integrating democratic civic education into democratic schools using technological artifacts and...

Running Head: DEMOCRATIC EDUCATION INTEGRATION !1

!!!!!!!Integrating Democratic Civic Education Into Democratic Schools Using Technological Artifacts

and Experiential Learning

Anthony Clemons !Teachers College, Columbia University !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DEMOCRATIC EDUCATION INTEGRATION !2

Integrating Democratic Civic Education Into Democratic Schools Using Technological Artifacts

and Experiential Learning

The integration of a civics-based curriculum during a student’s secondary and 1

postsecondary education is not a new premise in the context of American pedagogy. According

to The Encyclopedia of the Social and Cultural Foundations of Education (2009), “Education

and democracy are inextricably linked in American social thought and practice. Democracy, in

all of its historic and contemporary forms, has played a pivotal role in shaping conceptions of

public education” (p. 238). Additionally, the vast quantity of research and proposed best practices

in democratic educational practices are readily available for appraisal and implementation given

the right circumstances. However, the focus in democratic educational research predominantly

concerns how civic instruction might be properly developed, integrated, and instructed in social

studies and history courses within the context of the public educational system. In turn, this

leaves a vacuum in the research of how to develop, integrate, instruct, and evaluate a common

body of civic curriculum in democratic institutions domestically and internationally.

This study seeks to introduce civic education in its present form within the framework of

democratic institutions and offer a curriculum and research design that: (1) frames the process of

creating a civic educational model through the ADDIE adult curriculum development process;

(2) proposes a civic educational model using facilitated learning, technological artifacts, and

experiential learning as a tripod of pedagogical methodologies; and (3) offers a research design

that evaluates the effectiveness of the proposed civic educational model.

! The terms democratic and civic are used interchangeably throughout this paper. 1


The Evolution of Democratic Institutions

According to the International Democratic Education Network (IDEN), "There are over

200 places offering democratic education in more than 30 countries, working with over 40,000

students” (“International Democratic Schools”, 2014). These institutions operate under a didactic

banner that is wholly separated from the classical model of pedagogy that has historically been

the standard throughout the western world. That classical model is based on a top-down approach

imported from Prussia in the mid-1800‘s. Through this approach, teachers provide guidance and

students react. The students then await additional guidance and the cycle continues. This model

has continued to be used to educate and train future industrial workers when the United States

was an industrial-based economy so that when they graduated, those students could enter the

workforce, take guidance from a manager, react, and await further instructions.

This model worked well when developed nations were more industrial-based economies,

with hundreds of large companies that used a top-down approach. However, as the economies of

those developed countries moved away from being industrial-based, those organizations

continuing to use a top-down approach became the exception, not the rule. This progressively

made the classical model of educating students obsolete. In fact, from the 1960’s through the

1980’s, due in part to the industrial-based economic trend declining, this evolutions also gave

rise to a broad increase in schools claiming to be democratic.

Democratic institutions willingly disengaged from the premise that, “the goals of

educational attainment—individually or collectively—[should be viewed] largely through an

economic lens” as purported by the classical model (Pondiscio, 2013, p. 2). Instead, each

democratic institution uniquely defined what a democratic education is and the how it might be


successfully implemented within an individual institution’s pedagogical framework. However,

this has perpetuated an ongoing vacuum as to a common method of defining what a democratic

schools is and the elements a democratic education entails. This has concurrently resulted in a

disenfranchised common operating picture as to what can be expected by a school purporting

itself to be democratic and little continuity within this niche of education.

What are Democratic Schools?

To decipher the meaning of what democratic schools are, it is necessary to establish a

common operational definition of “democratic”. According to The Institute for Democratic

Education in America, democratic schools see, “…young people not as passive recipients of

knowledge, but rather as active co-creators of their own learning. They are not the products of an

education system, but rather valued participants in a vibrant learning community (Bennis, 2014).

In turn, schools must willingly, “go outside the box of standardized one-size-fits-all education, so

that young people are enthusiastic, active learners” (Bennis, 2014). While, this fails in offering a

common definition to democratic schools, it denotes the difficulty in deriving one due

democratic schools being individually contextualized in how democracy is integrated into their

framework, pursuant to the paradigm of a school’s values and mission.

