(Civic and political education 2) murray print, dirk lange (auth.), murray print, dirk lange (eds.) schools, curriculum and civic education for building democratic citizens-sense publishers

Schools, Curriculum and Civic Education for Building Democratic Citizens

CIVIC AND POLITICAL EDUCATION

Series EditorsMurray Print, University of Sydney, Australia

This series of publications addresses a wide range of key issues in the increasingly important area of civic and political education. Fundamentally the series is concerned with the preparation of future citizens but that in itself raises issues. What role should civic education play in developing future citizens? What forms of civic and political education are needed to prepare citizens for the future? What curriculum is appropriate? What role does the informal curriculum play? How can civic and political education be assessed? There are cognate questions as well. What do young people understand as democracy? What interest do they have in politics? And are they concerned with civic participation?

In this series the key topic of civic and political education will be written from multidisciplinary perspectives by groups of international scholars, representing a range of disciplines from political science, to education, to sociology and youth studies. The publications will present new evidence as well as reflect and argue previous international research on civic and political education. They will present best practices and innovations that can inform nations as they consider how they educate their next generations of young citizens.

The publications will be of value to academics, researchers, students as well as policy makers and practitioners such as those engaged with electoral and intergovernmental agencies.

Schools, Curriculum and Civic Education for Building Democratic Citizens

Edited byMurray PrintUniversity of Sydney, Australia

Dirk LangeLeibniz Universität Hannover, Germany

A C.I.P. record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

ISBN: 978-94-6209-165-8 (paperback)ISBN: 978-94-6209-166-5 (hardback)ISBN: 978-94-6209-167-2 (e-book)

Published by: Sense Publishers,P.O. Box 21858,3001 AW Rotterdam,The Netherlandshttps://www.sensepublishers.com/

Printed on acid-free paper

All Rights Reserved © 2012 Sense Publishers

No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfi lming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifi cally for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclu sive use by the purchaser of the work.

https://www.sensepublishers.com/

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgement vii

Introduction 1Murray Print and Dirk Lange

Part I: Civic education, curriculum and building democratic citizens 5

1. Developing civic education in schools: The Challenge 7Wolfgang Beutel

2. A curriculum framework for active democratic citizenship education 19Ahmet Doğanay

3. Citizenship education in and out of school 41Gonzalo Jover

4. Evaluating the impact of citizenship education in schools: What Works and What are We Measuring? 57Avril Keating, Tom Benton and David Kerr

5. Education for democratic citizenship: Values Vs Process 73Jürgen Menthe

Part II : Teachers and competences for building democratic citizens in schools 79

6. Teacher competences for education for democratic citizenship: Training and Classification Challenges 81Kornelija Mrnjaus

7. The development of civic competencies at secondary level through service-learning pedagogies 99Conception Naval and Carolina Ugarte

8. Teacher pedagogy and achieving citizenship competences in schools 113Murray Print

9. Linking teachers’ competences to students’ competences: Pedagogical Processes 129Maria-Helena C. Salema

Author Biographies 145

vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The editors wish to acknowledge the significant contribution made by the authors, first to contributing to an invited workshop in Hannover and then reworking their papers to become chapters in this book.

We also wish to acknowledge the support from the Volkswagen Stiftung for its assistance with this project.

The project received support from the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance in Hannover.

Murray PrintUniversity of Sydney, Australia

Dirk LangeLeibniz Universität Hannover, Germany

M. Print and D. Lange (Eds.), Schools, Curriculum and Civic Education for Building Democratic Citizens, 1–4.© 2012 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.

MURRAY PRINT AND DIRK LANGE

INTRODUCTION

Democracy depends on all of us: the price of liberty is not just ‘eternal vigilance’, as Abraham Lincoln said, but eternal activity.

Sir Bernard Crick (2008)

Modern democracies face many challenges including the ability to sustain themselves particularly in times of crises. Over the past few years Europe has faced many challenges to sustaining democracy across a diverse range of culture, countries and political traditions. Yet a common theme to all democracies in Europe is the need for active, informed citizens who will sustain democracy.

In acknowledging that the future of their democracy rests with educating the young, European societies have engaged in some form of educative experience to prepare their future democratic citizens. Evidence abounds that young citizens, though generally supportive of institutions such as parliament and the courts, are distrustful of politicians and political parties. They are supportive of the idea of and need for government, but invariably perceive governments as unresponsive, inflexible and ideologically driven by political party ideologies and special interests.

Many elements of traditional representative democratic processes are ignored by the young potentially ‘preparing’ them for poor citizenship. Young people vote less than previously, rarely join political parties, don’t contact politicians and they don’t support them at election times. What competences do young Europeans need to be active citizens in the 21st Century?

An invited research symposium drew together leading civic and political educators from Europe as well as social scientists and educational administrators to address the above question through two key issues :

1. Identify key competencies required for active citizenship of young people in Europe of the future.

2. Translate those competencies to school-based activities in the form of curricular and pedagogical strategies.

To address these issues a group of invited researchers participated in a three-day symposium in Hannover, Germany funded through a program by the Volkswagen Stiftung. The participants then engaged in a modified Delphi Method (explained later in this book) to determine the amount of consensus achieved on the competences.

M. PRINT AND D. LANGE

2

This book is about exploring what those competences are and how they relate to civic and citizenship education in schools, particularly in the context of Europe.

The task of the participants for this book was to prepare, in conjunction with their participation in the symposium and the Delphi, a chapter on an aspect of competences for European citizens in the context of civic education in European schools. The book has been divided into two sections: the first contains an overview of significant issues addressing citizenship education schools as they seek to prepare students to become active, engaged citizens. The second section includes several approaches to teacher pedagogy for civic and citizenship education in schools and raises issues of concern about appropriate pedagogy for educating students to become active, informed citizens.

Wolfgang Beutel presents readers with a challenge for civic education – how can schools develop democratic learning? He contends that opportunities for democratic learning already exist is schools, even in elementary schools. Citing example from German schools he identifies how this may occur such as through learning in projects

Based upon international research and experience in Turkey Ahmet Doganay argues in chapter two for a curriculum framework for democratic citizenship education that is relevant for modern times. He commences by examining the type of citizen needed for a modern democracy, an issue for many countries to address, particularly described as ‘recent’ democracies. Doganay then examines the role of the school in delivering education for democratic citizenship and the problematic issues that arise. In offering a curriculum framework for EDC he focuses upon the general knowledge, skills and values that would lead to an active, informed citizen.

By contrast Gonzalo Jover reviews citizenship education both inside and outside of the school. He begins by identifying that Spanish students’ weak point is their competency in behaving as critical and active citizens. He then reviews mostly qualitative research in classrooms on student’s civic experience and finds that Spanish students participate according to their own rules, ones that are heavily influence by peer pressure. While relatively knowledgeable about citizenship, as measured by the recent ICCS study, Jover concludes that the same Spanish students do not feel competent to act as critical and active citizens.In chapter four Avril Keating, Tom Benton and David Kerr review the impact of citizenship education in schools using data from the longitudinal survey of students in England – the Citizenship Education Longitudinal Study. CELS is an extremely valuable study as it is one of the few to follow a cohort of students through their schooling in citizenship education. The study found evidence of a link between schools and outcomes, and that there are certain models of organising and delivering citizenship education in schools which are likely to produce higher levels of awareness about received citizenship education and, in turn, better citizenship outcomes for students. However, the authors were clear to identify several caveats to the findings which, together indicate, at least in CELS, that the gains from citizenship intervention in schools is modest.

INTRODUCTION

3

The final chapter in part one Jürgen Menthe explores issues of values and processes within education for democratic citizenship. Menthe argues that values play a key role in our understanding, and practice, of democracy. In the context of German history over the past sixty years trying to fortify democracy, this poses a problem for how citizenship education should be conducted in schools.

In part two four authors examine issues relating to teachers and competences for building democratic citizens in schools with a focus on Schools in Europe. Korneljja Mrnjus reviews competences for those who would teach citizenship education in schools. After wrestling with key terms, he notes in chapter six that in Europe very few teachers have specific training / preparation in citizenship education. This lack of competence by teachers in citizenship education for democracy makes the educating of students to become active, informed citizens even more problematic.

In chapter seven Conception Naval and Carolina Ugarte contend that service learning, known as community service in some countries, has the potential for developing civic competencies amongst students. After reviewing the nature of competences or competencies, the authors examine the nature of service learning and identifies some that clearly build civic competencies. The role of selected service learning programs appears to enhance student acquisition of civic competencies though a stronger research base is required to determine causality.

Examining the forms of teacher pedagogy likely to build competences for active, informed citizens amongst student Murray Print identifies prospective strategies as well as the problematic nature of those pedagogies in the context of citizenship education. Print identifies are large number of potentially powerful pedagogies that would build civic competencies within students in schools. While the research base is limited it appears that some methods are likely to build active, informed citizens more than others. The specific pedagogies depends upon what a teacher, school and or program seeks to achieve – knowledgeable students, as evidenced by the IEA studies, civically engaged students or a combination of both. He further identifies the potential of the informal curriculum in schools as a source of developing civic competence amongst students.

In the final chapter Salema seeks to link teacher competences to student competences through the application of pedagogy. From previous work clusters of teacher competences have been identified that are appropriate for promoting active citizenship amongst students. Those identified intend to develop student learning to become independent engaged citizens in the future.

REFERENCES

Crick, B. (2008). Democracy. In J. Arthur, I. Davies, & C. Hahn (Eds.), The Sage handbook of education for citizenship and democracy. London: Sage Publications.

PART I

CIVIC EDUCATION, CURRICULUM AND BUILDING DEMOCRATIC CITIZENS


WOLFGANG BEUTEL

DEVELOPING CIVIC EDUCATION IN SCHOOLS1

The Challenge

Civic education is and will be a necessary charge in schools. However, it needs further development. This holds for Europe and Germany and, certainly, it also holds for already established and still developing democratic communiti es in western civilization and beyond.

People educated to commit themselves to community, to an open-minded society, to solidarity, and to social equity is what democracy needs (Dahrendorf 2003). Such people will recognize that only democracy can offer them framework conditions for a stable, social and liberal society. However, they will also learn that a society being democratic and capable of development is mainly charged with perpetual reform and change of constant conditions. Only these citizens strengthen the society’s ability to repel intolerance, racism, xenophobia, and violence.

In addition, societies are constantly facing more and more issues and challenges institutional frameworks of established democratic systems and their functional elites cannot deal with on their own. Today’s major issues of the future are issues of global concern. Thus, these problems are of existential importance for present and future generations and cannot be solved by national politics alone. For global challenges are based on regional conditions and result in regional effects and for the social capital to solve political issues is locally embedded, democracy is a form of politics which cannot work and be developed without a committed and strong civic society (Putnam 2000).

Political issues with future significance like

• the use of energy and treatment of the non-renewable energy resources of the Earth;

• economic development and the resulting environmental pollution;• climate change;• the growth of the world population and the increasing life expectancy in developed

countries;• global mobility caused by economy but also by misguided political developments,

supply bottlenecks, and hunger as well as migration, expulsion and flight caused by cultural, religious, and political repression;

• international conflicts and wars caused by economical, religious and cultural issues;

W. BEUTEL

8

and many other questions of the social and political reality will play a bigger role in people’s everyday life – concerning children as well as adolescents. However, we cannot only deal with these problems in academically coined subjects of traditional schools anymore. Still, these issues have to become a part of school education for these major issues of the future will affect children and adolescents. We have to develop a new form of education which enables children as well as adolescents to cope with these problems, i.e. an education relevant to civic society and to the question of working and living together on our planet.

Hence, such civic education cannot only take place in single school subjects (or single academic disciplines, single school subjects, single subject-curricula) since this kind of education is more of a challenge and an educational experience for the school as a whole: It concerns classes as well as school life and, beyond, the community (cities, villages, or school and communities).

This kind of education has been termed “democratic learning” or “democratic acting”, respectively, in connection with the Competition for Citizenship “Democratic Action” (transl. “Wettbewerb Förderprogramm Demokratisch Handeln“; URL: http://www.demokratisch-handeln.de). This programme has been operating innovatively at schools and in youth-education for more than 20 years. Such democratic acting and learning has to accompany students – children as well as adolescents – throughout their studies. Moreover, is has to be applied among all types of schools which is especially in Germany a particular issue due to the three-tier school-system.

As we have seen, democratic learning and democratic acting is an ongoing and cross-sectional challenge that has to be carried out by schools. However, delineating these terms is subject to Civic Education (transl. “Demokratiepädagogik”), which was established as an independent concept in Educational Sciences, most notably due to the founding of a respective academic association, named the German Association for Democratic Education (transl. “Deutsche Gesellschaft fürDemokratiepädagogik” [DeGeDe]). To professionally establish these cross-sectional charges of Civic Education at school is a pre-requisite for promoting the student’s democratic competence, which is formative, learning-oriented and which enhances their decision-making and responsibility.

THE CHALLENGE OF DEMOCRATIC ACTING AND LEARNING AT SCHOOLS

For realising such Civic Education, it is not only of importance to do research, define and develop the learner’s skills (Audigier 1999). The school as educational environment becomes essential as well since it determines the character of democratic learning and acting. The school – of course in combination with the teacher’s educational expertise –turns into a key factor for effective learning which does only not consist of static knowledge but which is rather conducive to the development of competencies and which promotes learners’ participation and commitment (Print et al. 2002).

http://www.demokratisch-handeln.de

DEVELOPING CIVIC EDUCATION IN SCHOOLS

9

Since Politics and Civic Education are just as effective as the school conveys it and creates such experiences for its students, we propose fourteen theses that emphasize factors and dimensions of democratic school development. My theses are based on experiences and scientific results of the Competition for Citizenship “Democratic Action”, which has been operating for 22 years at the University of Jena, and of the national school competition – named the German School Award (transl. “Der Deutsche Schulpreis”)–, a contest that has been organized for six years by the Robert Bosch Foundation in cooperation with education experts with both academic and practical background and that has been distinctly influenced by Democratic Education and the aim of developing democratic competencies (Fauser et al. 2009).

Even in elementary schools democratic learning takes place.

German elementary schools (containing grades 1 to 4) contribute a distinct percentage of schools participating in the annual invitation for “Democratic Action”. The figures show that even elementary schools allow for a culture of appreciation by discursive, considerate methods of making decisions, especially related to issues of school culture and to rules of dealing with one another in the classroom and in the school community, and thus, for Democratic Education (Beutel & Fauser 2007). However, promoting democratic competence should start early in learners’ school life. Democratic values – such as tolerance, empathy, experiencing self-effectiveness, change of perception, constructive ways of dealing with conflicts, the ability to judge ethically, and a sense of fairness – determine aspects of learning that should not be experienced as late as at secondary schools. However, in addition to all those aspects of Civic Education in elementary schools mentioned before, that are relevant to the educational practice of all schools, secondary schools can offer diverse options of learning and commitment by dealing with topics of politics and democracy in cross-curricular school projects. Here, the strong propaedeutic relation to the tradition of Political Education/Politics in Germany also appears.

2. Political Education and Civic Education have to propose collectively options and opportunities for substantive democratic project work.

The work of the Competition for Citizenship has a very wide scope since it is oriented to daily pedagogical work of schools and does neither distinguish between school levels, school forms nor between the three-tier school system, nor the different German federal states. First and foremost, project groups, i.e. students and their teachers, decide while recording their work what exactly democratic citizenship, learning and commitment mean to them at school. What creates seemingly random topics of democratic acting (Sander 2007) – what didactics and experts of Political Education as well as Political Studies, and, sporadically even by pedagogues criticise as a shortcoming – turns into a quality: Being open to many schools. The concept

W. BEUTEL

10

of democracy is not normatively predetermined in this respect. Rather, students and teachers who record their projects in a written report answer the question how democratic citizenship at schools is exactly defined. Such a record does not only symbolize a reconstruction of the democratic impact on one’s own acting and learning. Rather, it appears to be an approach to reflect and develop one’s own idea of “civic awareness” (cf. Lange 2009, transl. “Bürgerbewusstsein”), which is a guiding principle setting action and skills as goals of learning Politics and Civic Education.

3. Children and adolescents are sources of democratic innovation.

Above all, children and adolescents, i.e. the learners at schools, are sources of democratic innovation. By seizing their rights at different educational institutions and, thus, gaining a new perception of their role, they can interact with adults not only in a role as inexperienced individuals who are to be instructed but rather as equal partners. Therefore, students become a corrective and a challenge for them (Krappmann 2000). For instance, heterogeneity turns into a challenge since it can be more easily conceived and practised at schools than in society as a whole: On the basis of mutual appreciation and tolerance, and an active and enriching manner of dealing with one another, heterogeneous learning premises and, moreover, cultural diversity with respect to the learners’ biographies and origins have to be integrated (Banks 2002). Basically, not even schools as a whole but also single classes and learning groups shall have access to democracy in terms of appreciation and tolerance. The children’s and adolescents’ exceptional ability and readiness to innovate becomes particularly important with regard to the discussion on an “inclusive school-system” in context with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which needs to be considered more intensively as a democratic practice at German schools. Unfortunately, homogeneous learning groups traditionally predominate in Germany. If German schools could deal with more heterogeneous learning groups in total, they will need to build increasingly on students’ experiences and potentials of learning and social interaction.

4. Leaving nobody behind – School needs to be there for any student.

Chances and opportunities for democratic experiences and civic education have to be offered to all learners of all school types concerning the German three-tier school system, of all school levels, and of all kinds of schools. This is what the Convention on the Rights of the Child demands as well with respect to integration and inclusion of all children and adolescents. Democracy, in particular, is a political form and an everyday concern in which everybody is equal with regard to their rights of participation. All citizens, not only those of the well educated social classes and the functional elites, need to be included and involved in democracy. “With democratic appreciation we assume an equal ability to judge for all citizens. In democracy, not everybody is equally intelligent, educated, or experienced. However, democracy


11

does assume an equal ability to evaluate one’s own and the public affairs when it grants equal rights of participation to all citizens. The political ability to judge centers on the essential ability to evaluate what is important for one’s own life and what is not” (cf. Möller 2008: 18f.). Hence – as the German expert in constitutional law, Christoph Möller, describes the legal and ethical foundation of democracy –, democracy reasonably grants an equal faculty of judgement and equal rights of participation to everybody with equal freedom.

5. Democracy has to be developed as a cultural practice and way of life in school.

Based on John Dewey’s pragmatic theory of democracy and his concept of education in schools, democracy is not just a form of the order of society and of the institutional organisation of power; rather, democracy concerns the way we deal with one another in everyday life, as well as it concerns culture and our way of life. “Democracy is not restricted to single countries. Every group can deal with its own issues on the premise of equal freedom” (cf. Möller 2008: 82). Being easily accessible in a cultural and everyday manner is a decisive and important element for the development of democratic decision-making and responsibility at schools as well as the learning culture there. This raises the question why such a culture is not practised at schools as intense as possible: via participation in class, via an appreciative and equal way of communication, and via a transparent way of evaluation and feedback on pupils’ achievements (Beutel/Beutel 2010).

6. Giving feedback on pupils’ achievements at school in a communicative and differentiated way is part of a democratic school culture.

Changing the assessment of students is an important aspect of school development and teaching improvement. Learners have to be involved in the evaluation of their achievements since, first and foremost, it serves them with respect to their learning. Additionally, studies show that pupils have a distinguished perception of the system they are assessed with, i.e. the system of marks and reports. Children and adolescents perceive the evaluation of their achievements as a manner of treating their personality and biography, as well as their competencies and their motivation.

This is why they expect appreciation by transparency, by communication and fairness – including criticism of their learning processes and advice how to improve them. Students expect teachers to assess their achievements professionally, which means that teachers are to give reasons for marks and reports and to communicate their judgements in talks. Hence, these steps of school development and teaching improvement also require systematic ways of professionalization by means of teacher trainings. If such mutual appreciation between students and teachers with respect to both learning and assessment can be developed and established as a common element of schools, another step of enhancing democratic competencies in school will be accomplished. In this regard, appreciation, self-efficacy of learning,

W. BEUTEL

12

transparency in grading, portfolios and learning reports, as well as efficient teaching are essential elements of an assessment that promotes Democratic Education.

7. Learning in projects.

Substantive and democratic projects at schools reflect current issues and challenges which lead to concrete action according to academic research, insight, and expertise. Even the project itself is a democratic method by means of its basic elements: choosing and planning a topic jointly, realizing it with all group members and recording as well as evaluating it together. Thus, project work is not just a didactic-methodical option of designing learning processes at schools. Rather, project work contributes to a current practice of learning which defines the development of democratic competence as a goal of learning and, therefore, enables schools to steadily focus on “contemporary key issues”, according to didactician Wolfgang Klafki (1986).

8. There is more than is already known.

Since we can be sure that there is more about Democracy Education in school practice than is already known, we have to do research on the schools’ experiences with democratic acting, democratic learning, and Civic Education. Schools that promote Civic Education consist of teachers, project-groups, as well as students who recognize and seize opportunities for democratic learning and acting. In order to monitor these experiences support and supervision by third parties appears to be helpful. In cooperation with the University of Jena the competition “Democratic Action” (Beutel & Fauser 2001/2011) found out that schools seize opportunities for project work whose value for Civic Education first becomes clear retrospectively for the persons involved, by means of reconstruction and reflection on their project. Often, such occasional opportunities of learning turn into projects. Of course, such projects are neither strategically nor curricularly planned. Rather, they develop from reactions of the group members with respect to challenges, problems, and conflicts. Likewise, they are not aware of the project’s value of Civic Education and its contribution to democratic citizenship at first. In many cases, this only happens when the project groups are concerned with a challenge by a third party who invites them to systematically record and critically reflect upon their work and processes. Such an opportunity is provided, for instance, by applying for the Competition for Citizenship “Democratic Action” or the German School Award.

9. Seizing opportunities for Civic Education – opportunities can be found at every school.

Hence, it is important to develop awareness for such opportunities and to discuss constructively how Civic Education can be realised on their basis. Here, quality-oriented competitions like the Competition for Citizenship “Democratic Action”


13

or the German School Award (Fauser 2009) contribute decisively. By providing documentation, they create a platform to identify “best practice” examples for Democracy Education in school and offer an access for empiricism that is concerned with professional educational practice. More than practised before at German schools, researchers have to focus on this and systematically investigate impacts on the quality of learning and school development.

10. Perceiving and understanding schools as individual, single cases and individual, developing structures.

Pedagogy is a practical academic discipline. It strives to make schools – as social institutions as well as the learning that takes place there – understandable and to improve them. For this, pedagogy makes suggestions for educational and school policy. Hence, it has to monitor education practice at schools – which is eventually the sum of plenty individual incidents with regard to the schools’ development work. Additionally, it has to advice and support them in terms of democratic school development. Accordingly, the experiences and knowledge of schools being willing to reform, being flexible and distinguished serve as helpful guidelines. German competitions like Democratic Action and the German School Award show that there are experiences and prospects for development in school practice. However, these experiences have little effect on regular schools so far. Nevertheless, these schools show leads for the development of a democratic school culture. Yet, they require support by a third party. This is the only way schools can systematically support a kind of learning which enhances the students’ democratic competence.

11. Academic research and practice of democratic school development have to cooperate.

Therefore, democratic schools are not only a matter of school criticism and educational theory, but also one of cooperation between research on school development and school practice. Existing models of democratic schools are to be located, investigated, and supported even more. In this regard, their experiences are to be analysed in terms of feasibility of transfer and, whenever possible, be mediated to other schools. Thus, a distinct qualitative school research, which identifies development and acting conditions of successful individual cases – meaning best practice models – and which analyses them with respect to possibly expanding to the whole school system has to complement currently influential output-oriented school research, which measures effects only on the basis of group skill levels. Here, networks and concepts of rational school management in such systems, in terms of the Good governance approach, play an increasing role. However, educational research focusing on the support of democratic school development has to combine both approaches, the system-oriented and the case-by-case basis-oriented one.

W. BEUTEL

14

12. Democracy is a principle issue of school education.

Learning of and for democracy, i.e. Civic Education, is not only subject to Social Studies or Politics in school, respectively. Moreover, it is subject to all learning processes as well as interdisciplinary skills. Even elementary schools have to establish elements that promote experiences of appreciation and avoid those of exclusion. Transparent and understandable decisions concerning teaching are also basic elements of democratic school practice. Furthermore, there are multiple methodical and system-related aspects which are also important for learning democracy and politics at schools since they influence the professional instruction of all teachers. These “Characteristics of democratic schools” are defined as both characteristics of school quality and as sub-components of teaching profession (LISUM 2011).

13. Professional teaching and corresponding teacher training is required.

For having pupils experienced democracy in everyday life at schools and in their learning processes (Civic Education) – in a manner that values, practical knowledge concerning democracy and decision-making skills are enhanced – professional teaching is required. Having democratic-teaching and decision-making skills is not only due to the teacher’s educational background and their experiences. It is, moreover, an important and cross-curricular task of teacher training which, therefore, needs to be considered to a greater extent in the current debate on its reformation and in regard to the teacher’s professional skills of education. Dealing with school as a place where substantive contents in terms of Civic Education – regarding living, learning and experiencing – can be found has to become an integral part of teacher training at all stages. Currently, German school educationalists debate about a “boost of professionalization” with regard to teacher training. However, it will take some time until this development according to the enrichment of teacher’s professional knowledge with democracy educational elements will spread across the whole school system.

14. Pedagogical and democratic development of schools belong together.

Schools distinctly influence democratic competence. Good schools provide a democratic atmosphere, democratic participation of pupils, and teachers who commit themselves to Civic Education and realise it in their teaching. Civic Education is an indication of quality for successful schools. Many areas of living and learning at schools affect central issues of a society based on democratic participation, maturity, and enlightenment. Hence, knowledge of democracy, its appreciation and the resulting willingness to promote tolerance, pluralism, democratic participation, and human rights in daily life are core tasks of education at school reaching far beyond Politics as a single subject.


15

CHARACTERISTICS OF DEMOCRATIC SCHOOLS: WHAT SCHOOLS NEED, WHAT THEY ARE ABLE TO AND WHAT THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE

The discussion concerning Civic Education reflects an important aspect of current school development. Basically, the protagonists agree upon that a school being effective and performance-enhancing concerning the pupils’ achievements cannot neglect the question of its personal and democratic quality. Today, a school appears to be no longer the sum of its students’ achievements in each subject but rather as an institution which has to convey skills and virtues of living in a complex, global society. It is a necessity to offer all students a perspective of a life in a developed society that they are themselves responsible of. Thus, schools are obliged to give every student the opportunity of an individually appropriate education. “In this respect, educational equity is an active support of the student’s performance development which can only be achieved by means of differentiated and individualized learning with a high degree of participation” (Beutel et al. 2011: 10).

Hence, we touched upon a decisive aspect of the school system’s efficiency. However, even democracy is not static. It constantly has to justify itself by means of its ability to form the political process and to integrate society into politics; i.e. to reconcile the society with the political system over and over again. One could think that democracy achieves this easily when looking at the current developments in Northern Africa and the political awakening in Middle and Eastern Europe in the last 20 years for instance. However, it is obvious that a certain degree of disaffection with democracy is constantly present since democracy might not always fulfil one’s own expectations regarding certain political issues. This disaffection sometimes increases dangerously which is shown, inter alia, by the presence of right-wing populist parties and developments in the Netherlands, in Denmark, and, above all, in Hungary. This is further confirmed by the slight willingness to participate, the voting behaviour, and the discourse on disenchantment with politics in Germany.

We know “that especially democracy – as political system as well as cultural consensus for coping with our common issues in a global perspective – forces a regulation of the achievement and efficiency orientation with regard to fairness, freedom and responsibility” (lc.). Additionally, as practised in democratic societies, schools not only have to face questions of efficiency and quality in a general sense. Rather, schools have to agree upon their role as schools of democracy and democracy learning. “Hence, pedagogy has to be able to delineate how this collection of requirements can be realised, individually arranged, and described regarding its effects in democracy-oriented school development” (lc.). Thus, pedagogy creates compulsory conditions for the development of democratic competence in pupils’ learning-processes.

Moreover, democracy is characterized by perpetual compromise-making which, on the one hand, actively challenges all citizens. On the other hand, citizens constantly have to disregard their own pursuits and, thus, give up a part of their objectives. “Democratic education teaches to act differently” as Christoph Möller,

W. BEUTEL

16

expert in constitutional law, describes the corresponding willingness to change as well as flexibility which are required and have to become a part of the citizen’s democratic virtues in democratic states. “The ability to act different than one is supposed to has to be learnt and exercised” (cf. Möller 2008: 115). Inevitably, this leads us back to Civic Education at schools and democratic-educational school development. In this respect, the importance of Civic Education and democratic school development appears obvious. At the same time, it will be of advantage for German school development if the discussion on and the practice of Civic Education became more important in the European and international context than it did before.

NOTES

1 The author would like to thank Matthias Brock and Linda Roeder, both assistants in the Competition for Citizenship “Democratic Action”, for their translation of the original German version.

REFERENCES

Audigier, F. (1999). Basic concepts and core competences of education for democratic citizenship: A second consolidated report. Project ‘Education for Democratic Citizenship’. The School Field, 10, 1–2, 57–88.

Banks, J. (2002). Teaching for diversity and unity in a democratic multicultural society. In W. Parker (Ed.), Education for democracy: Contexts, curricula, assessments (pp. 131–150). Greenwich: Information Age.

Berkemeyer, N. (2010). Die Steuerung des Schulsystems. Theoretische und empirische Explorationen. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Beutel, S.-I., & Beutel, W. (Eds.). (2010). Beteiligt oder bewertet? Leistungsbeurteilung und Demokratiepädagogik. Schwalbach/Ts.: Wochenschau Verlag.

Beutel, W., & Fauser, P. (Eds.). (2001). Erfahrene Demokratie. Wie Politik praktisch gelernt werden kann. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.

Beutel, W., & Fauser, P. (Eds.). (2007). Demokratiepädagogik. Lernen für die Zivilgesellschaft. Schwalbach/Ts.: Wochenschau Verlag.

Beutel, W., Edler, K., Giese, Chr./Rump-Räuber, M., & Zöllner, H. (2011). Demokratiepädagogische Merkmale der Schulentwicklung – eine Einführung. In Landesinstitut für Schule und Medien Berlin-Brandenburg (Eds.), Merkmale demokratiepädagogischer Schulen (pp. 10–21). Potsdam: LISUM.

Dahrendorf, R. (2003). Auf der Suche nach einer neuen Ordnung. Vorlesungen zur Politik der Freiheit im 21. Jahrhundert. München: C. H. Beck.

Fauser, P., Prenzel, M., & Schratz, M. (Eds.). (2009). Was für Schulen! Wie gute Schule gemacht wird – Werkzeuge exzellenter Praxis. Der Deutsche Schulpreis 2008. Stuttgart/Seelze: Klett-Kallmeyer.

Himmelmann, G. (2005). Demokratie Lernen als Lebens-, Gesellschafts- und Herrschaftsform. Ein Lehr- und Arbeitsbuch (2nd Ed.). Schwalbach/Ts.: Wochenschau Verlag.

Klafki, W. (1986). Konturen eines neuen Allgemeinbildungskonzepts. In W. Klafki (Ed.), Studien zur Bildungstheorie und Didaktik. Beiträge zur kritisch-konstruktiven Didaktik. Neue Weinheim/Basel: Beltz.

Möller, C. (2008). Demokratie – Zumutungen und Versprechen. Berlin: Wagenbach.Lange, D. (2009). Bürgerbewusstsein und politische Bildung. Zum Sinnbild ‘Herrschaftslegitimation’.

In H. Oberreuter (Ed.), Standortbestimmung Politische Bildung (=Tutzinger Schriften zur Politischen Bildung) (pp. 139–150). Schwalbach/Ts.: Wochenschau Verlag.

Landesinstitut für Schule und Medien Berlin-Brandenburg. (Eds.). (2011). Merkmale demokratiepäda-gogischer Schulen. Ein Katalog. Potsdam: LISUM.


17

Krappmann, L. (2000). Politische Sozialisation in Kindheit und Jugend durch Partizipation an alltäglichen Entscheidungen – ein Forschungskonzept. In H.-P. Kuhn, H. Uhlendorff, & L. Krappmann (Eds.), Sozialisation zur Mitbürgerlichkeit (pp. 77–92). Leverkusen: Leske + Budrich.

Print, M., Ornstrom, S., & Neilsen, H. (2002). Education for democratic processes in schools and classrooms. European Journal of Education, 37(2), 193–210.

Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone. The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Sander, W. (2007). Demokratie-Lernen und politische Bildung. Fachliche, überfachliche und schulpädagogische Aspekte. In W. Beutel, & P. Fauser (Eds.), Demokratiepädagogik. Lernen für die Zivilgesellschaft (pp. 71–85), Schwalbach/Ts.: Wochenschau Verlag.


AHMET DOĞANAY

A CURRICULUM FRAMEWORK FOR ACTIVE DEMOCRATIC CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

INTRODUCTION

Although citizenship is a concept that has been discussed over the time since Plato and Aristotle, recently, especially after the 1990’s, it has been given a renewed attention. Osler and Starkey (2006) identified six key contextual factors that help explain the considerable growth in interest in citizenship education over the past decade. These are global injustice and inequality, globalization and migration, concerns about civic and political engagement, youth deficit, the end of the cold war and anti-democratic and racist movement. It has been seen in the literature that most studies about citizenship fall into two categories. The first one is the theoretical works that have been done by mostly political scientists on its meaning. The second one is the pedagogical works on the teaching good citizenship.

Political scientists asserted different citizenship conceptions based on sociologic, national-global dimensions. Elitist versus activist citizenship model (Sears, 1996); disciplinary versus cultural citizenship model (Delanty, 2003); achievement versus citizenship as practice model (Lawy & Biesta, 2006) are among the citizenship models that have been recommended recently. In modern day on the other hand the elements such as immigration, national belonging and loyalty, minorities and multiculturalism (Kaya, 2003) that were introduced by political, financial and cultural factors have paved the way for the emergence of a new concept of citizenship that is referred as global citizenship, European citizenship, gender-neutral citizenship or ecologic citizenship (Üstel, 1999). Pedagogical works on the teaching citizenship have been focused on the ways in which education can promote or facilitate citizenship. In this sense, McCowan (2009) stated that there are two principal ways in which citizenship relates to education depending on direction of influence: (1) Citizenship as a guarantee of the right to education, and (2) education as a means to more effective citizenship (p.20).

Since concept of citizenship lies at the center of democracy education and citizenship conception and practices of people in a society are among the factors that effect democratic political culture; education of citizens arises as an important issue. In the education of active, democratic citizenship a number of integrated resources play role; yet amongst all, school deserves particular care. In this chapter, the role of school in the education of active, democratic citizens shall be analyzed deeply and a curriculum framework for a whole school education shall be presented.

A. DOĞANAY

20

Prior to presenting the curriculum framework, the changing conception of citizenship from the past till present day shall be focused on and within the scope of this concept the qualities of citizens that we need in today’s democratic society shall be discussed. Subsequently the position as well as gravity of instructing active, democratic citizens shall be emphasized and a curriculum framework for school education shall be provided.

CHANGING CONCEPTION OF CITIZENSHIP

For a long time, the term citizenship has been seen as ideas of loyalty and patriotism to the nation state (Carr, 1991, p. 373). Moreover, in Greek city states and the Roman republic, citizenship has meant involvement in public affairs by those who had the rights of citizens. The people who had citizenship rights were educated class and property owners (QCA, 1998). Recently the concept of citizenship has changed and got new meanings with the changing social, cultural, and political structure.

The concept of citizenship is not easy to define. When defining the concept of citizenship, one of the first conceptualization that comes to mind is British sociologist T.H. Marshall. Marshall considers that citizenship has three components, depending on the rights it promotes. These are civil, political, and social rights. Civil component of citizenship is composed of the rights necessary for individual freedom such as liberty of the person, freedom of speech, thought, and faith, the right to property, equality under the law. The institution mostly associated with civil rights is the rule of law and a system of court. Political rights include the right to participate in the exercise of political power, as a member of a body of invested with political authority or as an elector of the members of such a body. Political rights are associated with parliamentary institutions. Third component social rights are associated with welfare state. Right to education, health care, housing and a minimum level of income are among the social rights (cited in Council of Europe, 2000, p. 31; Kaya, 2006).

After examining different citizenship approaches, Ichilov and Nave (1981) proposed a five-dimension citizenship model. These dimensions create four dichotomous facets and one three-dimensional facet. The first facet, the Type of Orientation, differentiates between verbal and abstract support of a principle and actual behavior. The second facet, Dimensions of Orientation, distinguishes between the affective, cognitive, and evaluative responses toward a particular object. The affective dimension characterizes an early stage of development, whereas the cognitive and evaluative dimensions express later developmental stages. The third facet, Nature of Activity, discriminates activity of a productive-active nature-that is, activity directed toward influencing the environment from activity of a passive consumer nature, or activity that has results mainly for the individual. The fourth facet refers to the source of demand as perceived by the individual and distinguishes between external requirement and voluntary


21

preference. The fifth facet refers to the type of object and distinguishes political objects such as political institutions, processes, and figures from nonpolitical objects such as family, friends, and place of work.

Zaman (2006), in his thesis that analyzes different approaches towards citizenship, classifies citizenship models within two main dimensions and the first classification is based on sociological paradigm. Within the context of this classification there are political socialization, reflective analysis and critical citizenship approach models. In the second group that constitutes national-global dimension, national and post-national citizenship models take place (Gifford, 2004).

Kadıoğlu (2008) states that in literature, citizenship is analyzed under four different categories. These are (1) citizenship as national identity or nationality, (2) citizenship that is identified within the scope of documents, (3) citizenship that is identified within the scope of rights (4) citizenship that is identified within the scope of duties and responsibilities. Citizenship as national identity or nationality is the citizenship approach of which roots go back to French Revolution and identifies the citizen as a member of nation-state. Citizenship that is identified within the scope of documents refers to certain documents that establish legal position of individuals. Citizenship that is identified within the scope of rights refers to a citizenship approach which is based on civil, political and social rights that were already explained by Marshall. Citizenship that is identified within the scope of duties and responsibilities, unlike liberal tradition that focuses on rights, mostly stands for a Republican approach which points to certain duties (Kadıoğlu, 2008).

Beiner (cited in Osler & Starkey, 2005, p. 17) specified three major strands of citizenship as liberal, communitarian and civic republican. Liberal citizenship emphasizes the importance of rights and freedoms whereas communitarian approach emphasizes group solidarity rather than individualism. The civic republican tradition of citizenship stresses the political community as an institutional framework capable of peacefully containing and working out the inevitable conflicts that arise in human society.

In the Education for the Democratic Citizenship Project of Council of Europe, Birzea (2000) identified citizenship into two dimensions. First one is citizenship as a status and a role, and second one is as social justice and equality of rights. Citizenship is a juridical and political status. It is a set of rights and liberties that the State grants its citizens. Citizenship is a civic contract between the State and the individual. Citizenship is also a social role. It is one of the identities of an individual and at the same time it is contextual. For example, we can refer citizenship as local, national, European or world citizenship. As Kymlicha and Norman (1995) stated, citizenship is not only a status as a set of rights and responsibilities, it is also an identity of an individual who is a member of a political region. In a similar approach Osler and Starkey (2005) proposed a three dimensions citizenship. These are citizenship as a status, as feeling and as practice. As Osler and Starkey pointed out there is a dynamic relationship between citizenship as status and citizenship as practice. Citizens need

A. DOĞANAY

22

to exercise their rights by taking action. In recent days, practice of citizenship is named as active citizenship.

Active citizenship was defined by European Commission as “empowering individuals, enabling them to feel comfortable in democraitc culture, and feeling that they can make a difference in the communities they live” (European Commission, 2005). This definition of active citizenship stresses three aspects. These are relationship between individuals and their community, democratic values, and involvement.

