34. Research on Citizenship Education
Paper
Integrating Citizenship Competence’ Assessment Frameworks: Complementarities and Differences in the Educational Context of Serbia
Dragica Pavlović Babić, Jovan Ivanović, Aleksandar Baucal
University of Belgrade, Serbia
Presenting Author: Pavlović Babić, Dragica
Comparative reviews of educational reforms in Europe, and broadly, in the last twenty years or so, show a strong movement towards identifying key competencies in education (Rychen & Salganik, 2000) and implementing more competence-based curricula (European Education and Culture Executive Agency, Eurydice, 2012). These reform movements realized diverse ways and diverse innovations in teaching and learning practices, assessment tools and procedures, and school organization (European Commission, 2020). This movement is determined by European policy embodied in the Reference Framework of Key Competencies for Lifelong Learning (European Commission, 2019). The European policy is the result of several broad factors (Halasz & Michel, 2011) that could be summed up in the assumption that globalization and modernization are creating an increasingly diverse and interconnected world. In this paper, among all the key competencies that young people need in order to be successful in modern society and to contribute to the development of society, we focused on the social and civic competencies and the way how they are operationalized to be measured in two comprehensive international assessment studies ICCS by IEA and PISA Global Competence by OECD.
As stated in the Reference Framework of Key Competencies for Lifelong Learning (European Commission, 2019), civic competence is defined by the importance of knowledge of the development of, institutions that reflect, democracy, justice, equality, citizenship, and civil rights. In the IEA/ICC study, civic competence is operationalized through four content domains (Civic society and systems, Civic principles, Civic participation, Civic identities), four affective-behavioural domains (Value beliefs, Attitudes, Behavioral intentions, Behaviors) and two cognitive domains (Knowing, Reasoning and analyzing), (Schulz et al, 2022). Serbia participated in this assessment study in 2022 (OECD, 2).
Compared to IEA/ Civic Competence, OECD/PISA Global Competence is defined more broadly, as a multidimensional capacity which enables individuals to examine local, global and intercultural issues, understand and appreciate different perspectives and world views, interact successfully and respectfully with others, and take responsible action toward sustainability and collective well-being (OECD, 2018). Serbia participated in this assessment study in the PISA cycle 2018 (OECD, 2020).
The two constructs that are the focus of this study have a potentially great influence in the field of informing educational policies, defining the curriculum and assessment of educational achievements, as well as in designing pre-service and in-service programs for the professional development of teachers. The importance of these constructs is given by the fact that they are part of large international assessment studies in which a significant number of countries participate. A review of the literature, however, shows that there is a lack of research examining the complementarity of these constructs.
Based on the structural components and description of the two constructs (civic competence and global competence), although they were operationalized for measurement purposes in two different assessment studies, we assumed their complementarity. Examining this assumption is the fundamental question addressed in this paper. If the measures were distributed on one scale, the assumption of unidimensionality of the scale would be confirmed. The main intention that initiated this research work is to create a reliable instrument for evaluating the effects of an intervention program designed to encourage collaborative problem-solving in the secondary school educational context in Serbia.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedParticipants. Our sample consisted of 620 students from Belgrade high schools (aged 16-18). To increase the diversity of the sample, we selected both general high schools and vocational schools, as well as central city schools and schools on the suburban periphery. From each of the eleven selected schools, we sampled several classes. The sample was balanced across genders (52.6% girls) and skewed towards higher achieving students.
Instruments. We selected available PISA and ICCS items according to the cognitive processes involved and difficulty level. First, we used items that target more complex processes like reasoning and applying while items saturated with specific knowledge were rarely selected. Second, we used items requiring higher proficiency levels, considering our participants were older than in the usual PISA and ICCS samples. Finally, five PISA tasks, each containing four to five items, and thirty-five ICCS items were selected. The format of items was (complex) multiple-choice, short answer or constructed response. In addition, several ICCS multiple-choice items were adapted by making them constructed response items or asking for justification to make the item more demanding. The final selection of items was arranged in ten clusters and counterbalanced across ten test booklets. Therefore, each cluster appears two times and at different places in the test booklet.