Essentially, democratic schools promote democratic values through integrating a view of

how democracy might be should be of utility within the institution’s administration and

curriculum. Such schools can be characterized along a wide spectrum. Some democratic schools

may have an administration and curriculum resembling that of a classically modeled school. 2

In this context, a democratic school would be operated by faculty and administrators and the curriculum would be 2

structured insofar as providing students options from which to choose. However, there would be a structured base of curriculum from which the institution would instruct.


This type of democratic school tends to operate in a top-down fashion, while having democratic

education as more of a prioritized focus in curriculum than a wholly synthesized form of learning

by living and being a part of the democratic process within a school. Schools offering that

opportunity operate at the other end of the spectrum; they are Contemporary Democratic Schools

(CDS). 3

Contemporary Democratic Schools tend to allow students to be involved in the decision-

making process of what they learn and how the institution is run. These institutions also operate

in a more decentralized form, much like an ecosystem. These types of democratic schools tend to

operate from little, to no curriculum due to a pedagogical belief that forcing students to learn

through such a method is undemocratic. This leaves a gap in how an academic form of civics-

based education might be transmitted, resulting in students being left to their own devices in

understanding what knowledge is of great import in being a civically-active citizen. However, in

an effort to provide an example of such a school that operates on that end of the spectrum, the

Sudbury Valley School serves as an excellent resource.

Sudbury Valley School.

Sudbury Valley School is a democratic school founded in 1968 that sits on 10 acres of

farmland in Framingham, Massachusetts (“Sudbury”, 2014). The school hosts students ranging

in age of four to 19, totaling about 150 students. There are no official grade levels within the

school’s operational framework and the school offers no official grading criteria as a quantitative

yardstick in measuring student performance. Instead, instructor feedback is provided on certain

The term Contemporary Democratic Schools (CDS) was developed for this study to denote the difference between 3

classical models of education and the modern method of educating democratically.


academic questions and on occasion an instructor will host a “bespoke” class for student groups

upon request. There is also no set expectation for the students to be at a particular place at any

given point throughout the day, with the caveat that students must spend a minimum of five

hours on the campus during the day. In his article from New Republic, Mark Oppenheimer

provides the following description of how Sudbury operates:

"School opens at 8:30 in the morning and closes at 5:30 in the afternoon, and students are

expected to be present for at least five hours during that time; they may stay longer if

they wish. There are eight staff members (they aren’t called teachers), whom students

may seek out with questions, for help, or just to chat. In the school meeting, where rules

are made and discipline enforced, the staff get one vote each, the same as each student.

The meeting also sets the budget and hires (and, on occasion, fires) the teachers. By and

large, students respect the rules and their peers’ enforcement of them" (“Oppenheimer”,

2014).

As of the writing of Mr. Oppenhiemer’s article, tuition was $8,200/yr for the first child,

with the tuition decreasing with additional children. The school does not provide financial

assistance; however there are mechanisms in place to help families going through financial

hardships. At the conclusion of the students’ “education” they have the ability to petition to have

a high school diploma conferred, only after explaining to a committee, either orally or in a

written form why they are prepared to enter the adult world (“Oppenheimer”, 2014).

Sudbury fosters an environment of Epicurean community of individual acceptance,

allowing students to have a “say” in the content of their education and the administration of their

educational experience. The “say” is given to them in the form of a vote on matters of a wide


range, including school policy, study plans and student discipline. Students also tend to take

responsibility for their education through studying subjects they enjoy, as opposed to operating

according to a formal study plan, in a formal location, at a formally set time, as is the case in the

classical model of education (“Sudbury”, 2014).

Sudbury’s Civic Curriculum.

Sudbury’s educational model does not require the formal instruction of historically

altruistic democratic virtues in the context of Americanism, as suggested in the Albert Shanker

Institute’s article “Education for Democracy” (2003). Instead, Sudbury focuses its attention on

the notion of equality through freedom in most facets of a student’s educational path (Grey,

1986). That is not to say that Sudbury does not promote inherent democratic values, but instead

allows students to live-out the idea of democracy through a non-systematic course of learning

and a democratic form of participation in the institution’s operation.