Hoskins, who has focused her studies on active citizenship and measurement of it in recent times, defined active citizenship as: “Participation in civil society, community and/or political life, characterised by mutual respect and non-violence and in accordance with human rights and democracy”(Cited in European Commission, 2006, p. 10). Based on this theoretical framework of active citizenship, Hoskins and Mascherini (2009) developed a scale to measure indicator of active citizenship competencies. Named as The Active Citizenship Composite Indicator has four main dimensions. These dimensions are protest and social change, community life, representative democracy, and democratic values. In summary, we can conclude that idea of citizenship from as loyalty and patriotism to nation state evolved to active participation or engagement to social, cultural, economics, and political life. After examining changing conception of citizenship, what kind of a citizen we need in a democratic society question needs to be answered.

THE CITIZEN WE NEED IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY

The question ‘What kind of a citizen?’ constitutes the starting point of developing the curriculum. As Oliva (1992) stated “the aims of education are derived from examining the needs of children and youth” (p. 184). The kind of knowledge, skills, values and attitudes that children should have as the active and democratic citizens of future guides the contents of curriculums. The ability of society to catch up with the increasing globalization and improvement of democracy within this society are closely related to the citizenship qualities that shall be developed through education. Parker and Jarolimek (1984) explained the significance of citizens in a democratic society this way “The success of democracy, the endurance of its enstitutions, and the fulfillment of its vision, rests squarely on the willingness and ability of its citizens to face up to the responsibilities required of those who are to enjoy the rights of a free society” (p.5).

A citizen is a legally recognized member of a state or nation (Engle & Ochoa, 1988). Within that context citizenship is, in a sense, the set of relationships between individual and state and these relationships bring out certain rights and responsibilities as well. In the case of democracy the rights of individuals include the right to be heard and to participate in their own governance, the right to equal protection of the law, and the right to basic freedoms such as those of religion, speech, and the press. The responsibilities of the citizen include respect for the law and the responsibility to


23

participate in the governance of the state by voting, holding office, joining political parties and interest groups, and the like (Engle & Ochoa, 1988, p. 16).

In a good number of states, to have been born in the land of this particular nation is sufficient to be a citizen. Citizenship is a naturally acquired right. However in a democratic society the citizen is expected to possess certain qualities and receive the necessary education. That is why in literature instead of citizen, a number of different terms such as good citizen (Davies, Gregory & Riley, 1999), democratic citizen (Parker & Jarolimek, 1984; Birzea, 2000), active citizen (DG Education and Culture, 2007; Hoskins, Jesinghaus, Mascherini, Munda, Nardo, Saisana, Van Nijlen, Vidoni, & Villalba, 2006), effective citizen (NCSS, 2001), critical citizen (Johnson & Morris, 2010; Veugelers, 2007) have been used. All these terms underline the fact that let alone being a natural process, citizenship requires the possession of certain qualities.

Engle and Ochoa (1988) in their work Education for Democratic Citizenship state that at the core of democratic citizenship lies the ability to make a decision. Whenever individuals make a decision on something that affects others and make a move accordingly that means they make an action as a citizen. Therefore the ability to make knowledge-based and autonomous decision forms the center of democratic citizenship.

Another dimension of citizenship on the other hand stems from its relationship with various groups. Aside from their natural citizenship of a state, individuals are also members of several groups. In this sense individuals are citizens of their families, their religious institutions, the workplace, the school, and of the world (Engle & Ochoa, 1988, p. 17). In reality citizens are also members of a bigger group which is humans. Hence we can argue that an individual is a local, a national as well as a universal citizen.

Basic qualities of democratic citizen have been identified by several researchers. Richard C. Remy (1979) was one of the first researchers who identified and described basic competencies of a citizen. He identified seven qualities of citizenship as basic compotencies. These were acquiring and using information, assessing involvement, making decisions, making judgments, communication, cooperating, and promoting interest. After Remy, another important study which stated basic qualities of democratic citizen is Parker and Jarolimek’s study. Parker and Jarolimek (1984) in their work Citizenship and the Role of the Social Studies describe democratic citizen such “Democratic citizen is an informed person, skilled in the processes of a free society, who is committed to the democratic values and is able, and feels obliged, to participate in social, political and economic processes”(p. 6).

Positioned in the U.S.A., the NCSS (2001) describes effective citizen such: “as one who has the knowledge, skills, and attitudes required to assume the “office of citizen” in our democratic republic” and list the required qualities of an effective citizen as given below:

• Embraces core democratic values and strives to live by them.• Accepts responsibility for the well-being of oneself, one’s family, and the

community.

A. DOĞANAY

24

• Has knowledge of the people, history, and traditions that have shaped our local communities, our nation, and the world.

• Has knowledge of our nation’s founding documents, civic institutions, and political processes.

• Is aware of issues and events that have an impact on people at local, state, national, and global levels.

• Seeks information from varied sources and perspectives to develop informed opinions and creative solutions.

• Asks meaningful questions and is able to analyze and evaluate information and ideas.

• Uses effective decision-making and problem-solving skills in public and private life.

• Has the ability to collaborate effectively as a member of a group.• Actively participates in civic and community life.

As stated by the NCSS (2001), citizens in the twenty-first century must be prepared to deal with rapid change, complex local, national, and global issues, cultural and religious conflicts, and the increasing interdependence of nations in a global economy.

In 90’s, after the European Union emerges, studies on citizenship have increased. In those studies [Veldhuis,1997; Crick Report (QSA,1998); Audigier, 2000] it seems that knowledge, skills and attitudes/values are necessary components for democratic citizenship however, active participation or in other words civic engagement is the exposed face of the citizenship. Without acting, knowledge and values are unfunctional. As stated by Ehrlich (2000, p. xxvi) a morally and civically responsible individual recognizes himself/herself as a member of a larger social fabric and therefore considers social problems to be at least partly his/her own; such an individual is willing to see the moral and civic dimensions of issues, to make and justify informed moral and civic judgments, and to take action when appropriate.

In addition to active participation, another major quality that is required from any citizen in modern democratic societies is critical point of view. Critical citizenship approach which originates from critical pedagogy argues that citizens must be raised as individuals endowed with an ever-questioning, autonomous perspective. Veugelers (2007) defines this approach which he terms as critical democratic citizenship such. “The critical-democratic citizen attaches great importance to autonomy and social awareness and relatively little to discipline”(p 107). According to McCowan (2009) society will only maintain effective enstitutions if they are subjected to critical assesstment, enabling them to be reformed if necessary. In addition, the quality of governments is seen to be dependent on the political awareness of the voters and their ability to evaluate the different candidates. Engle and Ochoa (1988) define critical citizenship as countersocialization. According to Engle and Ochoa socialization which is the process of learning the existing customs, traditions, rules, and practices of society is not enough for a democratic society. It must be balanced with


25

countersocialization which emphasizes independent thinking and responsible social critism. Countersocialization promotes active and vigorous reasoning. It includes a reappraisal of what has been learned through the process of socialization so that adolescents can independently and reflectively assess the worth of what they have learned as young children (p. 31). Critical citizens refrain from blindly accepting any tradition or authority. Endowed with a critical and creative perspective they always try to explore new ways, they criticize anything, any information, value or tradition that has been presented. The two most significant qualities of a critical citizen are free and autonomous thinking. To summarize, what we need in a democratic society is participative, active, free and autonomous citizens who can reevaluate from a critical perspective the information, skill, values and attitudes of himself/herself, and reach to a decision and act accordinly after recalculating the given information from a critical point of view upon reasoning.

EDUCATION OF THE ACTIVE DEMOCRATIC CITIZEN: THE ROLE OF THE SCHOOL

Education of the citizen we need in a democracy has been the major goal of the educational systems over the years. Active democratic citizenship education is expected to gain the citizenship qualities that were summarized above. In recent years emphasis on teaching or instruction shifted to learning. Hence, using teaching of citizenship is not enough, it is better to use learning of citizenship. As Duerr, Spajic-Vrkas, and Martins (2000) pointed out;

The quest for learning for democratic citizenship changes schools from formative (teaching-based) to constructive and transformative (learning-based) educational institutions. The new task is not to impart knowledge and create model behaviour in students according to preexisting expert/scientific criteria but to bring about and facilitate learning. School can only manage this task by creating opportunities for personal growth based on the respect for individuality and dignity (p. 42).

Citizenship education must comprise not only knowledge, values and skills, it also comprise application of those knowledge, values and skills in real life situation by active participating them. As Naval, Print and Veldhuis (2002) pointed out, democratic citizenship education aims to develop students’capability for thoughtful and responsible participation as democratic citizens in political, economic, social and cultural life. Birzea (2000) see the education for democratic citizenship as a lifelong learning process. He pointed out that “education for democratic citizenship is the set of practices and activities aimed at making young people and adults better equipped to participate actively in democratic life by assuming and exercising their rights and responsibilities in society” (p.18). According to Birzea this definition implies that education for democratic citizenship requires empowerment, civic participation and shared responsibility.

A. DOĞANAY

26

One of the important critical theorists Giroux (1983, cited in Veugelers, 2007, p. 112) lists five points that are essential to educational practice of critical citizenship: active participation, critical thinking, developing an individual autobiography, tracing values that are woven into human existence and learning about the structural and ideological forces that obstruct opportunities for development, but also show how to make collectively political structures that challenge the status quo.

A set of different educational approaches have been suggested for active democratic citizenship education. In this part, instead of analyzing all of these approaches, the resources that affect active democratic citizenship education shall be focused on and through emphasizing the position and significance of school within this process, a curriculum framework for formal school education shall be presented. Kerr, Ireland, Lopez, Craig and Cleaver (2004) suggest in their second annual report which summarizes the results of Citizenship Education Longitudinal Study that “successful implementation of citizenship education in schools requires a holistic and coherent approach based around three interrelated components: citizenship education in the curriculum, in the school as a community and in partnership with the wider community” (p. 1). School offers service to citizenship education from two aspects, the first of which is through formal curriculum and the second one is through hidden curriculum that comprises school culture. Active democratic citizenship can be learnt through school’s relationship with its wider community by bringing the community and civil society into the school or by taking the school out into the community and civil society.

McCowan (2009) explains the effects of inside and outside school factors in citizenship education as demonstrated in Table 1 where he states that citizenship education within classrooms can be given in four methods. These are explanation, investigation, discussion and simulation.

Explanation involves teachers, either orally or through texts, transmitting knowledge to students about political institutions, current affairs and so forth. Investigation involves the students researching issues themselves, extending their knowledge of topic of interest and developing information gathering skills. Discussion extends this by allowing discussion and debate to develop, in which students can state their views and modify them in the light of those of others. Lastly, by simulation schools can stage context for participation, such as election, trials and parliament, in which the procedures are as close to reality as possible, but with no real effect (p. 24).

Students do not learn citizenship only in the classroom but school structure and relations which is referred as hidden curriculum also play an important role. Pupils can learn to be active democratic citizen via participation in decision making about school rules or through hierarchical teacher-student relations as well as through classes on political institutions and national heroes (McCowan, 2009). In this sense, school councils play an important role in practicing participation skills. In the Crick Report (QCA, 1998) the significance of school culture was pointed this way. “There is increasing recognition that the ethos, organizations, structures and daily practices


27

of schools, including whole-school activities and assemlies have a significant impact on the effectiveness of citizenship education” (p. 36).

However citizenship education is not limited to the boundaries of school. Outside school, it is possible to put citizenship knowledge, values and attitudes into real life practices as well. Writing e-mails of protest or support, participating in a local environmental campaign, or marching to oppose a policy of the national government can be examples of important learning experineces in the outside of school. In the Eurydice’s (2005) Citizenship Education at School in Europe work it is narrated that below given activities can be performed with the society outside school.

Partnerships and pupil exchanges with schools from other countries, including pen pal correspondence;

• Open (school) days or fetes at which the local community is invited to visit schools to find out how they function and meet pupils;

• Visits to neighbourhood institutions or community groups, including the police, fire brigade, museums, local or national authorities, special vocational guidance centres for graduates, religious institutions, NGOs, homes for children with special needs, elderly people or asylum seekers;

• Mock elections modelled on national or European Parliament elections and games simulating the work of town councils or parliaments;

• Fund-raising to support charity or solidarity projects, especially for the benefit of children who live in developing countries or are victims of natural disasters;

• Voluntary work, including help in old people’s homes, or with cleaning playgrounds or the local forest;

• Short-term work placements for pupils in secondary education to introduce them to working life and give them the opportunity to meet prospective employers (p. 35-36).

In the 2009 IEA International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS) (Schulz, Ainley, Fraillon, Kerr, & Losito, 2010) factors that influence civic and citizenship education outcomes are listed as family background, classrooms,

Activities Structure and relationsSchool A. Explanation

B. InvestigationC. DiscussionD. SimulationE. Student councils

Pedagogical relationsHidden curriculumEthos

Wider society A. Political participationB. Volunteering

Social hierarchies, political structures etc.

Source: McCowan, 2009, p. 26

Table 1. The Effects of Inside and Outside School Factors on Democratic Citizenship Education

A. DOĞANAY

28

schools, and the wider community. At the school level, the following factors are likely to be important: the instruction students receive, how teachers perceive civic and citizenship education, the classroom climate for respectful discussion, the school culture, and the general environment in which the school exists. The level of the wider community includes the contexts within which schools and home environments function. These contexts range from the local community context to the national or even supranational context (Schulz, et all., p. 63).

After reviewing studies have been done on political socialisation, Print (2007, p.330) conluded that there are three primary sources of influence on young people’s learning about politics and democracy – the family, through role modelling, discussion, and media use; the media, mostly television and newspapers; and third, school experience providing knowledge, skills and values from non-partisan educators. Other sources such as peers, the extended family, community and church, count for little. In Davies, Gregory and Riley’s (1999) study that explores the factors influencing good citizenship qualities, the most influential factors have been listed as parents, friends, teachers, and extra-curricular activities while religious leaders, television, coaches, and guardians have been categorized as the least influential factors.

Despite the many factors influence young people’s participation, knowledge, values and dispositions, schools are still important institutions for developing civic knowledge, skills, and attitudes among young people (CIRCLE & Carnegie Corporation, 2003; Print, Ørnstørm, & Nielsen, 2002; Patrick, 1999; Duerr, Spajic-Vrkas, & Martins, 2000; McCowan, 2009). CIRCLE and Carnegie Corporation (2003)’s co-work Civic Mission of School explains this way the reasons why school is still the most important institution in gaining civic knowledge, skills and attitudes;

Schools are the only institutions with the capacity and mandate to reach virtually every young person in the country. Of all institutions, schools are the most systematically and directly responsible for imparting citizen norms. Research suggests that children start to develop social responsibility and interest in politics before the age of 9. The way that they are taught about social issues, ethics, and institutions in elementary school matters a great deal for their civic development.

Schools are best equipped to address the cognitive aspects of good citizenship civic and political knowledge and related skills such as critical thinking and deliberation.

Schools are communities in which young people learn to interact, argue, and work together with others, an important condition for future citizenship. Schools have the capacity to bring together a heterogeneous population of young people with different backgrounds, perspectives, and vocational ambitions to instruct them in common lessons and values. They can also bring young people into significant relationships with adult role models.

Several non-school institutions have lost the capacity or will to engage young people civically. Today, many of the large organizations that used to provide venues for young people to participate in civic and political affairs (such as political parties, unions, nonprofit associations, and activist religious denominations) have grow smaller or are no longer recruiting as many youth to their ranks (p. 12).


29

In their article that summarizes second report of Citizenship Education Longitudinal Study for the DfES, Kerr and Ireland (2004) provide an action plan that comprises three major suggestions for schools and policy makers. The first suggestion is that, “schools need to review their existing approaches to implementing citizenship education in relation to the typology of schools and the key factors underlying the most successful citizenship education provision” and second one is “Schools need to develop a more holistic and coherent approach to citizenship education based around the three components of citizenship education: in the curriculum, in the school community and in partnership with the wider community” (p. 27). Upon identifying the position of school in the process of citizenship education, below is given a curriculum framework for citizenship education based on Kerr and Ireland’s suggestions as well.

A CURRICULUM FRAMEWORK

Oliva (1992) defined the curriculum as “ a plan or program for all the experiences which the learner encounters under the direction of the school” (p.9). Curriculum covers all kinds of intramural and extramural activities performed within the responsibility of school in the direction of school’s aims. In practice, the curriculum consists of a number of plans, in written form and of varying scope, that delineate the desired learning experiences. Therefore, the curriculum may be a unit, a course, a sequence of courses, the school’s entire program of studies. Four questions developed by Tyler (1949) bear significance in the development of a curriculum:

• What educational purposes should the school seek to attain?• What educational experiences can be provided that are likely to attain these

purposes?• How can these educational experiences be effectively organized?• How can we determine whether these purposes are being attained? (p. 1).

A citizenship curriculum in a school must involve the answers to four questions above. What is meant by citizenship curriculum hereby is that parallel to the overall aims of active democratic citizenship education, it must contain all the courses offered in any school, the activities in other courses and all intramural and extramural citizenship education activities conducted under the responsibility of school. Below, within the framework of curriculum offered for active democratic citizenship education, the general aims of active democratic citizenship education, scope of the curriculum and sequence of the curriculum have been listed.

GENERAL AIMS OF THE CURRICULUM

Active democratic citizenship education should help young people acquire and learn to use knowledge, skills, values and attitudes that will help them to be an active and democratic citizens throughout their lives. In other terms, democratic

A. DOĞANAY

30

citizenship curriculum is supposed to raise citizens that we need in a democratic society. Accordingly, a student that completes his/her formal school education is expected to have acquired the basic aims listed below. At the end of the formal education students should:

• understand and value basic principles and institutions of democracy• understand rights and responsibilities of a citizen including political, social,

cultural, and economic• understand and value political decision making processes on local, national, and

international levels.• understand and value all kind of differences (cultural, racial, gender, and religious)

that exist in local regional, national, and global context• understand function and work of voluntary groups and civil society• understand the role of media in personal and social life• have an understanding and awareness of public and community issues and current

events effecting national and global society• have knowledge of forms of the participation• value active participation in the society• have democratic values and attitudes such as concern for the rights and welfare

of others, social responsibility, tolerance and respect for differences and human rights, acceptance of the rule of the law, believing in democracy and peace.

• have an open and critique mind• have the ability to get information from different sources, evaluate them critically,

think critically, make decision based on critical evaluation of information and reasoning, solve problems, and enter into dialogue among others with different perspectives

• act politically by using knowledge, skills, values/attitudes, and commitment to accomplish public purposes such as group problem solving, public speaking, petioning and protesting, and voting.

• participate actively in their communities and in wider communities through membership in or contributions to organizations working to address an array of cultural, social, political, economic, environmental, and religious interest and beliefs.

• act to handle all kind of differences (cultural, racial, gender, and religious) in a multicultural society and resolve all kind of conflicts in a peaceful way (Audiger, 2000; Birzea, 2000; CIRCLE & Carnegie Corporation of New York, 2003; Cox, Jaramillo & Reimers, 2005; Engle & Ochoa, 1988; Veldhuis, 1997.

SCOPE OF THE CURRICULUM

Curriculum scope refers to the breadth of the curriculum at any level or any given time (Henson, 2006). Scope determines which basic ideas, concepts, principles, skills and affective qualities shall take place in a curriculum. From the perspective of citizenship


31

education it is the answer to the question which knowledge, skills, values and attitudes of citizenship must be included in curriculum. Upon scanning the literature of democratic citizenship education (Parker & Jarolimek, 1984; Engle & Ochoa, 1988; Veldhuis, 1997; Audigier, 2000; Birzea, 2000; CIRCLE & Carnegie Corporation, 2003; Cox, Jaramillo & Reimers, 2005) it has been concluded that curriculum scope must be based on three main dimensions. The first dimension knowledge contains sub-categories namely political, social, cultural, economical and forms of participation. Second dimension that includes affective area is composed of sub- categories namely values, attitudes and dispositions. The last dimension skills is made up of two sub-categories namely general skills and participation skills. In Figure 1, ingredients of democratic citizenship education have been schematically drawn.

The general dimensions and context of categories presented in Figure 1 have been detailed below.

Attitudes

Political

Social

Cultural

Economic

Forms of

participationVa

lues

Dispositions

Parti

cipa

tion

skills

Gen

eral

skills

Skils

Values, attitudes, dispositionsK

now

ledg

e

Activedemocratic

citizen

Figure 1. The main categories of democratic citizenship education curriculum(Sources: Adapted from Audigier, 2000; Birzea, 2000; CIRCLE & Carnegie Corporation, 2003; Cox, Jaramillo & Reimers, 2005; Duerr, Spajic-Vrakas & Martins, 2000; Engle & Ochoa, 1988; Johnson & Morris, 2010; Parker & Jarolimek, 1984; Veldhuis, 1997).

A. DOĞANAY

32

Knowledge

What kind of knowledge does a democratic citizen need to make information and reason-based decisions and to put these decisions into action? Or in other terms what should constitute the knowledge dimension of active democratic citizenship curriculum? In Table 1, the kind of knowledge that must be included in political, social, cultural, economic, and forms of participation categories have been presented.

Table 2. Scope of Knowledge for Active Democratic Citizenship Education Curriculum

Political Knowledge Social KnowledgePoltical and legal systemBasic concept, principles and institutions of

democracyDistribution of power and authority

throughout historyConcept of democratic citizenshipCitizens rights and responsibilities including

human rightsPolitical decision making on local, national

and international levelCurrent political issuesMain events, trends and change agents of

national, European and world historyMedia literacy and the role of media in

personal and social lifeNational and international security

Social relationsSocial rightsThe function and work of voluntary groups

and civil societySocial differences (welfare, social security,

health etc.)

Cultural Knowledge Economic KnowledgeHistory and cultural heritage of own countryPredominance of certain dominant roles and

valuesDifferent cultures in the local, regional,

national, and global contextPreservation of the environment

Economic rightsEconomic principles and consequences of

economic developmentKey financial matters and associated

economic literacySustainable development locally and

internationallyForms of Participation Knowledge

Knowledge of the forms of political, social, cultural, economic participation to the life.

Sources: Audigier, 2000; Birzea, 2000; Johnson & Morris, 2010; Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA), 1998; Veldhuis, 1997).

Values, Attitudes and Dispositions

Below in Table 2 the values, attitudes and dispositions that form the core of active democratic citizenship education curriculum have been listed


33

Table 3. Scope of Values, Attitudes and Dispositions for Active Democratic Citizenship Education Curriculum

Values Attitudes Dispositions• Acceptance of the rule

of law• Respect for human dignity• Respect for human rights• Believing in democracy• Believing in peace• Believing in social

justice, equality and equal treatment of citizens

• Rejection of prejudice, racism and all kind of discrimination

• Believing in solidarity• Respect for tolerance and

toward differences• Respect for reasoning• Believing in preservation

of environment• Believing in sustainable

development• Valuing the freedom• Valuing the fairnes

• Commitment to truth• Open mindedness• Commitment to peace and

constructive slutions to problems

• Feeling confident to engage politically

• Trusting in democratic principles, institutions and procedures as well as importance of civil action

• Feeling responsible for own decisions and actions

• Commitment to the value of mutual understanding, cooperation, trust and solidarity

• Commitment to the principles of sustainable development

• Sense of belonging

• The intention to participate in the political community

• The intention to be active in the community

• The intention to participate in civil society

Sources: Audigier, 2000; Birzea, 2000; Crick, 1999; Johnson & Morris, 2010; Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA), 1998; Veldhuis, 1997).

Skills

Scope of the skills for active democratic citizenship are presented in Table 3 in two categories as general skills and participation skills.

SEQUENCE OF THE CURRICULUM

Following the determination of scope of the curriculum then comes the way how to organize this scope. Curriculum sequence is concerned with the order of topics over time (Henson, 2006). How should the scope that is determined for active democratic citizenship education be organized in classroom and courses? What must be the main principles for this organization? Upon analyzing civic or citizenship education experiences in different countries, Cox, Jaramillo, and Reimers (2005) stated that there is a transformation from civic education to citizenship education and in this change three major points in citizenship curriculums attract even more attention.

A. DOĞANAY

34

• Moving from a single-subject focus on political institutions to a three-part focus on: a) political institutions, b) current events in the society, and c) competencies in conflict resolution,

• Moving from a curriculum predominantly taught in the last years of secondary school to one expanded throughout the entire school cycle, and

• Shifting the focus from acquisition of knowledge (focus on content) to one aimed at acquiring knowledge, abilities, and attitudes in contexts and practices based on participatory democratic relations (p.35).

Below have been given main principles that have been formed upon synthesizing experiences and relevant thoughts in different countries and how these principles point to the way knowledge, skills, values, attitudes and dispositions for active democratic citizenship curriculum should be included in the curriculum.

Democratic citizenship knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes should be taught explicitly and systematically at every grade level and it should be integrated throughout and across the curriculum. At school it is not logical and necessary to wait for a specific grade or course to teach democratic citizenship skills, knowledge, values and attitudes. Citizenship must be one of the main focal points in each grade and course. Democratic citizenship can be integrated into other courses in two ways. Firstly, general skills like critical thinking, decision making, problem solving can be employed during courses. Secondly, topics related to citizenship in different courses should be foregrounded in class. Citizenship is a cross-curricular subject. Almost all courses have a potential context for citizenship education. For instance in science,

Table 4. Scope of Skills for Active Democratic Citizenship Education Curriculum

General skills Participation SkillsCritical thinkingCritical examination of informationDistinguishing statements of facts from an

opinionReaching a balanced judgement, decision

or point of view based on critical examination of information and reasoning

Defending reached position

• Problem solving• Decision making• Creative thinking• Inquiry skills• Communication skills• Using media in an active way

• Monitoring and influencing policies and decisions including participating in peaceful protesting

• Resolving conflicts in a peaceful way• Participating voluntary-civil organizations

as a member or contrubition• Building cooperation and coalitions• Displaying democratic leadership• Living in a multicultural environment• Handling all kind of differences including

gender, social, cultural, racial, and religious

• Engagement in protecting environment• Ethical consumption and boycotting

unethical productsSources: Audigier, 2000; Birzea, 2000; Johnson & Morris, 2010; Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA), 1998; Veldhuis, 1997).


35

the topics which have been lately termed as socio-scientific issues (Ratcliffe & Grace, 2003) such as genetic modification, climate change, nuclear power stations, are closely related to citizenship education. Discussion of these kind of issues in science has a potential impact on gaining democratic citizenship competencies. Similar to socio-scientific issues, integrating controversial issues in social studies curriculum helps students to get skills such as critical argumentation which is an important skill for active democratic citizenship. There are various resources in the literature showing how to integrate citizenship knowledge, skills, values and attitudes into different courses (Edwards & Fogelman, 1993; Bailey, 2000; Smith, Nowacek, & Bernstein, 2010).

In addition to teaching citizenship knowledge, skills, values and attitudes during all grade levels and courses it is also beneficial to add this course into curriculum as an separate course. As it can be seen in scope of the curriculum part too, there is a knowledge store that can be deemed critical for citizenship issues. It may not be possible to include all these knowledge into the program of other courses. Hence it would be beneficial to add one citizenship, democracy or human rights course separately in the final years of primary education and in secondary education.

Let it be as a separate course or a subject integrated into other courses cross curricularly, democratic citizenship knowledge, skills, values and attitudes must be included in the curriculum not separately but integrated. As Reid (1986) stated although knowledge, understanding and skills are distinguishable conceptually they are inseparable existentially. A holistic view recognizes that it is not possible to separate knowledge from skills or understanding within learning process. Based on the assumption that in democratic citizenship education the primary aim is to make reasoned decisions that reflect critical evaluation of knowledge and take action in line with this reasoning, all knowledge, skills, values and attitudes must be arranged in a way ensuring active participation. In this context, students should be provided with opportunities to participate in simulations, service-learning projects, conflict resolution programs, and other activities that encourage the application of civic knowledge, skills, and values.

Students should be provided opportunities for active participation in class and school. Co-preparing class rules, activities like school councils are examples of such opportunities In addition students should be given opportunities to contribute opinions about the governance of the school. School environment and classroom should be structured so that students are able to live what they learn about citizenship participation and democracy. In short school should promote the democratic way of life.

Democratic citizenship curriculum must provide opportunities for students to implement their citizenship knowledge, skills, values and attitudes outside school as well. In this context, school should invite parents and the community to participate and work with students in real life situations. For out of school participation, service-learning can provide essential opportunities for students not only to develop citizenship participation skills, values, and attitudes, but also to acquire first-hand knowledge of the topics they are studying in the curriculum.

A. DOĞANAY

36

In addition to all items listed above, main mission of school must be clearly set as instructing active democratic citizens and this mission must be shared with general public.

CONCLUSIONS

The meaning attached to citizenship concept today differs greatly from the one 1000, 500, 100 or even 50 years earlier. The world is rapidly globalizing in a fast transformation pace and cultural differences are inevitably becoming more visible than ever. In the meantime knowledge is multiplying geometrically in a speed and also changing while multiplying. In this age which is defined with globalization, knowledge and multiculturalism, the qualities expected from citizens are also going through a change. The age of knowledge and democracy we live in needs citizens who can attain knowledge from different resources, evaluate the attained knowledge from a critical perspective, make accurate and logical decisions upon reasoning and put these decisions into action.

In the education of citizens endowed with these qualities there are a number of influential resources, however the role and significance of school throughout this process is not negligible. The school requires a comprehensive democratic citizenship curriculum to execute this duty. Civic which was included in the programs as a single course at most formerly abandoned its place to democratic citizenship education today.

In this chapter, the attempt has been to draw a basic framework of citizenship curriculum for a democratic society. The main aims of democratic citizenship curriculum comprise the competencies and qualities of the citizens that we need in a democratic society. In order to realize these aims citizenship knowledge, skills, values and attitudes must be offered as an integrated course with other relevant lessons throughout a whole educational process. However the size and gravity of the context and the likelihood of the failure to be completely present in other courses make it a requisite to add the course as a separate course in the curriculum. Democratic citizenship curriculum must provide opportunities for students to implement their knowledge, skills, attitudes and values both in and out of school. Hence formal curriculum at school must provide a comprehensive and integrated educational opportunity in association with school community and wider community. Instead of simply getting prepared to be the citizens of future, students must actually live as citizens by implementing their citizenship knowledge and values with their active participation skills.

Civic Learnin

REFERENCES

Audigier, F. (2000). Project “educatıon for democratıc cıtızenshıp”: Basic concepts and core competencies for education for democratic citizenship. Strasbourg: Council for Cultural Co-operation.


37

Bailey, R. (Ed.). (2000). Teaching values and citizenship across the curriculum. London: Kogan Page Limited.

Birzea, C. (2000). Education for democratic citizenship: A lifelong learning perspective. Strasbourg: Council for Cultural Co-operation.

Carr, W. (1991). Education for citizenship. British Journal of Educational Studies, 39(4), 373–385.CIRCLE & Carnegie Corporation of New York. (2003). The civic mission of schools. New York: Carnegie

Corporation of New York.Cox, C., Jaramillo, R., & Reimers, F. (2005). Education for citizenship and democracy in the Americas:

An agenda for action. Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.Council of Europe. (2000). Education for democratic citizenship: A lifelong learning perspective.

Retrieved from http://www.okm.gov.hu/letolt/nemzet/eu/Education%20for%20Democratic%20Citizenship.pdf

Crick, B. (1999). The presuppositions of citizenship education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 33(3), 337–352.

Davies, I., Gregory, I., & Riley, S. C. (1999). Good citizenship and educational provision. London: Falmer Press.

Delanty, G. (2003). Citizenship as learning process: Disciplinary citizenship versus cultural citizenship. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 22(6), 597–605.

DG Education and Culture. (2007). Study on active citizenship education. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/pdf/doc248en.pdf adresinden (14.04.2009)

Duerr, K., Spajic-Vrakas, V., & Martins, I. F. (2000). Strategies for learning democratic citizenship. Council of Europe.

Edwards, J., & Fogelman, K. (Eds.). (1993). Developing citizenship in the curriculum. London: David Fulton Publishers.

Ehrlich, T. (Ed.). (2000). Civic responsibility and higher education. Westport, CT: Oryx Press.Engle, S. H., & Ochoa, A. S. (1988). Education for democratic citizenship: Decision making in the social

studies. New York: Teachers College Press.Eurydice. (2005). Citizenship education at schools in Europe. Retrieved from http://www.moec.gov.cy/

programs/eurydice/publication.pdfEuropean Commission. (2005). Learning for active citizenship: A significant challenge in building a Europe

of Knowledge. Retrieved from http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/archive/citizen/citiz.en.htmlEuropean Commission. (2006). Measurıng actıve cıtızenshıp ın Europe. Retrieved from http://composite

indicators.jrc.ec.europa.eu/Document/EUR%2022530%20EN_Active_Citizenship.pdGifford, C. (2004). National and post-national dimensions of citizenship education in the UK. Citizenship

Studies, 8(2), 145–158.Henson, K. T. (2006). Curriculum planning: Integrating multiculturalism, constructivism, and education

reform. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.Hoskins, B. L., & Mascherini, M. (2009). Measuring active citizenship through the development of a

composite indicator. Social Indicators Research, 90(3), 459–488. Hoskins, B. L., d’Hombres, B., & Campbell, J. (2008). Does formal education have an impact on active

citizenship behaviour? Europian Commission Joint Research Center, Instıtute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen, Centre for Research on Lifelong Learning. Retrieved from http://crell.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ActiveCitizenship/impact%20final%20final%20BH%20BD%20JC%20EU%20reportsyslog.pdf

Hoskins, B., Jesinghaus, J., Mascherini, M., Munda, G., Nardo, M., Saisana, M., … Villalba, E. (2006). Measuring active citizenship in Europe. Ispra: European Commission Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen.

Ichilov, O., & Nave, N. (1981). The Good citizen as viewed by Israeli adolescents. Comparative Politics, 13(3), 361–376.

Johnson, L., & Morris, P. (2010). Toward a framework for critical citizenship education. The Curriculum Journal, 21(1), 77–96.

Kadıoğlu, A. (2008). Vatandaşlığın dönüşümü: Üyelikten haklara [Transformation of citizenship: From membership to the rights]. İstanbul: Metis Yayınları.

http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/archive/citizen/citiz.en.html

http://www.okm.gov.hu/letolt/nemzet/eu/Education%20for%20Democratic%20Citizenship.pdf

http://www.okm.gov.hu/letolt/nemzet/eu/Education%20for%20Democratic%20Citizenship.pdf

http://www.moec.gov.cy/programs/eurydice/publication.pdf

http://www.moec.gov.cy/programs/eurydice/publication.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/education/pdf/doc248en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/education/pdf/doc248en.pdf

http://compositeindicators.jrc.ec.europa.eu/Document/EUR%2022530%20EN_Active_Citizenship.pd

http://compositeindicators.jrc.ec.europa.eu/Document/EUR%2022530%20EN_Active_Citizenship.pd

http://crell.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ActiveCitizenship/impact%20final%20final%20BH%20BD%20JC%20EU%20reportsyslog.pdf



A. DOĞANAY

38

Kaya, A. (2006). Avrupa Birliği bütünleşme sürecinde yurttaşlık, çokkültürcülük ve azınlık tartışmaları: Bir arada yaşamanın siyaseti [Citizenship, multiculturalism, and minority discussions in the process of European Union integration: Policy for living together]. In A. Kaya ve T. Tarhanlı (Derleyenler), Türkiye’de çoğunluk ve azınlık politikaları: AB sürecinde yurttaşlık tartışmaları [Minority and mojority policies in Turkey: Citizenship discussions in the process of EU], s (pp. 35–63). İkinci baskı. İstanbul: Tesev Yayınları.

Kaya, A. (2003). Ulusal yurttaşlıktan çoğul yurttaşlığa? Yurttaşlık kuramlarına eleştirel bir yaklaşım [From national citizenship to plural citizenship? A critical approach to citizenship theories]. In A. Kaya, & G. G. Özdoğan (Editörler), Uluslar arası ilişkilerde sınır tanımayan sorunlar:Göç, yurttaşlık, insan hakları, toplumsal cinsiyet, küresel adalet ve güvenlik [Boundless problems in international relations: Migration, citizenship, human rights, gender, global justice and security], s (pp. 149–190). İstanbul: Bağlam Yayıncılık.

Kerr, D., & Ireland, E. (2004). Making citizenship education real. Education Journal, 78, 25–27.Kerr, D., Ireland, E., Lopes, J., Craig, R., & Cleaver, E. (2004). Citizenship education longitudinal

study: Second annual report: First longitudinal survey. Makıng citizenship education real. National Foundation for Educational Research. Retrieved from https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/RR531.pdf

Kymlicka, W., & Norman, W. (1995). Return to the citizen: A survey of recent work on citizenship theory. In R. Besner (Ed.), Teorizing citizenship. New York: State University of New York Press.

Lawson, H. (2001). Active citizenship in schools and community. The Curriculum Journal, 12(2), 163–178.Lawy, R., & Biesta, G. (2006). Citizenship as practice: The educational implications of an inclusive and

relational understanding of citizenship. British Journal of Educational Studies, 54(1), 34–50.McCowan, T. (2009). Rethinking citizenship education: A curriculum for participatory democracy.

London: Continuum International Publishing Group.Naval, C., Print, M., & Veldhuis, R. (2002). Education for democratic citizenship in the New Europe:

Context and reform. European Journal of Education, 37(2), 107–128.NCSS. (2001). Creating effective citizens. NCSS position statement. Retrieved from http://www.

socialstudies.org/positions/effectivecitizensOliva, P. F. (1992). Developing the curriculum. Third Ed. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.Osler, A., & Starkey, H. (2006). Education for democratic citizenship: A review of research, policy and

practice 1995–2005. Research Papers in Education, 21(4), 433–466.Osler, A., & Starkey, H. (2005). Changing citizenship: Democracy and inclusion in education.

Maidenhcad, Berkshire: Open University Press.Parker, W. C. (2008). Knowing and doing in democratic citizenship education. In L. S. Levstik, &

C. A. Tyson, (Ed.), Handbook of research in social studies education (pp. 65–80). New York: Routledge.

Parker, W. C., & Jarolimek, J. (1984). Citizenship and the critical role of social studies. Washington, DC: NCSS Bulletin No: 72.

Patrick, J. (1999). Education for constructive engagement of citizens in democratic civil society. In C. Bahmueller, & J. Patrick (Eds.), Principles and practices for democratic citizenship. Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse.

Print, M. (2007). Citizenship education and youth participation in democracy. British Journal of Educational Studies, 55(3), 325–345.

Print, M., Ørnstrøm, S., & Nielsen, H. S. (2002). Education for democratic processes in schools and classrooms. European Journal of Education, 37(2), 193–210.

Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: Teaching socio scientific issues. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Reid, L. A. (1986). Ways of understandings and education. London: Heinemann Educational.Remy, R. C. (1979). Handbook of basic citizenship competencies. Boulder: CO: Social Science Education

Concortium.Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA). (1998). Education for citizenship and teaching of

democracy in schools. Final report of the advisory group on citizenship. Retrieved from http://www.qca.org.uk/libraryAssets/media/6123_crick_report_1998.pdf

https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/RR531.pdf

https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/RR531.pdf

http://www.socialstudies.org/positions/effectivecitizens

http://www.socialstudies.org/positions/effectivecitizens

http://www.qca.org.uk/libraryAssets/media/6123_crick_report_1998.pdf

http://www.qca.org.uk/libraryAssets/media/6123_crick_report_1998.pdf


39

Osler, A., & Starkey, H. (2005). Changing citizenship: Democracy and inclusion in education. England: Open University Press.

Schulz, W., Ainley, J., Fraillon, J., Kerr, D., & Losito, B. (2009). Initial findings from the IEA International Civic and Citizenship Education Study. Amsterdam: IEA.

Sears, A. M. (1996). Something different to everyone: Conceptions of citizenship and citizenship education. Canadian and International Education, 25(2), 1–15.