Procedure. After obtaining informed consent from participants, data collection took place at schools, supervised by the school associates. Testing time was one and a half hours. Each test booklet consisted of 4 clusters, two of civic and two of science competence tasks. In this study, however, we only focus on the former.
Data analysis. After data collection, we developed training materials based on PISA Global Competence and ICCS coding guides. Three coders were trained in separate sessions for each cluster. Each item was evaluated by one coder, but they resolved vague and atypical responses through mutual discussion and consultation with the supervisor. At the same time, 10% of responses were coded independently by two different coders in order to calculate intercoder reliability. Coded responses were analyzed by the IRT (item response theory) software Winsteps.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe analysis of the data obtained on a sample of 17-year-old students from Serbia confirmed our assumption about the complementarity, i.e. the unidimensionality of the two constructs. The main product and effect of this empirical finding would be the creation of a unique instrument for assessing civic competence. The possibilities of applying such an instrument are multiple and significant for education policies in Serbia, especially if you keep in mind some specifics of the education system in Serbia. Firstly, it is about a highly centralized and over-controlled system with content-based curricula, traditional teaching methods that put students in a passive position, general expectations set on the level of literate reproduction of poorly integrated facts, and lack of assessment data (Pavlovic Babic, 2020). Secondly, civic competence, like other transversal competencies, has the status of a key competence, but in teaching practice, it is represented unsystematically, sporadically and insufficiently, without unique curricula and without appropriate training of teachers, which is also indicated by the results of ICCS 2022 (Schulz et al, 2023). Therefore, assessment of civic competence would provide significant input for improving the curriculum and developing the competence of teachers in this area. In addition, the instrument could be used as the external criteria to assess the effects of various interventions in the educational system. One example of such use is the work on developing a model for supporting competencies for collaborative problem solving, which is the main goal of the project under which this research is carried out.
ReferencesEuropean Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture. (2019). Key competences for lifelong learning. Publications Office. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/569540
European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Sala, A., Punie, Y., Garkov, V., et al. (2020). LifeComp – The European Framework for personal, social and learning to learn key competence. Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/302967
European Education and Culture Executive Agency, Eurydice. (2012). Developing key competences at school in Europe – Challenges and opportunities for policy. Publications Office. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2797/93204
Halasz, G., & Michel, A. (2011). Key competence in Europe: Interpretation, policy formulation and implementation. European Journal of Education. 46(3), 289-306
OECD (2018). Preparing Our Youth for an Inclusive and Sustainable World The OECD Pisa Global Competence Framework. Paris: OECD.
OECD (2020). PISA 2018 Results (Volume VI): Are Students Ready to Thrive in an Interconnected World? PISA, OECD Publishing. Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/d5f68679-en
Pavlović Babić, D. (2020). International Assessment Studies in Serbia Between Traditional Solutions, Unexpected Achievements and High Expectations. In H. Harju-Luukkainen, N. McElvany, & J. Stang (Eds.), Monitoring Student Achievement in the 21st Century (pp. 223-236). Springer, Cham.
Rychen, D. S., & Salganik, L. H. (2000). Definition and Selection of Competencies: Theoretical and Conceptual Foundations (DeSeCo) Background Paper. Neuchâtel: DeSeCo Secretariat. Paris: OECD.
