a challenging,

socially relevant curriculum. Equity and Excellence in Education, 40(1),

87–96.

Cammarota, J., & Fine, M. (2008). Revolutionizing education; youth partic-

ipatory action research in motion. New York: Routledge.

Campbell, D. E. (2008). Voice in the classroom: How an open classroom

climate fosters political engagement among adolescents. Political

Behavior, 30, 437–454.

Carnegie Corporation of New York and CIRCLE Center for Information

and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (2003). The civic

mission of schools. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York and

CIRCLE Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and

Engagement.

Mario Carretero, Helen Haste, and Angela Bermudez

306

Carretero, M. (2011). Constructing patriotism. Teaching history and memo-

ries in global worlds. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Carretero, M., & Bermudez, A. (2012). Constructing histories. In: J.

Valsiner (Ed.), Oxford handbook of culture and psychology (pp. 625–

646). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Carretero, M., Castorina, J. A., & Levinas, M. L. (2013). Conceptual change

and historical narratives about the nation. A theoretical and empirical

approach. In: S. Vosniadou, International handbook of research in con-

ceptual change (pp. 269–287). New York: Routledge.

Carretero, M., & Van Alphen, F. (2014). Do master narratives change

among high school students? Analyzing national historical representa-

tions characteristics. Cognition and Instruction, 32 (3), 1–23.

Chi, B., Jastrzab, J., & Melchior, A. (2006). Developing indicators and

measures of civic outcomes for elementary school students. CIRCLE -

Working paper 47: CIRCLE. Medford, MA: The Center for Information

and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement.

Cohen, C., Kahne, J., Bowyer, B., Middaugh, E., & Rogowski, J. (2012).

Participatory politics: New media and youth political action. Retrieved

from: http://www.civicsurvey.org/publications/107 (accessed February

20, 2015).

Cox, C. B., Jaramillo, R., & Reimers, F. (2005). Education for citizenship

and democracy in the Americas: An agenda for action. Washington,

D.C.: Inter-American Development Bank.

Davies, L. (2008). Educating against extremism. Sterling, VA: Trentham

Books.

Diazgranados, S., & Selman, R. (2014). How students' perceptions of the

school climate affect their choice to upstand, bystand or join perpetrators

of bullying. Harvard Educational Review. 84(1).

Earl, J., & Kimport, K. (2011). Digitally enabled social change. Cambridge,

MA: MIT Press.

Facer, K. (2011). Learning futures: Education, technology and social

change. New York: Routledge.

Fine, M. (2004). Making our children more humane. Facing history and

ourselves as civic education. Brookline: FHAO.

Fine, M., Bermudez, A., & Barr, D. (2007). Civic learning survey—

Developed for the National Professional Development and Evaluation

Project (NPDEP), a longitudinal outcome study of the Facing History

and Ourselves program from 2005–2010. Brookline, MA: Facing

History and Ourselves.

Finkel, S. E. & Ernst, H. R. (2005). Civic education in post-apartheid South

Africa: Alternative paths to the development of political knowledge and

democratic values. Political Psychology, 26(3), 333–366.

Fishkin, J., and Farrar, C. (2005). Deliberative polling. In J. Gastil &

P. Levine (eds.), The Deliberative Democracy Handbook. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Flanagan, C. (2013). Teenage citizens; the political theories of the young.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Flanagan, C. & Christens B. D. (Eds.). (2011). Youth civic development;

work at the cutting edge. In New directions for child and adolescent

development (p. 134). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Flanagan, C. & Levine, P. (2010). Civic engagement and the transition to

adulthood. Future of children, 20(1), 159–179.

Fox, M., Mediratta, K., Ruglis, J., Stoudt, B., Seema, S., & Fine, M. (2010).

Critical youth engagement: Participatory action research and organizing.

In L. R. Sherrod, J. Torney-Purta, & C. Flanagan (Eds.), Handbook of

research on civic engagement in youth (pp. 621–649). Hoboken, NJ:

John Wiley.

Ginwright, S. (2008). Collective radical imagination; youth participatory

action research and the art of emancipatory knowledge. In Cammarota,

J., & Fine, M. (Eds.), Revolutionizing education: Youth participatory

action research in motion (pp. 13–22). New York: Routledge.

