Gainous & Martens 2012. the Effectiveness of Civic Education. Are 'Goog' Teachers Actually Good for...

7/28/2019 Gainous & Martens 2012. the Effectiveness of Civic Education. Are 'Goog' Teachers Actually Good for 'All' Students.

1/36

http://apr.sagepub.com/American Politics Research

http://apr.sagepub.com/content/40/2/232The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1532673X114194922011

2012 40: 232 originally published online 8 NovemberAmerican Politics ResearchJason Gainous and Allison M. Martens

Good for ''All'' Students?The Effectiveness of Civic Education : Are ''Good'' Teachers Actually

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

APR at the University of Illinois

can be found at:American Politics ResearchAdditional services and information for

http://apr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://apr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://apr.sagepub.com/content/40/2/232.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Nov 8, 2011OnlineFirst Version of Record

at Charite-Universitaet medizin on November 15, 2012apr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://apr.sagepub.com/http://apr.sagepub.com/http://apr.sagepub.com/http://apr.sagepub.com/content/40/2/232http://apr.sagepub.com/content/40/2/232http://www.sagepublications.com/https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/bjgaines/APR/APR_Home.htmlhttps://netfiles.uiuc.edu/bjgaines/APR/APR_Home.htmlhttp://apr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://apr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://apr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://apr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://apr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://apr.sagepub.com/content/40/2/232.refs.htmlhttp://apr.sagepub.com/content/40/2/232.refs.htmlhttp://apr.sagepub.com/content/40/2/232.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://apr.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/09/14/1532673X11419492.full.pdfhttp://apr.sagepub.com/http://apr.sagepub.com/http://apr.sagepub.com/http://apr.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://apr.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/09/14/1532673X11419492.full.pdfhttp://apr.sagepub.com/content/40/2/232.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://apr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://apr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttps://netfiles.uiuc.edu/bjgaines/APR/APR_Home.htmlhttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://apr.sagepub.com/content/40/2/232http://apr.sagepub.com/


2/36

American Politics Research40(2) 232266

The Author(s) 2012

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1532673X11419492http://apr.sagepub.com

APR 40 2 10.1177/1532673X11419492GaensAmerican PoliticsResearch) 2012

rmission:urnalsPermissions.nav

1University o Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA

Corresponding Author:

Jason Gainous, Department o Political Science, University o Louisville,

Ford Hall Room 406, Louisville, KY 40292, USA

Email: [email protected]

The Effectiveness of Civic

Education: Are Good

Teachers Actually Good

for All Students?

Jason Gainous1 and Allison M. Martens1

Abstract

Past research has explored the eectiveness o civic education in Americasclassrooms. We build on these eorts using a survey o American students totest whether civics instruction enhances students political knowledge, politi-cal eicacy, and their voting intent. We reer to these outcomes, collectively,as democratic capacity. Recognizing that not all classroom experiences are

created equal, we break new ground by exploring the degree to which theeectiveness o civic education is conditioned on variation in instructionalmethods employed by teachers. We also examine how variation in studentshome environment aects the eectiveness o civic education. The resultssuggest that civic education seems to inluence democratic capacity only orthose students who come rom less privileged backgrounds and that teach-ers who use a wider range o instructional methods appear to deter thestimulation o knowledge or these students while simultaneously boosting

their eicacy. We discuss the implications o these indings.

Keywords

civic education, classroom eects, political knowledge, efcacy, participation

http://apr.sagepub.com/http://apr.sagepub.com/http://apr.sagepub.com/http://apr.sagepub.com/


3/36

Gainous and Martens 233

For a democracy to function meaningfully, it requires an informed and engaged

citizenry capable of participating effectively in its own self-governance.