Smith, M. B., Nowacek, R. S., & Bernstein, J. L. (Eds.). (2010). Citizenship accross the curriculum. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Üstel, F. (1999). Yurttaşlık ve demokrasi [Citizenship and democracy]. Ankara: Dost Kitabevi.Veldhuis, R. (1997). Education for democratic citizenship: Dimensions of citizenship, core competencies,

variables, and international activities. France: Council for Cultural Cooperation.Veugelers, W. (2007). Creating critical-democratic citizenship education: Empowering humanity and

democracy in Dutch education. Compare, 37(1), 105–119.Zaman, H. (2006). Teachers’ perceptions of citizenship and citizenship education: A comparative study.

Unpublished doctoral dissertaion. University of Pittsburgh.


GONZAL O JOVER

CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION IN AND OUT OF SCHOOL

INTRODUCTION

That schools should be the place to promote a civic culture is an international aspiration in widespread demand in educational systems today. While this goal is not new, it does take on new dimensions in the context of the societal and political aspirations that emerged in the late 20th century: multiculturalism, minority rights, gender equality, acknowledgment of the excluded, etc. These aspirations have transcended the boundaries of national education systems to find themselves in the realm of international pedagogical discourse. Still, even without leaving our Western societies, whatever in various contexts may be understood about the meaning and implications of such aspirations is anything but unanimous. As Michel Walzer points out, words are not univocal, but are loaded with connotations from historical experience (Walzer, 1994). To a Spaniard, the very images evoked by the words “citizenship,” “multiculturalism,” “democracy,” or “nation” are not the same as those to other European citizens. Even within the same context, the meanings may differ depending on the histories and placements of persons and groups.

A glance at the official definitions of the word “citizen” in Spanish shows four main meanings with overlapping connotations: a) generic (inhabitant of a city); b) sociological (special status in relation to other population groups); c) moral (equivalent to being a good person); and d) political (a subject with rights that grant him or her with the ability to intervene in the governing of the political community) (Jover and Naval, 2008).

This overlapping of connotations has consequences for how the idea of citizenship is received as a goal of the education system. Over the last few decades, Spanish governments have undertaken legislative reforms which have directly affected the field of citizenship education. The Law on General Organization of the Education System (Ley Orgánica de Ordenación General del Sistema Educativo, LOGSE) passed by the Spanish Worker’s Party (PSOE) in 1990, included moral and civic education as a cross-curricular core theme that should permeate the different areas of the curriculum. Ten years after passage of the law, it was clear, however, that the work done in this area had not had the repercussion that had been hoped for (Naval, Print, and Veldhuis, 2002, pp. 122-123; Naval, Print, and Iriarte, 2003).

The difficulties of implementing cross-curricularity as per the LOGSE law, signs of a growing de-politization among young people and pressure from international organizations such as the Council of Europe, made it necessary to reinforce the

G. JOVER

42

presence of citizenship education in the curriculum. The political opportunity to do so was provided by the Law on Education (Ley Orgánica de Educación, LOE) in 2006, which replaced the LOGSE. The LOE law introduced a specific area of citizenship education in the third cycle of primary education (10 to 12 years old pupils) and in one of the first three years of compulsory secondary education (12 to 15 years old students), with the name of “Education for Citizenship and Human Rights”; in the fourth year of compulsory secondary education (15-16 years old), with the name of “Ethical and Civic Education”; and as a common subject in all post-compulsory secondary education programs (16-18 years old), with the name of “Philosophy and Citizenship.” In addition, reference is also made to it as an aim of vocational education, sports education and adult education.

The legal regulation of the curriculum, especially in compulsory education, gives priority to the moral meaning of the concept of citizenship, assigning it competences such as: developing self-esteem, affectivity and personal autonomy; acknowledging diversity; developing responsible behavior in terms of taking care of the environment; accepting one’s own identity and personal characteristics and experiences; value actions aimed at achieving peace and safety and active participation as a means to achieving a more just world; etc.1 The consequence of this orientation is the mixture of what is political and what is social, as Hannah Arendt cautioned, and as a result of which citizenship education may become “something akin to teaching children not to scratch, not to bite, and not to spit, as if the entire civic education program could be filled with social content when it was originally meant as a strictly political matter” (Bárcena, 2006, p. 134).

This shift toward the social aspect, detectable in Spanish regulations, has taken place over the last ten years as a shared direction of educational systems. As stated in the Initial Findings from the IEA International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS), in many countries the narrower term civic education is being complemented or replaced by the broader term citizen education, which “is concerned with the wider range of ways through which citizens interact with and shape their communities (including schools) and societies” (Schulz, Ainley, Fraillon, Kerr, and Losito, 2010, p. 14). The enlargement of the concept allows to unite under a single common denominator the idea of citizenship as a form of shared identity common in European countries (Kerr, Sturman, and Friedman, 2011) as an aspiration, characteristic of Latin American countries, to build more inclusive, more peaceful and more constructive democratic societies (Schulz and Gonzalez, 2011) and as a set of moral features, distinctive in Asian countries (Fraillon, Schulz, and Ainley, 2011).

In Spain’s case, the results of the study show that Spanish secondary education students (14 year olds) rank in a moderate range of civic knowledge, their scores beingaverage for the countries studied (Instituto de Evaluación, 2010, pp. 27-29).2 They also show that Spanish students support democratic values, gender equality and the rights of immigrants more than their European classmates do (ibid., pp. 47-51). However, they lag in their critical positioning and their ability to feel like


43

active citizens. Thus, they drop below the average in their analytical and reasoning skills (ibid., p. 32), in their perception of their political citizenship effectiveness (understanding a political problem, defending their opinion on a controversial subject, running for the Student Council, etc.) and in their interest in political affairs (ibid., pp. 50-52). They have the feeling their teachers do not encourage their participation to give their opinion or consider different viewpoints on a problem (ibid., p. 63). In general, the answers given by students, teachers and school directors are indicative of a lack of participation in the classrooms (ibid., pp. 65-69).

In short, Spanish students have an acceptable level of civic knowledge, but they have fewer competencies than their peers in critical thinking; they espouse the principles of democracy, but do not feel themselves to be civically competent. In other words, their weak point is their competency in behaving as critical and active citizens.

THE CIVIC CULTURE OF YOUTH

The skills and perceptions of Spanish students as political actors are linked to other important aspect of their political identity. According to the ICCS study, they give less importance than the average among their peers in other countries to conventional forms of citizenship: voting in elections, joining a political party, showing respect for government representatives, etc. However, they score above the average in the importance they give to non-conventional forms of civic behavior based on the action of social movements: participating in political protests, social initiatives in favor of human rights, defending the environment, etc. (ibid., pp. 45-47). Thus, students prize the more informal modalities of participation.

These attitudes held by the students portray the habitual political profile of young people in Spain, which we analyzed in a series of studies in the late 1990s (Jover, 2001; Jover, Casares, Gil and Payá, 2001).3 In consonance with our results, young people in Spain are found to be quite satisfied with their way of life. Furthermore, they rank ethical and political aspirations involving new generations of human rights, such as the right to peace, or conservation of the environment, high on their list of objectives worth becoming seriously involved in the future, in sharp contrast to classic political aspirations such as equality between the women and men, overcoming racist and discriminatory behaviours, or fairer distribution of the workload (figure 1).4

Of the four principles the Spanish Constitution establishes as higher values, freedom was valued the highest by more than half of the young people (51%), who ranked it as being the most important and as one that can never be given up. It is followed by justice (23%), equality (20%), and, in last place, pluralism (6%).5 However, in their value judgment options, young people give more weight to pragmatic considerations than to ideological beliefs. The following figure shows their position with respect to the inalienable nature of some of the rights included in the Spanish Constitution. This is the difference between those who think some rights should always be respected and those who answer that they should be respected

G. JOVER

44

according to the circumstances. As can be seen, the youth rank rights that relate to their own most immediate concerns (jobs, housing, etc.) above rights such as freedom of speech, conscientious objection, or political participation. Indeed, participation in politics was ranked the lowest (figure 2). Here we observe a kind of gap between “ideal” discourse and “concrete” discourse in Spanish youth: the rights on which they confer the greatest strength, affirming their inalienability, do not coincide with the rights that embody the political principle of freedom (i.e., civil rights and freedoms), whose inalienability they ranked below the others.The young people clearly reveal the self-perception of having a low degree of political involvement in their age group. When asked to compare themselves with the prior

20%

16%

15%

13%

11%

10%9%

5%

2%

0% Enhancin

g w

orld

peace

Pro

motin

g h

um

an rig

hts

in a

round th

e w

ord

Sharin

g re

sourc

es m

ore

fairly

Equality

for w

om

en a

nd m

en

Overc

om

ing ra

cis

t and x

enophobic

attitu

des

Div

idin

g u

p w

ork

more

fairly

Defe

ndin

g c

ultu

ral id

entitie

s

Foste

ring re

ligio

us v

alu

es

Pro

tectin

g n

atu

re a

nd th

e e

nviro

nm

ent

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

Figure 1. Priorities for the Future


45

generation, they consider themselves to be quite more tolerant (+2.7 on a scale or –5 to +5 points), and generally happier (+2.2), somewhat more enterprising (+1.7), to have a greater sense of solidarity (+1.5), and are even slightly more independent (+0.8). However, they also see themselves as being much less politically inclined (–1.7), which is the only aspect showing a negative score with respect to the prior generation.

As regards other forms of civic action, we consider young people’s participation in organisations that carry out social and solidarity-based initiatives (non governmental organizations, socio-cultural initiatives, associations for the handicapped, environmental associations, volunteer programmes, health care, collaboration with developing countries, etc.). Eighteen percent of the young people surveyed are or were involved in organisations of this kind. Of them, eleven percent had done so in the past and 7% continued to do so at the time of the survey. The average length of involvement is from one to three years. Participation in such initiatives takes form in a number of different ways. The most frequent (in 57% of the cases) is a collaboration of between 5 and 50 hours per month, which is roughly one to ten hours per week.

Despite the weight of historical conditions and the necessarily hastier access to a democratic culture than in other contexts, our data confirm that since the late

Figure 2. Inalienable Nature of Certain Rights

0 2 4 6 8 10

Right to enjoy a suitable environment

Right to decent housing

Right to life

Religious and ideological freedom

Freedom of speech

Right to political participation

Right to dignified conditions when deprived ofpersonal freedom

Right to education and culture

Right to conscientious objection

Right to work

G. JOVER

46

1990s, just as in other places, young people in Spain show certain misgivings toward institutional politics. This is not a phenomenon exclusive to youth, nor is it an entirely novel situation. Even in the 1920s, the then President of the Government in Spain, Álvaro de Figueroa, Count of Romanones, bemoaned the scarce political interest held by young people when he said:

“The ball has produced important changes to modern life, and in every corner of the world, politics being no exception, contributing to youth’s distancing itself from it. In the past, students abandoned the university to join the ranks of Carlists or to fight for freedom in barricades; today more than a few drop out of college to become professional ball players; this fact is regrettable, since the absence of youth in politics produces heinous effects; their vim and verve have no substitute” (Figueroa, 1999, p. 12).6

Nevertheless, some recent studies reveal a number of features particular to the current situation. For example, the research study entitled Youth in Europe: An International Empirical Study about Life Perspectives7, carried out on teenagers from nine European countries, shows that political institutions, and political parties in particular, rank among the least valued organizations by young people, who associate the political class with corruption and indifference to their problems. Still, their frustration does not lead them to reject all of the channels of political action; rather, they show, for example, considerable agreement on the value of organizations such as Greenpeace and Amnesty International. “These groups are seen as authentic, engaged, and focused on important values of living in community. They receive the trust of adolescents regardless of national borders” (Ziebertz and Kay, 2005, p. 204).What characterises today’s youth is thus not their disaffection with politics, but the shift in their options for action. As Loader proposes,

“This alternative view suggests that young people are not necessarily any less interested in politics than previous generations, but rather that traditional political activity no longer appear appropriate to address the concerns associated with contemporary youth culture. Instead, the restricted democratic practices of voting and social class party allegiance, which have formed the basic means of collective mobilization, are being displaced by mechanism and modes of democratic expression that privilege present-day political preoccupations with the construction of self-identity within a global information economy” (Loader, 2007, pp. 1–2).

In contrast to traditional participation in politics, this cultural displacement is channelled by means of “deinstitutionalised forms of political engagement which are enacted within networks and spaces characterised by loose social ties and informal social structures. Here we might find interaction within non-hierarchical, flexible and personalised social relations, which offer the prospect of new repertoires for political socialization outside traditional social institutions” (ibid, p. 3). What young people reject more than political action is the constraints on freedom perceived in


47

institutionalised political participation, preferring instead more spontaneous and direct forms of involvement such as political protest and demonstrations, signing petitions and engaging in consumer boycotts and buycotts, volunteer activities, participation in groups, etc. As O’Neill, for example, has studied in terms of Canadian youth, participation in these alternative kinds of political involvement, particularly the first ones, shows an evolution inversely proportional to age to traditional political participation: the younger the age group, the more alternative the participation (O’Neill, 2007, pp. 11–12).8

The 15-M Movimiento de indignados (Movement of the Indignant) initiated in Madrid on the occasion of the local and regional elections being held in May 2011 expresses young people’s shift toward other forms of political initiative, interwoven today with the use of Internet and social networking. It is not so much an anti-political or anti-establishment movement as it is a search for a regeneration of politics meant to bring it in line with the interests of real citizens. As stated in their manifesto:

“Democracy belongs to the people (demos = people, krátos = government) which means that government is made of every one of us. However, in Spain most of the political class does not even listen to us. Politicians should be bringing our voice to the institutions, facilitating the political participation of citizens through direct channels that provide the greatest benefit to the wider society, not to get rich and prosper at our expense, attending only to the dictatorship of major economic powers and holding them in power through a bipartisanism headed by the immovable acronyms PP and PSOE.”9

CIVIC LIFE IN AND OUT OF THE CLASSROOM: AN ETHNOGRAPHIC APPROACH

The low level of young people’s institutional political participation has caused the alarm of national governments and international organisations alike, both of which look to educational policies for support. In 1998, the European Union launched its Learning for Active Citizenship initiative, in which it encouraged setting up educational programmes for citizenship with a European dimension. To foster an active sense of citizenship, such policies are considered to require (among other aspects) an educational environment based on participation, both in terms of the organisation of the school as well as in the systems of learning. The point is to learn to participate by participating. To that end, the European Union’s initiative states:

“Placing learners and learning at the centre of education and training methods and processes is by no means a new idea, but in practice, the established framing of pedagogic practices in most formal contexts has privileged teaching rather than learning. Teachers traditionally convey the knowledge they possess to learners, who subsequently must show what they have learned. In this approach, teaching is largely proactive, whereas learning is largely reactive. The purpose of the process is essentially to convey content, and the core

G. JOVER

48

problem is to find the most effective teaching methods for doing so. Learners certainly participate in this process, but the extent of self-direction and co-determination they may bring to it is inevitably circumscribed.

In a high-technology knowledge society, this kind of teaching-learning relation loses efficacy: learners must become proactive and more autonomous, prepared to renew their knowledge continuously and to respond constructively to changing constellations of problems and contexts. The teacher’s role becomes one of accompaniment, facilitation, mentoring, support and guidance in the service of learners’ own efforts to access, use - and ultimately create - knowledge. This means that learners become active participants in their own learning processes, which they learn to negotiate and co-manage together with their teacher-guides and with their co-learners” (European Commission, 1998, p. 13).

Participation has thus become an educational practice that attempts to develop freedom and autonomy, capability for decision-making and individual action as core elements in preparing citizens for civic democracy. Nevertheless, scholastic participation in practice is far from “neutral”. It does not foster just any type of freedom, but rather, its organised exercise. As Masschelein and Quaghebeur propose (Masschelein and Quaghebeur, 2005; Quaghebeur 2006), based on the Foucaultian concept of governmentality, the pedagogical resource of participation reveals a type of mentality, that is a kind of exercise of power. Participation reflects a specific concept of the individual practice of freedom. To learn how to participate in school is to learn to think and behave in a specific manner, to subject the exercise of freedom to a norm, to channel it in a certain way:

“Participation as an authoritative invitation or interpellation appears, on our analysis, as a form of governing power—not because it controls or suppresses the individual’s freedom but because it offers and defines a very specific possibility for the subject to put her freedom into practice, that is, to govern herself. Participation, in this sense, governs by presenting to the individual the possibility of a specific way of putting her freedom into practice and, hence, of becoming a subject, of forming her identity” (Masschelein and Quaghebeur, 2005, p. 61)

Seen from this angle, participation in the educational setting constitutes a form of control or organised exercise of freedom, and a re-routing of political action to its institutional ways. These structured ways of participating contrast sharply with the ones young people adopt in their informal relationships outside of school.

Schools are not the only spaces for citizenship education. Young people socialize civically in the informal space of their relations with their peers, too. Over the last four years, our research group has been carrying out an ethnographic study on teenagers at a high school (students around the age of 12-13) and at several different informal social settings in a town in the industrial area of Madrid.10 In the 1980s the township


49

was greatly affected by urban development around the capital city, undergoing one of the highest swells in demographic growth in the region and attracting a wide contingent of middle class families. The population is one of the youngest in Spain, with a high number of people younger than 18 years old.The ethnographic research project included three pieces of fieldwork:

1. Initial study at the high school. Exploration of the context and trial of the participant observation methodology in several classrooms (January-April 2007)

2. A second study at the high school. Observation of two classrooms and semi-structured interviews with the teachers (December 2007-April 2008)

3. Sessions of observation and unstructured interviews with the teenagers in informal social settings around the township: malls, sports facilities, parks, the school playground and areas around the school, the Youth Centre, etc. (February-April 2008)11

The first sensation we felt when we glimpsed into the classrooms of our high school was one of chaos: the students entered the room “brazenly and swaggeringly”, took their seats noisily, talked continually among themselves, listened to music, stood up and walked about the room while the teacher was lecturing, yawned, passed the time petting a classmate’s hair or rough-housing with them, some were sleeping, without the teacher realising it until fifteen minutes later…

Yet lurking beneath this apparent chaos is a latent structure of order. As one of our informants remarked after one of the first observations sessions:

“During the classes, it seems that disorder and anarchy reign supreme in the classroom; however, the kids have an order of their own that lets them amuse themselves and listen to the teacher and answer questions at the same time (…). There is constant noise (to which most teachers are already quite accustomed) but there is also a high degree of participation and competitiveness. In other words, the kids (and mostly their leaders) switch back and forth between talking with their classmates and asking and answering questions on matters regarding the teacher’s lecture. There’s a continual alternation between attention/distraction and interest/disinterest.”

This alternation would seem to reflect the dissonance that exists between the school world and the world in which the teenagers live. Immersion in two high school classrooms in the second year of fieldwork revealed a few nuances. The climate in the classroom is characterized by the ethos of negotiation. The class appears to be a game of power where everything is negotiable. Student participation is high, both in subjects that spark their interest and in subjects that do not. Participation is a strategy of collaboration, but also of imposition and control. The students are well aware of it. With some teachers, participation becomes a sort of challenge, as can be seen in the class of a teacher we have named Azucena12:

“The teacher takes attendance and tells a student to take off his cap. Uproar ensues. Everyone tells him to take it off, that he had a hair cut. The teen laughs

G. JOVER

50

and says no. In the end, he asks permission to leave the room and take it off outside. The teacher is young and cannot make herself heard above the commotion in the room. Everyone does his or her own thing, talking among themselves, whether with their neighbours or someone across the room.

They are supposed to finish watching a film on gender abuse, but the teacher says she is going to switch to another activity. They complain. In the end, she plays the film (…)

They play the film, and they shush each other to watch it. While it is playing, there is absolute silence, although not everyone is watching it. Several teens spend the time doing their homework (…)

The film ends and the students ask the teacher some questions. She answers with little interest, worried about keeping the silence that existed during the film and the class from falling apart. She asks them to write down what they thought about the film and the stages that abuse takes. Nobody makes a move to write anything, and they start answering aloud (…)

The teacher asks questions and only the girls answer. The boys talk among themselves. One boy says something silly and a girl tells him to shut up and tells the teacher to go on” (Fieldwork notes, December 12, 2008).

The students participate, but they do so using their own rules, without succumbing to the didactic norms and rules of class organisation the teacher tries to impose. The students organise themselves, define the activity, grant the teacher permission to continue, even determine the methodology by imposing oral culture over written.

In the interviews we held with the high school teaching staff, the teacher Azucena told us about the trouble she had with this group at the start of the school year, and how she tried to overcome it by negotiation and the use of participatory methodologies. “And they themselves have changed how they behave and find the class fun”. She regrets, however, the loss of teacher authority and that the students behave in class as if they were at home or at a park.

What is suggested by observing classroom life and the teacher’s comments is the blurring of spaces inside and outside the school. This haziness is detected in phenomena as diverse as the way of speaking used in the classroom, the way of dressing, of addressing others, of moving around the physical space of the room, etc.

The teenagers bring to the school the way in which their civic experience develops outside the school. The fieldwork and the informal chat with the young people at the places of leisure in our township let us approximate that experience. Civic socialisation in leisure time is done through shared activities with the peer group. The group is flexible, and may shrink or grow as the occasion requires, in circles of greater to lesser friendship. It is a relationship without strict bonds. When there is disagreement over how to spend the time, they try to reach an agreement, “and if not, then some go and some don’t” (Session of Jan 18, 2008, recess).


51

However, just as happened in the classroom, the disorder and the divergent paths visible on the surface hide the latent structure of certain unwritten rules that everyone follows. These rules are based on custom, and can become elaborate rituals, such as the one illustrated below based on desemadas, a new Spanish slang word meaning ‘to slip off quietly’, for example:

• “And then there’s the ‘desemadas’• Yeah, the desemadas. You know what it means?• Pulling a ‘d’, when they say they’re pulling a ‘d’• A bunch of people… [they laugh]• So, there are like 40 of us hanging out, so no way we’re gonna all hang out at the

same bench. So if someone’s got a joint or something, he can say, Gonna pull a ‘d’. And then five or six, max…

• He gets it• Five or six is the max• Five or six people that hear him, so, like, they pull a ‘d’, away like the air, like

the wind, and the wind says I’m off, and off it goes. So then you, like, pull a desemada...

• And nobody realises…• Sure, and then they’re like, shit, where’s Fish? Some guy slips off, pulls a ‘d’ and

is off like the wind• And then we come back and they’re like, you pulled a ‘d’• Here everyone does their own thing, it’s cool, and no one gets mad” (Session on

March 1, 2008, in the park)

These rules are used informally, not even consciously agreed on. Obeying them lives right alongside transgressor leisure of adult rules and of attempts at institutional channelling of leisure such as the ones offered by the local township.

One of the activities that the Township Youth Centre offers young people is the Youth Participation Forum, which aims at developing civic participation in the youth. It is done at workshops held by coordinators where teenagers discuss and make proposals on township policies. Some students at our high school in this study take part in the Forum (Session on April 20, 2008, Forum).

Participants in this initiative are very satisfied with their achievements and show greater faith in institutional politics. They complain that participation in the Forum is low, and are sorry that young people their same age are such conformists and so passive. They acknowledge that “people think we’re strange”, and many people think that any girl who participates in the Forum must necessarily “have no friends and never has any fun”. They defend themselves stating that they have as much fun as anyone their age, and make a difference between two different domains of their free time: one at the Forum, and one with their friends. They’re two separate universes.

If these people are the “strange” ones, what about the others? In general, in informal relations, young people exhibit considerable disdain toward politics.

G. JOVER

52

Referring to politicians, they state: “They’re all a bunch a fascists; they say they care about the people and then…” (Session of March 1, 2008, in the park). They complain about the priorities of the people in government. They have no interest in newspapers or in the news on TV, which they only watch “in the morning, half asleep” (Session of March 15, 2008, at the mall). When we asked them at informal places of leisure about the Youth Participation Forum, the answer we received was not very enthusiastic: “They come to the high school and tell us what it is, but hardly anybody signs up…And like, they talk about what can be done, they ask us what we’d like to put on, but then they don’t do hardly anything” (Session of March 22, 2008, basketball courts).

In another aspect of young people’s civic experience, it is interesting to see how their relationship with the adult generation of their parents is also characterised by negotiation and a lack of conflict. They have no difficulty negotiating what time they have to be home by at night, where they can go or how much money that can have. Any arguments that may come up are as expected and not very troublesome; they are “controlled discussions”, as one teenager tells us, “always the same, never out of hand, they say ‘do that’ and I say ‘no’; always the same” (Observation session, January 18, 2008, recess). The relationship is based on ongoing negotiation in which the adolescent usually wins. This is the same type of relationship they later try to maintain with their teachers in the classroom.

Outside school, they see the content of their schoolwork as being disconnected from their interests. This disconnection is witnessed most clearly in subjects involving changes in attitudes and values, such as Ethics, Society, Culture and Religion, or Citizenship Education. They believe that the contents of the latter, Citizenship Education, should be dealt with in high school in a less structured manner. One adolescent states: “I don’t think this should be a class. I think it should be there for information, sure, but not study it just because they say so; people should tell you stuff because they want to, not because they have to. It shouldn’t be a required course, and besides, you already know most of the stuff…but instead maybe like workshops and all that stuff, yeah, I’d support it because, I don’t know, it’s better.” In any case, they think that even a less structured activity such as a workshop is not very likely to change their attitudes. To their way of thinking, one’s peers have a greater likelihood of influencing such areas than teachers do. Replying to a classmate about changing attitudes, the same girl from above points out “Maybe all it takes is for you to say it, and not some guy giving a workshop” (Session on April 26, 2008, football field).

Schools are no longer being experienced as places dedicated to knowledge. The street has infiltrated them, and at the same time has become their substitute. The young people who become bored at school say, “you can learn everything out on the street” (Session on March 1, 2008, park). The civic ethos that predominates, both inside the school and out, is that of the street, of negotiation, of loosely structured participation, the rule of the fittest, of good times and friendship.


53

CONCLUSION

Our ethnographic work has helped us learn more about the citizenship education of Spanish students. What the work shows is that students participate according to their own rules, in other words, as part of their relationship with their peers. The ICCS results indicate that these same students know the notions involved in citizenship and value democratic principles, but they do not feel competent to act as critical and active citizens. The conclusion that can be drawn from the combination of both results, and that due to the difference in the source of the data can only be presented here as a hypothesis, is that participation with peers in informal civic settings does not provide enough skill at the type of competences required for civic or political participation in a formalized setting.

These findings should come as no surprise. As van Deth shows from an empirical study done in 19 European nations, the relation between social participation and identity as political subjects is not linear. Not all forms of participation in social organizations have the same consequences in terms of the subjects’ satisfaction with the democratic system and their political involvement, and some of them may be deemed as “bad social capital” with variations not only in terms of the characteristics of the subjects (gender, age, education) but also of the countries and their cultural roots, such as religion (Deth, 2010). Deth’s analysis can be extrapolated to the type of competencies that foster relationships in informal settings, such as socializing among peers, and that do not necessarily need to coincide or facilitate the ones required by political participation in formal settings. Here, too, we may find situations in which talk can be made of “bad social capital”. The ambiguity of the space for citizenship education, forced to move between the social sphere and the political sphere, which I initially referred to, once again becomes manifestly apparent here as well.

Young people’s civic ethos, spontaneous and scarcely structured, has taken over the school. The school has lost its identity as the place of seclusion and detachment the political philosopher Michael Oakeshott spoke of (Oakeshott, 1989). It belongs to the school to show the radical nature of politics, as a sphere of conflict rather than of normalization. Rejecting the school’s identity as a separate space also means giving that function up. As the ICCS shows, the influence of the students’ socio-economic status on their civic knowledge varies greatly from country to country (Schulz, Ainley, Fraillon, Kerr and Losito, 2010, pp. 71-81). In the case of Spain, the socio-economic environment wields less influence on the differences between the results than some school-related factors, such as the work climate, the attitudes of the families, and the effort made by the students (Instituto de Evaluación, 2010, pp. 35-39). The structured work of school is therefore fundamental to the acquisition of knowledge and competencies needed to be critical and active citizens.

Nevertheless, as a way of life, democracy cannot remain inert and disjointed from vital interests, but rather, it needs to be projected into the different spheres where daily existence is lived, including at school. Schools need to learn to open up to the outside youth culture and its practices, not to be taken over passively by them, but to

G. JOVER

54

create a new democratic culture in which young people can feel like citizens whose interests are taken into account.

The idea of democracy as an attitude that should impregnate school activity was defended by John Dewey based on the assumptions of pragmatism. For Dewey, school is the institution that makes it possible to have continuity between the experiences of one generation and the next, so that each generation does not have to reinvent the wheel. Schools enter the scene when societies become so complicated that this task of continuity can no longer be left up to the unsystematic influence of the social environment. Schooling becomes a scaled-down reproduction of the social environment by ordering, selecting and broadening the influences. Still, Dewey himself said that the purpose of school is not to ensure mere passive adaptation to the social environment—which would be incompatible with his philosophy, based on the conception of a dynamic, constantly evolving world. The task of the school is to foster growth in interaction with the environment, which requires thinking of the person being taught as an active being. It is in this capacity of actively interacting with the environment that the possibility of social progress lies:

“Power to grow depends upon need for others and plasticity. Both of these conditions are at their height in childhood and youth. Plasticity or the power to learn from experience means the formation of habits. Habits give control over the environment, power to utilize it for human purposes. Habits take the form both of habituation, or a general and persistent balance of organic activities with the surroundings, and of active capacities to readjust activity to meet new conditions. The former furnishes the background of growth; the latter constitute growing. Active habits involve thought, invention, and initiative in applying capacities to new aims. They are opposed to routine which marks an arrest of growth” (Dewey, 2007, pp. 41-42)

The tension between continuity and discontinuity with life marks the idea of education, which is hoped to be the driving force to both adaptation and change, thus allowing neither total disconnection from the outside culture nor complete surrender to it; nor imposition of a structure of participation that young people feel is completely alien to them, nor yielding to the ethos of the streets, but each at the same time, as two non-disjointed realities. And this dialectic sense of education is projected on the activity of teachers, who are obliged to move between two worlds: the ideal normative world and the world of the contingent subject, with a particular biography and cultural conditions. As we have seen in the field study, here lies the difficulty of their activity, which on one hand requires suitable technical training, while on the other hand requiring tact for navigating through human situations that are ever-changing and unpredictable. As existential philosopher Kart Jaspers once noted, education is condemned to move “between technical domination of things and free communication of existences” (Jaspers, 1958-59, vol. I, p. 140); in other words, between structured activity aimed at an end considered valuable and the unplanned ebb and flow of ordinary life.


55

NOTES

1 Royal Decree 1513 of Dec. 7, 2006 establishing the minimum curriculum requirements for primary education, and Royal Decree 1631 of Dec. 29, 2006 establishing the minimum requirements for Com-pulsory Secondary Education. The detail at which this legislation set the competences, objectives, contents and evaluation criteria of this area, especially in Compulsory Secondary Education, has sparked considerable criticism, particularly from Catholic organizations, who see it as the governing party’s attempt to impose its secular world view on life.

2 As used in the study, civic knowledge is a broad term that denotes understanding and reasoning and applies to four domains: civic society and systems, civic principles, civic participation, and civic identities.

3 The research, in the realm of classical quantitative methodology based on samples and the use of questionnaires, involved carrying out four surveys between 1997 and 1999, given to a total of 8560 young people between the ages of 18 and 30 in the main urban areas on the Spanish mainland.

4 The figure shows the proportion of choices of each element in relation to the total number of choices.5 Despite having changed the expression “political pluralism” from Art. 1.1 of the Constitution to “plu-

ralism” in general on the survey, it seems it is no longer the strong aspiration it was in decades gone by, when the experience of the dictatorship period was still recent.

6 Carlism was a Spanish political movement of traditionalist character, originating in the 1820s. It looked for the establishment of an alternative branch of the dynasty of the Bourbons to the Spanish throne, which originally advocated a return to the Old Regime.

7 The study focused on school pupils with an average age of 17-18 who attended good academic sec-ondary schools.

8 Recent research carried out with university students, however, has shown that the students place greater value on the institutional channels of political participation at the university than on the alter-natives. Aside from the possibility that the university can be seen as a peculiar civic space, what these results show is that the gap no longer seems to form only between institutional and alternative ways of participating, but rather, between modalities that allow greater individual control of decisions and modalities that are collective in nature. University students prefer the former over the latter (Jover, López and Quiroga, 2011). This preference brings them closer to the ways of participation of adult so-ciety, as van Deth found in his analysis on the forms of creative democracy based on the “Citizenship, Involvement, Democracy” project. The results of the project show positive correlations between the traditional and new forms of participation, which stops them from being considered exclusive alterna-tives, and that the most popular types of participation “consist of mainly individualized non organized forms of participation (voting, contacting, consumption) whereas collective, organized forms (party activities, protesting) are used much less frequently” (Deth, 2011, p. 160).

9 Manifiesto Democracia real ya. Retrieved from http://www.democraciarealya.es. The abbreviations PP and PSOE respectively stand for the “Partido Popular” (the conservative party) and the “Partido Socialista Obrero Español” (the socialist party).

10 Research group on civic culture and educational policies. Project No. SEJ2007-60622/EDU, Ministry of Science and Innovation, National R&D Plan.

11 To carry out the fieldwork, we had the collaboration of a group of graduate and postgraduate stu-dents from the Universidad Complutense de Madrid’s Faculty of Education, who trained in ethno-graphic methodology and to whom we will refer hereinafter as informants. The students who col-laborated were Davide Carnemolla, Diana Cifrán, María Iparraguirre, María Martín, Víctor Núñez, Miriam Prieto, Gema Ramírez, Mª Ángeles Ruiz-Valdepeñas and Bianca Thoilliez. The fieldwork was made possible thanks to the management of affairs by a member of our group, Professor Jorge Márquez.

12 The teacher’s name has been changed.

http://www.democraciarealya.es

G. JOVER

56

REFERENCES

Bárcena, F. (2006). Hannah Arendt. Una filosofía de la natalidad. Barcelona: Herder.Deth, J. W. van. (2010). Participation in voluntary associations: Dark shades in a sunny world? American

Behavioral Scientist, 53(5), 640–656.Deth, J. W. van. (2011). Is creative participation good for democracy? In M. Micheletti, & A. S. McFarland

(Eds.), Creative participation. Responsibility-taking in the political world (pp. 148–172). Boulder, CO: Paradigm.

Dewey, J. (2007). Democracy and education. Teddington: Echo Library.European Commission. (1998). Learning for active citizenship. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/

education/archive/citizen/citiz_en.htmlFigueroa, A. de. (1999). Notas de una vida. Madrid: Marcial Pons.Fraillon, J., Schulz, W., & Ainley, J. (2011). Orientations to civics and citizenship across in the East Asian

Region. Paper prepared for the Annual AERA Meeting in New Orleans, 8–12 April.Instituto de Evaluación. (2010). ICCS 2009. Estudio Internacional de Civismo y Ciudadanía. IEA.

Informe español. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación.Jaspers, K. (1958–1959). Filosofía. Madrid: Revista de Occidente. 2 vols.Jover, G. (2001). Educación y ciudadanía: el compromiso cívico de los jóvenes españoles. Teoría de la

Educación. Educación y Cultura en la Sociedad de la Información, 2, 1–13.Jover, G., Casares, P., Gil, F., & Payá, M. (2001). La crisis de la sociedad actual. In P. Ortega (Ed.),

Conflicto, violencia y educación (pp. 23–75). Murcia: Cajamurcia.Jover, G., & Naval, C. (2008). Transformed institutions, transformed citizenship education? Remarks on

the current situation in Spain. Journal of Social Science Education, 6(2), 29–39.Jover, G., López, E., & Quiroga, P. (2011). La universidad como espacio cívico: valoración estudiantil de

las modalidades de participación política universitaria. Revista de Educación, special issue, 69–91.Kerr, D., Sturman, L., & Friedman, T. (2011). Priorities for Civic and Citizenship Education in Europe.

Paper prepared for the Annual AERA Meeting in New Orleans, 8–12 April.Loader, B. D. (2007). Young citizens in the digital age: disaffected or displaced? In B. D. Loader (Ed.),

Young citizens in the digital age. Political engagement, young people and new media (pp. 1–17). New York: Routledge.

Masschelein, J., & Quaghebeur, K. (2005). Participation for Better or for Worse? Journal of Philosophy of Education, 39(1), 51–64.

Naval, C., Print, M., & Iriarte, C. (2003). Civic education in Spain: A critical review of policy. Journal of Social Sciences Education, 2.

Naval, C., Print, M., & Veldhuis, R. (2002). Education for democratic citizenship in the New Europe: Context and reform. European Journal of Education, 37(2), 107–128.

Oakeshott, M. (1989). A place of learning. In T. Fuller (Ed.), The voice of liberal learning. Michael Oakeshott on education (pp. 17–42). New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

O’Neill, B. (2007). Indifferent or just different? The political and civic engagement of young people in Canada. Ottawa, ON: CPRN.

Quaghebeur, K. (2006). Participation for Free. Exploring (limits of) participatory government. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38(4), 497–511.

Schulz, M., Ainley, J., Fraillon, J., Kerr, D., & Losito, B. (2010). Initial findings from the IEA international civic and citizenship education study. Amsterdam: IEA.

Schulz, W., & Gonzalez, E. (2011). Latin American perspectives on civic and citizenship education. Paper prepared for the Annual AERA Meeting in New Orleans, 8–12 April.

Walzer, M. (1994). Thick and thin: Moral argument at home and abroad. University of Notre Dame Press.Ziebertz, H. G., & Kay, W. K. (Eds.). (2005). Youth in Europe 1. An international empirical study about

life perspectives. Münster: Lit Publisher.

http://ec.europa.eu/education/archive/citizen/citiz_en.html

http://ec.europa.eu/education/archive/citizen/citiz_en.html


AVRIL KEATING, TOM BENTON AND DAVID KERR

EVALUATING THE IMPACT OF CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION IN SCHOOLS

What Works and What are We Measuring?

INTRODUCTION

There has been much interest in civic and citizenship education over the past 15 years, and much debate about whether citizenship education has an impact on civic engagement. As part of these debates, more and more attention has shifted away from simply asking whether citizenship education ‘works’, and instead asking what type of citizenship education works (Kahne & Sporte, 2008). In this vein, Niemi and Junn (1998) demonstrated that formal civics courses can have an important, if modest, impact on civic knowledge among high school students in the US. Since then, other scholars have built on this finding and argued that classroom interventions are more effective if they involve discussion of current events and controversial issues, and/ or if they involve democratic simulations such as mock elections or Model United Nations activities (McLeod, Shah, Hess and Less, 2010: 366, 371). By contrast, other scholars have looked to examine the role of learning outside of the classroom, for example through extra-curricular activities (and particularly, service learning or community service activities) (see Hart, Donnelly, Youniss & Atkins, 2007; McFarland & Thomas, 2006), or through democratic and participatory decision-making structures in school (Higgens-D’Allessandro, 2010: 571).

Yet despite the growing wealth of research about citizenship education, there is continued contestation about whether curriculum initiatives for citizenship education actually work, and if so, how we go about evaluating these programmes and measuring their impact (Higgens-D’Allessandro, 2010: 571). One of the key challenges is not only deciding what the desired outcomes are and how we measure them, but also how we measure the independent variable – that is, what constitutes citizenship education itself. This paper seeks to contribute to these on-going discussions by outlining some of the challenges of evaluating the impact of the Citizenship curriculum initiative in England, and describing the results of these evaluation efforts. We then describe the exploratory statistical modelling strategy we developed to overcome some of these challenges, and set out the results and implications of this strategy. In short, based on this revised modelling strategy, we will argue that the ways in which

A. KEATING, T. BENTON AND D. KERR

58

schools decide to ‘deliver’ citizenship education matter, and that some strategies are indeed more likely than others to have an impact on young people’s attitudes towards citizenship. By ‘delivering’ citizenship education we mean, for example, the ways in which schools decide to organise citizenship learning in the timetable, to assess citizenship learning, and/ or to allocate teaching staff and responsibility for curriculum development. However, it will also be noted that the analytical strategy is exploratory, that the effects are still modest, and that other variables and contexts are more powerful predictors of young people’s level of civic engagement.