The reason that Sudbury, and similar institutions operating on the more liberal end of the

democratic educational spectrum, use this decentralized theory of learning can be traced to their

origins and mission. Daniel Greenberg, a co-founder of the Sudbury Valley School and former

Columbia University professor of Physics, was described by Peter Gray, a school trustee, as

being the “principle philosopher” of the school’s founders (Gray, 1986). In an essay Mr.

Greenberg wrote titled “Is SVS a School?”, he detailed the function of a free citizen within a

democracy in the context of the mission of the school: “to produce creative, self-starting,

imaginative, responsible people, and also to produce people who know how to be free and know

how to function in a democracy” (Greenberg, n.d.). In sum, Sudbury’s pedagogical model

discards the need for education requiring rote knowledge and formal instruction, and instead


places a premium on a student-centric model that promotes training in the applied arts of

primitive living and individual participation.

The Viability of Sudbury’s Model.

Sudbury’s educational model offers many benefits to students seeking an interdisciplinary

academic foundation. In Democracy and Education, John Dewey purported the need to educate

students like human beings in lieu of training them like animals (Dewey, 1916, p.3). Sudbury

meets this intent with room to spare. The school has consistently ensured the use of a

constructionist form of education by cultivating an atmosphere of learning that lends itself to

students being hands-on in everything they do. However, Sudbury, and like institutions, hold a

pedagogical deficit when framing student knowledge in the civics of living in a democratic

society.

This deficit is attributable to the more the Contemporary Democratic Schools willingly

justifying student development of individualized study plans, pursuant to internal interests. In

turn, this leaves little consideration as to the present and forecasted needs of society. Moreover,

the institutions permitting the exercise of individual course development assume students possess

the cultural sensitivity to cultivate and synthesize their’s and society’s needs. This assumption is

actively accepted by these institutions even though the students’ maturity leaves them both

inexperienced in the development of curriculum process and underdeveloped in their educational

pedigree.

Additionally, this leaves the probability open to CDS-educated students leaving key

points of civic instruction out of their curriculum model, resulting in a gap in what they should

know prior to entering society as young adults. This civic educational gap can cause students to


lack in the foundational principles of knowing what it means to be a civically-active citizen. In

his book The Dyer’s Hand, W.H. Auden summarized this point nicely:

"A child’s reading is guided by pleasure, but his pleasure is undifferentiated; he cannot

distinguish, for example, between aesthetic pleasure and the pleasures of learning or

daydreaming. In adolescence we realize that there are different kinds of pleasure, some of

which cannot be enjoyed simultaneously, but we need help from others in defining them.

Whether it be a matter of taste in food or taste in literature, the adolescent looks for a

mentor in whose authority he can believe” (Auden, 1948, p.5).

However, if democratic institutions ensured the integration of a broad civically-based course

design that takes into a student’s needs, within the context of society’s needs, students would be

amply benefitted and society would have a well informed citizenry that is prepared to be

civically engaged.

Redesigning Democratic Schools

Pursuant to my observations of the CDS model of learning, within the context of the

Sudbury model, I would not wholly abandon their pedagogical methods. Instead, I would

recommend the integration of a series of adjustments that takes into account the need for an

academic civic education that ensures the cultivation of a generation of democratically

knowledgable citizens. To accomplish this, students must be provided a foundation of civic

curriculum that develops an understanding of, and call to action towards becoming personal,

participatory, and justice-oriented citizens (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004, p. 239). However, the

method of instruction is just as important as the curriculum instructed. Therefore, the proper

integration of facilitated learning, technological artifacts, and experiential learning in the


transference of a civically-based course of instruction in democratic institutions can be

successfully implemented. Yet, even with the implementation of the instructional framework,

further research is necessary in determining the effectiveness of any curriculum design.

Therefore, this study provides a suggested research design that accounts for the design and

development of the curriculum to be instructed and the evaluative methods through which it

might be assessed for consideration in future research.