Schulz, W., Ainley, J., Fraillon, J., Losito, B., Agrusti, G., Valeria, D., & Friedman, T. (2023). Education for Citizenship in Times of Global Challenge IEA International Civic and Citizenship Education Study 2022 International Report. https://www.iea.nl/sites/default/files/2023-11/ICCS2022-International-Report.pdf
Schulz, W., Fraillon, J., Losito, B., Agrusti, G., Ainley, J., Damiani, V., & Friedman, T. (2023). IEA International Civic and Citizenship Education Study 2022 Assessment Framework. Springer. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-20113-4
34. Research on Citizenship Education
Paper
The Role of Political Emotions in Citizenship Education – an Educational Conceptual Approach
Margot Joris
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium
Presenting Author: Joris, Margot
Over the past two decades, national and transnational educational policies and agendas in Europe have focused on CE in response to societal and political challenges in our globalized, multicultural society (Loobuyck, 2020; Joris, 2021), such as the digital transformation, global migration flows, the climate crisis, etc. In this current context, ‘good’ democratic citizenship and CE have become conceptualised and promoted in terms of democratic competence(s) enabling citizens to respond effectively to the ever changing demands and opportunities posed to them by democratic societies (Council of Europe, 2018). This competence-based approach to CE has become particularly relevant in the face of the perception that youth are become increasingly politically apathetic or alienated (Keating & Janmaat, 2016; Dahl et al., 2018; Freitas et al., 2018). Generally, attention is paid to CE in terms of what young people (not yet) know, do, can, or are not (yet) willing to do in relation to the ideals of democracy and citizenship the adult generation has put forward (Hooghe & Smets, 2013).
Both within and outside of the walls of schools and classrooms however, our democracies include ‘flesh-and-blood people’, who not only think, reason or apply their ‘‘toolkit of psychological resources’ or competences (Council of Europe, 2018); but also feel things (Backer, 2017). Starting from this assumption, the current dominance of a competence-based discourse of CE is called into question for being rationalist and individualistic, because it relies on an Habermasian (1998), rational-deliberative and cognitive or disaffected model of citizenship and CE. Insights from political philosophy and psychology suggest that political emotions are central to people’s actual political engagement (Demertzis, 2014; Nussbaum, 2013; Knight Abowitz & Mamlok, 2019), are experiences that can be ascribed to bodies that are ‘socialized’, interact and exist together with others (Zembylas, 2007b) and should therefore be considered essential components of political and democratic life and be given a place within democratic CE (Zembylas, 2018).
Additionally, when the importance of political emotions in CE is acknowledged, the focus tends to be on conflictual emotions and political identities. Such agonistic approaches emphasize disagreements and the potential of anger and conflict for political action and transformative change through CE (Yacek, 2019), for instance by ‘learning to disagree’ and adversarial position-taking (Knight-Abowitz & Mamlok, 2021). Leiviskä and Pyy (2021) and Yacek (2019), however, indicate how focusing on such an understanding of the nature of the political in CE might lead to relations between different societal groups becoming increasingly conflictual; in a broader democratic culture which is already perceived as divided and polarized (Leiviskä & Pyy, 2021). Focusing on negative emotions such as conflict, differences, angers and fear in CE risks to only deepen and solidify such tendencies, and increase feelings of apathy and closed-mindedness towards the experiences of those considered ‘others’ (Yacek, 2019). They therefore turn to the existing (political) literature on constructive political emotions (Nussbaum, 2013; Leiviskä & Pyy, 2021).
This constructive approach to political emotions has been connected to CE theoretically, but appears to have not yet been translated to an actual educational-theoretical framework of CE. This research project therefore aims to develop such a framework, providing answers to the following three research questions:
1. How do political emotions relate to other, cognitive’ dimensions of competence-based models for CE (knowledge, skills, values, attitudes) and how can they be embedded and fostered within a holistic framework for CE?
2. How do negative political emotions relate to constructive political emotions, and how can both be linked to theoretical and conceptual approaches of CE?
3. How can pedagogic classroom and school practices foster youth’s constructive political emotions through CE?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedIn this contribution, I will develop an educational-theoretical framework of political emotions in CE, that both acknowledges political emotions and connects them to ‘cognitive’ aspects of CE, theoretically explores the relation between negative and constructive political emotions, and explores how CE practices in schools might play a role in fostering constructive political emotions.