Ginwright, S. (2010). Black youth rising; activism and radical healing in

urban America. New York: Teachers College Press.

Grever, M., & Stuurman, S. (2007). Beyond the canon: History for the 21st

century. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (2004). Why deliberative democracy?

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Hammack, P. L. (2010). Identity as burden or benefit? Youth, historical

narrative, and the legacy of political conflict. Human Development, 53,

173–201.

Hart, D., & Gullan, R. (2010). The sources of adolescent activism: Historical

and contemporary findings. In L. R. Sherrod, J. Torney-Purta, &

C. Flanagan (Eds.), Handbook of research on civic engagement in youth

(pp. 67–90). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Haste, H. (2004). Constructing the citizen. Political Psychology, 25(3),

413–439.

Haste, H. (2010). Citizenship education: A critical look at a contested field.

In L. R. Sherrod, J. Torney-Purta, & C. Flanagan (Eds), Handbook of

research on civic engagement in youth (pp. 161–188). Hoboken, NJ:

John Wiley.

Haste, H. (2014). Culture, tools and subjectivity: the (re) construction

of self. In T. Magioglou, (Ed.), Culture and political psychology

(pp. 27–48). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishers.

Haste, H., & Abrahams, S. (2008). Morality, culture and the dialogic self:

taking cultural pluralism seriously. Journal of Moral Education, 37(3),

357–374.

Haste, H., & Hogan, A. (2006). Beyond conventional civic participation,

beyond the moral–political divide: Young people and contemporary

debates about citizenship. Journal of Moral Education, 35(4), 473–493.

Haste, H., & Hogan, A. (2012). The future shapes the present: Scenarios, met-

aphors and civic action. In M. Carretero, M. Asensio, & M. Rodríguez-

Moneo (Eds.), History education and the construction of national

identities (pp. 311–326). Charlotte, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Hess, D. (2009). Controversy in the classroom: the democratic power of

discussion. New York: Routledge.

Hess, D., & Gatti, L. (2010). Putting politics where it belongs: In the class-

room. New Directions for Higher Education, 152 (Winter).

Ito, M. (2010). Hanging out, messing around and geeking out. Cambridge,

MA: MIT Press.

Janmaat, J. G. (2008). The civic attitudes of ethnic minority youth and

the impact of citizenship education. Journal of Ethnic and Migration

Studies, 34(1), 27–54.

Jaramillo, R. (2005). The experience of Colombia. In V. Espinola (Ed.),

Education for citizenship and democracy in a globalized world: A com-

parative perspective (pp. 87–90). Washington, DC: Inter-American

Development Bank.

Jensen, L. A. (2010). Immigrant youth in the United States: Coming of

age among diverse civic cultures. In, L. R. Sherrod, J. Torney-Purta, &

C. Flanagan, (Eds.), Handbook of research on civic engagement in youth

(pp. 425–444). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Kahne, J., Lee, N., & Feezell, J. (2012). Digital media literacy education

and online civic and political participation. Retrieved from: http://www.

civicsurvey.org/publications/46 (accessed February 20, 2015).

Kahne, J., Middaugh, E., & Evans, C. (2008). The civic potential of video

games. MacArthur Foundation. Retrieved from: http://www.digital-

learning.macfound.org.

Kahne, J., Middaugh, E., Lee, N., & Feezell J. (2012). Youth online activity

and exposure to diverse perspectives. Retrieved from: http://www.civic-

survey.org/publications/203 (accessed February 20, 2014).

Kahne, J., & Sporte, S. (2008). Developing citizens: The impact of civic

learning opportunities on students' commitment to civic participation.

American Educational Research Journal. 45 (3), 738–766.

Kahne, J., & Westheimer, J. (2006) The limits of political efficacy:

Educating citizens for a democratic society. PSOnline, April, 289–296.

Kassimir, R., & Flanagan, C. (2010). Youth civic engagement in the devel-

oping world: Challenges and opportunities. In L. R. Sherrod, J. Torney-

Purta, & C. Flanagan (Eds.), Handbook of research on civic engagement

in youth (pp. 91–113). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Kennedy, K. J., Fairbrother, G. P., & Zhao, Z. (2014). Citizenship educa-

tion in China; preparing citizens for the "Chinese century". New York:

Routledge.