Proposed Research Design

Problem of Practice

Students attending democratic educational institutions are not expected to adhere to a

commonly accepted form of curriculum that provides a foundational layer of civic education

during their secondary educational tenure. Although students are given the opportunity to learn

what they may need to know according to an individually developed study plan, the civic

education that students receive at these institutions cannot meet the needs of society without the

framework of a regularly updated body of knowledge students could be a guided to access.

Hypothesis

H1: The inclusion of a commonly accepted base of civic educational curriculum as a

supplemental requirement within the secondary educational system will increase young adult

democratic knowledge and their likeliness to become civically engaged.

Literature Review

Westheimer and Kahne’s article, “What Kind of Citizen?: The Politics of Educating for

Democracy” serves as the foundational point of literature in the establishment of a civic

curriculum for implementation and evaluation. Their article attempts to synthesize other works


that question what types of citizens are necessary in supporting the vision of an effective

democratic society. Westheimer and Kahne’s answer is as follows:

In mapping the terrain that surrounds answers to this question, we found that three

visions of “citizenship” were particularly helpful in making sense of the variation: the

personally responsible citizen; the participatory citizen; and the justice-oriented citizen

(Westheimer & Kahne, 2004, p. 239).

Each type can be aligned within a spectrum of active to passive by each type’s level of activity

within the democratic process. Below, Table 1 demonstrates those variances:

Table 1 Kinds of Citizens (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004, p. 240) __________________________________________________________________________ Personally Responsible Citizen Participatory Citizen Justice-Oriented Citizen __________________________________________________________________________ Description Acts Responsibly in his/her Active member of com- Critically assesses community munity organizations social, political and Works and pays taxes and/or improvement economic structures Obeys laws efforts to see beyond surface Recycles, gives blood Organizes community causes Volunteers to lend a hand efforts to care for Seeks out and in times of crisis those in need, pro- addresses ares of mote economic injustice development, or Knows about demo- clean up environment critic social move- Knows how government ments and how to agencies work effect systemic change Knows strategies for accomplishing collec- tive tasks Sample Action Contributes food to a food drive Helps to organize a Explores why people are food drive hungry and acts to solve root causes Core Assumptions To solve social problems and To solve social prob- To solve social prob- improve society, citizens lens and improve lems and improve must have good character; society, citizens must society, citizens


they must be honest, respons- actively participate must question, ible, and law-abiding member and take leadership debate, and of the community positions within est- change established ablsihed systems systems and struc- and community tures that reproduce structures patterns of injustice

Westheimer and Kahne further discuss how they might take the the participatory and

justice-oriented form of citizenship and apply it to a learning environment within a secondary

school system. Their discussion on their research design and the results thereof is focused on two

out of ten programs they studied as they analyzed various democratically-oriented educational

programs, “Our empirical investigation of this topic focuses on the subtle and not-so-subtle

differences between programs that emphasize participation and those that emphasize

justice” (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004, p. 245).

Using a mixed-methods approach, they conducted their studies at a series of 10 sites, over

a 2-3 day period at each site for two-years, combining, “qualitative data from observations and

interviews with quantitative analysis of pre/post survey data” (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004, p.

246). However, their results are focused on two of the programs they researched—one East

Coast school whose program’s focus is on participatory education and and one West Coast

school whose focus is on justice-oriented education.

The first democratic educational program Westheimer and Khane study is part of a 12th

grade Government course at Madison County High School, an East Coast high school, within a

suburban/rural community of 23,000 residents. This particular program’s focus is on

participatory education. As part of the course’s requirements, students become actively engaged


with the local community in learning about and working towards addressing a particular

challenge(s) the community may be facing.

One group of students investigated whether citizens in their community wanted curbside

trash pickup for recycling that was organized by the county. They conducted phone

interviews, undertook cost analysis, and examined charts of projected housing growth to

estimate growth in trash and its cost and environmental implications. Another rout

identified jobs that prisoner incarcerated for fewer than 90 days could perform and

analyzed the cost of similar programs in other localities (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004, p.