Jeffersons declaration that the just powers of government are derived from

the consent of the governed would be reduced to little more than hollow aspi-

ration if large numbers of ordinary citizens lacked the will or the wherewithal

for civic participation. To live up to this founding principle of democratic

practice, Americas leaders have from the beginning promoted civic education

(Kaestle & Foner, 1983). Washington (1796), in his farewell address to the

nation, argued that in a democracy, it is essential that public opinion should be

enlightened. (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp). Jefferson

(1903) agreed, suggesting in 1820 that the remedy for an uninformed populace

was not less democracy but rather to inform their discretion by education(p. 278).

Todays policymakers remain no less convinced that civic education is

essential to the health of Americas democracy and part of the special and

historic responsibility of our schools to provide for the development of

civic competence and civic responsibility (National Assessment Governing

Board, 2010, p. 5). Many states make civic literacy a constitutional commitment,

and Congress requires periodic testing of Americas schoolchildren for profi-

ciency in civics (Gibson & Levine, 2003, p. 5). The American public is like-wise committed to civic education, frequently ranking the preparation of

students for responsible citizenship as the most important purpose of public

schools (Crabtree, 2005; Rose & Gallup, 2000, p. 47). This conviction is

shared by political scientists and theorists, who have long recognized and

touted an indispensible connection between civic education and competent

democratic citizenship (Dewey, 1916; Galston, 2001; Gutmann, 1987;

Merriam, 1931, 1934; Nie, Junn, & Stehlik-Barry, 1996; Niemi & Junn, 1998;

Pangle & Pangle, 2000).However, is this strong normative and material commitment to civic edu-

cation well placed? We study the effectiveness of civic education in Americas

ninth-grade classrooms, testing whether civics instruction enhances students

political knowledge, increases their political efficacy, or stimulates their vot-

ing intent, each one an important tool or quality necessary to competent,

informed, and participatory citizenship, which we will refer to as democratic

capacity. However, given the size, diversity, and fragmentation of Americas

education system, civics instruction is hardly uniform in either design or

delivery (Niemi, 1973).1 Recognizing that not all classroom experiences are

created equal, we break new ground by exploring the degree to which the

effectiveness of civic education is conditioned on variation in the instructional

methods teachers employ. Of course, not all learning takes place in the

http://apr.sagepub.com/http://apr.sagepub.com/http://apr.sagepub.com/


4/36

234 American Politics Research40(2)

classroom, and to account for external influences on democratic capacity,

we also examine in depth how variation in students home environment

affects the effectiveness of civic education. We find that civic education

increases democratic capacity only for those students who come from less

privileged backgrounds. The results also highlight some interesting and

important differences in its effectiveness driven by both instructional varia-

tion and external influences on students. Specifically, teachers who use a

wider range of instructional methods seem to deter the stimulation of

knowledge among the less privileged while simultaneously boosting their

efficacy. By examining both the degree to and manner in which civic edu-

cation improves, if at all, the democratic capacity of Americas youth, we

contribute important new empirical perspective to policy discussions regard-ing this critical and historically special responsibility of our schools.

Civic Education and Democratic Capacity

Education undoubtedly functions as a key factor in improving the political

knowledge and socialization of Americas youth. Converse (1972) called educa-

tion the universal solvent of political knowledge and engagement (p. 324).

He is not alone in his findings. Study after study demonstrates a connectionbetween educational attainment and increased political knowledge and civic

engagement as well as greater acceptance of basic democratic norms (Almond

& Verba, 1963; Campbell, Converse, Miller, & Stokes, 1960; Converse, 1964;

Delli Carpini & Keeter, 1996; Marsh & Kaase, 1979; McClosky & Zaller, 1984;

Neuman, 1986; Nie et al., 1996; Niemi & Junn, 1998; Putnam, 2000; Sullivan,

Piereson, & Marcus, 1982; Verba, Schlozman, & Brady, 1995; Zaller, 1992).

Despite this critical relationship of education to democratic capacity, political

scientists traditionally dismissed civics instruction in American classroomsas ineffective, particularly in the stimulation of political knowledge (Beck,

1977; Langton & Jennings, 1968; Merelman, 1971; Robinson, Anderson,

Hermann, & Snyder, 1966; Somit, Tanenhaus, Wilke, & Cooley, 1958).