As part of a larger project that aims to construct an educational theoretical perspective of the role of political emotions in CE from the ground up, this contribution presents the procedures and results of the first phase of a qualitative, constructivist grounded theory (CGT) approach to political emotions in CE. The overall aim is to develop a middle-range theory, grounded in and fitting for the collected data (which will include classroom observations, teacher interviews and student focus groups) to generate relevant, applicable and useful analytic explanations (Thornberg and Keane, 2022) of the role of political emotions in CE in schools. CGT and its explanations build on the assumption that social reality (including the political emotions of youth) is continually constructed in everyday social interactions and interpretations within and between individuals, groups and communities (Thornberg & Keane, 2022). Grounded theory is particularly suitable for exploring phenomena of which little is known to date, such as the role of political emotions in CE practices, or how CE practices can foster constructive political emotions; and therefore requires flexible means of inquiry, specifically regarding data collection and analysis (McCreaddie & Payne, 2010).
This research project builds on the concrete research design and core features of CGT listed by Thornberg and Keane (2022), and this contribution discusses the results of first phase of this CGT project: the initial literature study. Its main aim is to map the existing body of knowledge, concepts, approaches, and knowledge gaps of political emotions in/and citizenship education in schools, in order to further refine and sharpen the research questions (Thornberg & Keane, 2022).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsIn this contribution, I will discuss:
2) a comparison of theoretical approaches of political emotions in different disciplines (sociology, psychology, political philosophy)
1) existing conceptual frameworks of CE, their theoretical and philosophical foundations and the role (or absence) of (political) emotions therein: the importance of both developmental and cultural perspectives
3) The relations and differences between agonistic and constructive political emotions, and their role(s) in CE
Finally, I will present the conceptual (and analytical) framework of this research project, resulting form this initial literature study. This will be based on the results of situating the three interests mentioned above in existing political, psychological, and sociological literature, and combining these with insights from existing educational theories on CE. These will include pedagogical practice theory (Kemmis et al., 2014) and other educational-theoretical approaches of (the nature of) classroom and school practices. I will also discuss how this framework can and will serve as the foundation for the future phases of this research project.
ReferencesBacker, D. I. (2017). The Critique of Deliberative Discussion. Democracy & Education, 25(1), 1-6
Council of Europe (2018). Reference framework of competences for democratic culture. Volume 1: Context, concepts and models. Council of Europe Publishing.
Dahl, V., Amnå, E., Banaji,S., Landberg, M., Šerek J., Ribeiro, N., Beilmann, M., Pavlopoulos, V. & Zani, B. (2018). Apathy or alienation? Political passivity among youths across eight European Union countries. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 15(3), 284-301
Demertzis, N. (2014). Political Emotions. In: Nesbitt-Larking, P., Kinnvall, C., Capelos, T., Dekker, H. (eds). The Palgrave Handbook of Global Political Psychology. Palgrave Studies in Political Psychology Series. Palgrave Macmillan.
Freitas, M., Howard, C. & Tosca, G. (2018). Millennial dialogue on Europe. Shaping the new EU agenda. Foundation for European Progressive Studies (FEPS)
Habermas (1998). Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. The MIT Press.
Hooghe, M. & Smets, K. (2013). Jongeren en politiek in verandering. Res Publica 55(1), 5-9.
Joris, M. (2021). Burgers in de maak? Burgerschapsvorming op school anders bekeken. Pedagogische Studiën, 98(3), 221-235
Keating, A. & Janmaat, J.G. (2016). Education Through Citizenship at School: Do School Activities Have a Lasting Impact on Youth Political Engagement? Parliamentary Affairs 69, 409–429
Knight abowitz, K. & Mamlok, D. (2019). #Neveragainmsd student activism: lessons for agonist political education in an age of democratic crisis. Educational Theory, 70(6), 731-748
Loobuyck, P. (2020). The policy shift towards citizenship education in Flanders. How can it be explained? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 53(1), 65-82
Leiviskä, A. & Pyy, I. (2021). The unproductiveness of political conflict in education: A Nussbaumian alternative to agonistic citizenship education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 55, 577-588
McCreaddie, M. & Payne, S. (2010). Evolving Grounded Theory Methodology: Towards a discursive approach. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 47, 781–793
Nussbaum, M. (2013). Political emotions: why love matters for justice. Harvard University Press.
