civic and political education building democratic citizens ... · pdf filemurray print and...

Schools, Curriculum and Civic Education for Building Dem

ocratic CitizensM

urray Print and Dirk Lange (Eds.)

Spine 8.484 mm

C I V I C A N D P O L I T I C A L E D U C A T I O N

Schools, Curriculum and Civic Education for Building Democratic CitizensMurray Print and Dirk Lange (Eds.)

S e n s e P u b l i s h e r s C A P E 2

C I V I C A N D P O L I T I C A L E D U C A T I O N

Schools, Curriculum and Civic Education for Building Democratic Citizens Murray PrintUniversity of Sydney, Australia

and

Dirk Lange (Eds.)Leibniz Universität Hannover, Germany

How can schools and the school curriculum contribute to building democratic citizens? This is a major question posed by governments, educational systems, schools, teachers and researchers around the world. One important way is to identify the competences needed for preparing democratic citizens and incorporate these within both the formal and informal school curriculum. Another question must then be posed- what competences do young citizens need to be considered as active and engaged in modern democracies?

In 2011 an invited research symposium of leading civic and political educators, and social scientists from across Europe met in Hannover, Germany to consider this key concern facing Europe today. In examining the above questions the symposium addressed two significant 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.

The publication Civic Education and Competences for Engaging Citizens in Democracies addressed the first issue and this volume addresses the second issue. Through discussion in the invited symposium, previously prepared papers, and participation in a modified Delphi Technique the participants have prepared chapters for this book. The chapters of this book represent the contribution of the participants before, during and after the symposium with opportunities for review and reflection about competences for democratic citizenship and the role of schools and the curriculum.

Murray Print and Dirk Lange are professors from the University of Sydney and Leibniz Universität Hannover, Germany respectively and are national leaders in civics and citizenship education in their respective countries. They have brought together a group of leading European civic and citizenship educators from different academic fields to explore the key issue and to identify the competences for young people to become active and engaged European citizens.

ISBN 978-94-6209-165-8

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.

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).

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.

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


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.

civic and political education building democratic citizens ... · pdf filemurray print and...

Documents