INTRODUCING AND EVALUATING CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION IN ENGLAND

In September 2002, Citizenship was introduced into the National Curriculum in England, providing all students aged 11 to 16 in maintained schools with a legal entitlement to citizenship education. There was concern about the declining level of civic engagement among young people in England, and it was hoped that an intervention such as this could re-ignite civic interest, efficacy, and participation among young people (QCA, 1998). This was the first time that citizenship or civic education had been formally introduced into the curriculum (McLaughlin, 2000) and in order to monitor and evaluate its progress, the Department for Education (DfE) commissioned NFER (National Foundation for Educational Research) to conduct a nine-year evaluation of the implementation and impact of citizenship education in schools and on students. What came to be known as Citizenship Education Longitudinal Study (hereafter CELS) ran from 2001–20101 and because of its unusually long-running nature, it was able to have a complex research design involving four strands and both quantitative and qualitative data. The later involved collecting relevant research and policy documents (for literature reviews), and longitudinal studies of 12 case study schools (for empirical analysis), in which the selected schools were visited every two years, and interviews were conducted with senior leaders, citizenship teachers, and students. The quantitative strand included:

• A longitudinal survey based on a complete cohort of young people from a sample of schools in England. The cohort was surveyed following their entry to Year 7 (in 2002–3), and again when they were in Year 9 (in 2005), in Year 11 (in 2007), and in Year 13 or equivalent (in 2009).2

• A biennial cross-sectional survey, with questionnaires completed by approximately 2,500 students in each of Years 8, 10 and 12. Each time the survey was run, a new sample of 300 schools and colleges was drawn, and one tutor group (about 25 students) from each school took part in the survey.

Through these different strands, CELS collected a vast amount of data from schools, teachers and students, and created a rich dataset that captured the wide variety of ways citizenship education was implemented in, and impacted on, schools and students. It constitutes a unique dataset and a unique opportunity to


59

trace the evolution and impact of a curriculum initiative for citizenship education, and the evolution of young people’s citizenship practices as they progress through adolescence and through secondary education. The process of evaluation has not, however, been without its challenges.

Chief among these challenges was the fact that there was (and is) no set way of ‘delivering’ or teaching Citizenship in schools in England. Instead of prescribing how Citizenship should be taught, the government adopted a ‘light touch’ approach to the curriculum. This meant that rather than providing a detailed syllabus or textbook, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) instead merely set out some broad guidelines on the topics that should be covered, the amount of curriculum time that should be devoted to learning about citizenship (no more than 5%), and on the learning outcomes that the students were expected to achieve by the end of compulsory secondary education (QCA, 1999 and 2007)3. Other than this, however, schools were free to choose how and when they taught their students about citizenship issues, as well as deciding which teachers taught Citizenship, and how any corresponding learning would be assessed.

The upshot of this was that schools adopted a variety of ways to deliver the statutory minimum of citizenship learning, including, for example: whole school activities (such as school assemblies or school governance structures); short-courses or modules; Citizenship-themed weeks; cross-curricular learning models; tutorials; and discrete Citizenship lessons (Keating, Kerr, Lopes, Featherstone & Benton, 2009: 11–12). While it would have been beneficial and interesting to compare the variable impact of each of these models, we ultimately discovered that this was not feasible. The sheer variety of approaches meant that, for many of the delivery models, the sample of schools was not large enough to be able to provide a robust analysis of their efficacy. In fact, in some early analyses we found that almost every school in the study was using a unique combination of methods to deliver citizenship.

Furthermore, longitudinal case studies of schools highlighted that the delivery model that schools adopted was not necessarily stable (Keating et al, 2009: 20–24 and Appendix 3). Indeed, one of the CELS case study schools had a different model of delivering citizenship learning every time a case study visit was conducted (4 visits were conducted), as the school vacillated between cross-curricular learning, discrete classes, modules within other subjects, and special event days for learning about citizenship. The frequency with which this school changed its delivery approach was relatively unusual, but both the quantitative and qualitative data indicated that, over the course of the study, many schools adjusted the way they delivered citizenship. While this enabled them to find a way of teaching citizenship that suited the needs of their school and their students, it also meant that one of the key independent variables in this evaluation was itself quite variable. If School A was using model X of delivering citizenship in 2002, but model Y in 2004, and model X, Y, and Z in 2006, how do we account for this in the longitudinal analysis? That is, if schools are using mixed and variable delivery models over time, how can we evaluate the


60

medium-to-long term benefits of these methods of the different models of delivering citizenship learning?

The challenges of measuring the level and type of citizenship education in schools was further underlined when initial exploratory modelling provided little evidence of any school-level factors having an effect on young people’s dispositions towards participation (see Benton, Cleaver, Featherstone, Kerr, Lopes & Whitby, 2008). More specifically, exploratory modelling of the CELS longitudinal survey data showed no direct link between the cohort’s attitudes and intentions towards participation and the type of citizenship education they experienced at school. Instead, this initial analysis suggested that young people’s attitudes and intentions towards participation were more likely to be predicted by certain background variables and student characteristics. For example, the results suggested that positive dispositions towards civic participation were associated with being female, Asian, and from a home with relatively more educated parents and more literacy resources (proxy variables for socio-economic status). In terms of student characteristics, the individual’s level of personal efficacy was found to play an important role in shaping their attitudes and intentions towards civic and political participation.

In these initial modelling efforts, we examined the relationship between citizenship education provision in schools and citizenship outcomes for students by using data from the CELS schools survey to assess the level (and delivery types) of CE being provided by schools; the underlying assumption of this strategy was that this would be a suitable independent measure of the input that might have an impact on the intended outcomes. However, the failure to find a direct link between school provision and student outcomes led us to re-consider both the mechanisms that were being assumed and the measures of provision that were being used in this analysis.

MEASURING AND MODELLING RECEIVED CITIZENSHIP

One resultant strategy was to examine whether schools had an indirect, rather than a direct, impact on student outcomes. This bore some fruit, and structural equation modelling (SEM) of the 2007 data (when the cohort were in Year 11) indicated that school democracy had an indirect impact on the cohort’s attitudes towards informal civic and civil participation and agreement with laws. However, the effects were modest and Benton et al (2008: 83–4) concluded that ‘large changes in the levels of democracy within a school may only yield small increases in the ultimate outcomes of interest: students’ attitudes and intentions regarding participation.’

An alternative approach was to re-examine how we were measuring the input variable – that is, the amount and type of citizenship education being received at school. As noted above, the initial exploratory analysis relied on schools’ own reports of their teaching provision. However, there can be substantial gaps between the intended curriculum (that is set out in national policy), the planned curriculum (that is found in schemes of work and syllabi), the curriculum that is delivered


61

by teachers in classrooms, and the curriculum or learning that is received by students and students (Middlewood, 2005: 109). We therefore decided to examine not what schools thought they had provided, but rather what the participating students thought that they had received. It was hoped that this approach could be a more reliable indicator of a students’ exposure to citizenship education, as it would demonstrate not only that citizenship education was delivered, but also that it was experienced and acknowledged by students as a deliberate educational experience.4 We labelled this concept ‘received citizenship’ and decided to measure it responses to the question ‘Are you taught about citizenship’? This question which was included in each wave of the CELS survey of students, and respondents were given four possible responses to this question (‘a little’, ‘a lot’, ‘not at all’ or ‘don’t know’), each indicating different levels of citizenship and allowing us to compare the impact of these different levels.5

To test this assumption, we created a two-step model that allowed us to examine two inter-related questions and, ultimately, to evaluate the impact of citizenship education on the cohort’s outcomes. This model is summarised below in Figure 1, but in short, this modelling strategy addressed two questions:

1. Do different school delivery policies for Citizenship have a variable impact on the level of citizenship education reported by students (that is, received citizenship)?

2. What impact does received citizenship have on citizenship outcomes?

The results of this two step model are described in the following sections. We first show that central assumption of Model 2 holds; that is, that received citizenship does indeed have an impact on young people’s citizenship outcomes. Having established this, we then describe the school delivery variables which are associated with higher levels of received citizenship (that is, the results of model 1).

Figure 1: Overview of the CELS data modellingSource: Keating et al (2010: 49)

Citizenship delivery type(measured from data provided in the CELS

survey of school leaders)

Otherinfluences(such as

backgroundvariables,

prior attitudes,school

characteristics)

Received citizenship(measured by young people’s responses

to the question: “Are you taught aboutcitizenship?”

Citizenship outcome in youngpeople

Model1

Model2

Model 2

Model 1


62

Model 2: What is the impact of received citizenship education on young people’s attitudes, intentions and skills?

For this portion of the analysis, we used Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) to analyse the survey data collected from the longitudinal cohort of students over four waves (that is, in Years 7, 9, 11 and 13).6 SEM has a number of benefits that made it suitable for this task. First, like other regression-type analyses, it allowed comparisons to be made on a like-with-like basis; that is, taking into account the differences in the circumstances of individual respondents. This was important because those respondents who were most enthusiastic about civic and political participation were likely to be those who were most enthusiastic when they enrolled. Failing to take account of this would present a distorted picture of the influence of other individual-level characteristics. Second, SEM also attempts to take into account the uncertainty or error associated with any measurement of a young person’s attitudes and intentions (Bollen, 1989), and it therefore provided accurate estimates of the relationship between variables. Third, it allowed us to take into account the hierarchical nature of the data; that is, the fact that students were grouped within schools (see Muthen and Muthen, 1998–2006). Finally, SEM also enabled us to examine how these relationships change over time, a particularly important benefit for longitudinal studies such as CELS.

In this case, we were primarily concerned with the relationship between received citizenship and the cohort’s citizenship outcomes. For the purposes of this analysis, we decided to focus on three outcomes in particular: the cohort’s current attitudes towards citizenship civic and political participation (citizenship attitudes), their intentions to participate in civic and political activities in the future (citizenship intentions), and their citizenship skills (in this case, the extent to which young people feel able to influence the government, their school and their family (often referred to as ‘personal efficacy’)). In terms of the antecedents, we included both the respondents’ current levels of received citizenship and the level of received citizenship they reported in previous waves. We also included students’ background characteristics (such as gender and ethnicity) as well as their prior citizenship attitudes, intentions, and skills (see Figure 2). By including both prior outcomes and prior levels of received citizenship we were able to control for the impact of previous learning experiences and pre-existing attitudes, and therefore to isolate the impact of received citizenship in a given year on the students’ outcomes for that year.

Using this method and these variables, in each wave of the study we found a significant relationship between received citizenship and each outcome (see Table 1). For example, respondents who reported being taught citizenship ‘a lot’ in Year 7 tended to have attitudes to political participation that were 0.183 standard deviations better than similar respondents who reported that they were not taught citizenship. Indeed, there was almost universally a significant link between the extent to which the CELS cohort felt that they were taught citizenship (i.e. their level of received citizenship) within a given year and their citizenship outcomes within the same year.


63

The only exception to this was found in relation to personal efficacy outcomes for participants in Year 13, where no significant relationship was found. The Year 13 sample was comprised of young people aged 17–18, and many of this group had acquired (or were about to acquire) the full rights of adult citizenship.

The results in Table 1 also show that that respondents who reported being taught citizenship ‘a lot’ often exhibited significantly better outcomes than similar

Figure 2. The antecedents and outcomes of interest in Model 2

The antecedents The outcomes

• Levels of received citizenship

• Fixed background characteristics

• Pior outcome levels (e.g. students’ prior citizenship attituedes, intentions

and skills)

• Current levels• Current citizenship attitudes towards civic and political participation

• Citizenship intention to participate in civic and political activities in the future

• Citizenship skills– in this case, the extent to which young people feel able to influence the government, their school and their family (and often referred to as ‘personal efficacy’).

• Gender• Ethnicity• Home literacy resources• Students’ educational aspirations• Parental education levels

• Prior levels

Standardised Coefficients Year 7 Year 9 Year 11 Year 13

Citizenship Outcome A lot A little A lot A little A lot A little A lot A little

Attitudes towards political participation 0.183 0.070 0.235 0.037 0.164 0.092 0.408 0.179

Intentions towards political participation in the future

0.248 0.103 0.305 0.137 0.135 0.038 0.382 0.098

Attitudes towards civic participation 0.422 0.235 0.268 0.167 0.310 0.215 0.226 0.152

Intentions towards civic participation in the future

0.257 0.118 0.253 0.086 0.169 0.107 0.389 0.082

Personal efficacy 0.414 0.155 0.546 0.146 0.429 0.260 0.178 -0.022

Table 1. Standardised coeffi cients for the impact of received citizenship on the CELS co-hort’s citizenship outcomes within the same year

Source: Citizenship Education Longitudinal Survey, NFER. Figures in italics are not statistically significant.


64

respondents who reported being taught only ‘a little’ citizenship. In particular, the effect of ‘a lot’ of received citizenship on personal efficacy tended to be stronger than its impact on the other citizenship outcomes we looked at (except in Year 13 where, as noted above, received citizenship was no longer significantly related to personal efficacy). By contrast, the impact of ‘a little’ citizenship education tended to be notably weaker and indeed in some cases, negligible. In some instances, there were no significant differences in the outcomes for the respondents who received ‘a little’ citizenship education and for those who received none at all.

In short, SEM suggested that received citizenship can, in fact, have an impact on citizenship outcomes. However, if, as the SEM results suggest, higher levels of received citizenship are associated with higher outcomes, this begs question: what types of citizenship education provision are associated with received citizenship? Or in other words, what types of citizenship education are most likely to produce higher levels of received citizenship, and by inference, better citizenship outcomes in young people?

Model 1: What school delivery variables influence received citizenship?

To address this question, multilevel ordinal logistic regression was used to identify which Citizenship-delivery strategies were most strongly related to an increased probability of the cohort saying that they were taught ‘a little’ or ‘a lot’ of citizenship. In this model, we included a wide range of school-level variables to try to capture the different school decisions that might influence how citizenship learning is organised within the curriculum. As Table 2 illustrates, this included variables such as the mode of delivery for citizenship learning (e.g. cross-curricular/ discrete classes etc), the school’s policies towards assessing student outcomes, and the allocation of teaching and curriculum development responsibilities. For example, in 2007 43 per cent of the CELS schools allocated responsibility for Citizenship curriculum development to the individual teachers who were teaching the subject, while 53 per cent allocated this task to coordinators of Personal, Social, Health and Economic education (PSHE). We therefore included this variable in the model, to examine whether this resulted in any differences in student outcomes. Likewise, a sizeable number of CELS schools (35 per cent in 2007) offered their students the opportunity to follow a GCSE short course7 in Citizenship and to receive external accreditation for their citizenship learning. This, as the following discussion will demonstrate, was a key variable.

As noted above, it was difficult to compare all the different types of delivery, as the number of schools in each delivery type was relatively small. For the purposes of this analysis therefore, we decided to divide the schools into two categories: those with discrete time slots of more than 45 minutes (which constituted 45% of the participating schools in 2007) and those who used other delivery models (including discrete timetable slots of less than 45 minutes). We also noted that the delivery model used by schools was not necessarily stable; here we decided to use school


65

reports of their approach to citizenship in 2007 instead of the results from the 2009 survey of schools. We adopted this approach because by the time the 2009 survey was conducted the cohort had moved beyond compulsory secondary education and citizenship education was therefore no longer statutory and some of the cohort had left or moved school. As a result, the cohort’s current outcomes could not necessarily be linked to schools’ current activities, and 2007 was thus the most recent data which we hold for the greatest number of students.

Selecting the predictors at the individual level was more straight-forward. We included the variables which previous CELS analyses had indicated were associated with the cohort’s citizenship outcomes – namely gender, ethnicity, parental education, and home literacy resources (Benton et al, 2008). Each participant’s own educational aspirations were also included, as an indicator of the level of education they would ultimately receive, and the implications that past research has indicated that this would have on their level of civic engagement.

Finally, in order to ascertain whether the particular strategies schools adopted for teaching citizenship had a differential impact on different types of students, a number of interactions between student and school level variables were also explored. These are also outlined in Table 2.

RESULTS OF MODEL 1

Having established the predictors of interest, a backwards stepwise technique was used so that only variables with a statistically significant relationship with the probability of students responding that they are taught citizenship ‘a little’ or ‘a lot’ are included in the model. The odds ratios are assumed to be constant for both categories, so if being taught ‘a little’ and ‘a lot’ of citizenship were modelled separately the odds ratios for the variables below would not vary significantly. Thus, although the intercepts are different, the variables have the same effect on both categories, showing the overall impact on being taught citizenship while controlling for differences between being taught ‘a little’ and ‘a lot’. The results are shown in Table 3 below.

Based on these assumptions, the MLM suggested that the cohort’s levels of received citizenship were shaped by a number of school-level factors. For one, CELS respondents in schools with a dedicated time slot for citizenship of over 45 minutes per week were substantially more likely to say they were taught citizenship. The odds of a student saying this were 54 per cent higher than they would be in a school without a dedicated time slot for citizenship. This effect was even greater amongst respondents who reported that they do not intend to go to university.

Second, schools which offered a GCSE short course in Citizenship were associated with an increased probability of respondents’ reporting received citizenship. Indeed, it was the variable that appears to have had the largest impact on participants’ levels of received citizenship, as this strategy was associated with a 95 per cent increase in the odds of a respondent saying they were taught citizenship education. As noted


66

above, the GCSE short course culminates in an independently-assessed examination and a recognised academic qualification. The status and benefits of this qualification may in itself account for the higher levels of awareness among the cohort, but it may also be that schools placed greater emphasis on the subject in recognition of the fact that their students would be externally assessed.

Table 2. Predictors included in Model 1 (levels of received citizenship)

PREDICTORS DATA SOURCESchool Level• Mode of delivery of CE learning (e.g. discrete lessons or cross/

extra-curricular)• Duration of CE learning (discrete lessons ≥ 45 minutes per week)• CE staffing policy (use existing staff/ hire new qualified staff)• Teacher training in / experience of CE• Responsibility for curriculum development • CE leadership and status• School assessment policy for CE • Offers GCSE short course

Derived from responses to the 2007 longitudinal survey of schools

• The ethnic composition of the school • The socio-economic composition of the school • The academic attainment of the school

Derived from NFER’s Register of Schools

Individual level• Gender• Ethnicity • Anticipated level of education • Highest educational level achieved by parents• Home literacy resources

Derived from responses to the 2007 longitudinal survey of students in Year 11

Interactions between school level and individual level predictorsSchool Level• Responsibility for curriculum development lies with the PSHE

coordinator• Responsibility for curriculum development lies with the citizenship

teacher• Having a dedicated timeslot for citizenship education of over 45

minutes per week • Having an agreed strategy for assessment of citizenship education

at Key Stage 4 Individual level• Student who intends to go into higher education • Student who is unsure of when they would leave education• Students with 10 or less books in home• Students of Asian ethnicity

Derived from responses to the 2007 longitudinal survey of schools


67

Third, CELS respondents who attended schools where the citizenship curriculum was developed by a PSHE (Personal, Social and Health Education) coordinator were substantially less likely to state that they were taught citizenship than respondents in schools with other staffing policies. The odds of a student saying this are 0.64 of what they would be in a similar school where the citizenship curriculum is not determined by the PSHE coordinator. One reason for this may be that in many schools CE is taught in conjunction with PSHE. For example, the 2007 survey showed that 45 per cent of schools were using PHSE lessons as the main vehicle

Table 3: Results of Model 1 - multilevel modelling of received citizenship

Fixed Effects Odds Ratio P-valueIntercept – A little 1.09 0.692Intercept- A lot 0.05 0.000

Significant school level effects Citizenship curriculum was developed by School Coordinator for Personal Social Health Education (PSHE)

0.64 0.005

Citizenship curriculum was developed directly by teachers of citizenship education

1.79 0.000

Dedicated time slot over 45 minutes per week 1.54 0.012Use of GCSE short course 1.95 0.000Percentage of students eligible for free school meals 1.03 0.000

Significant student level effects* Ethnicity – Asian 1.39 0.001Ethnicity - Prefer not to say 0.46 0.000Books in home - 1-10 2.52 0.000Books in home - 11-50 3.73 0.000Books in home - 51-100 4.35 0.000Books in home - 101-200 4.37 0.000Books in home – More than 200 4.53 0.000Planning to leave education - After year 11 0.54 0.000Planning to leave education - After year 12 0.52 0.000Planning to leave education - After year 13 0.71 0.000Planning to leave education – Not sure 0.80 0.032

Significant interaction effects Not going to university and a dedicated CE time slot of over 45 minutes

1.22 0.027

Not sure if going to university and PSHE coordinator responsible for developing the CE curriculum

0.73 0.012

*Odds ratios allow different students to be compared to those who are white British, have no books in home and plan to stay in education until their early 20s.Source: Citizenship Education Longitudinal Survey, NFER.


68

for delivering citizenship learning; in previous years, even higher levels of this option were reported (Keating et al, 2009: 11). In cases such as these, citizenship learning may be so integrated into PSHE learning that it is conflated with PHSE by the teacher and/ or the students, and the respondents were therefore not aware of the CE that they had received.

By contrast, the cohort was more likely to be aware that they were taught citizenship in schools where the curriculum was developed by the teachers who were delivering their citizenship learning. These teachers were not necessarily specialist citizenship teachers, but rather were teachers with a specific responsibility for developing and delivering the types of citizenship learning that they imparted to students. The positive effect was even more marked amongst the CELS respondents who were not sure if they intended to go to university; these respondents were considerably more likely to report receiving citizenship education if the curriculum was devised by their teacher rather than the PSHE coordinator.

Finally, this analysis suggested that the way in which Citizenship learning was delivered was not the only school-level variable of import. In addition, the socio-economic composition of the school also had an effect on student outcomes. CELS respondents who attended schools with many students eligible for free school meals tended to report higher levels of citizenship teaching than similar respondents elsewhere. Eligibility for free school meals is a key indicator of socio-economic deprivation in England, and from this we can infer that students in deprived schools were more likely to report that they were receiving education about citizenship.

DISCUSSION: HOW MUCH DIFFERENCE CAN RECEIVED CITIZENSHIP MAKE?

In short, multi-level modelling of these variables indicated that there can be a relationship between the way in which schools organise or deliver citizenship learning and their students’ reports of the level of received citizenship. To illustrate this further, consider the probability of a ‘typical’ student saying they were taught ‘a lot’ of citizenship (and, by implication, have high levels of what we are calling received citizenship). A ‘typical’ student might be defined as a white British student with average home literacy resources (101–200 books in the home) who is planning to stay in education until his early 20s and is currently studying in a school where 15 per cent of students are eligible for free school meals. If this student is in a school where citizenship is embedded within PSHE and the curriculum is developed by the PSHE coordinator (rather than the teacher), the model results predict they would have just a 17 per cent chance of saying they were taught citizenship ‘a lot’ and an 83 per cent chance of saying they were taught citizenship at least ‘a little.’ By contrast, a student of the same type would have a 63 per cent probability of stating that they are taught citizenship ‘a


69

lot’, and a 98 percent probability for being taught at least ‘a little’ if they attend a school:

• that has a weekly, dedicated timeslot for citizenship education of over 45 minutes• where the curriculum is developed by teachers responsible for delivering

citizenship education, and• where students can take the GCSE short course in Citizenship.

From this, can we then infer that the delivery method a school adopts can have some impact on citizenship outcomes for students? This was certainly the assumption of the two-step model described above. In order to test this hypothesis further, and to calculate what the impact might be, we combined the results from each model, and estimated the effect of one delivery strategy (namely using the GCSE short course in Citizenship) on each of the citizenship outcomes under review (namely the SEM results presented in Table 1). We focused on the GCSE short course because, as noted above, this variable appears to have the largest impact on students’ levels of received citizenship. If there is a relationship between delivery method and citizenship outcomes, then this should therefore become apparent when the models are combined.

The results of these calculations are shown in Table 4. These figures suggest that by combing the models we can indeed find a link between schools’ policies for delivering Citizenship and their students’ outcomes.

Table 4. Estimated effect of largest school policy change (GCSE short course) on student outcomes

Outcome Year 11

Attitudes Towards Political Participation 0.015

Intentions Towards Political Participation 0.014Attitudes Towards Civic Participation 0.027

Intentions Towards Civic Participation 0.015

Personal Efficacy 0.039

Source: Citizenship Education Longitudinal Survey, NFER.

For example, we calculated that the effects of the GCSE short course would be to increase the probability of a student saying they were taught citizenship ‘a lot’ by about 12 per cent and decrease the probability of them saying they were taught citizenship ‘a little’ by about 5 per cent. Using these changes in probability, combined with the coefficients in Table 1, we calculated that the effect of the GCSE short course on Year 11 students’ attitudes towards political participation would be 0.12*0.164-0.05*0.092 = 0.015. In other words, students in Year 11 at schools that use the GCSE short course are estimated to be just under 2 per cent of a standard


70

deviation ahead of similar students at other schools. However, it is also clear that the effects, while present, are small. The implications of this are discussed in the next section.

CONCLUSIONS AND CAVEATS

This chapter has explored some of the challenges of evaluating and measuring the impact of citizenship learning through the curriculum. In the process, we described the rationale and results of a two-step statistical model that we developed to try to accomplish this goal, and the way in which we tried to take into account both the particulars of programme initiative and of the programme evaluation. By using this approach to the evaluation we found evidence of a link between schools and outcomes, and that there are certain models of organising and delivering citizenship education in schools which are likely to produce higher levels of awareness about received citizenship education and, in turn, better citizenship outcomes for students. Those delivery strategies that are most likely to produce these outcomes are: a weekly, dedicated timeslot for citizenship education of over 45 minutes; allocating responsibility for Citizenship curriculum development to teachers who will deliver the lessons; and offering students the opportunity students to take an externally-examined curriculum course, namely the GCSE short course in Citizenship. Although not available at the time of the survey, students can now also take a full course in Citizenship; it is likely that the full GCSE would be equally effective, if not more so.

However, although these findings provide some useful insights into how citizenship education can be most effective, a number of important caveats must also be highlighted. For one, it is clear that even when using this alternative and indirect strategy, the effects of school delivery strategies were small. It might not be sufficient to simply enforce discreet Citizenship classes on all schools or to make it compulsory for students to take the GCSE short-course in Citizenship. Instead, in order for schools to make any notable impact on student outcomes, it may be necessary to implement all of the delivery strategies that we found to be associated with higher levels of received citizenship.

Second, analysis presented elsewhere suggested that the long to medium term effects of received citizenship may be even more limited. SEM of the impact of received citizenship on outcomes in subsequent years suggested that the effects waned over time if citizenship education was not sustained over the course of the participant’s school career (Keating, Kerr, Benton, Mundy & Lopes, 2010: 52). Based on this evidence, it could be argued that curriculum initiatives for citizenship education should be continued throughout schooling, and that it is not sufficient to deliver citizenship learning through a one-off or short-term educational intervention (such as a module in lower secondary education).

Third, it is important to note that the modelling strategy and subsequent analysis that was presented in this chapter were exploratory. At the very least, further research on the impact (or not) of citizenship education is required to test both the strength


71

of these findings and their generalisability to other contexts beyond England. Data from the 2009 International Civic and Citizenship Education Study may facilitate this.

Finally, although we have not discussed the results in this chapter, it was also clear that from the analysis that citizenship education was not the only variable that contributed towards shaping the citizenship outcomes of the CELS cohort. Background variables also played an important role (especially home literacy resources), and more importantly, so too did the citizenship attitudes, intentions, and efficacy levels that the cohort had formed in previous years. Indeed, the SEM results indicated that the cohort’s citizenship attitudes, intentions and skills were better accounted for by their previous attitudes, intentions and skills than by either the citizenship education they received or their background characteristics (see Keating et al, 2010: 53–54).8 Further research on the interactions of these background variables with school-level variables is urgently required, so that we can gain a fuller understanding of youth socialisation in civic engagement and so that we can developed an informed understanding of the implications for, and limits of, school-based initiatives.

NOTES

1 Although the DfE evaluation has now been completed, the medium to long term effects of this initiative are continuing to be assessed through a new project, Citizens in Transition, which is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), UK.

2 In England, students in Year 7 are typically aged 11-12, while students in Year 9 are typically aged 13-14. In Year 11, students are usually aged 15-16, rising to age 17-18 in Year 13.

3 See also: http://curriculum.qcda.gov.uk/key-stages-3-and-4/subjects/key-stage-3/citizenship/Level-descriptions/index.aspx

4 This is not to say that this variable could be treated as if it were the actual amount of time for which students have been taught citizenship. Even students within the same classroom showed a great degree of variation in their responses to this question, even though they were highly likely to be experiencing roughly the same curriculum (at least within the early years of secondary school).

5 The responses for ‘not at all’ and ‘don’t know’ were combined during the analysis, as only a small proportion of students selected these options. For example, in the 2007 longitudinal survey of Year 11 students, 5 per cent and 8 per cent respectively; in comparison, 24 per cent of students indicated that they had received ‘a lot’ of citizenship education, and 49 per cent indicated that they had received ‘a little’

6 In order to make the model computationally viable the model was actually run in two separate parts. The first part explored outcomes in years 7 to 11 and included all pupils who had completed both the year 7 and year 11 questionnaires; 7,091 pupils from 78 schools were used to estimate this part of the model. The second part explored outcomes in year 13 and included all pupils who had responded to both the year 11 and year 13 surveys; 1,073 pupils from 80 schools were used to estimate this part of the model. Since the size of the data available for this second part of analysis was greatly reduced, the impact of background characteristics was not included within this part of the model. Model results were collated and are displayed together in Table 1.

7 GCSE stands for General Certificate of Secondary Education, an academic qualification that is usually taken at the end of compulsory secondary education. Short courses are equivalent to half a full GCSE, and this was initially the only option through which to gain qualification at GCSE-level in England. Since September 2009, however, students have been able to follow a ‘full’ GCSE course in Citizenship. Post-compulsory secondary qualifications in Citizenship (namely A-level and AS-level qualifications) have also been introduced latterly.

http://curriculum.qcda.gov.uk/key-stages-3-and-4/subjects/key-stage-3/citizenship/Level-descriptions/index.aspx




72

8 Except for in Year 7, as this was the first year of the CELS survey, and no prior attitudes, intentions or skills were available to include in the analysis.

REFERENCES

Benton, T., Cleaver, E., Featherstone, G., Kerr, D., Lopes, J., & Whitby, K. (2008). Citizenship Education Longitudinal Study (CELS): Sixth Annual Report. Young people’s civic participation in and beyond school: Attitudes, intentions and influences (DCSF Research Report 052). London: DCSF.

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley Interscience.Hart, D., Donnelly, T., Youniss, J., & Atkins, R. (2007). High school community service as a predictor of

adult voting and volunteering. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 107–219.Higgens-D’Allessandro, A. (2010). The transdisciplinary nature of citizenship and civic/political

engagement evaluation. In L. R. Sherrod, J. Torney-Purta, & C. A. Flanagan (Eds.), Handbook of research on civic engagement in youth. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Kahne, J. E., & Sporte, S. E. (2008). Developing citizens: The impact of civic learning opportunities on students’ commitment to civic participation. American Educational Research Journal 45(3), 738–766.

Keating, A., Kerr, D., Benton, T., Mundy, E., & Lopes, J. (2010). Citizenship education in England 2001–2010: Young people’s practices and prospects for the future: The eighth and final report from the Citizenship Education Longitudinal Study (CELS). Retrieved from http://www.education.gov.uk/publications//eOrderingDownload/DFE-RR059.pdf

Keating, A., Kerr, D., Lopes, J., Featherstone, G., & Benton, T. (2009). Embedding Citizenship Education (CE) in secondary schools in England (2002–2008): Citizenship Education Longitudinal Study (CELS): Seventh Annual Report. London: DCSF.

McFarland, D. A., & Thomas, R. J. (2006). Bowling young: How youth voluntary associations influence adult political participation. American Sociological Review, 71(3), 401–425.

McLaughlin, T. H. (2000). Citizenship education in England: The Crick report and beyond. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 34(4), 541–570.

McLeod, J., Shah, D., Hess, D., & Less, N. J. (2010). Communication and education: Creating competence for socialization into public life. In L. R. Sherrod, J. Torney-Purta, & C. A. Flanagan (Eds.), Handbook of research on civic engagement in youth. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Middlewood, D. (2005). Leadership of the curriculum: Setting the vision. In D. Middlewood, & N. Burton (Eds.), Managing the curriculum. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage.

Muthen, L. K., & Muthern, B. O. (1998–2006). Mplus User’s Guide. Fourth Ed. Los Angeles, CA: Muthen and Muthen.

Niemi, R. G., & Junn, J. (2005). Civic education: What makes students learn? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

QCA. (1998). Advisory group on education and citizenship and the teaching of democracy in schools: Education for citizenship and the teaching of democracy in Schools (Crick Report). London: QCA.

QCA. (2007). National Curriculum for Citizenship – Programme of Study for Key Stage 3 and attainment target [online]. Retrieved from http://curriculum.qcda.gov.uk/uploads/QCA-07-3329-pCitizenship3_tcm8-396.pdf

http://www.education.gov.uk/publications//eOrderingDownload/DFE-RR059.pdf

http://www.education.gov.uk/publications//eOrderingDownload/DFE-RR059.pdf

http://curriculum.qcda.gov.uk/uploads/QCA-07-3329-pCitizenship3_tcm8-396.pdf

http://curriculum.qcda.gov.uk/uploads/QCA-07-3329-pCitizenship3_tcm8-396.pdf


JÜRGEN MENTHE

EDUCATION FOR DEMOCRATIC CITIZENSHIP

Values Vs Process

INTRODUCTION

One target of the International Citizenship Education Symposium at the Leibniz University Hannover was to compare different approaches towards Education for Democratic Citizenship (EDC) in a range of democratic countries. Besides the question of where Education for Democratic Citizenship might best be applied (in formal or non-formal education? In individual school subjects, or as part of a new perspective on teaching and learning in general?), EDC looked how this could be done. A recurring issue in the discussions were the differing opinions on whether EDC is mainly based on communicating and living democratic processes and practices, or if it is based on teaching and living democratic values and attitudes. This short text aims to summarize some of the statements around this topic in order to clarify this controversy.

An obvious conclusion might be that democratic citizenship relies on both: it should address democratic values like human rights, antidiscrimination, participation, empowerment, and integration. At the same time, it should be practiced: Democratic decision making within a school or in other fields of the educational process should be exemplary of democratic participation. As is often the case, the obvious answer is not wrong. But at the same time, it is only minimally helpful, as it implies that there is no contradiction between the two principles. The debate begins (and was the subject of discussion in several group discussions during the ICE-Meeting), when the outcomes of participatory Processes are undemocratic or when undemocratic initiatives try to spread their ideas using participatory methods.

THREE DIMENSIONS: COGNITIVE, AFFECTIVE, ACTION

EDC is a complex concept – its goal is to strengthen the civil society. David Kerr (2003, p.5) describes citizenship education as being ”based on three elements: Knowledge and understanding about becoming informed citizens, Developing skills of enquiry and approach, Developing skills of participation and responsible action.” But how can education support young people to become active, responsible citizens?

J. MENTHE

74

Typically, the educational efforts for democratic citizenship are divided into three dimensions (Reuss 2007, Audigier 2001):

1. The cognitive dimension (knowledge about democracy, democratic principles, democratic traditions, democratic procedures)

2. The affective dimension (democratic attitudes, ethical and moral convictions) 3. Democratic action (active participation, involvement, decision making)

Duerr et al. (2000) find a very compact definition for EDC, saying that it contains learning ABOUT, FOR and IN democracy and society. So far, we can assume that the three dimensions of EDC are closely related and generally headed towards a common goal. Cognitive targets are seen as a foundation of democratic behavior, political literacy supports individuals to become informed citizens, to explain situations and to understand political processes (Audigier 2000 pp.21). The link between the Cognitive and the affective domain is based on the assumption that to learn (cognitively) about rights and duties, about democratic values and human rights, about the significance of tolerance, and about participation and solidarity within democracies will lead to positive attitudes and respect for these values (Eurydice 2005). Whereas these goals seem to be beyond dispute, the influence of factual and conceptual knowledge on the ability to make informed decisions and on developing democratic values and attitudes is subject to controversial debate within the academic teacher education (e.g. Autorengruppe Fachdidaktik 2011).

DEMOCRATIC VALUES AND DEMOCRATIC CULTURE

Within EDC, there is a consensus that democratic citizenship relies on certain values. It is less clear which of these values are most important and most appropriate for educational purposes. Hoskins & Deakin Crick (2010, p.6) proposes the following values and attitudes, based on the CRELL Research Network on Active Citizenship for Democracy.

“Attitudes: political trust, political interest, political efficacy, autonomy and independence, resilience, cultural appreciation, respect for other cultures, openness to change/difference of opinion, responsibility and openness to involvement as active citizens, influencing society and policy;

Values: human rights, democracy, gender equality, sustainability, peace/non-violence, fairness and equity, valuing involvement as active citizens.”O Shea (2003, p7) describes the goals of the EDC in the following terms: “EDC is a process of lifelong learning, that focuses on […]: participation, partnership, social cohesion, access, equity, accountability, solidarity.” Similar lists of values and attitudes can be found in most publications about EDC. The problem with such lists is that they are often simply additive, and not based on concrete practices that could offer any kind of connection between different values. Furthermore, contradictions and tensions between the actualization of certain values are rarely addressed. Unfortunately, in concrete educational measures, these contradictions


75

often complicate matters. To illustrate, I would like to sketch some of the examples that were put forward during the plenary discussions at the ICE Meeting.

DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES AND UNDEMOCRATIC VALUES AND DECISIONS

The political system of Switzerland is often considered an ideal model for democratic participation. Whereas in most western democracies political participation is restricted to voting for a certain party or representative, Swiss citizens regularly have the chance to decide on concrete political measures. Furthermore, citizens have the chance to found initiatives in order to realise their political ideas. As a result, political processes and discussions in Switzerland are considered more transparent and visible in the public discourse. But while the democratic procedures might be exemplary, the results of these democratic processes are not always emancipatory or democratic. A famous example in contemporary history is the so-called “Ausschaffungsinititive” – an initiative that was accepted by the majority of the Swiss people in 2010. The content of this initiative is that immigrants sentenced for some (major) criminal offence have to be sent back to their “home countries” –even if they have a Swiss passport, that is, even if they are Swiss citizens. This spectacular incident shows that the desired democratic participation can lead to decisions that can hardly be called democratic. Similar incidents happen in other countries, i.e. right wing citizen initiatives in Germany (TAZ 2010). Such processes end up in the dilemma that on the one hand, EDC intends to strengthen participation – on the other hand, not every outcome of participatory action is acceptable. A comment in a plenary discussion at the ICE-Symposium was: “Where do we end if we support democratic participation and at the same time don´t accept what the people want?”

In one plenary discussion at the symposium, the question of how to deal with right wing, yet legal, parties (like the BNP) was discussed. The following quote precisely describes the dilemma: “Should BNP members or other radical parties be allowed in school? […] until the law decrees any political party to be undemocratic, illegal, or in contravention of human rights law, schools must treat all parties equally and all parties must be asked to avoid direct electioneering when in school. Failure to do so arguably places the school itself in a position of being undemocratic and denying the rights of some citizens their entitlement to freedom of conscience and expression.” (Crombie & Rowe 2009, p.5)

Relating to the tension between values and processes, it has to be decided if any kind of political activity (within legal limits) has to be accepted, or if participatory initiatives (like the promotion of certain political ideas of the BNP) can be banned because the underlying values are (or are considered) undemocratic.