Education generally might have civic benefit, but research suggested civic

education itself was not a contributor to democratic capacity.

In 1998, Niemi and Junn challenged this conventional wisdom, demon-

strating that civics instruction in fact increased students political knowledge,

which is the backbone of democratic capacity. Without sufficient political

knowledge, neither can citizens operate as effectively to recognize and to real-

ize their interests and goals nor are they as likely to view the democratic order

favorably (Galston, 2001, pp. 223-226; Niemi & Junn, 1998, pp. 8-13; Milner,

2002). Studying the performance of high school seniors on the 1988 National



5/36


Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Civics Assessment, Niemi and

Junn (1998) found that students who received civics instruction scored on

average 4% points higher on the assessment. Although this improvement was

modest, given the generally low level of political knowledge of Americas

youth, even small gains are encouraging and important (Delli Carpini & Keeter,

1996; Torney-Purta, 2002). Subsequent studies likewise show modest gains

in political knowledge as a result of civics instruction, including specialized

civic education programs that supplement traditional social studies coursework

(Feldman, Pasek, Romer, & Jamieson, 2007; Hartry & Porter, 2004; McDevitt

& Kiousis, 2006; Pasek, Feldman, Romer, & Jamieson, 2008; Turnbull, Root,

Billig, & Jaramillo, 2007; Vercellotti & Matto, 2010).

Of course, political knowledge is only one component of democraticcapacity. Political efficacy, or the belief in ones competence and influence as

a political actor, is also critical. After all, an informed but inactive citizenry

would get us no closer to our democratic ideal (Galston, 2004; Nie et al.,

1996; Niemi & Junn, 1998). As Almond and Verba (1963) explain, (t)he self-

confident citizen appears to be the democratic citizen (p. 257). In fact, such

political confidence, or efficacy, is consistently associated with actual politi-

cal engagement (Almond & Verba, 1963; Campbell et al., 1960; Niemi,

Craig, & Mattei, 1991; Rosenstone & Hansen, 1993; Verba & Nie, 1972;Verba et al., 1995). Fortunately, after a long period of neglect, researchers

have begun to study anew the relationship of civic education to political

socialization to determine if students citizenship is becoming not only better

informed, as asserted by Niemi and Junn, but also more confident and active

as a result of civic education (Campbell, 2007, 2008; Conover & Searing,

2000; Gimpel, Lay, & Schuknecht, 2003; Macedo, 2000; Niemi, Hepburn, &

Chapman, 2000).

Political efficacy has both an internal and an external component (Balch,1974; Converse, 1972).Internal efficacy refers to an individuals sense of his

or her own competence to understand and effectively participate in politics,

whereas external efficacy refers to an individuals beliefs in the responsive-

ness of government to citizen demands. This distinction is important for the

study of civic education as fostering internal efficacy has been identified as a

particularly important mission for schools (Kahne & Westheimer, 2006).

Such a recommendation is not surprising, given the low level of political

motivation among todays youth as well as the significance of the early devel-

opment of political efficacy, particularly in adolescence, to political engage-

ment (Delli Carpini, 2000; Easton & Dennis, 1969; Hess & Torney-Purta,

1967; Jennings & Niemi, 1974, 1981; Lopez et al., 2006; Niemi & Sobieszek,

1977). Therefore, targeting political competence in particular for improvement



6/36


seems wise. Also, for some groups such as African Americans, high levels of

internal efficacy coupled with low levels of external efficacy have actually

prompted political participation to demand social justice (Shingles, 1981).

Thus, Junn (2004) and Kahne and Westheimer (2006) caution schools to be

careful in attempts to stimulate political efficacy, particularly in diverse class-

rooms, as the relationship between internal and external efficacy is complex.

Raising levels of external efficacy through civic education that promotes

potentially false impressions among some youth of governments responsive-

ness to their needs may have deleterious effects (Kahne & Westheimer, 2006,

pp. 292-293).