249)

The second democratic educational program Westheimer and Khane study is part of a

12th grade Social Studies course at Bayside High School, a West Coast high school, within a

urban community. This particular program’s focus is on justice-oriented education and aims to

educate students, “how to address structural issues of inequality and injustice and bring about

social change” (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004, p. 254). One of the teachers further described his

personal mission for the program, “My goal is to turn students into activists [who are]

empowered to focus on things that they care about in their own lives and to…show them avenues

they can use to achieve real social change, profound social change” (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004,

p. 254). The high school works towards these goals through allowing students to engage in

research on particular social equality and social issues topics they want to see addressed:

Some Bayside students studies whether SAT exams were biased, and they created a

pamphlet pointing out the weaknesses of the test in adequately predicting future student

success in college. They distributed the pamphlet to the school and surrounding


community. Another group examined child labor practices worldwide and the social,

political, and economic issues those practices raise” (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004, p.

255).

Both of the schools discussed by Westheimer and Kahne have the decisive factor of

integrating experiential education within their curriculum. As a result, the students they

interviewed found their lessons to be very engaging and of future utility.

Proposed Curriculum

To bridge the knowledge gap in the civics education of democratically-educated students,

a curriculum should be developed, using the ADDIE process of curriculum development as a

guide so as to ensure all the necessary civic topics are covered. Included within the course

design, a pedagogical tripod of facilitated instruction, the use of technological artifacts, and the

integration of experiential learning. This is because each form ties into, and capitalizes on the

other, providing students with a full spectrum of civics education, while using multiple outlets

for the individual learner.

For the purposes of this research design, the focus is on integrating a civic curriculum

base for high school students, beginning in the 9th grade and going through the 12th grade.

Using Westheimer and Kahne’s study as the formative basis for the administration of this

curriculum, and assuming high school students attend school over a four year span, the proposed

curriculum design purports a civic-based course of study that focuses on participatory citizenship

during a student’s first two years and justice-oriented citizenship their second two years.

The curriculum to be used, must first be analyzed pursuant to the contemporary civic

principles students will need to learn prior to graduating. Once those principles are extrapolated


from literature, developers must then define them in the context of learning areas, followed by

learning outcomes, followed by individual learning objectives for each module of instruction.

The hierarchy and learning crosswalk is as follows: Student Learning Area (broad), Student

Learning Outcome (less broad), Student Learning Objective (narrow). This coordination can be

accomplished through the design of a curriculum map that aligns the learning objectives with

individual course modules, in the context of the learning area being studied, resulting in a course

map that is fully nested with the civic learning outcomes. Figure One suggests how such an

alignment might occur and the learning areas and learning objectives that might enveloped.

Figure 1. The Main Categories of Democratic Education (Retrieved from Print & Lange, 2012, p. 31). 4

!Print and Lange also suggest a sample breakdown of the possible learning objectives that can be

nested with the learning areas, supposing the outer ring of Figure 1 as a the overall learning areas

Print and Lange adapted their chart from adapted from Audigier, 2000; Birzea, 2000; CIRCLE & Carnegie 4

Corporation,2003; Cox, Jaramillo & Reimers, 2005; Duerr, Spajic-Vrakas & Martins, 2000; Engle & Ochoa, 1988; Johnson & Morris, 2010; Parker & Jarolimek, 1984; Veldhuis, 1997


and the inner ring of Figure 1 as the overall learning objectives within a civic curriculum. The

possible course modules associated with the individual learning objectives are further suggested

by Print and Lange. Table Two in Appendex A shows the modules Print and Lange recommend

as topics of instruction. Each module aligns with a learning objective and learning area, making

it possible to design the courses within a course map, as shown in Figure Two.

!

Figure 2. Sample Civics Educational Course Map for a 9th Grade Class (Based on qualitative data retrieved from Print & Lange, 2012). !The course map breakdown is based on a nine week semester and the civics class having time

allotted for instruction twice-per-week (no set length of time has been established for each class

to be taught). The particular course map shown in Figure Two does not specify the module

names, but instead sets the framework for how many courses should be taught according to the

learning objectives and whether the student is in a participatory or justice-oriented year. The

course map also sets the stage for possible uses in various pedagogical methods that can facilitate

the transmission of the proposed course of instruction.