Thornberg & Keane, 2022. Designing Grounded Theory Studies. In Flick, U. (ed). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research Design, 452-466. Sage Publications
Yacek, D. (2019). Should anger be encouraged in the classroom? Political education, closed mindedness, and civic epiphany. Educational Theory, 69(4), 421-4
Zembylas, M. (2007b). Theory and methodology in researching emotions in education. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 30(1), 57-72 Zembylas (2018): Political Emotions in the Classroom. How Affective Citizenship Education Illuminates the Debate Between Agonists and Deliberators. Democracy & Education, 26(1), 1-5
34. Research on Citizenship Education
Paper
Responsiveness, Co-creation, Participation, Citizenship: Mapping the Theoretical & Methodological Approaches in Participatory Research in Two European Projects
Magdalena Kuleta-Hulboj, Agnieszka Naumiuk, Hanna Tomaszewska-Pękała
Faculty of Education, University of Warsaw, Poland
Presenting Author: Kuleta-Hulboj, Magdalena;
Tomaszewska-Pękała, Hanna
The participatory paradigm is not only present in the social sciences, including education but has also become an important principle of public policies and any action aimed at introducing significant social change and transforming reality (Budzanowska, Dańda, 2022). However, “any collective action directed at social change to respond to citizens’ concerns must be based on social science evidence” (Albert et al., 2021).
In a research context, participation can refer to theoretical assumptions, methodology (participatory research), and the use of research results for a specific common purpose, both by the researchers and by the individuals/groups who are the 'subject' of the research. Participatory research refers to the idea of human science assuming a human-centred orientation, in other words - doing research from a human perspective (Ciechowska & Szymańska, 2018; Kubinowski, 2010; Reyes, Haines & Clark/Keefe, 2021). It abolishes the traditional division between the researchers and the researched - the latter become fully-fledged subjects of research. Moreover, all parties involved in the research process take full part in it - they learn from each other, they contribute their knowledge and skills, and the outcome of research activities emerges from dialogue and interaction (Pushor 2008; Bielecka-Prus, 2013). Simultaneously, this does not mean that all participating parties have the same input or perform the same roles (Bielecka-Prus, 2013).
The degree and extent of participation can vary, which is well illustrated by various models of participation, the most well-known of which (the so-called ladder of participation) situates it between two extremes - from minimal participation limited to a “decorative” function (being informed) to the highest level implying full control, i.e. the participation of non-experts on equal terms in all stages and all project activities (Arnstein 1969).
In recent years, it has been argued that participation is insufficient and new conceptualisations or concepts relating to citizen participation not only in research and knowledge production but more generally, in social change, have emerged (Beresford 2019; Blühdorn & Butzlaff, 2020). These include co-creation or responsiveness and are argued to increase the influence of participants on the social changes postulated and implemented as the result of the research process.
The way participation and the overlapping and related terms (in this case co-creation and responsiveness) are understood, framed and situated in the two European research projects is the subject of the presented analysis. Both projects are participatory, albeit to varying degrees, and implement the inclusion of citizens in the research process.
The main research question is what are the similarities and differences in the theoretical assumptions about participatory approaches in the two projects and what are the implications of these assumptions for (1) the methodological solutions adopted to guide the research process, (2) to the understanding of citizenship not only in the research but in a democratic society in general.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedTwo European projects are to be the subject of our analysis.