Finally, political engagement can take many valuable forms, such as lob-

bying, campaign activity, or protest, but voting functions as the bedrock ofdemocratic participation. Voting serves both expressive and instrumental pur-

poses in a democracy. It not only functions as the most direct formal link

between citizens and their representatives, thereby serving as a source of gov-

ernment legitimacy and a vehicle by which citizens discharge their civic duty,

but also represents the most common form of political activity, to which

Americans have the greatest access and equality regardless of race, sex, or

class (Campbell, 2006; Lijphart, 1997; Riker & Ordeshook, 1973; Rosenstone

& Hansen, 1993; Verba et al., 1995; Wolfinger & Rosenstone, 1980). Thus,stimulating future voting intent is crucial for the enhancement of young

peoples democratic capacity, vis--vis other forms of political participation,

and a critical goal of civic education in its own right, and recent scholarship

suggests that civic education stimulates students voting intent (Campbell,

2007, 2008; Pasek et al., 2008).

By testing the effects of civic education on ninth graders nationwide as to

political knowledge, political efficacy, and voting intent, which we collec-

tively term democratic capacity, we expand the scope of current research toprovide an integrated and more thoroughgoing account of civic educations

usefulness in creating active and informed young citizens. Our expectation

is that we will confirm recent findings as to civic educations positive effects

on knowledge, efficacy, and voting intent.

Classroom Effects and Democratic Capacity

Given the variation in civics instruction across classrooms in America, it is

important to figure out what works best in enhancing the democratic capacity

of students to ensure the most productive allocation of scarce educational

resources. Recently, scholars have focused on the effects of an open classroom

climate on the effectiveness of civic education. An open classroom climate



7/36


refers to discussion of political issues in the classroom, where students are

exposed to political discourse and debate and encouraged to embrace and to

learn from respectful disagreement. Discussion, then, is a way of engaging

students in both political processes and political ideas (Hess, 2004; Hibbing

& Theiss-Morse, 1996). Campbell (2007, 2008) finds that an open classroom

climate indeed contributes to students democratic capacity, stimulating not

only knowledge but also efficacy and voting intent. Other scholars have also

reported the positive effects on democratic capacity of including classroom

discussion in civics instruction (Andolina, Jenkins, Zukin, & Keeter, 2003;

Feldman et al., 2007; Hess & Posselt, 2002; McDevitt & Kiousis, 2006;

Niemi & Junn, 1998; Pasek et al., 2008; Torney-Purta, 2002; Vercellotti &

Matto, 2010).Maintaining an open classroom climate, however, is just one of several

developing pedagogical approaches, which many in the education field con-

sider to be essential to positive learning outcomes. Active learning techniques

have also become extremely popular. Active learning can be characterized in

different ways but is generally defined as any instructional method that engages

students in the learning process, meaning that students are actively doing

things to learn and thinking consciously about what they are doing as they learn

(Bonwell & Eison, 1991). Active learning, which is a student-centered formof instruction, is believed to improve student motivation, creating more dynamic

and confident learners, and may also aid in reaching students whose learning

styles are not responsive to passive forms of instruction (Bonwell & Eison,

1991; Silberman, 1996; Zmuda, 2008). Active learning methods may be par-

ticularly important and appropriate in social studies courses where student-

centered learning may best model citizenship in a democracy (Thornton, 2005).

Classroom discussion, as discussed above, is one active learning technique

that has been isolated for its positive effect on students democratic capacity,but there is some evidence that civics instruction that includes assorted active

learning techniques, such as role playing and simulations, cooperative learn-

ing, community involvement, research projects, and media analysis, also

improves students democratic capacity over and above traditional forms of

passive instruction, such as worksheets, lectures, or textbook reading (Billig,

Root, & Jesse, 2005; Kahne, Chi, & Middaugh, 2006). There is also a grow-

ing literature on the effectiveness of service learning, an increasingly popular

student-centered learning technique, as a vital component of civic education

(Billig et al., 2005; Hart, Donnelly, Youniss, & Atkins, 2007; Kahne et al.,

2006; Kahne & Sporte, 2008; Kahne & Westheimer, 2006; Niemi et al., 2000;

Youniss & Yates, 1997). Thus, multiple active learning techniques may be



8/36


suitable for improving democratic capacity, giving teachers ample opportu-

nity for variation in their instructional methods.