MISUNDERSTANDING VALUES

Another example in the plenary discussion was based on experiences with right wing adolescents in East Germany. One participant said that these young people readily

J. MENTHE

76

accept “solidarity” as an important value, but their understanding of solidarity is not inclusive. For them, solidarity does not interfere with the exclusion of migrants (and maybe even the contrary). As for the question of whether processes or values are crucial in strengthening democratic citizenship, this example indicates that teaching ethical values doesn´t necessarily lead to democratic attitudes. The question is how to discriminate between acceptable and inacceptable values – and raises doubts about whether teaching democratic values, like teaching factual knowledge about certain institutions, can really work.

Ultimately, in a situation where outcomes of participatory processes are in conflict with democratic values, there has to be a clear emphasis on what is more important. In Germany, there is a special sensitivity towards this topic because it is closely related to the darkest phase in the German history. The decline of the “Weimarer Republik” and the handover of power to Hitler and the NSDAP happened by – more or less – legal and democratic procedures.

GERMAN TRADITION OF A WELL FORTIFIED DEMOCRACY

Probably the most important historical consequence of the Nazi-Regime, as far as the construction of the democratic constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany is concerned, was the idea of a ‘well-fortified democracy’. The German Constitution (Grundgesetz) contains a series of articles that are absolutely untouchable – the underlying values are unchangeable so that democracy cannot be easily abolished by legal acts, no matter what the citizens vote or decide. Whether such a protective mechanism can be successful in times of a crisis of legitimacy in the democracy, is debatable. Böckenförde (1967) argues that a democracy itself is always at risk – it depends on the willingness of the citizens to support the democratic system. Himmelmann (2007) uses this notion as a starting point to argue that democracies can´t rely solely on legal acts, constitutional guarantees, government agencies or the police to protect the democracy. Democracies need to attract their citizens in order to secure the democracy, namely to strengthen the democratic culture. If the citizens consider the democracy to be an attractive and successful political framework, that would be the best way to guarantee the duration of a democratic system. Himmelmann proposes that this goal would best be reached if democracy was not just experienced as a form of governance or as expression for pluralism in the society. Individuals need to live democracy, it should be part of their everyday life and – at least in my interpretation – it has to become part of their self concept. Such an understanding of democracy would be based on emancipatory values like tolerance, solidarity, readiness towards dialogue and cooperation, fairness, compassion for others (see Himmelmann, 2012)

This might be considered a circular argument: democratic culture needs enculturation, that is, it requires that people be trained in democratic practices, which will then lead to democratic values and attitudes. On the other hand, democratic values and attitudes are the prior condition to individuals taking part in democratic practices in the desired way.


77

DIALECTICAL RELATIONSHIP

I would like to argue that this is less of a circular argument than a dialectical relationship – democratic values emerge by experiencing democracy as a way of life and self-constitution. But Democracy as a means of making decisions does not automatically comprise democratic values – a quick look at the history proves that. In Athens, the ancient concept of democracy was in no way inclusive or based on equality. Just a small group of free male citizens were taking part. Similarly, the Bill of Rights disclosed an exclusive model of democracy: Women, slaves or native people were ignored and mastered. And the same is true for many western democracies, where social and political participation is still unequally distributed. Less privileged groups have less impact on political decisions and are less likely to become politically active citizens (see van Deth, 2012).

In the first place, democracy is just a way of making decisions. Nevertheless – and this might even be true for the above mentioned examples of problematic outcomes of democratic procedures - democratic practice encompasses the chance for individual and societal emancipation. As other means of generating binding democratic values – a role that, in former times, religion may have taken on – are lacking, encouraging democratic practice is the most promising way to introduce democracy and democratic values and attitudes.

CONCLUSION

Coming back to the question of whether EDC shall welcome (any) political participation (and has to respect the outcomes of democratic practices), or whether democratic values have to be respected a priori, two aspects seem important.

1. Democracy can be seen as a powerful tool to make political decisions. In this understanding, democracy is not generally inclusive and is (unfortunately) not necessarily based on democratic values like solidarity, fairness or equity. Such an understanding of democracy would clearly be too modest for EDC – and especially the German history provides a cautionary lesson of what can happen if democratic processes are weakened and lead to the handover of power to a party that despises democratic values.

2. Nevertheless, participation is at the heart of democracy, because democratic values emerge out of participatory practice. That means that democracies have to risk participation, even if that leads to confrontation with undemocratic outcomes. The underlying premise is that in time, and due to participatory activity, emancipatory values will emerge – on the other hand, there have to be clear limits: participation must not lead to the negation of the rights of certain groups or individuals. The main difficulty is to define the distinction between participation as means of emancipatory values and participation that endangers the democracy itself.

J. MENTHE

78

REFERENCES

Audigier, F. (2000). Basic concepts and core competencies for education for democratic citizenship. Council of Europe Publications. Retrieved from http://www.see-educoop.net/education_in/pdf/basic_conc_edc-oth-enl-t07.pdf

Autorengruppe, F. (2011). (Ed.). Konzepte der politischen Bildung. Eine Streitschrift. Schwalbach/Ts.Böckenförde, E.-W. (1967). Die Entstehung des Staates als Vorgang der Säkularisierung. In ders. (Hrsg.)

(1976): Staat, Gesellschaft, Freiheit. Studien zur Staatstheorie und zum Verfassungsrecht (pp. 42–64). Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

Crombie, B., & Rowe, D. (2009). Dealing with the British National Party and other radical groups: Guidance for schools. Citizenship Foundation and Association for Citizenship Teaching. Retrieved from http://www.teachingcitizenship.org.uk/dnloads/dealingwithbnp.pdf

Duerr, K., Spajic-Vrkas, V., & Martins, F. I. (2000). Strategies for learning democratic citizenship. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publications. Retrieved from http://www.okm.gov.hu/letolt/nemzet/eu/Education%20for%20Democratic%20Citizenship

Eurydice – The information network on education in Europe. (2005). Citizenship education at school in Europe. [Online]. Retrieved from http://www.education.gov.mt/ministry/doc/pdf/citizenship.pdf

Himmelmann, G. (2012). Competences for teaching, learning and living democratic citizenship. In M. Print, & D. Lange (Eds.), Civic education and competences for engaging citizens in democracies. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Himmelmann, G. (2007). Wertebildung und Demokratie. Lernen in der Schule. In W. Schubarth, K. Speck, & H. Lynen von Berg (Eds.), Wertebildung in Jugendarbeit, Schule und Kommune (pp. 189–197). Wiesbaden: VS Verl. für Sozialwiss. (2010).

Hoskins, B., & Crick, D. R. (2010). Competences for learning to learn and active citizenship: Different currencies or two sides of the same coin? European Journal of Education, 45(1), Part II.

Kerr, D. (2003). Citizenship SSE 2/2003 Kerr, David (2003). Citizenship Education in England: The Making of a New Subject – OJSSE 2/2003.

O’Shea, K. (2003). A glossary of terms for education for democratic citizenship. Developing a shared understanding. Retrieved from http://www.bmukk.gv.at/medienpool/12944/glossar_dpb.pdf

Reuss, B. (2007). Democratic education. Encountering Europe’s democratic deficit. Retrieved from http://www.macess.nl/files/Beatrix%20Reuss%20-%20Dissertation.pdf

Van Deth, J. (2012). Citizenship and the civic realities of everyday life. In M. Print, & D. Lange, (Eds.), Civic education and competences for engaging citizens in democracies. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Wierth, A. (2010). Pro Deutschland gegen Asylbewerber. Published in Die Tageszeitung, TAZ vom 21.12.2010. Active Citizenship: Different currencies or two sides of the same coin? European Journal of Education, 45(1), Part II.

http://www.teachingcitizenship.org.uk/dnloads/dealingwithbnp.pdf

http://www.education.gov.mt/ministry/doc/pdf/citizenship.pdf

http://www.bmukk.gv.at/medienpool/12944/glossar_dpb.pdf

http://www.macess.nl/files/Beatrix%20Reuss%20-%20Dissertation.pdf

http://www.see-educoop.net/education_in/pdf/basic_conc_edc-oth-enl-t07.pdf

http://www.see-educoop.net/education_in/pdf/basic_conc_edc-oth-enl-t07.pdf

http://www.okm.gov.hu/letolt/nemzet/eu/Education%20for%20Democratic%20Citizenship

http://www.okm.gov.hu/letolt/nemzet/eu/Education%20for%20Democratic%20Citizenship

PART II

TEACHERS AND COMPETENCES FOR BUILDING DEMOCRATIC CITIZENS IN SCHOOLS


KORNELIJA MRNJAUS

TEACHER COMPETENCES FOR EDUCATION FOR DEMOCRATIC CITIZENSHIP

Training and Classification Challenges

“If Athens will have unqualified shoemakers, the Athenians will walk barefoot. If Athens will have unqualified teachers, Athens will collapse.”

Plato

INTRODUCTION

What kind of competencies do teachers require to support EDC? What are the minimal and maximal competencies of EDC? What are the criteria and how can these competencies be established? How stable are citizenship competencies, taking into account the usual obsolescence of any type of know-how? (cf. Bîrzéa, 2000)

... are only some of questions which arise in every discussion about teacher competencies. And when it comes to teacher competencies for EDC then our criteria rise even higher, our expectations go in all directions searching for (almost) the perfect person.

There is nothing wonderous in it, because one of the highest values of modern western societies is undoubtedly democracy. Although the definition and vision of democracy changed through the time – from seeing democracy only as a form of governance and a political system with role of citizens as voters, vision of democracy changed into a form of life with active, educated, conscious citizens1 – democracy still remains only acceptable form of life and government in most countries in the world. Therefore does not surprise highest expectations regarding teachers which will have a task to educate competent, skillful and capable democratic citizens.2

If we want democracy to live and sustain, we need active and educated citizens, citizens which know and have their rights but also know and fulfil their democratic duties. Noone is born as active democratic citizen but only through education and transmision of values, culture and democratic principles we can develop citizens which will live democracy in practice. One tool among many for achieving this is for sure Education for Democratic Citizenship (EDC).

K. MRNJAUS

82

The primary role of modern education is to meet society’s needs in preparing each individual to participate actively, creatively and responsibly in managing democratic processes for the benefit of all. Developing a culture of rights and responsibilities means learning a new body of knowledge, skills and values (Dürr et al, 2000).

One of the main objectives of Directorate General for Education and Culture of the European Commission is to develop citizenship not just in the legal sense of the word but also through encouraging people’s practical involvement in democratic process at all levels: “Action in the field of education, training and youth offers a privileged vehicle for the promotion of active participation in Europe’s rich diversity of cultures, economies...”3

Education should have the task “of preparing the individual for life in a democratic society by enabling him to carry out his duties and responsibilities as a citizen, introducing him to politics, and teaching him the fundamental principles and values at the root of our society, such as respect for human rights and democracy, as well as tolerance and solidarity that result from a greater understanding and knowledge of others”.4

The most important role in the preparation of citizens for active democratic life is, still, the formal educational system and teachers as carriers and messengers of democratic knowledge, skills and values. „Education still enjoys an important role in human development and mistakes carried out in the educational process are more or less irreparable later.“ (Dürr et al, 2000: 30) That’s the reason why teacher education is so important. In order to educate active democratic citizens first we need competent teachers which will provide effective education for democratic citizenship. Teachers play a crucial role in supporting the learning experience of young people and adult learners. Teaching and training are the heart of the knowledge society (cf. Salema, 2005).

How important is this issue is also shown in the results of study conducted by Dürr et al. (2000). Some of the most serious obstacles in the development of learning for democratic citizenship found in their study are “insufficient gains in theoretical and practical knowledge concerning teaching/learning democratic citizenship based on systematic monitoring and research; (...); lack of trained teachers/mediators, teacher trainers and administrators for school and out of school programmes and activities that relate to the acquisition of new forms of knowledge and new skills necessary for quality teaching and learning for democratic citizenship; (...).”5

Those reflections on the importance of education and teacher’s role in education inspired this paper. It aims is to explore basic concepts and core competences of teachers which task should be education of active democratic citizens. Following the definitions and idea of EDC, in this paper will be presented teacher competencies for EDC, teacher education for EDC and situation in Croatia regarding teacher education for EDC.


83

CLARIFICATION OF TERMS

We cannot talk about teacher competencies for EDC without asking what is Education for Democratic Citizenship (EDC) and without clarifying the terms teacher and competences. There are many existing, mostly very similar, definitions of EDC. For the purpose of this paper we chose three definitions as a starting point for research on teacher competencies for EDC – definition presented in the work of Dürr et al (2000), definition presented in the Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education (2010) and ideas on EDC presented in the Declaration and Programme on Education for Democratic Citizenship Based on the Rights and Responsibilities of Citizens. Declaration (1999).

Dürr et al (2000: 14) defined EDC as “set of multifaceted practices and activities developed as a bottom-up approach to help pupils, young people and adults participate actively and responsibly in the decision making processes in their communities for the purpose of promoting and strengthening democratic culture based on awareness and commitment to shared fundamental values, such as human rights and freedoms, equality of difference and the rule of law, for their own benefit and for the benefit of society as a whole. It focuses on providing life-long opportunities for acquiring, applying and disseminating information, values and skills linked to democratic principles and procedures in a broad range of formal and non-formal teaching and learning environments.”

The Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education (2010: 7) defines Education for democratic citizenship as „education, training, awareness raising, information, practices and activities which aim, by equipping learners with knowledge, skills and understanding and developing their attitudes and behaviour, to empower them to exercise and defend their democratic rights and responsibilities in society, to value diversity and to play an active part in democratic life, with a view to the promotion and protection of democracy and the rule of law.“

Growing recognition of the importance of education in promoting human rights, democracy and social cohesion throughout the continent led the Committee of Ministers, in May 1999, to adopt the Declaration and Programme on Education for Democratic Citizenship Based on the Rights and Responsibilities of Citizens. This Declaration (in Dürr et al, 2000: 16) describes EDC as an „integrated activity which: constitutes a life-long learning experience of participation in various contexts; equips men and women for active and responsible roles in life and in society; aims at developing a culture of human rights; prepares people to live in a multicultural society; strengthens social cohesion, mutual understanding and solidarity; promotes inclusive strategies for all age groups and sectors of society.“

Two crucial terms in context of this paper are teacher and competences. For the purpose of this paper we will use definition of term teacher proposed by Maria–Helena Salema Salema (2005) defines teacher as „(...) person who responsibly

K. MRNJAUS

84

and intentionally promotes EDC learning directly to children, youths and adult learners in different contexts and systems, formal and non-formal. The teacher may have different roles, such as class teacher, principal or subject teacher. (...) Teachers and trainers are graduates of higher education institutions or equivalents. Teachers and Trainers for EDC should have a knowledge and understanding of the dimensions of EDC, a knowledge of pedagogy, skills and competencies to support and guide learners and an understanding of the social and the cultural dimension of educational contexts. They should also be reflective practitioners, discerning in managing information and knowledge.“

There is existing usage of different terms relating the concept of competence such as competence, competency, and competences. Minseong et al. (2007: 500) define competence as the general quality of a person, referring to as “being competent with dealing with a given task.” Rather, competency and competences (or competencies) indicate more specific elements to consist of individuals’ general competence, connecting to such efforts to identify important components of successful performance.

The Council of Europe Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education (2010: 30) proposes the usage of term curricula instead of term competences (or, in the US spelling and usage, “competencies”) Some international educational NGOs suggested to the drafters of Cahrter to speak of including “competences” in EDC and HRE in the various levels of education, instead of including those subjects in the curricula. The term “competences“ is used increasingly in academic literature and in practice to describe a cluster of skills, knowledge and attitudes. It focuses on outcomes rather than learner objectives, and recognises that those outcomes can be complex.

The drafting group of CoE Charter saw came to the conclusion that modern terminology was not yet sufficiently well established and understood, unlike “curricula” which would be universally understood. Irrespectively of CoE Charter drafting group opinion in this paper we stayed by term competence and in this paper we will use it defined as “the ability to successfully meet complex demands in a particular context through the mobilization of psychosocial prerequisite (including both cognitive and noncognitive aspects),” (Rychen & Salganik, 2003: 43, in Minseong et al, 2007:500).

While some authors use the term competences and others follow US spelling and use term competencies, in this paper we use both ways following the usage of term found in the original papers and documents.


“Practising educators must be prepared to discuss the importance and character of duties and responsibilities with their target groups, in particular with young people.” (Dürr et al: 2000: 13)


85

Teachers play undoubtedly most important role in life of every child but also in life of adult learners. They support learning experiences of (young) learners but also serve as role models to them. Their competencies and their values systems are crucial for shaping skills, knowledege and competencies of future democratic citizens.

Attempts to classify teacher competencies for EDC, as Audigier (2000:21) say, „(...) open a virtually unlimited field of experience and attitudes, of knowledge and behaviours.“ Some authors consider attempt to classify teacher competencies as unrealistic. They think that result will always be provisional, not very serious and it will be a set of generalisations known to all. Other authors on the contrary think that it is necessary to put order in this field and that an effort should be made to clarify and classify citizenship competences (cf. Audigier, 2000: 21).

Although it is hard to find a common agreed list of core competencies needed for active democratic citizenship, in this paper we will try to sum and present some of classifications of competencies for democratic citizenship presented mostly in Council of Europe documents. Audigier (2000: 17) states that „the core competences associated with democratic citizenship are those called for by the construction of a free and autonomous person, aware of his rights and duties in a society where the power to establish the law, i.e. the rules of community life which define the framework in which the freedom of each is exercised, and where the appointment and control of the people who exercise this power are under the supervision of all the citizens.“

Further, Audigier (2000: 21-24) proposed a classification which comprised three broad categories of competences – cognitive competences, ethical competences and value choices and capacities for action (social competences).

Cognitive competences are separated into four families: competences of a legal and political nature (i.e. knowledge concerning the rules of collective life and the democratic conditions of their establishment, knowledge concerning the powers in a democratic society, at all levels of political life); knowledge of the present world (knowledge which implies a historical dimension and a cultural dimension, capacity for critical analysis of the society, anticipatory capacities, ie the ability to see problems and solutions in the long term and avoid superficial short-term analyses); competences of a procedural nature (ability to argue, ability to debate and the ability to reflect, i.e. the capacity to re-examine actions and arguments in the light of the principles and values of human rights, to reflect on the direction and limits of possible action, on conflicts of values and of interests, etc.); knowledge of the principles and values of human rights and democratic citizenship.

Ethical competences and value choices are second category. Individuals construct themselves and their relationships with others in accordance with certain values. Central values are freedom, equality and solidarity. They imply the recognition and respect of oneself and of others, the ability to listen, reflection on the place of violence in society and how to control it the resolution of conflicts. They demand the positive acceptance of differences and diversity, they require placing confidence in the other.

K. MRNJAUS

86

Capacities for action, sometimes known as social competences include capacity to live with others, to cooperate, to construct and implement joint projects, to take on responsibilities; capacity to resolve conflicts in accordance with the principles of democratic law – calling upon a third person not involved in the conflict, open debate, mediation; and capacity to take part in public debate, to argue and choose in a real-life situation.

In the classification offered by Ruud Veldhuis (1997, in Dürr et al: 2000: 58) competencies (knowledge; attitudes and opinions; intellectual and participatory skills) are linked to the different dimensions of citizenship. Veldhuis outlines a maximum and a minimum package of core competencies. The maximum package consists of: a) political and legal dimension – knowledge, skills, attitudes and practices linked to the functioning of political and legal systems; b) social dimension – competencies that are important for promoting social relations; c) economic dimension – specific competencies important for economic and market functioning; d) cultural dimension – competencies that are important for understanding and using cultural heritage in all its diversity.

Dürr et al (2000: 58-60) proposed an outline of the concepts and values, skills and attitudes whose development is crucial in teaching and learning for democratic citizenship and for effective participation in democracy and civil society. A precondition for a citizens’ responsible and productive participation in the process of democratic reconstruction is a proper understanding of core concepts/values (human rights and freedoms; democracy and democratic principles; citizen; civil society; globalisation; development) and their relationships in the context of rapid change and risk.

Development of certain skills plays an important role on whether and how these concepts and human/democratic values will be used. Dürr et al (2000) divided skills into Basic skills: skills of critical and argumentative thinking; creative and productive skills; problem-solving skills; assessment and evaluation skills; knowledge application/procedural skills; moral reasoning skills and Specific skills involved in social conduct: participative skills; multiple communication skills; co-operative and team-work skills; debating, negotiating and compromising skills; intercultural skills; conflict-prevention and conflict-resolution skills; mediation and facilitation skills; assertiveness skills; democratic leadership skills; lobbying skills.

Besides understanding core concepts and values and having basic skills for active and responsible participation, Dürr et al (2000) believed that the citizen needs a full range of competencies for democratic citizenship. These include pro-social and pro-active attitudes, usually defined in terms of involvement in or commitment (respect, attachment, defence of) to something that is recognised as of universal value in society: commitment to the principle of universality, interdependence and indivisibility of human rights and freedoms; belief in individual worth, dignity and freedom; commitment to the rule of law, justice, equality and equity in a world of differences; commitment to peace and to participative, non-violent and constructive solutions to social problems; belief in the usefulness of democratic principles,


87

institutions and procedures as well as in the importance of civil action; respect for different cultures and their contribution to humanity; adherence to the principle of pluralism in life; commitment to the value of mutual understanding, co-operation, trust and solidarity, and to combating racism, prejudice and discrimination; belief in the importance of personal responsibility and accountability; commitment to the principle of sustainable human development understood in terms of the balance between social, environmental and economic growth.

In a somewhat different way Thomas Lickona and Matthew Davidson (2005) defined eight wishful citizenship competences naming them strengths of character needed for a flourishing life:

Lifelong learner and critical thinker: strives to acquire the knowledge that characterizes an educated person; approaches learning as a lifelong process; demonstrates skills of critical analysis; takes seriously the perspectives of others; seeks expert opinion and credible evidence; makes connections and integrates knowledge; generates alternative solutions; demonstrates willingness to admit error and modify thinking.

Diligent and capable performer: strives for excellence; gives best effort; demonstrates initiative and self-discipline; knows standards of quality and creates highquality products; takes pride in work; sets personal goals and assesses progress; perseveres in the face of difficulty.

Socially and emotionally skilled person: possesses a healthy self-confidence and a positive attitude; demonstrates basic courtesy in social situations; develops positive interpersonal relationships that include sensitivity to the feelings of others and the capacity for “confrontation”; communicates effectively; works well with others; resolves conflicts fairly; demonstrates emotional intelligence, including self-knowledge and the ability to manage emotions.

Ethical thinker: possesses moral discernment, including good judgment, moral reasoning, and ethical wisdom; has a well-formed conscience, including a sense of obligation to do the right thing; has a strong moral identity defined by moral commitments; possesses the moral competence, or “know how,” needed to translate discernment, conscience, and identity into effective moral behavior.

Respectful and responsible moral agent committed to consistent moral action: respects the rights and dignity of all persons; understands that respect includes the right of conscience to disagree respectfully with others’ beliefs or behaviors; possesses a strong sense of personal efficacy and responsibility to do what’s right; takes responsibility for mistakes; accepts responsibility for setting a good example and being a positive influence; develops and exercises capacity for moral leadership.

Self-disciplined person who pursues a healthy lifestyle: demonstrates self-control across a wide range of situations; pursues physical, emotional, and mental health; makes responsible personal choices that contribute to continuous self-development, a healthy lifestyle, and a positive future.

Contributing community member and democratic citizen: contributes to family, classroom, school, and community; demonstrates civic virtues and skills needed for

K. MRNJAUS

88

participation in democratic processes; appreciates the nation’s democratic heritage and democratic values; demonstrates awareness of interdependence and a sense of responsibility to humanity.

Spiritual person crafting a life of noble purpose: considers existential questions (“What is the meaning of life?”, “What is happiness?”, “What is the purpose of my life?’); seeks a life of noble purpose; formulates life goals and ways to pursue them; cultivates an appreciation of transcendent values such as truth, beauty, and goodness; pursues authentic happiness; possesses a rich inner life; pursues deep, meaningful connections—to others, nature, a higher power, and so on.

CHANGES IN TRADITIONAL TEACHER COMPETENCIES

Contrary to traditional teaching-learning in which the teacher’s role is reduced to transmitting knowledge and skills and the student’s role to listening, in education for democratic citizenship approach teachers appear more as organisers of multiple learning opportunities and as bridges between society’s resources and their users. (cf. Dürr et al, 2000)

According to Dürr et al (2000: 61) changes in traditional teacher’s competencies refer to compartmentalised vs. interdisciplinary knowledge on: subject matter; theories and issues of human nature and growth; adequacy of different learning theories for particular educational goals (behaviouristic, cognitive, humanistic); principles of teaching/learning process; and the organisation and management of group activities; linear and static vs. multiple and dynamic teaching process in all its dimensions, including: planning or setting diversified goals; flexible management of classes and groups; diversified instructional models, from direct teaching, through to open education and co-operative learning; and sensitive and reciprocal assessment and evaluation; and cognitive vs. multiple education goals that match complexity and change in a modern world and focus on individual commitment to improving living conditions and mastering skills necessary for action.

In learning for democratic citizenship there are other teaching abilities that can be crucial in the process of helping learners become responsible citizens. Dürr et al. (2000: 61) made a list of those crucial teaching abilities which encompass ability to see the problem from learner’s perspective with respect to his background, age and level of education, as well as the ability to assess different positions and perceptions non-prejudicially; ability to perceive, accept and feel respect for similarities and differences between the teacher and the learners and among the learners; respect for the rights of learners and sensitivity to their needs and interests; capacity to deal with controversial issues and challenge ambiguous and complex situations in the context of class or school; ability to see himself/herself, as well as the learners as active in the local, national and global community; belief that things can be better and that everyone can make a difference; ability to integrate his/her own priorities into a shared framework of issues and values, as well as to act on learners’ decisions;


89

willingness to admit mistakes in front of the group and to learn from them; ability to bring up and discuss openly the problems imposed by hidden curriculum.

These competencies influence the development of learners, particularly their self-respect, open-mindedness, motivation, appreciation of differences, fairness, creative sense of curiosity and, above all, their willingness to participate and cooperate in group matters. The most crucial and probably decisive competencies of both “learners” and “teachers” in creating and maintaining an interactive class and learning environment in school are (Dürr et al: 2000: 62) critical thinking - ability to find, analyse and select information using interdisciplinary knowledge, multiple skills, and a critical approach; making informed decisions based on evidence and changing position in face of a valid argument; creative thinking - ability to find new and non-habitual ways of putting facts together in a problem-solving process that minimises over-generalisations, prejudices and stereotypes; pro-social and pro-society thinking - ability to analyse facts and issues and make choices in relation to the needs of others and society as a whole, combating egotism and ethnocentrism; openness to speak to others and learn from different experiences; future-oriented thinking - ability to perceive problems and evaluate decisions in the light of experience in order to develop a more equitable future.

In order to be efective EDC teachers should, upon Bîrzéa (2000: 46-47), be familiar with new teaching and learning approaches (structured debate, problem solving, brainstorming, media-supported learning, workshops); know how to use hidden curriculum within the non-formal curriculum (inquiry, networks, fieldwork, visits, project work); be familiar with an interdisciplinary, holistic and transversal approach of school curriculum; understand that they had to focus on competencies, especially social and life skills not on obsolete knowledge; be familiar with new form of learning, indispensable for community life, namely learning to live together; know how to co-operate with parents, media, NGOs and local communities; initiate innovations, in a bottom-up approach, without waiting for top-down instructions; understand that school learning is just a prerequisite to lifelong learning and not the terminal point of the educational route; know how to reflect on their own practice and as a result become reflective practitioners; focus on values, especially on key values of citizenship education (human rights, political pluralism, the rule of law).

Future teachers require specific training on democratic culture and social cohesion. Trasberg (2009) states that in teacher education competences refer to the process of becoming and the state of being well qualified to perform an activity, task or job function. Key competences refer particularly to specific competences that can be used to master a variety of situations and demands seen. Competences may be considered not as end points for beginning teacher, but as part of a process of becoming a teacher, a process that hopefully will continue throughout each person’s teacher career.

The Council of Europe Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education (2010: 12) outlines skills for promoting social cohesion,

K. MRNJAUS

90

valuing diversity and handling differences and conflict and says that in all areas of education, member states should promote educational approaches and teaching methods which aim at learning to live together in a democratic and multicultural society and at enabling learners to acquire the knowledge and skills to promote social cohesion, value diversity and equality, appreciate differences – particularly between different faith and ethnic groups – and settle disagreements and conflicts in a non-violent manner with respect for each others’ rights, as well as to combat all forms of discrimination and violence, especially bullying and harassment.

In her article Teacher and trainer training in education for democratic citizenship. Competencies, methods and processes Salema (2005) presents guidelines for the development of teachers’ competencies and for adequate and efficient methods and processes for Education for Democratic Citizenship. For Salema, teachers require sound subject knowledge of the aims and purposes of EDC. They need the range of knowledge, understanding, skills and aptitudes, values and dispositions that are to be developed in learners in order to be able to select learning objectives, plan activities and achieve a balance between knowledge, skills and values learning.

Salema (2005) states that some of competencies teachers must have and must be trained in order for them to participate in society actively and ethically in different domains are: understanding the institutional framework; learning how to participate and engage in action; understanding and forming an opinion on complex issues on which the future society depends; communication and expression; critical thinking and argumentation; problem-solving; decision-making; intercultural skills; research; political action; evaluation; openness; respect for cultural and social differences; readiness to share and delegate; trust and honesty; commitment to truth; respect for self and others; tolerance of ambiguity and open undecided situations; ethical competencies and values choices.

Education for Democratic Citizenship is a distinctive form of educational activity that aims to equip learners to participate as active citizens, and as such employs distinctive forms of learning. Therefore, professional EDC teachers should have upon Salema didactic and pedagogical teacher competencies such as: the ability to understand abstract concepts; high levels of self-knowledge; the ability to make ethical judgements; the ability to take a responsible and engaged action in society.

Teaching Education for Democratic Citizenship implies new roles for teachers. Teachers should:6 a) be centred on the student; b) practice human rights within the school context: favouring co-operative pedagogy; installing a climate of confidence in the class; c) take into account the social and global context: favouring common approaches amongst teachers for problem handling; being a mediator between students and their environment; involving all participants; d) renew the educational evaluation: developing evaluation as a way forward; encouraging formative evaluation; e) renew the teacher training: using new pedagogical approaches; using the new information technologies.

Discussion on teacher competencies for EDC we could conclude with consternation that in theory and praxis don’t exist one common classification. One reason could be


91

that this issue is too complex and it’s not possible to give only one answer. Another reason could be that different authors observe this issue from different perspectives and different intentions. On the following pages we will present and disscus teacher training for Education for Democratic Citizenship in Europe and in Croatia and we will see that there are existing different models of teacher education for EDC. This open further discussion – is the existence of many teacher competencies classification cause of existence of many teacher training models or vice versa. But this is not the issue which will be further discussed in this paper.

TEACHER TRAINING FOR EDUCATION FOR DEMCORATIC CITIZENSHIP IN EUROPE ANDS CROATIA

Training teachers in civic education is seldom obligatory. Civic education and, in some cases, human rights education, is taught by (Dürr et al, 2000: 23): a) teachers of history, social studies, geography and, sometimes, by teachers of philosophy; b) teachers who are interested in the subject, irrespective of their academic background; c) teachers who have not completed the required teaching load (i.e. a number of required hours of teaching per month).

As with many other issues in education for democratic citizenship, the structure, content, intensity and objectives of teacher training in Europe show considerable diversity and much more research work will be needed to fully determine the present situation of teacher training in education for democratic citizenship in Europe. However some general observations seem possible (Dürr et al, 2000: 43-44): a) Political Science is frequently considered the “leading discipline” in the studies of civic education teachers. Its core issues and content (“policy, polity and politics” and its subdisciplines of national and international politics, political theory, political sociology etc.) are included in or form the backbone of teacher training curricula for civic education. b) Many civic education teachers acquired qualifications in other Social Science subjects (such as Pedagogy or Sociology) or in the Humanities (for example, History or Philosophy). Because of the relatively marginal importance of civic education and education for democratic citizenship issues in the educational system, a specialised training for civic education teachers (that is, in Political or Social Science) is not an educational priority in many countries. Moreover, the lower the school level for which a teacher qualifies, the less important his or her original choice of academic discipline seems to be. Thus, in elementary schools, civic education issues are more frequently dealt with by Geography teachers or in the context of the native language tuition than in secondary schools where special civic education curricula usually exist. c) The percentage of teachers that teach civic education and are specifically qualified for teaching the subject is – in comparison to other school subjects – relatively low. This applies to most, if not all, European countries. d) The “status” of civic education is low in comparison to other school subjects – not only in educational policies and in (national) curricula, but also in the teachers’ own perspective. Some teachers might even be tempted to think that civic

K. MRNJAUS

92

education is an “easy subject” involving little preparatory work and that it is “low on facts, but rich in empty chat”. It is open to debate whether such views are a reason or a consequence of the “structural deficits” outlined above.

This situation is also confirmed by Bîrzéa (2000) stating that in most European countries, EDC cannot be considered an initial teacher training specialisation. In primary school generalists teach EDC while in secondary education it is delivered by specialists in history, geography, social sciences, economics or ethics. In other words, EDC is not a clearly defined specialisation for teacher training. EDC seems rather a random and subsequent extension of initial monodisciplinary training (history, geography, etc.).

Throughout Europe, teachers lack continuous and systematic preparation for their work both in pre-service and in in-service programmes. There are only a few countries where teachers of civics are required to pass specialised pre-service or in-service courses carried out by universities or teacher training institutions. In some cases no training is provided for teachers.

In praxis exist three types of teacher preparation models (cf. Dürr et al, 2000: 44-45): 1. in-service courses, seminars, workshops and conferences mostly organised independently by local and international non-governmental or intergovernmental organisations, or in cooperation with pedagogical institutes or teacher training centres, professional associations, and ministries (the most frequent form); 2. regular pre-service and in-service programmes carried out by colleges, universities and teacher training centres (less often); 3. post-graduate and post-doctoral programmes in civic education (rarely).

Pre-service teacher training is generally provided by teacher training colleges or universities. The courses usually continue over a minimum of three years. Generally, the final examination of teachers takes place under close supervision from governmental authorities, in most cases it is organised and recognised by the State, even though the provider of the training courses might be a private or commercial educational institution. In many countries, a full teaching qualification requires taking a theoretical exam at the end of the course and a practice oriented exam which usually takes place after a one- or two-year training period as an assistant teacher. In teacher training colleges, and increasingly in universities great importance is attributed to the combination of theoretical, practical and methodical knowledge acquisition. Because of the more theoretical nature of the knowledge transferred by universities, university-trained teachers are frequently faced with greater difficulties in the adaptation of that knowledge to their teaching than their colleagues who were trained at teacher training colleges.

In-service teacher training comprises “in-house” training courses, distance education methods, mediasupported training and other forms of organised learning that can be conducted without interruption of the participants’ own teaching duties. In most cases organised by universities or teacher training colleges, in-service teacher training is particularly valuable if there is a need to qualify larger numbers


93

of teachers within a limited time-span for a new subject (as was the case with the training of new civic education teachers in post-Communist societies during the transition to Democracy). In-service courses are also helpful in adapting the competencies and skills of existing teaching staff to rapidly changing programme contents or conditions (as is the case of the new communication technologies). Depending on the objectives of the in-service training, state-recognised certificates might or might not be provided. The proponents of in-service studies point to the fact that their participants bring with them much more experience and social competencies and in most cases more efficient and more economical learning styles than young university students. They also argue that in the development of curricular concepts for in-service training, particular attention is given to the specific needs of the participants.

Formal and informal further education measures – in many countries exists a broad offer of specialised learning opportunities concerning democracy, economics and social topics in the form of ad-hoc seminars about a wide range of topics, didactical and methodological work-shops or media-supported learning and “virtual seminars”. There is also an abundance of informal further education opportunities for teachers, such as didactical and methodological material produced by governmental agencies, nongovernmental groups or commercial publishing firms. This applies particularly to education for democratic citizenship content matters and to economic matters. Many commercial companies such as banks, insurance companies and other large companies, run special supportive programmes for teachers with the aim of bringing them closer to their products (for example, computers).

Currently, the mainstreaming for continuing teacher training is in universities and specialised institutions (Bîrzéa, 2000: 48). Universities offer two types of services: a) teacher-training colleges (Belgium-French Community, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Malta, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, UK-England and Wales);and b) specialised higher education institutions or centres (Austria, France, Estonia, Portugal, UKScotland). Specialised teacher-training institutes: a) central institutes (Albania, Belarus, Denmark, Greece, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Moldova, the Netherlands, Sweden, Ukraine); and b) regional centres (Belgium-French Community, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK-Scotland).

From the EDC perspective, an interesting trend is the delivery of in-service teacher training by schools and civil society. This leads to a diversification of teacher training schemes and a closer link to the needs and conditions of social environments. Consequently, alternative training providers began to offer EDC teacher training (Bîrzéa, 2000: 48): a) schools or school bodies (Belgium-Flemish Community, Belgium-French Community, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Norway, Portugal, Switzerland, UK-England and Wales, UK-Scotland); b) private organisations and consultancy services (Bulgaria, Finland, Hungary, Poland,

K. MRNJAUS

94

Spain, Sweden, UK-England and Wales); c) teacher associations (Belgium-Flemish Community, Denmark, Ireland, Portugal, Russian Federation); d) teacher unions (Finland, Ireland, Spain).

As shown by the EDC Project and the Council of Europe In-service Teacher Training Programme for Educational Staff, one solution could be to encourage alternative training providers and in-service teacher training activities on EDC issues. Unfortunately, many of the in-service teacher training programmes in Europe remain compartmentalized and focused on academic needs. They do not include EDC as an acknowledged specialisation. (Bîrzéa, 2000: 47)

TEACHER TRAINING IN CROATIA

The Croatian Government has not developed politics which will be the base for defining the content and priorities in the field of teacher qualification, training and improvement except that part which defines the organisation and duration of formal teacher education. There were two types of teacher training institutions in Croatia before the implementation of Bologna process: a) non-university teacher colleges with 4-year programmes (for all elementary school teachers) and 2-year programmes (for pre-school teachers) and b) 4-year university pedagogical and other teacher training faculties (for some categories of elementary and secondary schools teachers). Teachers holding a non-teacher training college or a faculty diploma must complete pedagogical, psychological and methodological training prior to or upon their employment by the school. The upgrading of professional knowledge is a statutary obligation of all teachers.

After the implementation of the Bologna process, teacher training in Croatia became more complex: a) 3-year professional preschool education study, b) 3-year university early and pre-school education study, bachelor level, c) 2-year university early and pre-school education study, master level, d) integrated 5-year bachelor and diploma university programmes for primary school – lower level teachers, e) 3-year university bachelor programmes for primary school – upper level and secondary school teachers, f) 2-year university master programmes for primary school – upper lever and secondary school teachers.

Teachers holding a non-teacher bachelor or master diploma must complete pedagogical, psychological and methodological training (60 ECTS) prior to or upon their employment by the school. The upgrading of professional knowledge is a statutary obligation of all teachers.

University programs for teacher education have developed special departments within teacher faculties. They have to be adopted by the Faculty Council and then the University Senate. The programs are financed by Ministry of Science, Education and Sport. Strategies and mechanisms for program evaluation and quality controle either don’t exist or are insufficiently developed.

At the University of Rijeka there are two institutions with programs for teacher education –Faculty of Teacher Education with bachelor and master programs for


95

pre-school educators and primary school – lower level teachers7 and Faculty8 of Humanities and Social Sciences with bachelor and master university programs for primary school – upper level and secondary school teachers.9

Croatia also participated in the Education for Democracy and European Studies in CEE countries (EDES) program, an in-service training program for Central-Eastern European countries (Croatia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Ukraine). The program is targeted to a comprehensive ‘educational core group’: teachers, educators and teacher trainers; multipliers in adult education; education administrators; officers of non-governmental organisations. The program is implemented as a two-year in-service course on the post-graduate level. It uses a combination of distance education methods and three-day week-end in-house seminars.10

CONCLUSION

The Council of Europe Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education (2010: 32) states that without the training in EDC/HRE of teachers and others both in the educational system and outside it, for example youth leaders, such education will be ineffective and worse than useless. The subject is very different from traditional subjects. Those who will teach it must first be taught it themselves. The best methods of teaching it are also different, and have to be learned. This provision emphasises the importance of training, not only of teachers, but also of those who train the teachers.