Kirlin, M. (2003). The role of civic skills in fostering civic engagement.

CIRCLE -Working paper 06: CIRCLE. Medford, MA: The Center for

Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement.

Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development: The nature and

validity of moral stages. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.

Levinson, M. (2010). The civic empowerment gap: Defining the problem

and locating solutions. In L. R. Sherrod, J. Torney-Purta, & C. Flanagan

(Eds.), Handbook of research on civic engagement in youth (pp. 331–

361). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Civic Education 307

Levinson, M. (2012). No citizen left behind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Lickona, T. (1997). Educating for character: A comprehensive approach. In

A. Molnar (Ed.), The construction of children's character (pp. 45–62).

Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Lievrouw, L. A. (2011). Alternative and activist new media. Cambridge,

UK: Polity Press.

Llewellyn, K. R., Cook, S. A., & Molina, A. (2010). Civic learning: moving

from the apolitical to the socially just. Journal of Curriculum Studies,

42(6), 791–812.

Lopez, C., Carretero, M., & Rodriguez-Moneo, M. (2014a). Conquest or

reconquest? Students' conceptions of nation embedded in a historical

narrative. Journal of the Learning Sciences, published online. DOI:10.1

080/10508406.2014.919863.

Lopez, C., Carretero, M., & Rodriguez-Moneo, M. (2014b). Telling a

national narrative not of your own. Does it enable disciplinary historical

understanding? Culture & Psychology, 20(4): 547–571.

Martin, L. A., & Chiodo, J.J. (2008). American Indian students speak out:

What's good citizenship. International Journal of Social Education,

23(1), 1–26.

Mason, C., Cremin, H., & Warwick, P. (2011) Learning to (dis)engage? The

socializing experiences of young people living in areas of socio-eco-

nomic disadvantage British Journal of Educational Studies, 59(4),

403–419.

McIntosh, H., & Youniss, J. (2010). Toward a political theory of political

socialization of Youth. In L. R. Sherrod, J. Torney-Purta, & C. Flanagan

(Eds.), Handbook of research on civic engagement in youth (pp. 23–41).

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

McLeod, J., Shan, D., Hess, D., & Lee, N. (2010). Communication and

education: Creating competence for socialization into public life. In

L. R. Sherrod, J. Torney-Purta, & C. Flanagan (Eds.). Handbook of

research on civic engagement in youth (pp. 363–391). Hoboken, NJ:

John Wiley.

Monte-Sano, C. S., de la Paz, S., & Felton, M. (2014). Reading, thinking,

and writing about history. New York: Teachers College Press.

Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participa-

tory democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Noddings, N. (Ed.). (2005). Educating citizens for global awareness. New

York: Teachers College Press.

Nussbaum, M. (2006). Education and democratic citizenship: capabilities

and quality education. Journal of Human Development, 3, 7.

Oser, F., Althof, W., & Higgins-D'Alessandro, A. (2008). The just commu-

nity approach to moral education: system change or individual change?

Journal of Moral Education, 37 (3), 395–415.

Power, F. C., Higgins, A. & Kohlberg, L. (1989) Lawrence Kohlberg's

approach to moral education. New York: Columbia Press.

Rawls, J. (1993). Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Pres.

Reykowski, J. (2006). Deliberative democracy and "human nature": An

empirical approach. Political Psychology, 27(3).

Rheingold, H. (2008). Using participatory media and public voice to encour-

age civic engagement. In L. Bennett (Ed.), Civic life online; learning

how digital media can engage youth (pp. 97–118). Cambridge, MA:

MIT Press.

Rosenberg, S. W. (2007) Rethinking democratic deliberation: The limits and

potential of citizen participation. Polity, 39, 335–360.

Rubin, B., & Hayes, B. (2010). "No backpacks" versus "drugs and murder":

The promise and complexity of youth civic action research. Harvard

Educational Review, 80 (3), 352–379.

Rubin, B., Hayes, B., & Benson, K. (2009). ''It's the worst place to live'':

Urban youth and the challenge of school-based civic learning. Theory

Into Practice, 48 , 213–221.

Ruitenberg, C. W. (2009). Educating political adversaries: Chantal Mouffe

and radical democratic citizenship education. Studies on Philosophy of

Education, 28, 269–281.