In addition to open classrooms and active learning, differentiated instruc-

tion has also recently gained favor in the education community. Classrooms

today are diverse, not only as to students backgrounds but also as to students

abilities (Gardner, 1991, 1993, 2006; Tomlinson, 1999, 2003). In recognition

of this variation in the needs and talents of the student population, teachers

today are being encouraged to diversify their instruction to reach as wide a

range of students as possible. This entails employing a wide variety of teaching

methods in the classroom, including but not limited to increasingly popular

active learning techniques.

Currently, there are two main movements in education to acknowledgeand to address these differences in students abilities: multiple intelligences

theory and differentiated instruction. Both approaches stress multiplying the

opportunities for students to acquire and process content in the classroom.

Gardner (1991, 1993, 2006) pioneered multiple intelligences theory, arguing

that students learn in different ways. For instance, intelligences might be spatial

or linguistic or logical, which have been typically valued and cultivated in

education, or they might be musical or interpersonal or kinesthetic, which have

not been traditionally valued and cultivated in education. Thus, schoolsshould expand their instructional approaches to successfully teach to the mul-

tiple intelligences of students. Tomlinson (1999, 2003), a leading innovator

of differentiated instruction, also recommends shaking up traditional instruc-

tional approaches by recognizing that a one-size-fits-all curriculum and teach-

ing approach is impractical for the average classroom, where a wide range

of abilities, talents, and learning styles will be represented. There have been

numerous adaptations and iterations of multiple intelligences theory and dif-

ferentiated instruction by educational practitioners in recent years, but a con-sistent theme that runs through them all is the need for instructional breadth

and variety to meet the demands of a diverse classroom (Blaz, 2008; Campbell,

1997; Campbell, Campbell, & Dickinson, 2004; Gregory & Chapman, 2007;

Heacox, 2002, 2009; Huebner, 2010; Nunley, 2006; Silver & Strong, 1997;

Sprenger, 2003; Tomlinson, Brimijoin, & Narvaez, 2008; Tomlinson &

McTighe, 2006).

Given this emphasis on differentiation in teaching methods as part of the

latest best practices in education, social studies teachers may be broadening

their instructional repertoire to include a greater mix of both traditional teach-

ing and active learning techniques, but scholars have yet to study the effects

of such on civic education and its effectiveness. Regarding teaching practices,

so far we have been limited to studies on the desirability of curricular breadth



9/36


(the number of topics covered) in stimulating democratic capacity as well as

studies that isolate particular instructional techniques for their effectiveness,

most often student-centered learning approaches, like service learning or role

playing, or open classroom climate (Niemi & Junn, 1998). We go a step fur-

ther by exploring whether instructional breadth, which accounts for the pro-

liferating range of teaching techniques employed in the classroom, is similarly

desirable for civics instruction, as the latest recommendations of educational

practitioners would suggest.

Home Environment and Democratic Capacity

No matter how effective civics instruction might be, however, schools areonly one of the key agents of political socialization. Verba et al. (1995) have

also identified home environment as an important indicator of later civic

engagement, and there have been numerous studies that explore the critical

role of the family in the political socialization of youth and the development

of their democratic capacity (Almond & Verba, 1963; Andolina et al., 2003;

Jennings & Niemi, 1974; Jennings, Stoker, and Bowers, 2009; Kahne & Sporte,

2008; Langton, 1969; McIntosh, Hart, & Youniss, 2007). In the context of

civic education, scholars have recently found that home environment influencesstudents democratic capacity, particularly as to the availability of read-

ing material, news consumption, and the stimulation of political discussion

in the home (McDevitt & Kiousis, 2006; Niemi & Junn, 1998; Vercellotti &

Matto, 2010).