Teaching is a demanding profession requiring a complex matrix of knowledge and competences. In most European countries, teacher education qualifications are firmly recognised as part of higher education. Teacher education courses have varied in length, and this to some extent is determined by a number of educational and social circumstances. In a number of countries a range of different courses and programmes of study and practice now lead into a teaching career, in order to reflect the needs of an increasingly diverse range of entrants (cf. Rømer, 2008).

The world of teacher competencies is very diverse and complex and it is difficult to talk about universal competencies without taking into account regional political, economical and social circumstances, history, culture, customs, values, educational system and rational possibilities for education for democratic citizenship. But it is important to discuss a wishful state of being because it is a guideline towards that which we want to achieve.

NOTES

1 “Democracy is not only a form of governance and a political system based on the rather limited role of citizens as “voters” providing majorities for those who exercise control. Beyond this formal aspect, democracy must be seen as a form of living together in a community which becomes valuable only if active use is made of certain political liberal freedoms, if those freedoms are enjoyed symmetrically by all citizens and if they all contribute to their further development. In the long term, democracy can only be sustained if it is able to adapt to changing circumstances. (...) Citizens’ readiness to participate, voluntarism and community-mindedness are directly connected with democratic stability.“ (Dürr et al, 2000: 12)

K. MRNJAUS

96

2 “The term “citizen” does not merely imply a legal status within the political system; rather, it implies competencies, skills and capabilities that must be transmitted in a lifelong learning process.” (Dürr et al, 2000: 6)

3 The European Commission, Directorate General for Education and Culture, Homepage, http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg22/citizen; in Dürr et al: 2000: 11

4 Kovács, p. 16, quoting Mr. Martelli, rapporteur to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Doc. 8263, 17 December 1998. In Dürr et al, 2000: 11

5 Underlined by K. Mrnjaus6 Teaching Guide to the European Convention on Human Rights, Strasbourg, Council of Europe, 1997

p. 70-75, Doc. DECS/BiH (97) 13. In Bîrzéa, 2000: 487 Primary school in Croatia last 8 years. From 1st – 4th grade students have one teacher ‘učitelj’ which

is teaching them all subjects. In 4th grade they start to learn one foreign language and that subject is teaching them educated teacher. From 5th – 8th grade they have different teachers ‘nastavnik’ for every subject.

8 On Faculty of Arts and Sciences students can study Croatian language and literature, German language and literature, English language and literature, History, Philosophy, Psychology, Pedagogy, History of Art, Culturology, Polytechnik.

9 Secondary schools in Croatia last three or four years.10 Project Outline of EDES - Doc. DECS / EDU / CIT (99)13. In Bîrzéa, 2000: 46

REFERENCES

Audigier, F. (2000). Basic concepts and core competencies for education for democratic citizenship. Council for Cultural Co-operation (CDCC). Project “Education for Democratic Citizenship”. Strasbourg, 26 June, 2000 DGIV/EDU/CIT (2000) 23. Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/edc/Source/Pdf/Documents/2000_23_BasicConceptsCoreCompetencies4EDC.pdf, 5.6.2011

Bîrzéa, C. (2000). Education for democratic citizenship: A lifelong learning perspective. Council for Cultural Co-operation (CDCC). Project on “Education for Democratic Citizenship”. Strasbourg, 20 June, 2000 DGIV/EDU/CIT (2000) 21. Retrieved from http://www.bpb.de/files/F0R5Q8.pdf; 5.6.2011

Brett, P., Mompoint-Gaillard, P., & Salema, M. H. (2009). How all teachers can support citizenship and human rights education: A framework for the development of competencies. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.

Cecchini, M. (2004). Education for democratic citizenship in Europe: Concepts and challenges for action. NECE Conference. Retrieved from http://www.bpb.de/files/AFT6MJ.pdf; 15.7.2011

Council of Europe Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education. Recommendation CM/Rec. (2010). Adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 11 May 2010 and explanatory memorandum. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/edc/Source/Pdf/Downloads/6898-6-ID10009-Recommendation%20on%20Charter%20EDC-HRE%20-%20assembl%C3%A9.pdf; 13.6.2011

Dürr, K., Spajić-Vrkaš, V., & Martins, F. I. (2000). Strategies for learning democratic citizenship. Council for Cultural Co-operation (CDCC). Project on “Education for Democratic Citizenship”. Strasbourg: 19 July, 2000 DECS/EDU/CIT (2000) 16. Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/edc/Source/Pdf/Documents/2000_16_Strategies4LearningEDC.pdf; 13.6.2011

Gollob, R., & Krapf, P. (Eds.). (2008). Teaching democracy. A collection of models for democratic citizenship and human rights education. EDC/HRE Volume VI. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.

Gollob, R., Krapf, P., & Weidinger, W. (Eds.). (2010). Educating for democracy. Background materials on democratic citizenship and human rights education for teachers. EDC/HRE Volume I. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.

Grindal, K. (1997). EDC: Basic concepts and core competences. The approach in Norway. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, Doc. DECS/CIT(97)24.

http://www.bpb.de/files/F0R5Q8.pdf

http://www.bpb.de/files/AFT6MJ.pdf

http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/edc/Source/Pdf/Downloads/6898-6-ID10009-Recommendation%20on%20Charter%20EDC-HRE%20-%20assembl%C3%A9.pdf

http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/edc/Source/Pdf/Downloads/6898-6-ID10009-Recommendation%20on%20Charter%20EDC-HRE%20-%20assembl%C3%A9.pdf

http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/edc/Source/Pdf/Documents/2000_23_BasicConceptsCoreCompetencies4EDC.pdf

http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/edc/Source/Pdf/Documents/2000_23_BasicConceptsCoreCompetencies4EDC.pdf

http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/edc/Source/Pdf/Documents/2000_16_Strategies4LearningEDC.pdf

http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/edc/Source/Pdf/Documents/2000_16_Strategies4LearningEDC.pdf

http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg22/citizen

http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg22/citizen


97

Hoskins, B., & Crick, D. R. (2008). Learning to learn and civic competencies: Different currencies or two sides of the same coin? European Communities. Retrieved from http://active-citizenship.jrc.it/Documents/learning%20to%20learn/Learning%20to%20Learn%20and%20Civic%20Competences%20FINAL%20final.pdf; 19.7.2011

Huber, J., & Harkavy, I. (Eds.). (2007). Higher education and democratic culture. Citizenship, human rights and civic responsibility. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.

Lickona, T., & Davidson, M. (2005). Smart & good high schools. Retrieved from www.cortland.edu/character; 15.6.2011

Maleš, D., Milanović, M., & Stričević, I. (2003). Živjeti i učiti prava. Odgoj za ljudska prava u sustavu predškolskog odgoja. Zagreb: Filozofski fakultet, Istraživačko-obrazovni centar za ljudska prava i demokratsko građanstvo.

Maleš, D., & Stričević, I. (2005). Odgoj za demokraciju u ranom djetinjstvu. Priručnik za rad s djecom predškolske dobi na usvajanju humanih vrijednosti. Zagreb: Udruženje Djeca prva.

Minseong, K., Soonkyoung, Y., Jongho, S., Minjeong, P., Kyoung-Oh, S., Tacksoo, S., … Sungdoo, H. (2007). A review of human competence in educational research: Levels of K-12, college, adult, and business education. Asia Pacific Education Review, 8(3), 500–520. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/EJ811088.pdf; 12.6.2011

Novak, J. (Ed.). (2010). Demokracija i ljudska prava u osnovnim školama: teorija i praksa. Zagreb: Centar za ljudska prava.

Rømer, M. (Ed.). (2008). Teacher education in Europe. An ETUCE Policy Paper. ETUCE – European Trade Union Committee for Education. Belgium: Imprimerie IPEX. Retrieved from http://etuce.homestead.com/Publications2008/ETUCE_PolicyPaper_en_web.pdf; 12.6.2011

Salema, M.-H. (2005). Teacher and trainer training in education for democratic citizenship. Competencies, methods and processes. Retrieved from http://www.jsse.org/2005/2005-3/salema-teacher-and-trainer-training-in-education-for-democratic-citizenship-competencies; 1.6.2011

Spajić-Vrkaš, V. (2003). Education for democratic citizenship 2001–2004. All-European study on policies for Education for Democratic Citizenship (EDC) Croatia. Follow-up to the Stocktaking Research on Policies for Education for Democratic Citizenship in Southeast Europe – Country Report: Croatia. Council of Europe. doc. DGIV/EDU/CIT (2001) 45 Croatia.

Spajić-Vrkaš, V. (2002). Odgoj i obrazovanje za demokratsko građanstvo u Hrvatskoj: izvješće. Zagreb: Filozofski fakultet, Centar za istraživanje, izobrazbu i dokumentaciju u obrazovanju za ljudska prava i demokratsko građanstvo.

Spajić-Vrkaš, V., Kukoč, M., & Bašić, S. (2001). Obrazovanje za ljudska prava i demokraciju. Interdisciplinarni rječnik. Zagreb: Hrvatsko povjerenstvo za UNESCO.

Spajić-Vrkaš, V., Stričević, I., Maleš, D., & Matijević, M. (2004). Poučavati prava i slobode. Priručnik za učitelje osnovne škole s vježbama za razrednu nastavu. Zagreb: Filozofski fakultet, Istraživačko-obrazovni centar za ljudska prava i demokratsko građanstvo.

Šloser, I. Z. (Ed.). (2011). Učiti za mir. Analitička i normativna podloga za uvođenje vrijednosti, sadržaja i metoda mirovnog obrazovanja u formalni obrazovni sustav. Zagreb: Centar za mirovne studije.

Trasberg, K. (2009). Framework of teacher competencies for engaging with diversity. Based on Council of Europe project “Policies and Practices for Teaching Sociocultural Diversity”, Brijuni Islands. 18.09. 2009, presentation. Retrieved from http://www.meda-ete.net/eventsmgmt.nsf/(getAttachment)/CFCCAA1DC03C/$File/Transberg_Presentation%20Competencies%20Pula.ppt; 15.6.2011

Veldhuis, R. (2005). Opportunities for education and learning for active citizenship. 9th Adult Education Colloquium. Andragoški centar Slovenije. Retrieved from http://llw.acs.si/ac/09/cd/full_papers_plenary/Veldhuis.pdf; 19.7.2011

http://www.cortland.edu/

http://www.jsse.org/2005/2005-3/salema-teacher-and-trainer-training-in-education-for-democratic-citizenship-competencies



http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/EJ811088.pdf

http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/EJ811088.pdf

http://etuce.homestead.com/Publications2008/ETUCE_PolicyPaper_en_web.pdf

http://etuce.homestead.com/Publications2008/ETUCE_PolicyPaper_en_web.pdf

http://www.meda-ete.net/eventsmgmt.nsf/(getAttachment)/CFCCAA1DC03C/$File/Transberg_Presentation%20Competencies%20Pula.ppt

http://www.meda-ete.net/eventsmgmt.nsf/(getAttachment)/CFCCAA1DC03C/$File/Transberg_Presentation%20Competencies%20Pula.ppt

http://active-citizenship.jrc.it/Documents/learning%20to%20learn/Learning%20to%20Learn%20and%20Civic%20Competences%20FINAL%20final.pdf



http://llw.acs.si/ac/09/cd/full_papers_plenary/Veldhuis.pdf

http://llw.acs.si/ac/09/cd/full_papers_plenary/Veldhuis.pdf


CONCEPTION NAVAL AND CAROLINA UGARTE

THE DEVELOPMENT OF CIVIC COMPETENCIES AT SECONDARY LEVEL THROUGH SERVICE-LEARNING

PEDAGOGIES

INTRODUCTION

Recent years have seen increasing interest in ensuring that students at all levels in the educational system may acquire broader interpersonal and civic competencies beyond the technical and/or discipline-specific knowledge that has traditionally been valued. This article discusses the emergence of secondary level as an appropriate space for such “citizenship” or “civic” education. Hence, the possibility of developing the intellectual and social competencies associated with citizenship or civic-mindedness at that level is explored. This issue is first addressed in general terms; then we present an experiential pedagogy known as Service-Learning (SL), which has been growing in popularity as an effective approach for achieving the learning outcomes (e.g. knowledge, skills, attitudes) that enable participation in a democratic society. Later, two programs based on this methodology which are applicable to this level of education are presented. After analysis and evaluation of these programs, we appraised the suitability of Service-Learning for the development of civic competencies in secondary education students, the citizens and professionals of the XXI century.

THE EMERGENCE OF CIVIC COMPETENCIES IN SECONDARY EDUCATION

The term “competencies” has been widely discussed in recent years (Boyatzis, 1982; Hoskins and Crick, 2010; Lange, Print, Hoskins, et all, 2011; Le Boterf, 1993; Levy-Leboyer, 1997; Jover, Fernández-Salinero and Ruiz Corbella, 2005; Sarramona, Domínguez, Noguera and Vázquez, 2005). Bearing in mind the variety of frameworks in which it is used, from psychology to business, and in the field of education, “competencies” may be defined as “observable and habitual behaviors which enable the individual’s success in their activity” (Cardona and Chinchilla, 1999; Woodrufe, 1993)1.

Nowadays, use of the term “competencies” has spread through all sectors which have some form of educational prerogative, not only formal education centers, but also non-formal learning institutions such as business organizations. In the business

C. NAVAL AND C. UGARTE

100

sector, competence management is used as a means by which individuals may be selected for employment, as well as educated and trained (Alles, 2008 and 2000; Pereda, 2006). The term has also been adopted in a range of institutions whose specific function is teaching. In fact, in the field of higher education, degree program contents and criteria are framed in terms of competencies (Bergen, 2005; London, 2007; Royal Decree 1393/2007). At previous levels in the education system, the school curriculum focuses on fostering the basic competencies every student needs to complete their compulsory schooling successfully. In this regard, many international, European and Spanish bodies have defined and described the contents of the basic competencies to be included in the school curriculum. An overview of such information is presented in Table 1:

Insert Table 1

These reports compile the various basic competencies to be acquired as part of compulsory schooling. Repeated reference is made to the social or civic competence. Each of these references is elucidated in further detail below2.

On the international stage, learning to live together is listed as one of the four pillars of education in the Delors Report drafted by UNESCO in 1996. The OECD project whose purpose was the Definition and Selection of Competencies (DeSeCo) includes the ability to relate to others, to cooperate, and to manage and resolve conflicts among the basic competencies, skills which comprise the social and civic competence as such (DeSeCo, 2003).

In the United States, the enGauge 21st-century Skills report (NCREL, 2001) defined student competence in personal, social and civic responsibility as a basic skill. Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2003) highlighted civic competence and civic literacy in its list of essential 21st-century subjects and topics.

The European Union’s Tuning Project sets out a framework of general competencies designed to shape educational reform. Interpersonal competencies, which play a key role in civic competence as such (González and Wagenaar, 2003), are the most highly rated by academics, employers and university graduates. In addition, in the Recommendation of Key Competencies for Lifelong Learning (Official Journal of the European Union, 2006), the European Parliament and the Council of Europe define eight key competencies, one of which is social and civic competence.

The most recent legislation relating to this issue in Spain (the Organic Law on Education: LOE, 2006) establishes social and civic competence as a fundamental goal of compulsory education3.

In light of this overview of the initiatives taken at international, European and national levels, the following conclusion may be drawn: the mission of the educational system is not limited to the communication and integration of knowledge; it also encompasses the acquisition of basic competencies. The social and civic competence is especially significant in this regard. Thus, educational institutions must establish goals that go beyond the transmission of instrumental knowledge; their role in the education of future citizens must also be taken into account (Kerr, 2011).

THE DEVELOPMENT OF CIVIC COMPETENCIES

101

The definition and description of contents for such forms of competence may be very worthwhile in this context. Civic competence may be defined as preparing students to take part in democratic citizenship, encompassing two types of competence: the intellectual and the participative (Kerr, 2011; Lange, Print, Hoskins, et al, 2011; LOE, 2006, Preámbulo; Veldhuis, 1997 and Naval, 2000, 57).

Intellectual competencies enable students to think critically, helping them to become reflexive citizens capable of offering open and constructive criticism of the issues on which they reflect. Among other things, intellectual competencies enable the individual to see in a rational way the value of getting involved in social improvement. The following intellectual competence may be highlighted (Hoskins and Crick, 2010; NCREL, 2001; Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2003):

• the capacity to synthesize and analyze;• the capacity to organize and plan;• critical and self-critical skills;• the ability to work autonomously;• decision-making skills.

Participative competencies foster civic commitment and the practice of active and responsible citizenship. The following competencies have been highlighted in particular (DeSeCo, 2003; Official Journal of the European Union, 2006; Government of Navarre, 2006; González and Wagenaar, 2003; NCREL, 2001; Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2003):

• communication skills: oral and written communication;• negotiation skills;• problem and conflict resolution;• initiative;• teamwork, cooperation and interpersonal skills.

In light of this description of the contents of the social and civic competence, a brief account of the process by which it is acquired may also be relevant. As a set of habitual behaviors, the development of any competence is the outcome of the acquisition and consolidation of certain knowledge, attitudes and abilities whose overall purpose is personal, social and professional development, in such a way as to enable the citizen’s active presence and participation in the knowledge society. Teaching, orientation and training are the means by which such aspects are to be fostered, respectively (Cardona, 2003; Cardona and García-Lombardía, 2005; Gómez-Llera and Pin, 1993; Hoskins and Crick, 2010; Lange, Print, Hoskins, et all, 2011)4.

Knowledge is acquired by obtaining new data and information; theoretical knowledge of any given competence facilitates its development.

Attitudes comprise the individual’s motivations with respect to action, and are cultivated via an educational process. The goal of this process is to foster certain habits among students: that is, to enable them to make decisions based on what is


102

best, rather than on what may seem most appealing to them. The overall objective is to bring the individual’s affective motivation into line with rational motivation. This endeavor calls for an attitude of commitment to competence acquisition on the student’s part.

Abilities are the operative skills required to ensure that the decisions taken are then enacted in practice. The acquisition of the operative skills pertinent to a particular competence is based on appropriate training: the repetition of specific actions.

Service-learning methodology may play a key role in acquiring the knowledge, attitude and skills needed for social and citizen competence. On the basis of the conceptual account of competence outlined above, the content of two service-learning programs implemented at secondary level, whose purpose is to foster the development of intellectual and participative civic competencies, is presented and assessed.

The decision to focus on secondary education may be explained clearly as follows: as the experience of educational practice attests, secondary level is the educational stage in which there is a particular regard for the development of civic-mindedness and of civic competencies. This is when the students first begin to more clearly understand that their individual actions have repercussions on society. In addition, they are more aware of the problems in their surroundings and the rest of the world, and of other people’s needs. In a few short years they will also have the right to vote, which is one of the most fundamental means citizens have to direct life in their country. For these and many other reasons, secondary education is a particularly appropriate time to channel and form that budding civic responsibility which it stirs up in young people.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF CIVIC COMPETENCIES. DESCRIPTION AND ASSESSMENT OF SERVICE-LEARNING PROGRAMS

Service-learning is a pedagogical approach designed to find particular ways of involving students in the everyday life of the communities, neighborhoods and towns around the school they attend. In general terms, service-learning is a teaching methodology that emphasizes, in equal measure, academic learning in the classroom and voluntary involvement in service in response to the needs of the immediate community, thus enabling the mutual enrichment of both dimensions and rendering them an indivisible whole (Battle, 2009; Puig et al., 2006; Ugarte and Naval, 2010b).

Service-learning evokes the importance of personal commitment in social affairs, the need to be able to count on responsible, active citizens. This commitment goes from paying taxes to voting or involvement in social issues (Battle, 2009).

Service-learning may be distinguished from similar – though not identical – initiatives such as voluntary work by reference to a series of criteria, as follows (Martínez-Odria, 2005, Sigmon, 1994):a. The preeminent role of the student’s voice. The teacher guides the learning

process and encourages initiative, but the students themselves identify the community’s needs and decide on the projects to be undertaken.


103

b. Focus on a real need in the community. Student participation enables them to engage as active citizens and furnishes them with the tools required to function in the context of their community. A range of resources may be availed of in determining the community’s needs: local newspapers, surveys, interviews, a list of student concerns regarding community life, etc.

c. Link to the learning objectives in the curriculum. Unlike voluntary work projects, which prioritize the service carried out, the service-learning methodology regards the service activity and the learning objectives as equally important.

d. Implementation of a service project. Neither project design nor social analysis is enough; the project must also be put into practice.

e. Reflection. Critical thinking skills are put into practice in preparing and carrying out the project, so as to learn from it. This process ensures that meaningful interrelations may be traced between the experience of voluntary service in the community and curriculum-based learning objectives.

Service-learning began in the US in the 1960’s and 1970’s. This was when it became clear that there was general unease with the course taken by the system of education, which was finding it difficult to give valid answers to new social demands. The sociologist Putnam’s analysis was particularly influential as it showed a greater than ever drop in citizens’ civic involvement. The generalization of the term Service-Learning, in contrast with other socially recognized pedagogical proposals, had its origins in the Campus Compact (a coalition of college and university presidents who are aware of the importance of promoting the development of citizenship values and skills among students, through community service) which, shortly after its creation in 1985, began to use it regularly in its publications. From then on, it spread to other colleges and universities all over the country. The 90’s witnessed an explosion in the development of Service-Learning, which now has explicit institutional support.

No European country has adopted the American Service-Learning initiatives as is; they have preferred to adapt this methodology to the educational and social needs of their specific reality, which fact enriches and gives a broader range of nuances to the program. An important milestone in the spread of Service-Learning in Europe is the CIVICUS research project, which aims to explore the forms and strategies of cooperation between universities, corporations, the Civil Service and community organizations5.

In 2002 the British government set up a funding system to promote community service initiatives. In Britain the proposal and enactment of voluntary community service and citizen participation are to be found in the debate on citizenship, which is part of the national curriculum.

In Spain, the idea of promoting Service-Learning projects in schools began in 2001, thanks to contacts made by the Spanish Volunteer Association (Asociación Española del Voluntariado) with American Experts on the methodology. The official presentation of the Service-Learning project occurred in 2002, although the term used was Community Service Learning, and institutional contacts were established


104

to gain Ministerial support for the proposal. In 2003, the Higher Teacher Training Institute (Instituto Superior de Formación del Profesorado) ecognized and registered the activity of Teacher Training in the Service-Learning methods.

Generally speaking, we could say that there is widespread agreement on the urgent need to train students in the values of citizenship. This training must be based on authentic, specific experience and not be limited to the communication of theoretical contents. However, the term Service-Learning was unheard of until very recently and even nowadays is not well-known.

Having finished this summary on the Service-learning concept, we will now deal with two specific experiences of Service-learning carried out in the UK and the US: Building People Voice and Voices of Freedom. The objective of these two experiences is to educate for social and citizen competence. The two initiatives are described in terms of objectives, features, methodology, proposed activities and assessment. Following this description, the programs are assessed in relation to which of the intellectual and participative competencies outlined above are successfully carried out The following is an analysis of these programs.

A Service-learning experience in the United Kingdom: Building People Voice

The Building People Voice program is being developed and promoted by the Association for Citizenship Teaching (ACT). The aim of the ACT is to offer support to teachers to deliver citizenship education. Moreover, it equips young people with the skills and knowledge to exercise their democratic responsibility and engage in public life6.

This organization promotes different secondary education civics programs, among which we find Building People Voice, Making Sustainability a Reality and Where does our food come from?7

Here we will analyze the content of Building People Voice.

A. ObjectivesA1. The general objective of this program is to stimulate pupil participation in the school community. The concrete proposal is to improve the center’s School Council. The aim is to give the pupils a voice on issues that affect the school community and give feedback on the decisions taken.A2. The following specific objectives to be reached by the pupils are mentioned:

• Understanding democracy as a type of government.• Arousing interest in participation in the school community and in the political

life of the school.• Fostering the right to political participation, more specifically, the right to

vote.• Raising pupils’ awareness that their opinion counts and that their proposals

help to improve the school.• Developing knowledge and understanding of what it means to be a member

of a democratic School Council.


105

• Cultivating the competencies needed to increase participation in the school council.

• Improving the way opinions are transmitted within the school.

B. CharacteristicsB1. The program has been developed and applied in Baverstock School, Birmingham, since 2006. Baverstock is an area with a low social-economic level, which suffers from a lack of social cohesion and the sense of a disintegrating community.B2. The program was designed for secondary school students between the ages of 11 and 18.B3. The area in which the program is applied is the classroom.

C. MethodologyThe following methodology is proposed to reach the program objectives:

1. Elections are held to choose the students who will be members of the School Council.2. Once elected, the teacher meets the student representatives and they debate the

issues to be dealt with by the Council.3. The following methods are used to keep the students informed of the work done

in the Council meetings:

a. The dates of Council meetings are advertised in the school calendar.b. A notice board to advertise the work of the Council and the decisions taken.c. The Council minutes are published on the school website, which also gives

information of the dates when the Pupil Voice Week will be held.4. In order to transmit general information on the project, the following are used:

a. The weekly school newsletter, where the actions carried out in the project framework are published.

b. Posters advertising the aims of the program.c. The school radio station which allows pupils to express their opinions. During

the Pupil Voice Week there is a special program themed on these activities.

5. The Pupil Voice Week is a means for students, teachers, parents/guardians and other members of the school community to express their opinions on matters of interest for the community. The means used is the assembly.

D. ActivitiesWithin the program framework, the students carry out various activities in order to reach their aims. These are:

a. Attending classes on citizenship.b. Involvement in the assemblies.c. Participation in the election of classmates as their representatives on the

Council.d. Contribution of their opinions on possible actions to improve the school

during Pupil Voice Week.


106

E. AssessmentBoth the teachers and the pupils consider the program positively, mainly the Pupil Voice Week. However, when evaluating the program, they do say that this is a new initiative and, therefore, will be improved little by little.

Specifically, the students taking part in this program obtain the following learning results:

• Understanding of the workings of the School Council.• Knowledge of a fair, democratic electoral process.• Appreciation of the value of expressing their opinions as a means to influence

improvement in the school community.• Awareness of their responsibility in contributing through their proposals to the

improvement of the school.• Active participation in improving the school.• They learn that the School Council is an effective means to channel their proposals

for school improvement.

Having described this teaching experience, we will now go on to analyze the contents of the second program: Voices of Freedom

Description of a Service-Learning experience in the United States: Voices of Freedom

Voices of Freedom is a program sponsored by the National Service-Learning Clearinghouse (NSLC). This organization offers support to schools to implement Service-Learning methodology at different educational levels8. The NSLC promotes primary school programs such as Veterans, Trash to Treasure, Micro Society at Riverside Elementary or Donate a Quilt. At the secondary level, apart from the program analyzed here, they develop others such as S.T.A.R.T., Good Deeds, Energy Express: Putting Books in the Hands of Children, A Collective Bargaining Simulation and Activity Bags for Hospitalized Children9.

The following is the content of the Voices of Freedom Project.

A. ObjectivesIn the subject “History of the United States”, during the study of the Civil Rights movement in the 1950’s and 1960’s, an opportunity was espied to invite local activists who were directly involved in the movement. The aim is to make the students realize that social change does not only come about in the highest political circles or is promoted by very influential, charismatic people –such as Martin Luther King– but that it demands direct citizen participation, and therefore, they have a direct responsibility for the support of social justice in their own surroundings. Within this framework of reference, the program has the following objectives:

1. To develop students’ awareness of the role played by local activists in the Civil Rights movement in the 50’s and 60’s.


107

2. To teach the students that ordinary people take part in great social movements when they stand up for a just cause.

3. To promote the involvement of the students in the struggle against injustice.4. To promote and improve decision-making, initiative and the proactive attitude of

the students.

B. CharacteristicsB1. The program is designed for 11th Grade students.B2. In order to develop the program they had the assistance of various people and community institutions:

• the Local Chapters of the NAACP10

• the National Urban League11

• the California African-American Museum• the African-American Studies Departments of local universities

B3. The area in which the program is applied is the classroom.

C. MethodologyThe methodology used to reach the program objectives is as follows:

1. Lectures on the subject.2. Study of the program.3. Organization of an assembly. To apply the theoretical contents, the students

participate in the organization of an assembly where local activists recount their experiences. To do so, they must work as a team. Each student is assigned tasks, respecting their differences. Equal participation of all the group members is promoted so that everyone makes significant contribution to the Project. Details of this action are specified in the section on “Activities”.

D. ActivitiesThe activities carried out within the framework of this program are theoretical and practical. Firstly, the students attend lectures where the teachers explain the most relevant events in the Civil Rights movement in the 50’s and 60’s. Later, the students –with the teacher’s guidance– decide which the most significant citizen participation events were.

Once they have enough background information, the students organize the assembly with the local activists. The tasks they carry out are as follows:

1. They settle on what events in the Civil Rights movement they wish to hear more about.

2. They determine time, date and place of assembly, and how long it should last.3. They decide the best way to contact the speakers who will participate in the

project.4. They find the location for the assembly.5. They prepare a brief biography of each speaker to hand out at the session.


108

6. They present the assembly and the speakers.7. The speeches in the assembly are taped. When the activity is finished, this tape

will become part of the school library collection.8. They send thank-you notes to the activists who participate in the activity.9. They write a reflective essay on their experiences.

E. EvaluationAfter the application of the program the students show the following learning results:

• They improve their knowledge of the Civil Rights movement.• They develop their oral and written communication skills:

a) Oral communication to contact the speakers and present them on the assembly day.

b) Written communication to successfully compose the essay with their feelings about the learning experience and to write the thank-you letters to the speakers.

• They improve their organizational and team-work skills by coordinating the assembly.

Assessment of the Building People Voice and Voices of Freedom programs

As has already been stated, the decisive value of the programs will be evaluated by attending to the formative value of the programs in as much as they help to develop those intellectual and participative competencies which are thought to be indispensable. The following chart gives details of this aspect.

Insert table 2

It is as well to explain that in the specific case of Building People Voice the leadership and initiative competencies will be developed in the pupils only if they themselves chose to stand for election to the School Council. Without this proactive attitude, the initiative would be impossible. On the subject of leadership, even if the pupils were not initially candidates, it may be developed during the performance of the post. On communication skills, we must highlight that oral communication skills are directly developed through debates and the Pupil Voice Week. Skills in writing will be fostered if and when the student participants on the program are entrusted to set up the calendar of events, the advertising on the notice-board and online, the newsletter and the content of the posters.

We can conclude by saying that the students who take part in these programs develop intellectual and participative skills. These initiatives are not the only way to develop these competencies, but they are an efficient means which helps with student civic learning. Specifically, more than social action such as attention to disadvantaged groups or cooperation for social and sustainable development, these learning experiences encourage political participation, which is another type of social action.


109

Political participation is another course for involvement in community progress, either through the election of political representatives –who take decisions that have greater or lesser effects on society– or through participation in various associations of a political nature. Both of these actions are a way of giving a voice to the citizen in democracy. On this point, through school participation and the exercise of the right to vote within the school or through awareness, these programs allow the students to understand that society is built on the contributions of each and every citizen.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, the use of the term competencies is widespread in all types of educational institutions. Both in business organizations and at the different levels of education, from obligatory to higher education, the different training actions carried out are based on competencies.

The development of social and citizenship competency is part of every student’s training as academic and social excellence is part of the integral education of the individual. Therefore numerous international, European and Spanish initiatives mention the need to develop social and citizenship competency as one of the basic skills to be learned in obligatory education.

Social and citizenship competency is taken as meaning the knowledge, attitudes and skills that allow people to be concerned about social matters, to be convinced that democratic responsibility lies with citizens and social initiative. This conviction does not appear spontaneously, so education is needed. Secondary education is a particularly suitable educational stage for learning social and citizenship competency.

Social and citizenship competency implies the use of intellectual and participative competencies. In order to develop such competencies, gaining knowledge, arousing attitudes that favor action and the existence of skills that permit their efficient use are required. Service-learning is presented as a particularly appropriate methodology for the acquisition of the knowledge, attitudes and skills which are characteristic to this competency.

Building People Voice and Voices of Freedom are Service-learning programs that assist in the development of students’ intellectual and participative skills. These programs attempt to transmit the idea that the direction of society or of a school does not depend exclusively on political or school organization measures in the hands of politicians or school managing bodies. Participation is everyone’s business, and social improvement and the improvement of our surroundings are the responsibility of each and every one of us.

NOTES

1 Cfr. Ugarte, C. and Naval, C. 2010a, 2008a and 2008b.2 This review of the inclusion of the social and civic competence in international, European and Spanish

reports is based on Gavari, E. and Lara, S. (2010) “Focusing on competencies in the education of 21st-


110

century citizens” in Naval, C.; Lara, S; Ugarte, C. and Sádaba, C. Educar para la comunicación y la cooperación social. Pamplona: COAN, pp. 33–53.

3 Other basic competencies encompassed by the law are linguistic communication, mathematics, knowledge and interaction with the physical world, dealing with information in the digital era, cultural and artistic competence, learning to learn, and personal autonomy and initiative (Government of Navarra, 2006).

4 A more wide-ranging account from a pedagogical perspective of the process by which competencies may be acquired is given in Ugarte, C. and Naval, C. 2010a, 2008a and 2008b.

5 Further information at: http://www.civicus.org/ (Accessed March 2011).6 Further information on this association at: http://www.teachingcitizenship.org.uk/7 The full contents of these programs is available at: http://www.teachingcitizenship.org.uk/case_

studies 8 Further information on this organization at: http://www.servicelearning.org/9 These programs may be consulted on the website of the National Community Service-Learning

Clearinghouse at: http://www.servicelearning.org/.10 Further information: http://www.naacp.org/content/main/ 11 Further information: http://www.nul.org/

REFERENCES

Alles, M. (2008). Dirección estratégica de recursos humanos: gestión por competencias (Recurso electrónico). Buenos Aires: Granica.

Alles, M. (2000). Dirección estratégica de recursos humanos: gestión por competencias. Buenos Aires: Granica.

Battle, R. (2009). En servicio en el aprendizaje servicio. en J. M. Puig, (coord.), Aprendizaje servicio (ApS). Educación y compromiso cívico (pp. 71–90). Barcelona: Grao.

Boyatzis, R. (1982). The competent manager. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Cardona, P. (2003). El coaching en el desarrollo de las competencias profesionales. En M. Villalonga

(coord.), Coaching directivo: desarrollando el liderazgo. Fundamentos y práctica del coaching (pp. 149–152). Barcelona: Ariel empresa.

Cardona, P., & García-Lombardía, P. (2005). Cómo desarrollar las competencias de liderazgo. Pamplona: Eunsa.

Cardona, P., & Chinchilla, N. (1999). Evaluación y desarrollo de competencias directivas. Nota técnica. Barcelona: IESE.

Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education, Bergen (19–20, May 2005). Retrieved from http://www.bologna-bergen2005.no/ [2007, noviembre]

Conference of Ministers Responsible for Higher Education, London (16–18 May, 2007). Retrieved from http://www.usal.es/~ofeees/DOCUMENTOS_INTERES/2007-comunicado-londres.pdf [2007, noviembre]

Delors, J. (coord.). (1996). La educación encierra un tesoro/informe a la UNESCO de la Comisión Internacional sobre la Educación en el siglo XXI. Santillana: Madrid.

DeSeCo. (2003). Definition and selection of key competencies – Executive summary. Retrieved from http://www.deseco.admin.ch/bfs/deseco/en/index/02.parsys.43369.downloadlist.2296. DownloadDile.tmp/2005.dskcexecutivesummary.en.pdf] Accedido: septiembre de 2008

Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea. (2006). Recomendación del parlamento Europeo y del Consejo de 18 de diciembre de 2006 sobre las competencias clave para el aprendizaje permanente (2006/962/CE).

Gavari, E., & Lara, S. (2010). El enfoque de competencias en la educación del ciudadano del siglo XXI. In C. En Naval, S. Lara, C. Ugarte, C. y Sádaba (Eds.), Educar para la comunicación y la cooperación social (pp. 33–53). Pamplona: COAN.

Gobierno de Navarra. (2006). Las competencias básicas. La escuela que necesitamos. Retrieved from [http://orientacionandujar.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/competencias-basicas-la-escuela-que-necesitamos-gobierno-de-navarra.pdf] Accedido: mayo de 2010.

http://www.civicus.org/

http://www.teachingcitizenship.org.uk/

http://www.teachingcitizenship.org.uk/case_

http://www.servicelearning.org/


http://www.naacp.org/content/main/

http://www.nul.org/

http://www.bologna-bergen2005.no/

http://www.usal.es/~ofeees/DOCUMENTOS_INTERES/2007-comunicado-londres.pdf

http://orientacionandujar.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/competencias-basicas-la-escuela-que-necesitamos-gobierno-de-navarra.pdf



http://www.deseco.admin.ch/bfs/deseco/en/index/02.parsys.43369.downloadlist.2296.DownloadDile.tmp/2005.dskcexecutivesummary.en.pdf

http://www.deseco.admin.ch/bfs/deseco/en/index/02.parsys.43369.downloadlist.2296.DownloadDile.tmp/2005.dskcexecutivesummary.en.pdf


111

González, J., & Wagenaar, R. (2003). Tuning educational structures in Europe: Informe final, fase uno. Bilbao: Universidad de Deusto.

Hoskins, B., & Crick, R. D. (2010). Competencies for Learning to Learn and Active Citizenship: Different currencies or two sides of the same coin? European Journal of Education, 45(1), Part II, 121–137.

Jover, G., Fernández-Salinero, C., & Ruiz Corbella, M. (2005). El diseño de titulaciones y programas ante la convergencia europea. En V. Esteban Chapapría (Ed.), El Espacio Europeo de Educación Superior (pp. 27–93). Valencia: Editorial de la Universidad Politécnica de Valencia.

Kerr, D. (2011). The curriculum and its application in building democratic citizenship in Europe. International Civic Education Symposium. An International Symposium on Building Democratic Citizenship in Europe through Young Civic Engagement in Schools. Leibniz Universität Hannover. Hannover, 18–20 April, 2011.

Lange, D., Print, M., Hoskins, B., et al. (2011). Basic text for discussion. International Civic Education Symposium. An International Symposium on Building Democratic Citizenship in Europe through Young Civic Engagement in Schools. Leibniz Universität Hannover. Hannover, 18–20 April, 2011.

Lara, S. (2008). Las competencias básicas necesarias para los ciudadanos del s. XXI: Una revisión de los principales estudios internacionales. En. Comunicaciones del XIV Congreso Nacional y III Iberoamericano de Pedagogía (pp. 1699–1707). Zaragoza: Sociedad Española de Pedagogía.

Le Boterf, G. (1993). Cómo gestionar la calidad de la formación. Barcelona: Aedipe y Gestión 2000.Levy-Leboyer, C. (1997). Gestión de las competencias: cómo analizarlas, cómo evaluarlas, cómo

desarrollarlas. Barcelona: Gestión 2000.Ley Orgánica 2/2006, de 3 de mayo de Educación.Martínez-Odría, A. (2005). Service-Learning o aprendizaje-servicio: Una propuesta de incorporción

curricular del voluntariado. Thesis Doctoral. Universidad de Navarra (inédita).Naval, C. (2000). Educación y derechos humanos. Humana Iura, 10, 43–59.NCREL. (2002, Spring). The Engauge 21st Century Skills. North Central Region Education Laboratory

Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2003, 2009) Learning for the 21st Century. A report and Mile Guide for 21st Century Skills, Partnership for 21st Century Skills. Retrieved from [http://www.p21.org/] Accedido: mayo de 2010

Pereda, S. (2006). Técnicas de gestión de recursos humanos por competencias. Madrid: Editorial Universitaria Ramón Areces.