(1) The first project, COSI.ed (https://cosied.eu/), aims to create solutions and models of practice in working with young people at risk of social exclusion in various educational settings in five European countries. The concept of co-creation is understood as a prerequisite for an equality-based relationship between young people and educational staff. Its aim is “to create an environment that provides access to and experience of educational codes and situations through building on the students’ strengths and experiences”(Bunting et al., 2021). Thus, it empowers young vulnerable people, increasing their participation and sense of agency.
(2) The second project, RESPONSIVE (https://responsive-europe.eu/), focuses on citizen participation in transforming social services and aims to enhance the responsiveness of Europe’s social services to input from diverse citizens. Through this, it wants to increase the impact of citizens’ voices on the approaches, organisation and delivery of three types of social service: child protection and services for youth at risk of exclusion, disability, and mental health. Practically, the project is ambitious in generating specific innovations engaging to a greater extent the voice of vulnerable people and accompanying methodological guidance for achieving citizen-centric social services. The concept of responsiveness highlights that democracy, participation, co-creation and social change are continuous processes that need effort and actions over time (Responsive grant application).
The presented paper is based on the desk research and in-depth analysis of:
- theoretical and methodological backgrounds and approaches of the above-mentioned projects;
- use of good practices’ models in working with youth at risk, with special attention paid to understanding and situating the concepts of co-creation and participation;
- methodological and practical co-creative solutions applied in both projects (citizen boards, advisory boards, collaborative groups etc.);
- the implications of “youth at risk as citizens” concepts in school and out-of-school environments.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe expected outcome of our analysis is to map and demonstrate the diversity of approaches to the problematisation of concepts such as participation, co-creation, responsiveness and citizenship - their interrelationship and interconnectedness at the theoretical, methodological and practice levels. Particular emphasis will be placed on showing methodological solutions to address the dilemma of how to conduct research on participation/co-creation/responsiveness in an ethical, responsible, methodologically sound and at the same time participatory/responsive way, especially in groups and communities particularly vulnerable to exclusion.
Awareness of the various challenges faced by international teams carrying out participatory research will allow to address them at the project conceptualisation stage and may contribute to initiating a dialogue on the often unconscious or unspoken assumptions about the understanding of concepts such as participation, citizenship, co-creation and responsiveness by the various social actors involved in project implementation. Earlier recognition of these assumptions may prevent the possibility of misunderstandings in this area at a later stage of the project implementation.
Our analysis will also shed light on the contribution of the new concept of responsiveness in citizenship education and education to democracy added to the earlier elements of co-construction, co-creation and co-production.
The results of our analysis might be a valuable source of inspiration for those involved in research on citizenship education, social participation and democratisation of social life.
ReferencesAlbert, A., Balázs, B., Butkevičienė, E., Mayer, K., & Perelló J. (2021). Citizen Social Science: New and Established Approaches to Participation in Social Research In K. Vohland, A. Land-Zandstra, L. Ceccaroni, R. Lemmens, J. Perelló, M. Ponti, ... & K. Wagenknecht, The science of citizen science (p. 529). Springer Nature. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58278-4
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224.
Beresford, P. (2019), Public Participation in Health and Social Care: Exploring the Co-production of Knowledge. Frontiers in Sociology, 3:41.
Bielecka-Prus, J. (2013). Paradygmat partycypacyjny w naukach społecznych. Wykorzystywanie danych wytworzonych przez badanych w analizie jakościowej. Rocznik Lubuski, 39(1), 29-50.
Blühdorn, I., & Butzlaff, F. (2020). Democratization beyond the post-democratic turn: towards a research agenda on new conceptions of citizen participation. Democratization, 27:3: 369-388. DOI: 10.1080/13510347.2019.1707808
Budzanowska, A. & Dańda, A. (2022). Ustawa 2.0 – paradygmat partycypacyjny w politykach publicznych na przykładzie reformy systemu nauki i szkolnictwa wyższego w Polsce. Nauka 2/2022, 71-92. DOI: 10.24425/nauka.2022.140331
Bunting, M., Mikkelsen, S. H. & Cammack, P. (2021). Socio-cultural learning: students as co-researchers, a key for students' success. In D. T. Gravesen, K. Stuart M. Bunting, S. H.Mikkelsen & P. H. Frostholm (Eds.). Combatting marginalisation by co-creating education: methods, theories and practices from the perspectives of young people. Great debates in higher education. Emerald Publishing, Bingley, pp. 15-28: https://insight.cumbria.ac.uk/id/eprint/6994/
Burgh, G., & Thornton, S. (2021). Teaching democracy in an age of uncertainty: Place-responsive learning. Routledge.