Recent research on home environment and civic education, however, has

not addressed the possibility that home environment actually conditions the

effects of civic education. External influences on students are typically

treated simply as an explanatory or control variable in a model of democraticcapacity. We explore whether variation in home environment can actually

complement or possibly preempt the effectiveness of civics instruction at

stimulating democratic capacity. Does home environment make civic educa-

tion more or less effective in building citizenship?

To summarize, our goals are threefold. First, by providing an integrated

analysis of the effects of civics instruction on democratic capacity, which

includes political knowledge, political efficacy, and intent to vote, we seek to

offer a fuller account of the usefulness of civic education in building compe-

tent and informed and participatory citizens. Second, by extending the focus

on classroom effects on civic education by exploring the value of instructional

breadth, we hope to provide guidance to educators in crafting their approach

to teaching civics. Finally, by providing a more in-depth look at home envi-

ronment and its influence on civics instruction relative to classroom effects,



10/36


we seek to further clarify how, when, and which students benefit most from

civic education.

Data and Measurement

The data come from a study conducted by the International Association for

the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). The National Center for

Education Statistics (NCES) sponsored the 1999 IEA Civic Education Study

in the United States. The assessment was administered to 2,811 students across

124 public and private schools nationwide in ninth grade, the grade in which

most 14-year-olds were enrolled at the time of the assessment. In addition,

their teachers and principals were surveyed making a total of three data sets.We merged several contextual variables from the teacher and principal data

with the student data (i.e., each student from the same class was assigned the

same value based on the responses of their respective teachers and principals

across several variables described below). There were 2,615 usable cases

after imputing because some of the teachers did not respond.2

After exploring the distribution of student responses to a series of ques-

tions about U.S. government and its basic functions, external and internal effi-

cacy, and the intent to vote as adults, we model indices of each as a functionof the number of instructional techniques employed by their teachers

(Instructional Breadth), the frequency they received social studies instruction

(Social Studies Frequency), the range of civics topics covered in said classes

(Curricular Breadth), whether their social studies class focused on civics or

government or some other type of social studies (i.e., geography, history,

economics etc.; Other Social Studies), whether the teacher encouraged an

open classroom environment (Open Class), the aggregate socioeconomic sta-

tus of the school measured as a function of the percentage of students eligiblefor free lunch (School SES), how civically engaged the students were (Civic

Engagement), a series of indicators of ways students may learn outside of

school (Home Environment), and demographics (Female, Latino, and Black).3

Following these models, we reestimate the models but with subsamples for

those above and below the mean on the Home Environment Index. This

allows us to test whether the observed effects for the full sample models are

consistent across varied conditions outside the school.

We measure our first dependent variable, Political Knowledge, using an

index constructed from eight items (see the appendix). In each, a multiple

choice question addressing some aspect of U.S. government including the

Constitution, representation, interest groups, the courts, the Bill of Rights,

and Congress was given to respondents. We created dummy variables for

each assigning incorrect answers a 0 and correct answers a 1. These items were



11/36


then summed. Thus, higher scores represent greater knowledge. The next two

dependent variables, also measured using indices, are External Efficacy and

Internal Efficacy (see the appendix). The former is based on six questions that

tap respondents attitudes about how well government responds to the will of

the people and the latter is based on three items that tap respondents belief

that they do or will have the capacity to influence government personally.

Finally, we measure Intent to Vote with a single indicator: When you are an

adult, what do you expect that you will do? Vote in national elections (I will

certainly not do this, I will probably not do this, I will probably do this, I will

certainly do this). Clearly, students in a ninth-grade social studies course are

still several years away from voting, so this indicator may be little more than

a proxy for how well they understood the lessons about democracy. It mayrepresent the importance they attribute to voting. Nonetheless, even in this

case, this is not inconsistent with our theoretical framework centered on dem-

ocratic capacity. One will be more likely to actually vote if they believe it is

important to do so.