Facilitated Learning.


This form of learning requires students to be actively engaged in the learning process.

Through this learning method, the lessons are taught in a more student-centric manner as

opposed to instructor-centric (i.e. “sage on the stage” technique). This student-centric technique

lends itself to the integration of groups activities, student leadership opportunities, critical

problem solving analytics and teacher facilitation. As a result, in lieu of the teacher being the sole

vessel of support, students rely on themselves and others, while the teacher facilitates the process

of learning through being more objective-based as opposed to formulaic-based in their

instructional style.

Technological Artifacts.

This generation of students uses technology as an artifact of interpersonal and

professional interaction and communication. As a result, pedagogical methods must be bridged to

meet their methods of interaction, otherwise educators risk students becoming disengaged from

the civic process. Students are already finding it difficult to discover how they fit into the present

democratic model of politics. This is due to a lack of focus placed on the demographic by

political strategists. This has resulted in the youth demographic relegating democratic citizenship

as irrelevant to the way they are expected to function in society.

Young citizens are among those most blatantly excluded from the public discourses of

government, policy arenas and elections. The result is that the world of politics and

government seems distant, irrelevant, and inauthentic to many citizens, particularly

younger demographics (Bennett, 2008, p. 13).

To shift this paradigm, Lance Bennett stresses a need to place a focus on the youth for the sake of

posterity. Yet, for this to happen, young adults must be met on their turf. This means promoting a


democratic educational curriculum in schools which facilitates learning through a constructionist

form of shared, tangential experiences in lieu of a curriculum that strips away youth individuality

for the sake of a structured model of industrial-era learning.Therefore, the use of technological

mediums such as learning management systems (i.e. Blackboard, Moodle, and others), course

Wikis, TEDx Talk video clips, iClickers, Skype sessions with other educators, e-books, and other

forms of technological artifacts are decisive to facilitating civic learning inside and outside of the

classroom.

Experiential Learning.

The final, but pivotal step in the integration of a civically-based form of curriculum in

democratic schools is the use of experiential learning. In the context of this curriculum design, I

would propose the weekly Activity module be dedicated towards solving a real world problem,

using the lesson from the previous class. During students’ participatory years (9th and 10th

grade) they can find applied methods in solving local social or governmental problems through

creative/critical thinking activities. During their justice-oriented years (11th and 12th grade)

students can work in researching larger scale problems such as race disparities, poverty and

hunger and attempt to derive those problem’s root causes. They can then work with peers and

other officials towards solving those issues and bringing them to the public’s attention for redress

and consideration. As a result, students will have had the opportunity to learn what it means to be

an active citizen, while having served as an active citizen during their education

Research Methodology

In an effort to maximize available resources and garner a full spectrum approach towards

discovering whether this model is functional, I would first conduct a focus group with educators


and receive feedback on the curriculum design. Once I receive their feedback and adjust the

design, I would proceed to develop the curriculum for the individual course modules and

implement them into a series of classrooms. The selection of the classrooms would be through

the use of stratified random sampling across at least 10 democratic institutions who would

willingly participate. Once the program of study is implemented I would use the following

methods as the basis for data accrual: (1) Individual Interviews, (2) Group Interviews, (3)

Surveys, (4) Pre/Post-Testing, and (5) Observations.

Individual Interviews.

Conducting interviews is a decisive research method in obtaining instructor and student

feedback. Using individual, semi-structured one-on-one interviews as a vehicle I would delve

into the students’ perceptions of the course design and the curriculum. However, I would also

interview the instructors to “gather information about what factors participants identified as

supporting (or hindering) their work as effective civic educators” (Kanner, 2005).

Group Interviews.

In an effort to “maximize the participants’ opportunity to share their ideas” I would

conduct two separate group interviews at each of the 10 democratic educational institutions; one

with randomly selected student participants and another with randomly selected instructor

participants. The session would offer the participants time to discuss their experiences as civic

educators and the participants their beliefs in how other teachers might encourage and prepare

students to prepare students for participatory citizenship using the course design I would provide

and/or other pedagogical methods. The group interview would also serve as a way to form

“action research” through the bringing together of multiple people for the purpose of garnering


others’ ideas, in lieu of operating in a vacuum, resulting in the research method embodying “the

democratic principles that provide the foundation” for the my research (Kanner, 2005).