Russell, S. T., Toomey, R. B., Crockett, J., & Laub, C. (2010). LGBT poli-

tics, youth activism, and civic engagement. In L. R. Sherrod, J. Torney-

Purta, & C. Flanagan (Eds.), Handbook of research on civic engagement

in youth (pp. 471–494). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Salen, K. (2007). The ecology of games: Connecting youth, games, and

learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Seider, S. (2012). Character compass; how powerful school culture can

point students towards success. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.

Seif, H. (2010). The civic life of Latina/o immigrant youth: Challenging

boundaries and creating safe spaces. In L. R. Sherrod, J. Torney-Purta, &

C. Flanagan (Eds.), Handbook of research on civic engagement in youth

(pp. 445–470). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Seixas, P. (Ed.). (2004). Theorizing historical consciousness. Toronto:

University of Toronto Press.

Seixas, P., & Morton, T. (2013). The big six historical thinking concepts.

Independence, KY: Cingage Learning.

Selman, R. (2003). The promotion of social awareness: Powerful lessons

from the partnership of developmental theory and classroom practice.

New York, Russell Sage Foundation.

Selman, R., & Kwok, J. (2010). Informed social reflection; its development

and importance for adolescents' civic engagement. In Sherrod, L. R.,

Torney-Purta, J., & Flanagan, C. (Eds.), Handbook of research on civic

engagement in youth (pp. 651–685). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Sherrod, L. R., Torney-Purta, J., & Flanagan, C. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook

of research on civic engagement in youth. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Sinclair, M. (2004). Learning to live together: Building skills, values and

attitudes for the twenty-first century. Geneva: UNESCO-International

Bureau of Education.

Sinclair, M., Davies, L., Obura, A., & Tibbits, F. (2008). Learning to live

together. Design, monitoring and evaluation of education for life skills,

citizenship, peace and human rights. Eschborn, Germany: UNESCO,

IBE, GTZ.

Soule, S. (2000). Beyond communism and war: The effect of civic education

on the democratic attitudes and behavior of Bosnian and Herzegovinian

youth. Calabasas, CA: Center for Civic Education.

Stitzlein, S. M. (2012). Teaching for dissent: Citizenship education and

political activism. Boulder Paradigm Publishers.

Swartz, S. (2006). A long walk to citizenship: morality, justice and faith in

the aftermath of apartheid. Journal of Moral Education, 35 (4), 551–570.

Tausch, N., Becker, J. C., Spears, R., Christ, O., Saab, R., Singh, P., &

Siddiqi, R. N. (2011). Explaining radical group behavior; developi ng

emotion and efficacy routes to normative and non-normative collec-

tive action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 101 (1),

129–148.

Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins D'Alessandro, A. (2013). A

review of school climate research. Review of Educational Research,

83(3), 357–387.

Torney-Purta, J. (2002) Patterns in the civic knowledge, engagement and

attitudes of European adolescents: the IEA Civic Education Study.

European Journal of Education, 37 (2), 129–141.

Torney-Purta, J., & Barber, C. (2011). Fostering young people's support

for participatory human rights through their developmental niches.

American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 81 (4), 473–481.

Torney-Purta, J., Lehmann, R., Oswald, H., & Schulz, W. (2001). Citizenship

and education in twenty-eight countries: civic knowledge and engage-

ment at age fourteen. Amsterdam: IEA.

Van Sledright, B. A. (2008). Narratives of nation-state, historical knowledge,

and school history". Review of Research in Education, 32, 109–146.

Weinstein, E. (2014). The personal is political on social media; online

civic expression patterns and pathways among civically engaged youth.

International Journal of Communication, 8 , 210–233.

Wertsch, J. (2002). Voices of collective remembering. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press.

West, C. (2004). Democracy matters: Winning the fight against imperialism.

New York: Penguin.

Westheimer, J. (2008). On the relationship between political and moral

engagement. In F. Oser & W. Veugelers (Eds.), Getting involved;

global citizenship development and sources of moral values (pp. 17–30).

Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). What kind of citizen? The politics of

educating for democracy. American Educational Research Journal,

41(2), 237–269.

Wineburg, S. (2001). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts: Charting

the future of teaching the past. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University

Press.