Puig, J. M. y otros. (2006). Aprendizaje-servicio. Educar para la ciudadanía. Barcelona: Octaedro.Real Decreto. (1393/2007). de 29 de octubre de 2007 por el que se establece la ordenación de las

enseñanzas universitarias oficiales. BOE nº 260, de 30 de octubre de 2007.Sarramona, J., Domínguez, E., Noguera, J., & Vázquez, G. (2005). Las competencias en secundaria y

su incidencia en el acceso a la universidad. En V. Esteban Chapapría (Ed.), El Espacio Europeo de Educación Superior (pp. 199–248). Valencia: Editorial de la Universidad Politécnica de Valencia.

Sigmon, R. L. (1994). Linking service with learning. Washington, DC: Council of Independent Colleges.Ugarte, C., & Naval, C. (2010a). Desarrollo de competencias profesionales en la educación superior. Un

caso docente concreto. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa [Núm. Especial]. Accedido enero 2001. Retrieved from http://redie.uabc.mx/contenido/NumEsp2/contenido-ugarte.html

Ugarte, C., & Naval, C. (2010b). La formación política de los alumnos de educación secundaria. Descripción y valoración de programas de Service-learning en los Estados Unidos y en la Unión Europea. Edetania, 37, 109–128.

Ugarte, C., & Naval, C. (2008a). Formación en competencias profesionales. Una experiencia docente online-presencial. Estudios sobre Educación, 15, 53–86.

Ugarte, C., & Naval, C. (2008b). El profesor-tutor en una experiencia docente online-presencial. En G. Jover y D. Reyero (coords.), Teoría de la Educación: Educación y Cultura en la Sociedad de la Información, 9(1), 153–179. Monográfico: Enseñanza virtual, innovación e internacionalización de la educación. Retrieved from http://www.usal.es/~teoriaeducacion/rev_numero_09_01/naval.pdf (accedido: febrero 2008).

Veldhuis, R. (1997). Educación para la ciudadanía democrática: dimensiones de la ciudadanía, competencias esenciales, variables y actividades internacionales. Consejo de Europa: Consejo para la Cooperación Cultural (DECS/CIT (97) 23).

http://www.p21.org/

http://www.p21.org/

http://redie.uabc.mx/contenido/NumEsp2/contenido-ugarte.html

http://www.usal.es/~teoriaeducacion/rev_numero_09_01/naval.pdf


112

Woodrufe, C. (1993). Assessment centres: Identifying and developing competentes. London: Institute of Personal Management.

ONLINE RESOURCES FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

Canada:Rubric for Assessing Quality of the Service-Learning Experience: Wisconsin Department of Public

Instruction http://dpi.state.wi.us/fscp/pdf/sl-qual-rubric.pdfUnited States of AmericaLearn and Serve America’s National Service-Learning Clearing House:http://www.servicelearning.org/European UnionPoliteia: http://www.politeia.netCitized: http://www.citized.infoAssociation for Citizenship Teaching (ACT): http://www.teachingcitizenship.org.ukNetworking European Citizenship Education (NECE): http://www.bpb.de/veranstaltungen/

PAJZMN,0,NECE_Networking_European_Citizenship_Education.html

http://dpi.state.wi.us/fscp/pdf/sl-qual-rubric.pdf


http://www.politeia.net

http://www.citized.info

http://www.teachingcitizenship.org.uk

http://www.bpb.de/veranstaltungen/PAJZMN,0,NECE_Networking_European_Citizenship_Education.html

http://www.bpb.de/veranstaltungen/PAJZMN,0,NECE_Networking_European_Citizenship_Education.html


MURRAY PRINT

TEACHER PEDAGOGY AND ACHIEVING CITIZENSHIP COMPETENCES IN SCHOOLS

INTRODUCTION

Civic disengagement of young people is widespread across countries and across different categories of indicators – civic indicators (active group membership, volunteering, community participation); political engagement indicators (media use, boycotting, boycotting, internet use) and electoral indicators (voting, political party activity). Extensive literature has identified the problem as widespread disenchantment and disengagement of youth with engagement in politics. Researchers have expressed concern with the lack of formal political participation of young people in modern democracies, primarily evident in declining voting turnout amongst young people, but also seen in other indicators such as joining political parties, contacting politicians, engaging with media and broader forms of civic activities (Galston, 2004; Dalton, 2004; Forbrig, 2005; Print, Saha, & Edwards, 2007; Print, 2007; Wattenberg, 2008).

Are there ways to address this situation through the education system? What can be done in the schools to build citizenship competences that will enable the young to engage in their democracies? In particular, what forms of teacher pedagogy can assist in achieving citizenship competences within the context of schools? In the context of Europe this chapter asks two key questions:

1. how can young people be educated to become active, informed citizens in their democracies i.e. ‘good’ citizens for Europe?

2. what teacher pedagogy can build active, informed citizens in schools?

WHAT IS AN ACTIVE, INFORMED CITIZEN?

Before we can address these questions we need to explore what is an active, informed citizen. In a project on active citizenship for the European Commission, Hoskins defined the concept as “… participation in civil society, community and/or political life, characterized by mutual respect and non-violence and in accordance with human rights and democracy” (2006, p6). In this context active citizenship is interpreted very broadly where participation is not restricted simply to the political dimension as expressed in the traditional forms of voting, political lobbying and membership in parties and NGOs. Rather it also includes cultural and

M. PRINT

114

political environmental activities, undertaken at local, national (and regions within nations), European and international levels as well as less conventional forms of active citizenship, such as cyber participation, one-off issue politics and social and environmental responsibility. This understanding of active citizenship is ethically-driven where activities should support the community and should not contravene principles of human rights and the rule of law. Therefore, as seen by the European Commission, groups that promote intolerance and violence should not be included in this definition of active citizenship.

Unsurprisingly active citizenship is also a contested concept. A review of the international literature (Audigier, 2000; Dalton, 2008; Hoskins & Deakin-Crick, 2010; Hoskins, et al, 2011) suggests, however, that the concept of active citizenship would reasonably include ( see Print, 2012):

• Engagement and participation of people in their society• Participation is not only political but also about civic and civil society• Incorporates a range from highly active to ‘passive’ elements• Involves active dimensions of citizenship from skills development as well as a

base of knowledge and understanding• Citizenship based on theoretical approaches from liberal, communitarian and civic

republican traditions where activity ranges from individualistic and challenge driven approaches to more collective actions and approaches

• Learning in school is but part of a lifelong experience of citizenship though it is a key source for informed citizens.

Subsumed beneath the concept of active citizenship is a normative, value-ladened concept of ‘good’ citizen. This is also a highly contested concept yet one which underpins, often in an assumed nature, the very notion of a democracy. The issues around a ‘good’ citizen are discussed elsewhere in some depth (CRELL, 2006, 2008; Crick, 1998; Dalton, 2004; Hoskins, et al, 2006; Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). It is a reasonable assumption that societies do not wish to produce ‘bad’ citizens, especially through their education systems. These young people might become adults who are racist, homophobic, sexist, apathetic, inactive, and so forth. While not all citizens are likely to be classified as ‘good’ the education system should still strive to achieve a positive outcome. Society could then pose the question - what type of citizens do we want to come from the education system?

Joel Westheimer and Joseph Kahne (2004) posit three visions of good citizens that educators and policy-makers can use to consider for building active citizens in a democracy. While these may be seen as desirable forms of citizens they are also clearly evident in most societies. First, the personally responsible citizen acts responsibly in his/her community by, for example, picking up litter, giving blood, recycling, obeying laws and staying out of debt. This is a relative low level of active citizenship but still requires the citizen to be informed. The participatory citizen actively participates in the civic affairs and the social life of the community at local, provincial and national levels. This citizen is more proactive and to be


115

active requires the citizen to be informed. Third, the social justice-oriented citizen emphasizes social change and seeks to prepare students to improve society by critically analyzing and addressing social issues and injustices. Advocates of social justice-oriented programs argue that effective democratic citizens need opportunities to analyze and understand the interplay of social, economic and political forces. This is a highly active, engaged citizen who requires considerable sources of information in order to act effectively.

All of these visions are underpinned by the concept of an informed citizen. This is the person who has acquired knowledge about political and societal processes and their historical background. What knowledge would be acquired is the perennial problematic question, one which is a fundamental driver of any school curriculum (Print, 1993), but while acknowledging the importance of determining the knowledge base for an active, informed citizen, it is not the focus of this chapter.

COMPETENCES FOR THE ACTIVE, INFORMED CITIZEN

What are the civic competences necessary to meet the demands of democracy in the 21st century, and what methodologies are used to teach them in schools? Competences are assumed to be those needed for the active, informed citizen in a democracy. An assumption is made that democracies seek citizens who are ‘good’ within that democracy as compared with dysfunctional or ‘bad’ citizens. That is, for democracies to work and to be sustain, as compared with fail or become dysfunctional to citizens, then the citizens need to contribute to that democracy in positive ways. This is an aspiration as not all citizens will contribute in positive ways. Nevertheless a program in democratic citizenship, such as civics or citizenship education for schools, seeks to encourage positive outcomes in students so that they may contribute to their democracy in positive ways.

The suggestion that democracies need more than passive citizens, those who act responsibly, are obedient and have good manners resonates in modern times. Rather, it can be argued on the grounds of improving the quality of life of the people, democracies require engaged citizens who participate actively in society and who are critical-democratic citizens, motivated to change society for the better and are concerned for social justice. Westheimer & Kahn (2004) make this argument well and in a similar way to Veugelers (2007) critical-democratic citizen.

What then might we see as being an active, informed citizen? Another way of addressing this is to identify key groups of ‘active’ behaviours

1. Engage and participate in traditional political activities such as voting, joining political parties and being a candidate for election.

2. Engagement in the form of voluntary community activities. This might be working with welfare agencies such as a homeless shelter, collecting for charities or contributing to your local community clean-up.

3. Participating in activities and movements that seek to make changes to social and political directions. Mostly these are seen in a positive sense such as signing

M. PRINT

116

petitions or joining a legal demonstration on a social issue. Some may be ‘negative’ or illegal such as illegal demonstrations or damaging property.

4. Participating in self-directing, beneficial behaviours such as financial self-sufficiency and creative problem-solving such as saving water in one’s home or being energy efficient.

To become such citizens young people need to acquire the competences that will enable them to be active and participate effectively, particularly in the adult society they experience after school. In turn, the school is a logical, and historically experienced, source for educating the next generation of adult citizens and hopefully the source of some form of a non-partisan, critically reflective citizenship education program.

PEDAGOGY THAT BUILDS ACTIVE, INFORMED CITIZENSHIP

When we examine the possibilities for building active citizenship to achieve engaged European citizen for the future it is helpful to have a conceptual model for that analysis. The Print model (2009) shows a pathway for that conceptualising task in the context of preparing engaged citizens for democracies. The conceptual model takes a comprehensive approach to pedagogy and identifies two key areas to address while acknowledging that extra-curricular activities and the hidden curriculum may also be influential:

1. Formal curriculum2. Informal curriculum

POLITICAL AND CIVIC LEARNING(for what kind of citizen?)

POLITICALAND CIVIC

LEARNING

NON-SCHOOL

FACTORS

SCHOOLFACTORS

FAMILY

MEDIA

PEERS

COMMUNITY

FORMALCURRIC.

COURSES-K,S,V

INFORMALCURRIC

InstrumentalExpressive

POLITICAL AND CIVICBEHAVIOURS

FORMAL NON-FORMAL(what kind of citizen?)

Figure 1. Political and civic learning (Source Print, 2009)


117

FORMAL CURRICULUM

Most studies of civic learning have focussed on the formal curriculum, especially the relationship of selected student outcomes to these school subjects. This particularly reflects the knowledge base for the informed dimension of active, informed citizenship. Generally the study of civic education subjects in school is linked positively, if weakly, with measures of civic engagement such as voting, volunteering and joining civic associations (Niemi & Junn, 1998; Saha & Print, 2010). The exact causal relationship, given the effect of multiple variables, and other school experiences, is far from clear. However, the study of civics related subjects at school is more valuable in building civic engagement than other school subjects (Print, 2009; Print, Saha & Edwards, 2007; Print & Milner, 2009).

In teaching democratic citizenship various pedagogical approaches exist, and many have been studied, though the depth and rigour of that research in the context of school subjects is problematic. These specific pedagogies associated with civics and citizenship education include (but are not limited to) project-based learning, community service learning, simulations and workshops, and examining contemporary social problems and conflicts or controversial issues. Considerable literature from the United States has argued this last example has been shown to be particularly effective (Hess, 2004, 2009; Hess & Avery, 2008) and yet is often the least pursued in schools. Several reasons may explain why teachers avoid a pedagogy that addresses political conflict and problem-solving include its potential to create division and discord within the classroom, and a limited teacher knowledge base of political process and pedagogy.

In related research on active dialogue in the classroom Schuitema, Boxtel, Veugelers & Geert (2012) found that, in the context of discussions on moral issues, the quality of the content of students’ dialogue is important for their ability to substantiate their opinions. The results show that students who made more value-related utterances during the discussion also referred more often and more explicitly to moral values. This was particularly appropriate in relation to moral issues with value-laden argumentation. The authors contend that approaches to citizenship education in which dialogue is a central element should pay specific attention to the validation of ideas in student dialogue.

Political scientists Niemi and Finkel (2006), in their analysis of civic education as a source for developing knowledge and attitudes, concluded that as a school subject civic education is an important component of education for democracy. In the context of United States schools it offered students opportunities to discuss controversial issues, engaging in problem solving strategies, encourage community service and encourage a positive classroom climate, all of which contribute to building active, informed citizens.

Further, Kahne & Sporte (2008) noted that while there were limited studies linking classroom practices with civic engagement large scale surveys of high school students demonstrate that students who report having particular experiences

M. PRINT

118

(debating issues in class, being taught civic skills, undertaking service learning) are more likely to also report being committed to and involved in various forms of civic and political engagement (Torney-Purta, 2002; Saha & Print, 2010).

At formal curriculum strategies are relevant to civics and citizenship education classes in schools? Which ones are more useful depends on what outcomes are desired – knowledge, skills or values such as civic engagement for active citizens. The following is a list of relevant pedagogies that can assist civic engagement of young people when applied in the school. These are all well known pedagogies that have been researched elsewhere. What is not well known is which of these pedagogies is most relevant to civics and citizenship.

• Class discussions of social and moral issues; • Inquiry; • Problem-based learning• controversial issues; • Service learning• Class climate (IEA); • Simulations & games• Expository –teacher talk, lectures• Worksheets• Textbooks• Elearning• In class debates• Fieldwork

There are, however, three important caveats to consider in promoting civic and citizenship education classes which, if not addressed through the formal curriculum, will undermine school attempts to engage young people with democracy. First, research shows that participatory pedagogy in schools is quite weak. Rather, instruction in civics is characterized by textbooks, rote learning and non-participatory, non-critical strategies, as well as inadequate teacher preparation (Niemi & Junn, 1998; Hahn, 1998; Torney-Purta, et al., 2001).

Second, substantial research shows that participatory approaches such as class voting, group inquiry, simulations, fieldwork and co-operative learning, are more likely to engage learners in experiential learning and aspects of democratic values and practice than other pedagogies (Youniss, et al, 1997; Niemi & Junn, 1998; Hahn, 1998; Torney-Purta et al, 2001; Print, et al, 2002; Print, 2009). In Britain, for example, the EPPI review showed that engaged pedagogy can enhance student learning and achievement, especially when characterized by a facilitative, conversational pedagogy (Deakin Crick, Taylor, Tew, Samuel, Durant, & Ritchie, 2005). Such pedagogy can increase student participation, improve communication skills and empower students to become more engaged.


119

Third, open, informed, meaningful and critical discussion with non-partisan teachers is highly significant in engaging students (Youniss, et al, 1997; Hahn, 1998; Niemi & Junn, 1998; Torney-Purta, et al, 2001; Torney-Purta, 2002; Deakin Crick, et al, 2005).

Finally, there are many important variables that may significantly affect the impact of any learning experience for students in schools as evidenced by a plethora of research studies. These variables include teacher educational background (especially appropriate training) and knowledge, teaching resources, class climate, assessment procedures, school climate, opportunity to learn the curriculum, all of which may profoundly affect outcome variables such as student knowledge, understandings, skills, attitudes and dispositions. These approaches offer opportunities for learning about politics and building civic engagement amongst young people.

INFORMAL CURRICUUM

The informal curriculum incorporates student learning from non-school subject experiences. These experiences are informal in that they are not recognized as high status subjects in schools but are nevertheless acknowledged by schools. The informal curriculum appears to consist of two sets of related activities (see Print Model). First, instrumental activities, which can develop civic engagement and stimulate civic action, include student governance, newspapers, debating, student elections, fundraising and political clubs (Kirlin, 2002; Print, Ornstrom & Neilsen, 2002). These are real, meaningful activities which encourage active participation by students, are positively correlated with later civic engagement and are, potentially, the best predictor of adult political engagement (Keeter et al, 2002; Kirlin, 2002; Verba et al., 1995). Second, expressive activities, such as sports, clubs, bands and social activities, are perceived as contributing less to building civic engagement, though they do fall along the same participation continuum (Keeter, et al., 2002; Kirlin, 2002; Print & Coleman, 2003) and may offer opportunities for building civic action.

Volunteering and service learning are problematic as they are located at the crossroads between the formal curriculum (may be a ‘required subject’ in schools), the informal curriculum (within school volunteering on approved activities) and the extra-curricular (volunteering outside the school), and there is debate as to how much they constitute ‘volunteering’ or school compulsory requirements (Hart et al., 2007). Nevertheless, service learning, or community service as it is sometimes known, has gained considerable popularity in recent years in some countries. For many high schools in the United States service learning is considered part of the formal school curriculum. High school students’ participation in these experiences has been linked through high quality longitudinal studies to later civic and political engagement (McFarland & Thomas, 2006). Similarly youth organizational membership is

M. PRINT

120

believed to socialize young people to value and pursue social ties while fostering exposure to organizational norms and relevant political and social skills that make maintenance of these ties more likely (Youniss & Yates, 1997).

However, it is worth noting that volunteering drops sharply once young people enter the paid workforce and it is often characterized by young people as an alternative to formal politics (Galston, 2004). In his overview of participation by the young, Galston noted the problematic relationship between volunteering and political engagement. “They have confidence in personalized acts with consequences they can see for themselves; they have less confidence in collective actions... whose consequences they see as remote, opaque, and impossible to control” (p. 263). Overall though community service seems to assist civic engagement, generates pro-civic attitudes and is linked with civic knowledge (Kirlin, 2002; Keeter et al., 2002; Zukin et al., 2006; Hart et al., 2007).

A growing body of literature suggests that student participation in the informal curriculum is positively related to engaging young people in later political and civic life (Kahne & Sporte, 2008; McFarland & Thomas, 2006; Verba, Scholzman & Brady, 1995; Youniss, McClellan & Yates, 1997; Patrick, 1999). Verba and his colleagues (1995) argued that institutions in which individuals have an opportunity to practice democratic governance are ‘schools of democracy’. In their retrospective study of adults, having participated in student government while in high school was the most important school variable in predicting adult political activity. More recently, Hart and his colleagues (2007) found that participation in the informal curriculum was associated with higher rates of voting in presidential elections in early adulthood. Similarly, Kahne and Sporte (2008) found the same thing in indicating benefits from participation in extracurricular opportunities (the informal curriculum) other than sports. They noted, however, that participation in extracurricular opportunities is voluntary and, when compared with classroom civic learning opportunities, their data suggest that the impact is more modest. The Australian situation is rather different where most informal curriculum activities, such as school assemblies, undertaking service learning projects, participating in student governance, following current events, discussing problems in the community and ways to respond, and the like are more compulsory in nature than voluntary.

More recently McFarland and Starmanns (2009), in their study of high school student councils in the United States, explored the opportunity for student engagement in forms of quasi-representative governance. They found the types of student councils highly variable as was the nature of student engagement. A key variable was the nature of the school, where elite private schools afforded students far greater influence and opportunities than schools at the other end of the spectrum. Similarly religious schools offered opportunities for engagement though faculty oversight in these schools was extensive and many of their activities were of a social welfare nature. Similarly Niemi and Finkel (2006) noted that student councils are an excellent way of involving students the issues and process of school-level decision-making.


121

International research using the IEA Civics Study shows that the culture of the school is indeed significant in engaging young people (Torney-Purta et al., 2001). Schools, the authors suggest, are effective places for developing student engagement through “…. supporting effective participation opportunities such as school councils.” (Torney-Purta, 2002, p. 210). Yet these findings need qualification. In Australia, the YES project found that while students appreciate these activities, they do not value them highly, largely because the school appears not to value them. In particular student government, for most students, and for the same reasons, was perceived as inconsequential. Students perceived they had little influence over important decisions, their opinions were not valued and student government had no or negligible power, unlike the case in Scandinavian countries (Print et al., 2002)

The ICCS findings are now beginning to appear. Earliest summaries indicate, as with the earlier civic education study, that while trust in civic institutions is quite high, active civic participation in the wider community was uncommon among students of the ICCS target age group (mostly around 14 years old). However, civic participation at school was considerably more common and this may become a valuable predictor of later civic behaviour once the analysis is available. (Schulz, et al., 2010) Few students expected to join political parties in the future. Similar to earlier findings, student expectations to vote in national elections were positively associated with both civic knowledge and interest in political and social issues. Students indicated a frequent intention to vote in elections, though this intention is frequently not fulfilled on leaving school as seen in low voter turnout by young people in elections.

Yet the Youth Electoral Study survey data show that students who voted in school elections are significantly more likely to vote, while those who have stood for a student election are even more likely to say they would vote as an adult (Print, Saha & Edwards, 2007; Print, 2009; Saha & Print, 2010). Similarly students engaged in other forms of civic action may be more likely to participate in civic life as adults.

PEDAGOGY AND COMPETENCES

In teaching democratic citizenship in schools many pedagogical approaches are available for teachers to select, and many of these have been studied, though the depth and rigour of that research is problematic in the context of civics and citizenship education. Some of the more problematic include (but are not limited to) project-based learning, community service learning, simulations and workshops, exposure to activist role models, developing communities of support and of civic practice, and examining contemporary social problems and conflicts or controversial issues. Considerable literature from the United States has argued this last example has been shown to be particularly effective and yet is often the least pursued in schools (Hess, 2004, 2009; Torney-Purta, et al., 2001). Two of several reasons why teachers avoid a pedagogy that credits political conflict and problem-solving is the potential to create division and discord in the classroom, as well the complexity of such teaching strategies meaningful to students. A third reason is that teachers report deficits in

M. PRINT

122

their own knowledge base of political process and pedagogy (Torney-Purta, et al., 2001; Schulz et al., 2010). Clearly, both pre- and in-service teacher education is an important site for the improvement of instructional practices, deserving further attention by government, the academic community and, very importantly, teachers’ associations.

But what of pedagogy and competences supporting active, informed citizenship? Understanding the role of teacher pedagogy in enhancing citizenship education may be facilitated through a typology constructed as a matrix (Figure 2). On one axis teacher pedagogies can be classified according to positions along a well-recognized teacher – learner continuum. At one end are the highly teacher-dominated approaches such as expository strategies, textbooks and lectures. At the other are highly learner-engaged strategies such as role-play, games, discussions and fieldwork. Between these ends of the continuum exists a range of teacher-influenced approaches with varying degrees of teacher and learner input such as interactive teaching and inquiry.

On the vertical axis are key components of the typical teaching tasks in schools – teaching intentions, lesson approach, specific pedagogical methods, teaching resources, teacher role, student role and forms of assessment (Figure 2). This matrix allows us to review the three broad sets of pedagogical strategies in terms of the

Figure 2. Typology of pedagogical strategies in citizenship education (Print, 2010 (Hiroshima))

Teacher-dominatedapproaches

Teacher-influencedapproaches

Engaged-learnerapproaches

Intention Transmission of civicknowledge

Thinking/engagedCivic reflection

Empowerment; civic skillscommitment, empathy

Lessonapproach

Conceptual;knowledge-based

Conceptual &problem-solving

Engagement; empathy;experiential learning

Pedagogicalmethods

Expository One-way flow eg teachertalk, video, guestlecture, textbooks,worksheets,

Interactive teaching;Inquiry; questioning;controversial issues;elearning

Group discussions; debates;fieldwork; role-play; games;simulations; youth forums;community/service learning;

Teachingresources

Media/lecturesbooks

‘Small’ groupsinternet

Internet; games;transport

Teacherrole

Informed teachers;directive; informative

Guiding; questioning;stimulating

Supervisory; guiding andencouraging.

Student role Passive, butcognitively active

Engaged; thinking Engaged, active–experiential learning

assessment Tests; exams; essays Tasks; products(projects, portfolios,models); exams.

Products; demonstratedskills/empathy; taskcompletion; oral.


123

teaching tasks within citizenship education and relate them to competences for active, informed citizens.

In essence, the typology argues that pedagogy in citizenship education may be categorized into three approaches – teacher dominated, teacher influenced and engaged learner approaches. Within each cell we can identify key components of teaching citizenship education according to the three categories of approaches. Teacher-dominated approaches, for example, intend to transmit civic knowledge, are conceptual in nature, use expository methods, involve physical resources, require informed teachers who are knowledgeable about civics and citizenship education, engage students cognitively and emphasize tests and exams as forms of assessment. As seen in Figure 2 teacher dominated approaches intend the transmission of civic knowledge, which is essentially conceptual in nature and achieved through one-way expository strategies such as lectures, video, textbooks and teacher talk. Here the teacher is informed and directive while the student is essentially passive, though cognitively active, and assessed formally through tests and exams. Teacher-dominated approaches are frequently represented as problematic for engaging students, but teachers will frequently employ these types of pedagogical methods to impart ‘highly-valued’ civics and citizenship knowledge and to meet curriculum requirements as identified in curriculum documents and in the process address the ‘informed’ component of active, informed citizens

Engaged-learner strategies are quite different ways to address how young people learn citizenship education and how they may become more active citizens in the future. These strategies intend to build empathy, skills and experience using engaging lessons and learning experiences. Pedagogical methods include role-play, games, discussions, youth forums and the like where students are highly engaged and active learners while teachers are more supervisory and guiding. Resources vary from games to the internet to transport for fieldwork while assessment focuses on what learners can do, feel and experience. Teachers using engaged learner approaches seek to empower learners through building skills, commitment and empathy. Teachers play more guiding roles in pedagogies such as simulations, fieldwork, role-play, service learning and youth forums within schools (student governance) and beyond (student advisory groups). Increasingly the internet will provide a different form of these experiential learning activities. These strategies intend to build greater student empowerment through experiential learning and are more likely to encourage the ‘active’ component of the active, informed citizen.

Between these two approaches, as seen in Figure 2, are a variety of pedagogical methods that reflect differing combinations of teacher and learner input. Teacher influenced approaches build thinking and engagement within students through such strategies as interactive teaching, inquiry, controversial issues and elearning. The essence here is that the teacher purposively guides, stimulates and engages learners to be more engaged, to think and solve problems both individually and in groups. These pedagogical strategies tend to use smaller student groups, rely on teachers to question and stimulate students in engaged ways, particularly with

M. PRINT

124

problem-solving activities. However, these pedagogical strategies can also enhance students’ knowledge and understanding to become active, informed citizens. All of these strategies require a substantial knowledge base in order to participate and the participative dimension, in turn, enhances the ‘active’ component of the active, informed citizen.

INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH ON PEDAGOGY FOR CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Ideally teachers will draw from all three categories of pedagogies as appropriate to the intent / task they seek to achieve and the teaching context in which they find themselves. However, in a review of research on citizenship education (Deakin Crick, et al., 2005), part of which focused on teacher pedagogy, the review concluded that, to build student understanding and engagement, citizenship education should have at its core facilitating and enabling communication as seen in dialogue and discussion. This more conversational and negotiated style of teaching and learning involves mutually respectful teacher-student relationships where traditional authoritarian patterns of control are no longer appropriate and engages learners in interactive and conversational learning contexts (Deakin Crick, et al., 2005). Such approaches to pedagogy would also facilitate building active citizens for the future. Unfortunately the research evidence supporting these conclusions was not strong and while it appears logical for citizenship education pedagogy to support teacher-influenced and engaged-learner approaches more powerful research evidence is needed for more definitive conclusions.

In the broader sense international research has found a positive, though weak relationship between classroom activities and building civic commitment and engagement, necessary ingredients for active, informed citizens. In researching the building of civic participation through schools Kahne & Sporte (2008) found that school experiences that focus directly on civic and political issues and ways to act “… are a highly efficacious means of fostering commitments to civic participation.” (p754). Similarly Torny-Purta et al., (2007) and Gibson and Levine (2003), supported by Saha and Print (2010) have found associations between varied classroom practices and commitments to, or enhanced behaviour in, civic participation. These associations are generally quite large and stable, even when controlling for other influences, especially the very significant influence of the family. For example, Print (2009) found that “interest in the study of government” had the highest Beta coefficients (the best predictor), of student commitment to vote, higher than parent effects, in a full simultaneous multiple regression model.

The international evidence on pedagogy in citizenship education is eclectic and dominated, at least on a large scale, by international studies conducted by the International association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). There are many smaller comparative studies that include a smaller number of purposively identified countries (for example Cogan, Morris & Print, 2002). Most of the studies identified many strategies that fit into the typology above. However, the data from


125

these international studies is largely descriptive and not very encouraging in terms of pedagogical methods from teacher-influenced and engaged-learner approaches. Assuming that a variety of strategies are important in building an engaged, active citizen, the international data are dismal.

For example, the recently conducted International Civics and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS) by the IEA found that:

Most teachers regarded the development of knowledge and skills as the most important aim of civic and citizenship education. This development included “promoting knowledge of social, political, and civic institutions,” “developing students’ skills and competencies in conflict resolution,” “promoting knowledge of citizens’ rights and responsibilities,” and “promoting students’ critical and independent thinking.” The development of active participation was not among the objectives that teachers, in any of the participating countries, most frequently cited as the most important. (Schulz, Ainley, Fraillon, Kerr, & Losito, 2010, p89)

The earlier IEA study (Torney-Purta, et al., 2001) on civics and citizenship education revealed similar results. Over the intervening decade it appears that little change and development has occurred internationally in teacher pedagogy in citizenship education. However, research on European education systems has noted that formal citizenship education is orientated to teaching “political literacy, critical thinking, the development of certain attitudes and values and active participation” (Eurydice, 2005). There are many studies which examine aspects of democratic citizenship within the school curriculum including the IEA Civics study (1995-2002) and the ICCS research that has recently released findings.

In an important ten-year (2001-2009) study in England (Keating et al., 2009) on the identification, measurement and evaluation of effective practice in citizenship education developed in English schools, key findings of the third annual report on the Citizenship Education Longitudinal Study relative to this paper found:

1. Many lessons follow ‘traditional’ formats, teacher and textbook led rather than discussion and ICT informed.

2. Nonetheless, pupils feel there is a positive climate in which to express opinions and raise issues for consideration.

3. Schools offer a wide range of opportunities for participation, but pupil take-up is limited.

CONCLUSION

While there are many suitable pedagogies available that appear appropriate to citizenship education there is little research evidence to indicate which ones are most relevant and useful for building active, informed citizens. From the three categories of pedagogies - teacher dominated/ teacher influenced / engaged learner – which is

M. PRINT

126

likely to produce lasting effects on young people? Rather than produce immediate results through some form of assessment and / or practice, which of these pedagogies will have last effects to enable students in school to become active, informed citizens?

In the process there are many problematic issues that teachers encounter that will affect their pedagogies - curriculum content, teacher background and knowledge, pedagogy, teaching resources, class climate, assessment, school climate, the challenge of opportunity to learn and many more that constitute the complexity of the teacher’s experience.

In addition there is the possibility of making civics and citizenship education more effective by examine options within the informal curriculum of the school. These were outlined and some forms of experience through the informal curriculum offer exciting opportunities for building active, informed citizens of the future. However, further research is needed to determine the impact of those experiences and how best to coordinate them with those from the formal curriculum.

This chapter has focussed upon the pedagogies most commonly identified with the formal curriculum and classified them according to three broad teaching strategies. Constituted within each strategy are several specific pedagogies and approaches that teachers might employ to enable their students to become active, informed citizens of the future. The research evidence in support of particular pedagogies is limited and often relies on conventional wisdom and the personal experience of the educators involved. This poses a significant challenge to educators and researchers to build a stronger research base and in the process to identify key pedagogies for use by teachers that will build active informed citizens.

REFERENCES

Audigier, F. (2000). Basic concepts and core competencies for education for democratic citizenship. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Cogan, J., Morris, P., & Print, M. (Eds.). (2002). Civic education in the Asia-Pacific region. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

CRELL Research Network on Active Citizenship for Democracy including multiple research papers by Hoskins et al. (2006, 2008).

Crick, B. (Chair.). (1998). Education for citizenship and the teaching of democracy in schools. London: QC.

Dalton, R. (2004). Democratic challenges, democratic choices: The erosion of political support in advanced industrial democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dalton, R. (2008). The good citizen: How a younger generation is reshaping American politics. Washington: CQ Press.

Deakin Crick, R., Taylor, M., Tew, M., Samuel, E., Durant, K., & Ritchie, S. (2005). A systematic review of the impact of citizenship education on student learning and achievement. In Research evidence in education library. London: EPPI-Centre, Institute of Education.

Eurydice. (2005). Citizenship education at school in Europe. Brussels: Eurydice.Forbrig, J. (Ed.). (2005). Revisiting youth political participation. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Fratczak-Rudnicka, B., & Torney-Purta, J. (2003). Competencies for civic and political life in a

democracy. In D. Rychen, L. Salganik, & L. McLaughlin (Eds.), In Contributions to the second DeSeCo symposium. Neuchâte: Swiss Federal Statistical Office.

Galston, W. (2004). Civic education and political participation. PS: Political Science & Politics, 37(2), 263–266.


127

Hahn, C. (1998). Becoming political. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Hart, D., Donnelly, T., Youniss, J., & Atkins, R. (2007). High school community service as a predictor of

adult voting and volunteering. American Educational Research Journal, 44(1), 197–219.Hess, D. (2004). Controversies about controversial issues in democratic education. Political Science &

Politics, 37, 257–261.Hess, D. (2009). Controversy in the classroom: The democratic power of discussion. New York, NY:

Routledge.Hess, D., & Avery, P. (2008). Discussion of controversial issues as a form and goal of democratic

education. In J. Arthur, I. Davis, & C. Hahn (Eds.), The Sage handbook of education for citizenship and democracy (pp. 506–518). London: Sage.

Hoskins, B. (2006). Active citizenship for democracy. Ispra: CRELL.Hoskins, B., Jesinghaus, J., Mascherini, M., Munda, G., Nardo, M., Saisana, M., … Villalba, E. (2006).

Measuring active citizenship in Europe. CRELL Research Paper, EUR 22530 EN. Luxembourg: Official Publications of the European Communities.

Hoskins, B., Villalba, E., Van Nijlen, D., & Barber, C. (2008). Measuring civic competence in Europe: A composite indicator based on IEA Civic Education Study 1999 for 14 years old in School. CRELL research paper, EUR 23210. Ispra: European Commission.

Hoskins, B., & Deakin-Crick, R. (2010). Competences for Learning to Learn and Active Citizenship: different currencies or two sides of the same coin? European Journal of Education, 45(1), Part II.

Hoskins, B., Barber, C., Van Nijlen, D., & Villalba, E. (2011). Comparing civic competence among European youth: Composite and domain-specific indicators using IEA Civic Education study data. Comparative Education Review, 55, 1. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/pss/10.1086/656620

Johnson, L., & Morris, P. (2010). Towards a framework for critical citizenship education. Curriculum Journal, 21(1), 77–96.

Kahne, J., & Joel, W. (2003). Teaching democracy: What schools need to do. Phi Delta Kappan, 8(1), 34–40, 57–66.

Kahne, J., Chi, B., & Middaugh, E. (2006). Building social capital for civic and political engagement: The potential of high school civics courses.

Keating, A., Kerr, D., Lopes, J., Featherstone, G., & Benton, T. (2009). Embedding citizenship education in secondary schools in England (2002–2008): Citizenship education longitudinal study Seventh Annual Report (DCSF Research Report 172). London: DCSF.

Keeter, S., Zukin, C., Andolina, M., & Jenkins, K. (2002). The civic and political health of a nation: A generational portrait. College Park, MD: CIRCLE.

Kerr, D., Sturman, L., Schulz, W., & Burge, B. (2010). ICCS 2009 European Report. Civic knowledge, attitudes, and engagement among lower-secondary students in 24 European countries. Amsterdam: IEA.

Kirlin, M. (2002). Civic skill building: The missing component in service learning? PS: Political Science & Politics, 35(3), 571–575.

McFarland, D., & Starmanns, C. (2009). Inside student government: The variable quality of high school student councils. Teachers College Record, 111(1), 27–54.

McFarland, D., & Thomas, R. (2006). Bowling young: How youth voluntary associations influence adult political participation. American Sociological Review, 71, 401–425.

Niemi, R., & Junn, J. (1998). Civic education: What makes students learn. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Niemi, R., & Finkel, S. (2006). Civic education and the development of civic knowledge and attitudes. In L. Harrison, & J. Kagan, (Eds.), Essays on cultural change. New York: Routledge.

Patrick, J. (1999). Education for constructive engagement of citizens in democratic civil society. In C. Bahmueller, & J. Patrick (Eds.), Principles and practices of education for democratic citizenship. Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse.

Print, M. (1993). Curriculum development and design. Sydney, NSW: Allen & Unwin.Print, M. (2007). Citizenship education and youth participation in democracy. British Journal of

Educational Studies, 55(3), 325–345.Print, M. (2009). Civic engagement and political education of young people. Minority Studies, 1(1),

63–83.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/10.1086/656620

M. PRINT

128

Print, M. (2010). Citizenship education: Pedagogy that engages. Invited keynote address, Hiroshima, Japan: Hiroshima University.

Print, M. (2012). Competences for democratic citizenship in Europe. In M. Print, & D. Lange (Eds.), Civic education and competencies for engaging citizens in democracies. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Print, M., Ornstrom, S., & Nielsen, H. (2002). Education for democratic processes in schools and classrooms. European Journal of Education, 37(2), 193–210.

Print, M., Saha, L., & Edwards, K. (Eds.). (2007). Youth participation in democracy. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Print, M., & Milner, H. (Eds.). (2009). Civic education and youth political participation. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Regioplan. (2005). Indicators for monitoring active citizenship and citizenship education. Amsterdam: Regioplan.

Saha, L., & Print, M. (2010). Student school elections and political engagement: A cradle of democracy? International Journal of Educational Research, 49(1), 22–32.

Schuitema, J., Boxtel, C., Veugelers, W., & Dam, G. The quality of student dialogue in citizenship education. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 26(1), 85–107.

Schulz, W., Ainley, J., Fraillon, J., Kerr, D., & Losito, B. (2010). ICCS 2009 International Report. Civic knowledge, attitudes, and engagement among lower-secondary students in 38 countries. Amsterdam: IEA.

Torney-Purta, J. (2002). The school’s role in developing civic engagement: A study of adolescents in twenty-eight countries. Applied Developmental Science, 6(4), 203–212.

Torney-Purta, J., Lehmann, R., Oswald, H., & Schulz, W. (2001). Citizenship and Education in Twenty-Eight Countries: Civic Knowledge and Participation at Age Fourteen. Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA).

van Deth, J. W. (2007). Norms of citizenship. In J. D. Russell, & H.-D. Klingemann, (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political behavior (pp. 402–417). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Veugelers, W. (2007). Creating critical-democratic citizenship education: Empowering humanity and democracy in Dutch education. Compare, 37(1), 105–119.