Surveys.

In an effort to gather additional data the participants and other may not feel comfortable

with speaking about in person, I would use two separate surveys: a survey for students and a

survey for the instructors who have the most responsibility in the facilitation of civics education

at their institution. In the survey I would gather administrative data and ask generalized and

detailed questions as to both respondents’ thoughts on the civic curriculum. Using SPSS, I would

then be able to successfully analyze the feedback note the representative thoughts of those

involved in the study.

Pre/Post-Testing.

Pre/Post-Testing provides students the opportunity to show their knowledge of the course

curriculum before and after receipt. It also provides a gauge for the instructor as to their students’

status in each learning area and individual learning objectives and to see where they might

increase their focus the following class or semester. For the purposes of this research, pre/post-

testing provides the researcher with sound data as to whether the material is useful in increasing

student knowledge of a body of civically-based curriculum within a set timeframe.

Observations.

Finally, I would also use classroom observations to study the teaching practices and to

see whether the curriculum “meets muster” in terms of quality and service to the instructor and

student. I would also take a qualitative approach in my observations of the instructor and student

interaction with the curriculum, using field notes to “record pedagogical strategies, make initial


interpretations” and examine whether the curriculum, as it is used in the classroom, reflects the

original intent and what might be done to adjust it to meet the democratic institutions’ framework

(Kanner, 2005). However, I would conduct the observations before the Individual or Group

Interviews. This is due to my not wanting to let the opportunity pass to garner “stimuli” for the

development of interview questions and to gain a more thorough understanding of the

instructors’ pedagogical thought processes that influence in their instructional methodologies and

to see how students interact with the curriculum and see their unbridled thoughts during use.

Conclusion

Through the integration of a body of curriculum that challenges students to become

active students, democratic schools can bridge the gap in an ongoing civic education deficit.

Towards that end, this study has sought to provide a general roadmap by: (1) looking at the

background of democratic education; (2) suggesting the existence of a pedagogical a problem of

practice in civic education; (3) proposing an hypothesis as to how to address the problem of

practice; (4) and purports a research design for use in designing, developing implementing and

evaluating a fully functional body of civically-based curriculum in democratic institutions

domestically and internationally. Admittedly, there is still more research needed towards

determining the validity of the research design in this study. Yet, the point remains that students

need a base of civic knowledge to be active citizens in a democracy; however, ongoing research

will allow for more time to discover even better ways to continue to make that point possible.

!!!


References

About SVS. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.sudval.com/01_abou_09.html.

Auden, W. (1948). The Dyer’s Hand and Other Essays (p. 5). New York, NY: Random House.

Bennett, W. (Ed.). (2008). Civic Life Online: Learning How Digital Media Can Engage Youth.

Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Dewey, J. (1916). Philosophy of Education. In Democracy and Education (p. 33). Norwood, MA:

Norwood Press.

Education for Democracy. (2003). Washington, D.C.: Albert Shanker Institute.

Gray, P., & Chanoff, D. (1986). Democratic Schooling: What Happens To Young People Who

Have Charge Of Their Own Education? American Journal of Education, 94(2), 182-182.

Retrieved November 6, 2014, from www.jstor.com.

Greenberg, D. (n.d.). Is SVS Really a School? Retrieved November 6, 2014, from http://

www.sudval.com/05_underlyingideas.html#08.

Kahne, J., & Westheimer, J. (2003). Teaching democracy: What schools need to do. Phi Delta

Kappan, 85(1), 34-40.

Kanner, E. (2005). Chapter 2: Description of Study. In Doing democracy: A study of nine

effective civic educators. (pp. 33-51). Cambridge, MA.

(n.d.). Retrieved December 1, 2014, from http://www.idenetwork.org/democratic-schools.htm.