Mario Carretero, Helen Haste, and Angela Bermudez

308

Yates, M., & Youniss, J. (Eds.). (1999). Roots of civic identity; international

perspectives on community service and activism in youth. New York:

Cambridge UP.

Youniss, J. (2011). Civic education: What schools can do to encourage civic

identity and action. Applied Developmental Science, 15(2), 98–103.

Youniss, J., & Levine, P. (2009). Engaging young people in civic life.

Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

Youniss, J., & Yates, M. (1997). Community service and social responsibil-

ity in youth. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Zaff, J. F., Kawashima-Gisnberg, K., & Lin, E. S. (2011). Advances in

civic engagement research: issues of civic measures and civic context.

Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 41 , 273–308.

Zaff, J. F., Malanchuk, O., & Eccles, J. (2008). Predicting positive citizen-

ship from adolescence to young adulthood: The effects of a civic con-

text. Applied Developmental Sciences, 12(8), 38–53.

Zukin, C., Keeter, S., Andolina, M., Jenins, K., & Della Carpini, M. X.

(2006). A new engagement? Political participation, civic life and the

changing American citizen. New York: Oxford University Press.

Civic engagement requires individuals to have both knowledge of democratic principles and the skills for enacting change. Acquiring the knowledge and skills necessary for a productive civic life can be difficult for students if they are not provided conceptual scaffolds and opportunities to practice citizenship. We implemented and studied an activity using Westheimer and Kahne's (2004) citizenship typology during a summer civics institute to help students grapple with their understandings of "good" citizenship. We found (1) students appropriated the language of Westheimer and Kahne's citizenship typology by using it to describe their expanding understandings of citizenship; and (2) students used the citizenship typology to name and make sense of their civic identity. We discuss these findings and reflect on our use of Westheimer and Kahne's citizenship typology as a cognitive scaffold.

• Frank Reichert
• Dirk Lange
• Leo Chow

Teachers serve as mediators of classroom experience and dialogue, and as individuals delivering curriculum. Their education-related beliefs influence how they teach. After reviewing literature in English and in German, this article examines teachers' beliefs about the aims of citizenship education in Austria and Switzerland using the International Civic and Citizenship Education Study. Latent class analysis identifies distinct teacher profiles associated with teachers' characteristics and with teaching-related practices. Teachers who emphasize knowledge acquisition utilize assessments in their classes more frequently; those who prioritize critical thinking and argumentation are comparatively more likely to use civically stimulating pedagogy.

• Sarah Stitzlein

For the first time in a decade, leaders and citizens across the political spectrum are celebrating dissent. The reappearance of dissent in town hall meetings and on street corners brings new promise for improved democratic life and citizen participation. But this promise cannot be fulfilled if schools do not cultivate the skills necessary for our citizens to engage in political dissent. Indeed, this book reveals troubling practices in schools, resulting from the testing atmosphere and the hidden curriculum, that omit or suppress students' ability to dissent and voice ideas that stand in opposition to the status quo. In this book, Stitzlein investigates the historical and philosophical foundations of dissent in the work of the American Founders and the pragmatist philosophers who followed them. She argues that children have a right to learn how to dissent and that the state must provide this type of education. This book calls for a realignment of curriculum and the practices of schooling with both a guiding vision and a realistic interpretation of democracy as it is currently invoked in an era of citizen activism.

• Michael W. Apple

When the United States government released its 2007 census figures in January 2010, it reported that 12% of the US population ‒ over 38 million people ‒ were foreign born. First generation people were now one out of every eight persons in the nation, with 80% coming from Latin America and Asia (US Census Bureau, 2010). This near record transformation, one in which diasporic populations now constitute a large and growing percent of communities throughout the nation and an evergrowing proportion of children in our schools, documents one of the most profound reasons that we must think globally about education.

James Youniss and Miranda Yates present a sophisticated analysis of community service's beneficial effects on adolescents' political and moral identity. Using a case study from a predominantly Black, urban high school in Washington, D.C., Youniss and Yates build on the insights of Erik Erikson on the social and historical nature of identity development. They show that service at a soup kitchen as part of a course on social justice gives youth the opportunity to reflect on their status in society, on how society is organized, on how government should use its power, and on moral principles related to homelessness and poverty. Developing a sense of social responsibility and a civic commitment, youth come to see themselves as active agents in society. The most authoritative work to date on the subject, this book challenges negative stereotypes of contemporary adolescents and illustrates how youth, when given the opportunity, can use their talents for social good. It will interest readers concerned with the development of today's youth and tomorrow's society.