Veldhuis, R. (1997). Education for democratic citizenship: Dimensions of citizenship, core competencies and international activities. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Verba, S., Scholzman, K., & Brady, H. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Youniss, J., McClelland, A., & Yates, M. (1997). What we know about engendering civic identity. American Behavioural Scientist, 40, 620–631.

Wattenberg, M. (2007). Is voting for young people? With a postscript on citizen engagement. New York: Longman.

Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for democracy. American Educational Research Journal, 4(2), 237–269.

Zukin, C., Keeter, S., Andolina, M., Jenkins, K., & Delli Carpini, M. (2006). A new engagement? Political participation, civic life, and the changing American citizen. New York: Oxford University Press.


MARIA-HELENA C. SALEMA

LINKING TEACHERS’ COMPETENCES TO STUDENTS’ COMPETENCES

Pedagogical Processes

CONTEXT

This paper in the symposium on “Building democratic citizenship in Europe through youth civic engagement in schools”, is centered on two interrelated topics: pedagogical processes and teachers’ competences. The text focuses on the central role of the teacher, as a person and a skillful professional, in promoting student citizenship and civic engagement in modern, European, democratic societies. In this paper the concept of teacher derives from a humanist and critical reflective teacher education approach. Teachers’ pedagogical processes in the classroom and the school derives from a three-fold concept of pedagogy viewed as:

• a personal art of praxis, in teaching and in educating;• a philosophy applied in thinking and reflection about curriculum aims, objectives,

contents, pedagogical processes, students, schools and communities;• a deep knowledge and understanding of the science of pedagogy.

The paper will start by first clarifying definitions and terms used in the text and then presenting assumptions on pedagogy and teacher thinking and action in educational contexts. Then it will put forward an overview of pedagogical processes and teachers’ competences for the promotion of European democratic citizenship based on Brett, Mompoint-Gaillard & Salema (2009) within the framework of the Council of Europe. Then the paper will briefly describe an example of a teacher competence – modeling — conceptualized as a inner process of teacher’s reflection on his/her pedagogy and at the same time as pedagogical processes implicitly demonstrated to the students. Finally, the paper will present some research data and approaches to identifying some of the most effective pedagogical activities and teaching strategies for the promotion of citizenship and engaged civic learning and participation. These activities are supported by the author’s experience and research background within:

• the Council of Europe project “Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education” (EDC/HRE), as co-author of two publications;

• the Center for Research on Lifelong Learning (CRELL) research project “Active Citizenship for Democracy”;

M.-H. C. SALEMA

130

• the research carried out as a Professor at the Institute of Education of the University of Lisbon, in the areas of Curriculum and Teacher Curriculum Development, Pedagogy, Citizenship Education, Teacher Supervision and Teacher Development.

This paper will try to answer the following questions:

• How to help teachers, schools and communities in promoting students’ citizenship and civic engagement and participation? What approaches to use?

• What are the most effective pedagogical processes? What curriculum and curriculum development approach should be implemented for learning citizenship and civic engagement in schools and communities?

DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS

In this section, the present paper adopted some preliminary definitions presented, but still under discussion, within the International Civics Education (ICE) project. In the Recommendation, ‘Key Competences for Lifelong Learning – A European Framework’ (2006/962/EU), competences are defined as a combination of knowledge, skills and attitudes appropriate to a particular context. The eight Key competences are those which all individuals need for personal fulfillment and development, active citizenship, social inclusion and employment and they should be further developed, maintained and updated as part of lifelong learning.

Social and civic competences conceived as one group of closely interlinked although distinct competences are proposed as one of the eight key competences in the 2006 document. Social competence refers to personal, interpersonal and intercultural competence and all forms of behavior that equip individuals to participate in an effective and constructive way in social and working life. It is linked to personal and social well-being. An understanding of codes of conduct and customs in the different environments in which individuals operate is essential.

Civic competence, and particularly knowledge of social and political concepts and structures (democracy, justice, equality, citizenship and civil rights), equips individuals to engage in active and democratic participation. So civic competence is based on knowledge of the concepts of democracy, citizenship, and civil rights, including how they are expressed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights European Union (2000) and international declarations and applied by various institutions at the local, regional, national, European and international levels. Knowledge of main events, trends and agents of change in national, European and world history and present, with a specific view on European diversity is essential, as is knowledge of the aims, values and policies of social and political movements.

Skills are related to the ability to engage effectively with others in the public domain, display solidarity and interest in solving problems affecting the local


131

and wider community. It involves critical and creative reflection and constructive participation in community and neighborhood activities as well as decision-making at all levels from local to national and European level, in particular by voting.

Full respect for human rights including equality as a basis for democracy, appreciation and understanding of differences between value systems of different religious or ethnic groups lay the foundations for a positive attitude. It comprises also the display of a sense of belonging to one’s locality, country, EU and Europe in general and (one’s part of) the world and the willingness to participate in democratic decision making at all levels. Constructive participation also involves civic activities, support for social diversity and cohesion and sustainable development, and a readiness to respect the values and privacy of others.

The current project “Building democratic citizenship in Europe through youth civic engagement in schools” aims at specifically empowering youth through civic engagement in schools. There is debate and different perspectives between the different meanings of civic competence and citizenship competence. For many experts civic competence is more centered on participation in the political and legal dimension, whereas citizenship competence is a more encompassing concept.Within the framework of the Council of Europe project “Education for democratic citizenship and human rights education” (EDC/HRE) the definitions of citizenship and education for democratic citizenship are centered on participation processes although within larger and inter-related dimensions, (political and legal, social and cultural, economic, European and global dimensions). The definition adopted in the Launching Conference in Sofia on Education for Democratic Citizenship (2004) stressed the key attributes of EDC/HRE. This definition is based on an open, broad-based and multi-dimensional concept of citizenship which can be identified, described and developed based on processes of participation, human rights, solidarity and social cohesion in democratic societies.

In a keynote address to the Sofia Launching Conference, Kerr (2004) indicated that EDC/HRE is primarily concerned with fundamental values, but that these may do not go far enough. “There are basic ethical and moral foundations – our moral sensitivities – which build respect, trust, value, confidence, tolerance and self-esteem …the need to have these fundamentals in place and to treasure and value them. However, EDC/HRE also needs to be based on the reality of these values. (Kerr, 2004)

Continuing with the theme of the limits of fundamental values, Kerr continued:

As we do not live in a utopia, we need to think about the limits of these fundamentals, of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable; the minimums below which society cannot go; and how and by whom these minimums are decided in society. It entails meeting the challenge of balancing philosophy and reality, recognizing the tension points of these fundamentals and educating people about the tensions and how to deal with them (Kerr, 2004).

M.-H. C. SALEMA

132

The Council of Europe’s EDC/HRE project:

• Produced a description of an open rationale for Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights and identified concepts related to a new model of citizenship, moving from a passive and minimal citizenry to a proactive, ethical, responsible citizenship with actual involvement and commitment in society;

• Identified dimensions of knowledge and understanding required for this new concept of citizenship;

• Identified and classified key skills, attitudes, values and dispositions, without which no democratic citizenship exists for living and acting within this model of citizenship;

• Identified and described teacher’s competences for EDC/HRE;• Identified, characterized and disseminated sites and practices where participatory

and active learning in EDC/HRE is put into action and may be case studies for analysis and examples for other contexts.

In the the word ‘teacher’ is used to describe the person who, responsibly and intentionally, promotes democratic citizenship learning directly to children, youths and adult learners in different contexts and systems, formal and non-formal. The teacher may have different roles, such as class teacher, principal or subject teacher.

PEDAGOGY

A core assumption is our concept and understanding of pedagogy. Our position has been inspired by a wide base of well-known authors in the research fields of applied philosophy of education (Dewey, 1914), curriculum (Jackson, 1992), learning psychology (Bandura, 1977; Sternberg, 1996), teaching (Shulman, 1986), teacher education (Houston, Haberman & Sikula, 1990; Reiman & Thies-Sprinthall, 1998) through reflection and action research (Brookfield, 1995; Zeichner, 1993, 2001). The current paper presents here some of our assumptions based on the concept of pedagogy presented by the Belgian-Portuguese educational philosopher and pedagogue Emile Planchard (1979) since his ideas are linked to key concepts coming from the above mentioned educational research fields.

Pedagogy is viewed as three-fold concept:

• a teacher personal art of praxis, in teaching and in educating in different contexts;• a teacher philosophy applied in the way of thinking and reflection about

curriculum aims, objectives, contents, pedagogical processes, learning processes, students, schools and communities;

• a teacher deep knowledge and understanding of pedagogical science.

Planchard argues that pedagogy cannot be merely a scientific pedagogical science. Were that the case, teachers would develop only restricted pedagogical techniques that were put into evidence either as effective in students’ learning outputs or in school climate. He considers that reducing pedagogy to a mere technique without


133

consideration of any teacher-induced meaning and reflection or to accept only the philosophical and reflective basis of pedagogy is to reduce it to a theoretical construct that does not take into account the person of teacher, specific contexts, students, curricula and society.

He believes that if one looks at the concept, as a theoretical and practical science, from the axiological point of view, it is indisputable that pedagogy is essentially philosophical and the practical dimension does not even exist, because, ultimately, the latter only deals with means to achieve ends that were set by philosophical reflection. But if one looks at the concept from an operative perspective in teacher education, the scientific and technical dimensions take precedence over the philosophical foundations, in the sense that the professional preparation of teachers takes a long time. He views pedagogical knowledge as particular and personal dimension. For him the educator/teacher is an engaged person who lives his/her philosophy; and this way of living is an implicit model to the students. In sum, Planchard provides a comprehensive concept of pedagogy.

THE CONCEPT OF TEACHER

In agreement with the Common European Principles for Teacher Competences (2010), we believe that in order to empower youth through civic engagement in schools, teachers should have a high quality profession and so they should have: (a) a knowledge of their subject matter in the field of citizenship and their content area expertise; (b) a knowledge of pedagogy; (c) the skills and competences required to support learners; and (d) an understanding of the social and cultural dimension of education.

They should have practical skills and an academic and scientific basis, and be confident to be reflective practitioners and discerning in managing information and knowledge. The main key specificity in education for civic engagement is that teachers’ knowledge, understanding and skills should be developed through the lenses of democratic values and human rights. Another key specificity is the personal and ethical development of teachers with a view to the practice of active and responsible citizenship. Democratic attitudes and values should be understood, “made use of and cherished and appreciated and, if necessary, defended against skepticism and autocracy (Huddleston, Gollob, Kraft, Salema &Spajic-Vrkas, 2005).

Teachers should be skilled on how to work with fellow human beings: their work should be based on the values of social inclusion and on nurturing the potential of every learner. They need to have knowledge of human growth and development and demonstrate self-confidence when engaging with others. They need to be able to work with learners as individuals and support them to develop into fully participating and active members of society. They should also prepare and develop collaborative activities that increase the collective intelligence of learners and co-operate and collaborate with colleagues to enhance their own learning and teaching.

They should work with and in society: they contribute to preparing learners for their role as EU citizens and help to ensure that learners understand the importance

M.-H. C. SALEMA

134

of lifelong learning. They should be able to encourage intercultural respect and understanding. They also need to know the contribution that education makes in developing cohesive societies. They should have an understanding of the balance between respecting and being aware of the diversity of learners’ cultures and identifying common values. They need to understand the factors that create social cohesion and exclusion in society and be aware of the ethical dimensions of the knowledge society. They should be able to work effectively with the local community, partners and stakeholders in education – parents, teacher education institutions, and representative groups. They should be aware that good education provides learners with more and diverse employment opportunities.

There has been a great deal of research on teachers’ competences for education for democratic citizenship (Audigier, 2000; Veldhuis, 1997). According to Audigier (2000), teachers should develop cognitive, ethical and social competences.

• Cognitive competencies relate to the knowledge and understanding of the institutional framework, the historical and cultural dimension where we live, the skills to reflect, to judge in light of the principles and values of human rights, to take part in the public debate and make decisions, the critical analysis of society.

• Ethical competencies mean the capacity to construct, to reflect and to choose values centered on human rights. The construction and acceptance of these values are not only a result of a rational construct, but also a process of becoming a member of a group or groups with their own identities, which include a personal and collective emotional dimension.

• Social competencies refer to the capacity to live with others, to cooperate, to construct and implement joint projects, to take on responsibilities, to resolve conflicts through mediation, in accordance with the principles of democratic law, and to take part in public debate, to argue and choose in a real-life situation.

SCHOOL PEDAGOGICAL PROCESSES

In this section this paper provides a brief presentation of teachers’ competences and pedagogical processes from the work of Brett, Monpoint-Gaillard & Salema (2009) “How all teachers can support citizenship and human rights education: a framework for the development of competences” within the framework of the Council of Europe and briefly describe one of the teacher competences – modeling.

How all teachers can support citizenship and human rights education: a framework for the development of competences

Brett et al. (2009) describe fifteen teacher competences, organized in four clusters. For each competence a similar, but flexible, format was chosen: A brief outline of what the competency means, a rational based on research and recommendations, examples of ways in which teachers might provide evidence of meeting different competences through their classroom practice, a progressive charter for teacher’


135

self-evaluation and examples of possible training activities which might be undertaken in university or school settings.

The fifteen teacher competences are grouped into four clusters of teacher competences as seen in Table 1.

Table 1. Four Clusters of Teacher Competences

Name of cluster

EDC/HRE Knowledge and UnderstandingTeaching and Learning Activities that Develop EDC/HRE in the Classroom and School: Planning, Class Management, Teaching and AssessmentTeaching and Learning Activities that Develop EDC/HRE through Partnerships and Community Involvement: EDC/HRE in Action

Implementing and Evaluating Participatory ApproachesIn Brett, Monpoint- Gaillard & Salema (2009) p. 17

The first cluster is centred on a core curriculum for education for citizenship and its development. The second and third clusters focus on its implementation in classroom, school and community and the fourth focuses on teacher evaluation and self-development. In this classification and all along the description of the competences, (Table 2), a specific cluster is missing on democratic governance activities and strategies supporting and coaching teacher competences. It would be more fruitful and could reinforce the creation of a democratic culture in school and student participation in the whole school and in the community as it is mainly described in cluster C. In fact, the action and activities described are much more efficient if the school and school’s head/leader and official representatives adopt an open concept of governance in their values and attitudes as well as daily management in ad hoc decisions in formal and informal contexts. There is also some evidence that more democratic forms of school governance may contribute to higher levels of political efficacy among students (See, for example, Mosher, Kenny, & Garrod, 1994; Pasek et al., 2008, cited in Schulz, Ainley, Fraillon, Kerr & Losito, 2010, p.54).

There is a difference between governance and management in schools. The concept of governance stresses the openness schools and educational systems while management on the other hand is used, in order to underline the technical and instrumental dimensions of government. Within the management concept, school is conceptualised as an organisational unit. Within the other governance perspective, school is rather conceptualised as autonomous units of teachers, either acting alone in their classrooms or in groups and departments (i.e. teachers of maths, arts or a science department). Rooted in teacher professional autonomy, the perspective of governance means negotiation, persuasion, bargaining and also proactivity and innovation in open schools rooted in specific local social and economic settings with different needs and interests (Backman & Trafford, 2007).

M.-H. C. SALEMA

136

Table 2. Overview of the 15 competences

Cluster AEDC/HRE

Knowledge and Understanding

Cluster BPlanning, Classroom

Management, Teaching, and

Assessment

Cluster C School ethos Democratic

leadershipEDC/HRE in Action

– Partnerships and Community

involvement

Cluster DImplementing

and Evaluating Participatory Approaches

Competence #1The aims and purposes of EDC/HRE; value-oriented knowledge, action-based skills, and change-centred competences

Competence # 5The planning of approaches to incorporate EDC/HRE knowledge, skills, dispositions, attitudes and values, in which active learning and student engagement play a major part

Competence # 10The learning environment that enables students to analyse topical political, ethical, social and cultural issues or events in a critical way, using information from different sources, including the media, statistics, and ICT-based resources

Competence # 13The evaluation of the extent to which students have a say in things that affect them and the provision of opportunities for students to participate in decision-making

Competence # 2The key international frameworks and principles which relate to EDC/HRE, and key concepts of EDC/HRE and Human rights education

Competence # 6The incorporation of EDC/HRE principles and practices within specialist subjects [cross-curricular EDC/HRE] to enhance knowledge, skills and participation and contribute to the empowerment of young citizens in a democracy

Competence # 11The collaborative work with appropriate partners (such as families, civil society organisations community and political representatives) to plan and implement a range of opportunities for students to engage with democratic citizenship issues in their communities.

Competence # 14The modelling of positive EDC/HRE values, attitudes and dispositions that are expected from young people; a democratic style of teaching; involving students in the planning and ownership of educational activitiesSelf development


137

Competence # 3The content of EDC/HRE curricula encompassing the political and legal; social; economic; cultural and European dimensions; and a global dimension

Competence # 7The establishment of clear ground rules and a sustained climate of trust, openness and mutual respect. Classroom and behaviour management recognize EDC/HRE principles in order to ensure positive school ethos

Competence # 12The strategies to challenge all forms of prejudice and discrimination, and promotion of anti-racism in community

Competence # 15The opportunity and will to review, monitor and evaluate teaching methods and student’s learning and use of this assessment to inform future planning and professional development

Competence # 4The contexts of EDC/HRE implementation: cross-curricular approaches; whole school culture; community involvement.

Competence # 8A range of teaching strategies and methodologies- including quality whole class questioning- to develop student discussion skills, in particular of sensitive, controversial issues

In Brett, Monpoint- Gaillard & Salema (2009) p. 19

The description of each competence, as well as the examples of pedagogical activities and teacher self-evaluation procedures, must be read and understood in a holistic and overlapped approach. In that sense it provides a realistic picture of what a teacher or school implementation in the area can be. The description also has the advantage of situating each teacher’s competence in an area of action, - curriculum development, classroom/school, community and professional development. However there is a danger of losing sight of the need of integrating all the components of the competences for an education for citizenship and civic engagement – knowledge and understanding, skills, attitudes, values and dispositions – that teachers need to know and be aware of when planning, acting and evaluating practices.

MODELLING: AN EXAMPLE OF A TEACHER COMPETENCE

During all processes of teaching and educating, teachers need to engage themselves in reflecting on and evaluating the nature and effectiveness of approaches that have been implemented, both in relation to the whole school culture and to their teaching practices including attitudes, values and dispositions shown in the classroom and in the school. They need to critically self-reflect and check if they had provided

M.-H. C. SALEMA

138

opportunities to the students in decision-making activities and projects, in assessment or in planning civic engagement activities. Another very important teacher competence is modelling (Brett et al. (2009), pp. 59-60). Modelling and demonstration of values, principles and human rights is the most effective, “implicit” way to teach democratic citizenship. The message of citizenship and the medium through which it is transmitted should be coherent; it means that ends and means meet. “Some basic principles are essential in this distinctive approach of coherence (Huddleston et al., 2005):

• Active citizenship is best learned by doing, not by preaching – individuals need to be given opportunities to explore issues of democratic citizenship and human rights for themselves, not to be told how they must think or behave;

• Education for democratic citizenship is not just about the absorption of factual knowledge – but about practical understanding, skills and aptitudes, as well as values and dispositions;

• The learning environment is the message – students can learn as much, if not more, about democratic citizenship by the example they are set by teachers, and ways in which life in school is organised, as they can through formal methods of instruction.

Modelling means that teachers model the sort of democratic values and dispositions that they expect from their students, such as respect and a willingness to resolve conflict through dialog etc. They are aware, reflect and constantly are alert of the power of being citizen models to their students. In that sense they are aware of being safeguarded from indoctrination and critically reflect on their thinking and praxis. Modelling also means that teachers are professional experts in education for civic engagement. It means, for instance, that they know how to manage discussions, how to set up projects and partnerships and in that way they are skilled models for their students.

There are different instruments that can help teachers in their critically self-reflection (Brookfield, 1995). The most distinctive feature of the critical reflective process is its focus on hunting for assumptions. There are various ways of unearthing assumptions. For example:

• Teachers may become more aware of their own experiences as learners or as teachers, through writing personal teaching diaries. Autobiographical reflection is a good starting point to see oneself more clearly as teacher, learner or trainer. These insights have a profound and long-lasting influence.

• Seeing oneself through students’ eyes, can be surprising and perhaps disorienting, for one may discover that the students are not interpreting one’s actions in the sense one means. Often, one is profoundly surprised by the diversity of meanings students read into one’s actions and words.

• Seeing oneself through one’s colleagues’ eyes is another way to reflect critically. For example, if one asks colleagues what they think are the typical causes of


139

students’ resistance to learning and how they have dealt with these causes one may hear answers that suggest new readings of the problem.

• Confronting one’s views with theoretical literature is yet another way of hunting for assumptions.

EFFECTIVE PEDAGOGICAL ACTIVITIES AND TEACHING STRATEGIES FOR PROMOTING CITIZENSHIP, ENGAGED CIVIC LEARNING AND PARTICIPATION

A comprehensive list and description of pedagogical activities and teaching strategies is almost endless, hence there is a need to choose the most effective ones for the promotion of students’ citizenship and civic engagement and participation. A number of different models have been developed for assessment and measurement of active citizenship in Europe (Hoskins, 2006), civic and citizenship education (IEA, CIVED, 1999; IEA, ICCS, 2009) and civic and social engagement in adults (PIAAC). These provide data on what the activities developed by schools and teachers are, how citizenship and civic education is explicitly taught and also on the relationship between students’ outcomes on the one hand ( attitudes, expectations and participation with civic engagement) and teaching strategies developed in schools and classrooms, on the other. There is precious little data on the relationship between pedagogical processes and students’ civic engagement and participation, although there is a rather large amount of data describing pedagogical processes as activities, strategies, and resources used by schools and teachers.

Schulz et al. (2010) mention (pp.72-73) that the first IEA study on civic education in 1971 (Torney et al., 1975) found that “independence of opinion encouraged in the classroom” by teachers was positively related to civic knowledge but there is no data on the relation with students’ civic participation. The extent to which classrooms are “open” (receptive) to discussions in the classroom is a factor that may have an important influence on learning in this area. This notion has been the focus of many secondary analyses of the CIVED 1999 data (e.g., Torney-Purta, 2009; Torney-Purta et al., 2008).

The IEA CIVED survey in 1999 included a set of six items measuring students’ perceptions of what happened in their civic education classes. These items were used to build up an index of open climate for classroom discussion. The scale was found to be a positive predictor of civic knowledge and students’expectations to vote as an adult (Amadeo et al., 2002; Schulz, 2002; Torney-Purta, 2009; Torney-Purta et al., 2001).

The ICCS 2009 student’s questionnaire included a similar set of 6 items. Students were asked to rate the frequency with which the following events occurred during regular lessons that included discussions of political and social issues:

• Teachers encourage students to make up their own minds;• Teachers encourage students to express their own opinions;• Students bring up current political events for discussion in class;

M.-H. C. SALEMA

140

• Students express opinions in class even when their opinions are different from those of most other students;

• Teachers encourage students to discuss the issues with people who have different opinions;

• Teachers present several sides of the issues when explaining them in class.

Reported student participation in a school council or a student parliament was also a positive predictor of civic knowledge and engagement in the IEA CIVED study (Amadeo et al., 2003; Torney-Purta et al., 2001;Schulz et al, 2010). In the ICCS survey (2009) and according to the teachers’ reports, participation by the target-grade students in civic related activities was relatively widespread. Among the activities, sports events and cultural activities were the most common; only a minority number of teachers reported student involvement in human rights or projects designed to help the underprivileged, activities that more positively related to civic and political participation.

Assessment and measurement models of citizenship and civic participation provide a large number of indicators related to civic and political participation that may be used to choose positive activities for civic engagement to be implemented in schools and developed by teachers. The CRELL Active Citizenship for Democracy project proposes a model for producing indicators and for analysis of the relation among them.

This model also identifies, at the levels of political life, civil society and community, main markers of citizenship and civic engagement such as:

• To be active in a democratic political party, to vote in national or European elections or to campaign for the importance of these;

• To be active in environmental organizations, in campaigns for the eradication of poverty and human rights, to do voluntary work for a welfare organization;

• To provide help in the community, to be active in a youth and/or religious organization as Scouts.

These markers of citizenship are conceptualized within four concepts put forward by the CRELL project:

• “Active citizenship” as community outcomes and designed as markers of citizenship.• “Learning active citizenship” as experiences and inputs in learning active

citizenship.• “Individual outcomes “as markers of citizenship resulting from experiences and

inputs.• Background variables.

The CRELL project examined two types of indicators: those that measure active citizenship and those that measure education and training for active citizenship. The indicators on education and training for active citizenship will predominately cover the experiences and inputs towards learning active citizenship and individual outcomes (markers of active citizenship). The active citizenship indicators will


141

predominately include indicators on community level outcomes (markers of active citizenship). As Hoskins (2006) indicated, “The different dimensions of active citizenship and education and training for active citizenship indicators interrelate to each other by continually feeding into the learning process labelled ‘inputs and experiences’ which can be seen in the diagram below which was developed by NFER for this project”. The model expresses a relationship between:

• Personal outcomes in active citizenship and considered as markers of active citizenship and experiences and inputs in learning active citizenship

• Community outcomes and personal outcomes and experiences and inputs.

Figure 1. CRELL Working Model of Active Citizenship

Backgroundvariables

Context

Experiencesand inputs

Learningactivecitizenship

Personaloutcomes

Markers ofactivecitizenship

Communityoutcomes

Markers ofactivecitizenship

In the working paper commissioned by the EU for the CRELL network, “Education and Training for Active Citizenship in Formal Education”, Salema (2006), based on this model, presented a set of ideal indicators and suggestions for possible indicators but focussing on how educational and pedagogical processes are implemented in school and classroom. The “ideal set” includes the following main categories: curriculum content development, democratic school governance development, teaching and learning strategies and activities and processes implemented to create opportunities for learning Active Citizenship through linking of formal and non-formal education. In addition to the main categories, this model includes a detailed description of sub-categories.

In order to reinforce and focus on civic engagement, further work is required. First, we need to re-examine this CRELL proposal through the indicators of citizenship at the community-level. Four domains of outcomes emerge:

• Political and civic participation• Social participation• Cultural participation • Economic participation

Comparing these domains with those proposed by the Council of Europe EDC/HRE project, we would also conceptualize these four domains within a European and Global perspective and participation.

M.-H. C. SALEMA

142

At first sight, the domains of social and cultural participation include activities appropriate for school and for empowering young students (from 5 to 14 years old) in positive dispositions for a future participation. As suggested by Hoskins (2006), with regard to social and cultural participation, schools can link the curriculum’s learning activities with:

• participation in activities of recreational groups or organizations;• participation in a community activity;• maintaining contacts with family and friends in the community;• participating in service learning (extra curricular school activity);• integration, feeling of belonging to a cultural group;• participation in voluntary organizations from sports, scouts - to parents

association);• performing volunteer work for a charity organization;• involvement in a group that strives for social change and takes action to solve a

local, regional, European problem;• participation in web sites and in protest demonstrations;• participation as a member of an immigrants organization, donating money, or

doing voluntary work • being in the house of a friend of a different cultural background or inviting him/

her in his/her house.

Political and Economic participation are two more difficult domains to translate in school activities and are better developed at the School Secondary level, (from 14 to 18 years old), although in lower levels they can be developed indirectly. Topics such as voting in elections and political participation within representative systems should be developed through activities centred on knowledge/understanding and testimony of adult citizens experiences. The same happens with topics of economic participation such as fighting corruption and the social-ethical aspects in choosing a job.

Activities that can be implemented by schools and teachers are almost endless. Schools should choose those most adequate for citizenship and civic engagement and participation. School and teacher decisions should be based on research models. Schulz et al. (2010) refer (p.18) that ICCS 2009 defines the indicator of Civic participation in three sub-domains—(i) decision-making (organizational governance andvoting); (ii) influencing (debating, demonstrating, developing proposals, and selective purchasing); and (iii) community participation (volunteering, participating in organizations, keeping informed). These are good criteria to choose pedagogical activities for students’ citizenship and civic engagement.

CONCLUSIONS

The open, multidimensional and process-focused approach to civic engagement requires the + teacher to be a researcher -practitioner regarding his/her own praxis;


143

to be critical and reflecting in order to clarify his/her own convictions, assumptions and attitudes on learning, teaching, school climate and community learning. Nevertheless, teacher professional development cannot be an isolated and individual process. It must be a collaborative process based on the involvement of the whole community and the sharing of experiences and knowledge.

This approach aims at emphasising the activity of students’ learning and metacognitive understanding in order to empower them for the transfer of competences into different contexts in and out of school. It is not simply an individual process of learning. It is mainly a collaborative and social learning process within schools, community and in informal educational contexts. Learning processes should be based on inquiries, debates, projects with different partners and engagement and participation in service learning as agents of change. Such teacher and student processes can only be developed within a curriculum concept “curriculum as –learned and performed” in opposition to a curriculum as planned and as-taught.

There is little data on the most effective pedagogical processes for the promotion of students’ civic engagement and participation, the ultimate aim of democratic citizenship and civic education. We hope research will continue to provide answers regarding to the most adequate teachers’ competences and pedagogical processes.

REFERENCES

Audigier, F. (2000). Concepts de base etcompétences-cléspourl’éducation à lacitoyennetédémocratique. Council of Europe.

Backman, E., & Trafford, B. (2007). Democratic governance of schools. Council of Europe Publishing. ISBN -13:978-92-871-6088-1.

Brett, P., Mompoint-Gaillard, P., & Salema, M. H. (2009). Sarah Keating-Chetwynd (Ed.). How all teachers can support citizenship and human rights education: A framework for development of competencies. Council of Europe. ISBN 978-92-871-6555-8.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewoods cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Brookfield, S. D. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. Jossey-Bass Publisher.Common European Principles for Teacher Competences. (2010). European Commission. Directorate-

general for education and culture.Dewey, J. (1914). Democracy and learning. New York: Macmillan.Hoskins, B. (2006). Working towards indicators for Active Citizenship. Report of from the Active

Citizenship for Democracy conference. September 20–21, Ispra.CRELL – Centre for Research on Lifelong Learning. European Commission, Joint Research Centre.Houston, R. W., Haberman, M., & Sikula, J. (1996). Handbook of research on teacher education: A

project of the association of teacher educators. Macmillan Publishing Company.Huddleston, Gollob, R., Huddleston, E., Kraft, P., Salema, M. H., & Spajic-Vrkas. (Eds.). (2005). Tool

on teacher for education for democratic citizenship and human rights education. Council of Europe.IEA International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. Civic Education Study

(CIVED) 1999.IEA International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. ICCS 2009.Jackson, P. W. (Ed.). (1992). Handbook of research on curriculum. Toronto, ON: Macmillan Publishing

Company.Kerr, D. (2004). Launching Conference of 2005 European Year of Citizenship through Education, Sofia,

Bulgaria: Council of Europe. December.PIAAC – Programme for International Assessment of Adult Competencies. OECD.

M.-H. C. SALEMA

144

Reiman, A. J., & Thies-Sprinthall, L. (1998). Mentoring and supervision for teacher development, New York: Addison- Wesley Longman Reiman.

Salema, M. H. (2005). Teacher and trainer training in education for democratic citizenship. Competencies, methods and processes. Journal of Social Science Education. Retrieved from http://www.jsse.org

Schulz, A., Fraillon, K., & Losito. (2010). Initial findings from IEA International Civic and Citizenship Education study. IEA International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. (3rd Ed.). New York: Macmillan.

Sternberg. (1996). Cognitive psychology. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Veldhuis, R. (1997). Dimensions of citizenship, core competences, variables and international varieties.

Doc. DECS/EDU/CIT (96) 1. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Zeichner, K. (1993). The preparation of reflective teachers: Ideas and practices (in Portuguese). Lisbon:

University of Lisbon Press – Educa. Zeichner, K. (2001). The reflective practitioner. In P. Reason, & H. Bradbury, (Eds.), Handbook of action

research: participative inquiry and practice. Sage: London.

http://www.jsse.org

145

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES

Dr Tom BENTON is a Research Director at the National Foundation for Education Research, UK, where he has worked as a statistician since 2001. His work has included analysis of a number of large-scale national and international surveys of young people including the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS), the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), the International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS) and the nine-year Citizenship Education Longitudinal Study (CELS). He has also been closely involved in the development of several national assessment tests in England.

Dr Wolfgang BEUTEL is the managing director (CEO) and academic head of the Competition for Citizenship “Democratic Action” at the Friedrich Schiller University of Jena. He is board member in the German Association for Democratic Education and educational expert participating in the German School Award. Dr Beutel has provided scientific support for the BLK model project “Learning and Living Democracy” as well as – in cooperation with the Robert Bosch Foundation, Körber Foundation and the German Children and Youth Foundation – for other projects concerning Civic Education and School Development.

Associate professor Ahmet DOĞANAY earned his PhD degree at the Department of Instruction and Learning with a specializing in social studies education from University of Pittsburgh, USA in 1993. He has been working at the Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Education, Cukurova University, Adana, Turkey where he has taught courses in curriculum development, social studies teaching methods and teaching thinking since 1993. As a consultant and expert he is involved several European projects in values and citizenship education. Among them are the European Values Education Project, the Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education Project, and A Key to Europe: Innovative Methodology for Turkish School History. EUROCLIO/Matra Project.

Gonzalo JOVER is Full Professor of Education at the Complutense University in Madrid, where he was Head of the Department of Educational Theory and History of Education from 2006 to 2009. He has also served as Adviser for the Spanish Ministry of Education, a Visiting Scholar at Boston University, Teachers College at Columbia University, and Queen’s University (Ontario) and Visiting Professor in several European universities under the E.U. Erasmus mobility program. He is co-editor of the international journal Encounters on Education / Encuentros sobre Educación / Rencontres sur l’Éducation. His major research areas are educational theory and history, politics of education and professional ethics.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES

146

Dr Avril KEATING is a postdoctoral research fellow at the Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Oxford, where she holds a research fellowship as part of the Anglo-German ‘State of the State’ Research Programme. As part of this Fellowship, Avril is conducting research on the Europeanisation of citizenship, and focusing in particular on the role of education policy in shaping these changes; her monograph on this theme will be published by Palgrave Macmillan in 2013. Prior to this, Avril was a senior researcher at the National Foundation for Education Research, UK from 2008 – 2010, during which time she was the Project Leader on the Citizenship Education Longitudinal Study (CELS).

Professor Dirk LANGE PhD is a professor for Politische Bildung (civic education) at the Leibniz University Hannover, where he developed a research focus called Bürgerbewusstsein (citizenship awareness), which he wants to analyse through pupils′ mental perception of socio-political reality. Other current focuses include political educational research, historical-political didactics, political teaching and learning research, everyday orientation and migration policy education. Prof. Lange has been involved in numerous projects, so e.g. in the EU-Projects „MIRACLE. Migrants and Refugees – A Challenge for European Schools“ and „MiLES - Migration Learning in European Schools“, that deal with a main research interest of Lange, which is to develop a concept for European citizenship education under the circumstances of migration and intercultural living and learning. Lange is also director of the Agentur für Erwachsenen- und Weiterbildung Niedersachsen and holds the position of the head of the scientific organisation Deutsche Vereinigung für Politische Bildung/ DVPB (German Association for Civic Education).

Jun-Prof. Jürgen MENTHE, PhD, is working as professor at the University of Hamburg. For several years he was part of the AGORA team at LUH. In 2012 he received his first academic appointment as a junior professor in the Department of Educational Studies at the University of Hamburg. His research interests are teaching and learning processes in the field of pupils’ decision making, e.g. in the field of socio- scientific issues, in the field of education for a sustainable development and in the field of economics.

Dr Kornelija MRNJAUS is Assistant Professor and Head of Center for Teacher Education at the University of Rijeka, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences in Rijeka, Croatia. She teaches and conducts scientific researches in field of human values, values education, human rights education, education for democratic citizenship. She worked on the Croatian Government project „Development of Croatian Qualification Framework“. She worked for a while in the non-profit sector as a trainer for different topics related to organisational and human resources development issues. She also has experience in working in the corporate sector as Human Resources Manager.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES

147

Conception NAVAL is a Professor of Theory of Education, and Vice-President, University of Navarra, Spain. She has a Ph.D. in Education and is editor of the Journal Estudios sobre Educación (Studies on Education). She has been a Visiting Scholar at Harvard University, University of Notre Dame, USA and at the International Office of Education, UNESCO, Geneva, as well as visiting Professor at Boston University, School of Education, and Universidad Panamericana, Mexico City. Her research focuses on the foundations of education for citizenship, social participation, and family; the social impact on young people of Information Technologies; and Educational Innovation in Higher Education.

Professor Murray PRINT, PhD is a recognized nationally and internationally as a leader in Civics and Citizenship Education. As chief investigator he has directed many research projects including Values, Policy and Civics Education in the Asia-Pacific Region; Civics Education Assessment and Benchmarking; the Consortium Project in Civics and Citizenship Education; and the Volkswagen Stiftung funded project on competences for democratic citizens in Europe. For 2012-14 he has been awarded an Australian Research Council Discovery grant to investigate national educational goals, schools and building democratic citizens for the future. He was awarded the Centenary Medal for his contributions to civic education and the community by the Australian Government in 2003. In 2011 Professor Print was invited to lead the development of the Civics and Citizenship Curriculum in the new Australian Curriculum.

Professor Maria-Helena C. SALEMA, Ph.D. - from the Institute of Education of the University of Lisbon - is a recognized expert in Citizenship Education, Teacher Education, Teaching and Learning in Metacognition, Self-regulation and Critical Thinking. She was the Portuguese EDC Co-ordinator of the Project of the Council of Europe “Education for Democratic Citizenship (EDC), member of the Steering Committee, member of the EDC Teacher Training Group from the Council of Europe, Member of the CAHCIT (AD Hoc Committee of Experts for the European Year of Citizenship through Education). She was invited member in the Expert Research Network on Indicators for European, Active and Democratic Citizenship coordinated by the Center for Research on Lifelong Learning at the European Commission’s Joint Research Center. She was invited expert to participate in the “Working group to develop core competencies on citizenship and Human Rights for initial teacher education” from the Council of Europe. She has been co-ordinator of European and national research projects. She has published books and articles in Portugal, Europe and Asia.

Carolina UGARTE is Associate Professor in the area “Theory and History of Education”. Her research has been centered on the development of professional and civic competencies in higher education within the consolidated field of “Education and Citizenship”. At the present time she is member of the “Civic Parliament Project”

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES

148

(Prof. Naval as leader) which is being developed by the University of Navarra together with the Navarra Parliament. She cooperates with a local organization (ANAIN) in a project on critical competencies for employability for university graduates and with Volkswagen Navarra in a project for developing managerial competencies.

Benedikt WIDMAIER, M.A., Political Scientist, Director of “Haus am Maiberg” – Academy for Social & Civic Education of the Diocese of Mainz, practitioner in the field of youth and adult citizenship education and international youth exchange since 1988, member of different boards of citizenship education institutions, e.g. Deutsche Vereinigung für Politische Bildung (DVPB)/German Association for Political Education (Hessian), editor of several studies on “Non-formal Education” (Wochenschau Verlag) and member of the board of “Journal für Politische Bildung” edited by Bundesausschuss Politische Bildung (BAP). Benedikt participated in the Hannover symposium but did not submit a chapter for this book.

Professor Béatrice ZIEGLER, PhD is co-director of the Zentrum für Demokratie Aarau ZDA (Center for Democracy Aarau) and organizes the Center of Citizenship and History Education of the University of Teacher Education of Northwestern Switzerland. As chief investigator she has directed projects in the fields of the theory and empirical examination of citizenship education, of the teaching-learning processes and on professions, in citizenship and history education. In the actual development of the curriculum of the German-speaking cantons of Switzerland she is responsible for Citizenship Education.