Bennis, D. (n.d.). What is Democratic Education. Retrieved December 1, 2014, from http://

democraticeducation.org/index.php/features/what-is-democratic-education/.

Oppenheimer, M. (2014, January 5). Would You Send Your Kids to a School Where Students

http://www.idenetwork.org/democratic-schools.htm


Make the Rules? Retrieved November 6, 2014, from http://www.newrepublic.com/article/

116015/sudbury- valley-school-alternative-education-right-my-kids.

Pondiscio, R., Sewall, G., Stotsky, S., & McDougall, W. (2013). Shortchanging the Future: The

Crisis of History and Civics in American Schools. A Pioneer Institute White Paper, 100.

Povenzo, E., & Renaud, J. (Eds.). (2009). Encyclopedia of the Social and Cultural Foundations

of Education (Vol. 1-3). Los Angeles: Sage.

Print, M., & Lange, D. (2012). A curriculum framework for active democratic citizenship

education. Schools, Curriculum and Civic Education for Building Democratic

Citizens. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense.

Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). What Kind of Citizen?: The Politics of Educating for

Democracy. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 237-269.

!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/


Appendex 1

Table Two Modules of Instruction for Active Civic Education Curriculum (Print & Lange, 2012, p. 32) !!!!!!Area of Learning: Knowledge !!!!!!Learning Objectives: Political Knowledge, Social Knowledge, Cultural Knowledge and !!!!!!Economic Knowledge __________________________________________________________________________ Political Knowledge Social Knowledge __________________________________________________________________________ Political and legal system Social relations Basic concept, principles and institutions of Social rights democracy The function and work of voluntary groups Distribution of power and authority and civil society throughout history Social differences (welfare, social security, Concept of democratic citizenship health etc.) Citizens rights and responsibilities including human rights Political decision making on local, national and international level Current political issues Main events, trends and change agents of national, European and world history Media literacy and the role of media in personal and social life National and international security __________________________________________________________________________ Cultural Knowledge Economic Knowledge __________________________________________________________________________ History and cultural heritage of own country Economic rights Predominance of certain dominant roles and Economic principles and consequences of values economic development Different cultures in the local, regional, Key financial matters and associated national, and global context economic literacy Preservation of the environment Sustainable development locally and internationally

!!Area of Learning: Values, Attitudes and Dispositions !!!!!!Learning Objectives: Values, Attitudes and Dispositions __________________________________________________________________________ Values Attitudes Dispositions __________________________________________________________________________ Acceptance of the rule Commitment to truth The intention to of law Open mindedness participate in the Respect for human dignity Commitment to peace and political community Respect for human rights constructive solutions to The intention to be active Believing in democracy problems in the community


Believing in peace Feeling confident to The intention to Believing in social engage politically participate in civil justice, equality and equal Trusting in democratic civil society treatment of citizens principles, institutions Rejection of prejudice, and procedures as well as racism and all kind of importance of civil action discrimination Feeling responsible for own Believing in solidarity decisions and actions Respect for tolerance and Commitment to the value toward differences of mutual understanding, Respect for reasoning cooperation, trust and Believing in preservation solidarity of environment Commitment to the principles Believing in sustainable of sustainable development development Sense of belonging Valuing the freedom Valuing the fairness !!!!Area of Learning: Skills !!!!!!Learning Objectives: General Skills and Participation Skills __________________________________________________________________________ General Skills Participation Skills __________________________________________________________________________ Critical thinking Monitoring and influencing policies Critical examination of information and decisions including participating in Distinguishing statements of facts from an peaceful protesting opinion Resolving conflicts in a peaceful way Reaching a balanced judgement, decision Participating voluntarily-civil organizations or point of view based on critical as a member or contribution examination of information and reasoning Building cooperation and coalitions Defending reached position Displaying democratic leadership Problem solving Living in a multicultural environment Decision making Handling all kind of difference including Creative thinking gender, social, cultural, racial, and Inquiry skills religious Communication skills Engagement in protection environment Using media in an active way Ethical consumption and boycotting

unethical products

!!

integrating democratic civic education into democratic schools using technological artifacts and...

Documents