This book brings together an international collection of essays that describes the state of community participation among the world's youth. Authors from around the globe use fresh empirical data to present portraits of contemporary youths constructing their civic identities through such means as community service and political activism. The image of "Generation X" as socially disconnected and apathetic is contradicted by young people's efforts to comprehend the complexities of society and to work toward the realization of social-moral ideals. The findings in this volume contribute to a theory of political socialization that bases youth's understanding of political aspects of society and citizenship on participation in community and civic activities, rather than on the intake of abstract pieces of formal information. To this end, youth seek to resolve ideological tensions, such as in Northern Ireland and the Middle East; to overcome corrupting political practices, such as in Italy and Taiwan; to deal with disillusionment, such as in the emerging Eastern European nations; and to bridge barriers against youth's meaningful participation in the working of society, such as in Canada, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Researchers in a wide array of fields, including psychology, sociology, political science, and education will find this book to be a valuable resource.

• J. Youniss
• P. Levine

The myth of generations of disengaged youth has been shattered by increases in youth turnout in the 2004, 2006, and 2008 primaries. Young Americans are responsive to effective outreach efforts, and this collection addresses how to best provide opportunities for enhancing civic learning and forming lasting civic identities. The thirteen original essays are based on research in schools and in settings beyond the schoolyard where civic life is experienced. One focus is on programs for those schools in poor communities that tend to overlook civic education. Another chapter reports on how two city governments-Hampton, Virginia, and San Francisco have invited youth to participate on boards and in agencies. A cluster of chapters focuses on the civic education programs in Canada and Western Europe, where, as in the United States, immigration and income inequality raise challenges to civic life.

There has been widespread concern in contemporary Western societies about declining engagement in civic life; people are less inclined to vote, to join political parties, to campaign for social causes, or to trust political processes. Young people in particular are frequently described as alienated or apathetic. Some have looked optimistically to new media—and particularly the Internet—as a means of revitalizing civic life and democracy. Governments, political parties, charities, NGOs, activists, religious and ethnic groups, and grassroots organizations have created a range of youth-oriented websites that encourage widely divergent forms of civic engagement and use varying degrees of interactivity. But are young people really apathetic and lacking in motivation? Does the Internet have the power to re-engage those disenchanted with politics and civic life? Based on a major research project funded by the European Commission, this book attempts to understand the role of the Internet in promoting young people's participation. Examples are drawn from Hungary, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, and the United Kingdom—countries offering contrasting political systems and cultural contexts. The book also addresses broader questions about the meaning of civic engagement, the nature of new forms of participation, and their implications for the future of civic life.

• A. Gutmann
• D.F. Thompson

The most widely debated conception of democracy in recent years is deliberative democracy--the idea that citizens or their representatives owe each other mutually acceptable reasons for the laws they enact. Two prominent voices in the ongoing discussion are Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson. In Why Deliberative Democracy?, they move the debate forward beyond their influential book, Democracy and Disagreement. What exactly is deliberative democracy? Why is it more defensible than its rivals? By offering clear answers to these timely questions, Gutmann and Thompson illuminate the theory and practice of justifying public policies in contemporary democracies. They not only develop their theory of deliberative democracy in new directions but also apply it to new practical problems. They discuss bioethics, health care, truth commissions, educational policy, and decisions to declare war. In "What Deliberative Democracy Means," which opens this collection of essays, they provide the most accessible exposition of deliberative democracy to date. They show how deliberative democracy should play an important role even in the debates about military intervention abroad. Why Deliberative Democracy? contributes to our understanding of how democratic citizens and their representatives can make justifiable decisions for their society in the face of the fundamental disagreements that are inevitable in diverse societies. Gutmann and Thompson provide a balanced and fair-minded approach that will benefit anyone intent on giving reason and reciprocity a more prominent place in politics than power and special interests.

Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282119605_Civic_Education

Posted by: kimberlikimberlisobeye0268999.blogspot.com

Share :