Ciechowska, M., & Szymańska, M. (2018). Wybrane metody jakościowe w badaniach pedagogicznych. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Akademii Ignatianum.
Dedding, C., Groot, B., Slager, M. & Abma, T. (2022). Building an alternative conceptualization of participation: from shared decision-making to acting and work. Educational Action Research,31(2):1-13. DOI:10.1080/09650792.2022.2035788
Kubinowski, D. (2010). Jakościowe badania pedagogiczne. Filozofia – metodyka – ewaluacja. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, Lublin.
Naumiuk, A., Serra, F., Rasell, M., Uggerhoj, L., Pinto. C et al. (2022). Using participation to understand and address the anxieties of European youth about unemployment, future work, and community. In: Nielsen, V. et al. (eds.) Social Work, Social Welfare, Unemployment and Vulnerability Among Youth. Abingdon: Routledge.
Pushor, D. (2008). Collaborative Research In The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods, L. M. Given (ed.), Sage, London.
Reyes, C. C., Haines, S. J., & Clark, K. (2021). Humanizing methodologies in educational research: Centering non-dominant communities. Teachers College Press.
34. Research on Citizenship Education
Paper
A 4Cs Social Sciences Curriculum for Civic Values and Citizenship
Eleni Mousena1, Panagiotis Stamatis2
1University of West Attica, Greece; 2Aegean University
Presenting Author: Mousena, Eleni
Educating the new generation is a major purpose of educational systems. It is a highly complex concept that means being a member of a political community. The very concept of citizenship changes over time, depending on the individual's relationship with government, the state and the rights guaranteed. Of a historical option, historical shift from a strictly political definition of the citizen - with an emphasis on his or her relationship with the state - to a broader somewhat more sociological definition, which implies a greater emphasis on the relationship of the citizen, with society as a whole. (Steenbergen, 1994).
In the Marshal’s classic essay on citizenship “Citizenship and social class” (1950), he distinguishes three types of citizenship. First, the civil citizenship in the 18th century which established the rights necessary for individual freedom, such as rights to property, personal liberty and justice. Second, the political citizenship in the 19th century was built and encompassed the right to participate in the exercise of political power, and third, the social citizenship in the 20the century the type of citizenship that emphasized the citizen’s rights of economic and social security and gained its expression in the modern welfare state as it developed in Western Europe. In the perception of Marshall, social citizenship marked the end of history, but new concepts of citizenship are emerging, such as cultural citizenship, European citizenship, global citizenship, ecological citizenship, digital citizenship.
Dewey stresses that ‘Since a democratic society repudiates the principle of external authority, it must find a substitute in voluntary disposition and interest; these can be created only by education. … A democracy is more than a form of government; it is primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoint communicated experience’ (1916, p. 87). For Freire, education is always a political act. Is it impossible to remain neutral in education, all educational policies and practices have social implications (1985). Also, “It is only when one leaves one’s home and enters the public space that the dialogue about a citizen’s idiosyncrasy begins” (Kingwell 2000, p. 41). “Citizenship or civics education is construed to encompass the preparation of young people for their roles and responsibilities as citizens and, in particular, the role of education (through schooling, teaching and learning) in that preparatory process.” (Kerr 1999, p. 2).
Civic values and competences such as equity, mutual understanding and active citizenship are promoted by the European Commission (ET 2020) which has triggered the scientific discourse on this subject (EC 2017, Cockburn, 2013, Moss, 2007).
Traditional curricula promoted the 3Rs, -reading, writing, and arithmetic. Reviewing literacy is a continuous process emerging from contemporary social needs and scientific progress. In this sense, a literacy crisis is never temporary, but, rather, the constrain desired in literacy and curriculum studies. Exploring four hypotheses on literacy standards, Welch and Freebody showed that each and every era and society undergoes its own literacy crisis (1993). Maitles and Gilchrist (2004), underline that children are citizens, and not just “citizens in waiting”.
The purpose of this research was to investigate the educational practices that promote the democratic citizenship in preprimary education in Greece.
Research questions:
What is the place of social sciences in the curriculum framework?
What are the views of educators on citizenship education?
What pedagogical strategies do preschool educators use to develop social science topics?
How do they handle challenging issues related to religious and ethnic differences?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe study is based on the qualitative example of scientific research. Documentary analysis of the curriculum and official documents is applied upon the main categories of content. Also, a focus group interview with preprimary educators was made.
Ethical concerns specifically attend to critical policy and pedagogy analysis as a way of improving coexistence and active participation. As for the interviews, participants were informed about the purpose of the research, and they had the opportunity to withdraw at any time.
Method and ethics of the research
Method: Qualitative, was carried out by structured interviews
Participants: 12 experienced preprimary educators and also Master Degree students.
Time: Spring 2023
Method: Praxeological research and participatory paradigm
Participants were informed about the purpose of the research and negotiated the time of the interview. They took part voluntarily and had the opportunity to withdraw at any time.
They presented their perceptions as well as specific examples from their educational practices.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsTeachers promote in many ways the opening of the preprimary education to parents and the local community.
They organize activities and various projects where parents and other citizens take part.
In this way, the pre-school institutions function somewhat as a forum for civil society.
Educators claim that they promote dialogue with parents and other citizens and this helps a lot in pedagogical work and problem solving.
They argue that this method helps to build a cohesive school community and promote a sense of belonging.
Also, opening the pre-school center to the community helps to get to know and understand the cultural heritage of the participants, which is very important in today's pluralistic world.
They claim that they provide opportunities for student choice and that they promote differentiated teaching when necessary.
Teachers handle children from other faiths with discretion during religious days. Many times, children do not participate according to their parents' decision.
Regarding national days, teachers emphasize that they highlight the issues of peace and cooperation of states instead of war events.
More experienced educators seem to develop projects with social and political content to a greater extent.
Educators develop social studies activities and promote civic values and citizenship.
Implementing democratic citizenship curriculum in today's pluralistic society is a demanding endeavor and educators should be supported by continuing education and good working conditions.
At the same time participatory pedagogical praxis benefits children, families and teachers themselves.
ReferencesDewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. The Free Press.
Earl, C. (2018). Spaces of Political Pedagogy. Occupy! And other radical experiments in adult learning. London. Routledge.
Freire, P. (1985). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London. Penguin Books.
Gellner, E. (1994). Conditions of Liberty. Civil society and its rivals. Penguin Group. London.
Kerr, D. (1999). Re-examining citizenship education: the case of England in Civic Education Across Countries, National Foundation for Educational Research.
Kingwell, M. (2000). The world we want: Virtue, vice and the good citizen. Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Viking.
Maitles, H. & Gilchrist, I. (2004) We're not citizens in waiting, we're citizens now! A case study of a democratic approach to learning in an RME secondary class in the West of Scotland, Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 3(1).
Marshall, T.H. (1950). Citizenship and Social Class and other essays. London. Cambridge University Press.
Mousena, E. (2021). Pluribus vs Unum as Values in Citizenship Education. In Ruby M., Angelo-Rocha, M., Hickey, M., and Agosto, V. Charlotte (Eds) Making A Spectacle: Examining Curriculum/Pedagogy as Recovery from Political Trauma (pp. 49-64). NC: IAP– Information Age Publishing.
|