We have three measures of civic education. The first is an additive index

of 12 items that measures Instructional Breadth. Respondents were asked the

following questions:

Do you read from your textbook when you study social studies?

Do you memorize material you have read when you study social

studies?

Do you read extra material not in your textbook (such as newspapers,

magazines, maps, charts, or cartoons) when you study social studies?

Do you fill out worksheets when you study social studies?

Do you write reports when you study social studies?

Do you discuss current events when you study social studies? Do you watch television shows, videos, or filmstrips in class when

you study social studies?

Do you discuss television shows, videos, or filmstrips when you

study social studies?

Do you take part in debates or panel discussions when you study

social studies?

Do you take part in role-playing, mock trials, or dramas when you

study social studies?

Do you write a letter to give your opinion or help solve a community

problem when you study social studies?

Do you have visits from people in your community to learn

about important events and ideas when you study social studies?

( = .76).



12/36


The second captures Social Studies Frequency: How often do you study

social studies in school? (never or hardly ever, once or twice a month, once

or twice a week, almost every day).4 The third is an additive index of nine

items that we call Curricular Breadth. Respondents were asked the following

questions: Over the past year have you studied . . .

the United States Constitution?

Congress?

the President and the Cabinet?

how laws are made?

the court system? political parties, elections, and voting?

state and local government?

other countries government?

international organizations (such as the United Nations)? ( = .85)

Each of these three measures is used to capture a different instructional

aspect of civic education.

It is important to control for factors outside school that may account forstudents level of knowledge. As noted above, we also test to see whether the

effects of civic education are conditional on these factors. Thus, we construct

an index of such factors from the following nine items and call it Home

Environment:

How many years of further education do you expect to complete

after this year? (0, 1-2, 3-4, 4-5, 6-7, 7-8, 9-10, more than 10

years) How much education did your mother/father receive? (did not finish

elementary school, finished elementary school, finished some high

school, finished high school, some vocational/technical school after

high school, some community college, college or university courses,

completed a bachelors degree at a college or university)

About how many books are there in your home? (1-10, 11-50, 51-100,

101-200, more than 200)

How often do you have discussions of what is happening in the

U.S. government with people of your own age? (never, rarely, some-

times, often)

How often do you have discussions of what is happening in the U.S.

government with parents or other adult family members? (never,

rarely, sometimes, often)



13/36


How often do you read articles in the newspaper about what is hap-

pening in this country? (never, rarely, sometimes, often)

How often do you watch news broadcasts on television? (never, rarely,

sometimes, often)

How often do you listen to news broadcasts on the radio? (never,

rarely, sometimes, often; = .58).

AnalysisTo put the inferential analyses that follow into context, we start by reporting

the distribution of responses on the individual items that make up all four

Table 1. Distribution on the Dependent Variable Items

% SD

Political knowledge (% correct)

Powers o the president o the United States 60.8 0.49

Source o number o electoral votes 25.9 0.44

What NGOs all have in common 27.7 0.45

Function o the court 41.6 0.49

What Bill o Rights address 77.1 0.42

Fourth Amendment 42.6 0.49

Nature o rights in the constitution 43.8 0.50

Eighth Amendment 58.8 0.49External eicacy (% [dis]agree/strongly [dis]agree)

Care people think o new laws 41.9 0.75

Find out what ordinary people want 44.2 0.78

Care little about peoples opinions 42.6 0.73

Few have lot political power 35.9 0.73

Quickly orget voters needs 30.8 0.82

Internal eicacy (% agree/strongly agree)

Know more about politics 25.6 0.71

Take part in political discussions 60.8 0.73Understand most political issues 62.3 0.77

Intent to vote (% probably/certainly)

Plan to vote as an adult 85.5 0.27

Note: Number o cases = 2,811. Data come rom a 1999 national study conducted by the In-ternational Association or the Evaluation o Educational Achievement (IEA). The eicacy itemsand intent to vote item were on 4-point scales.



14/36


dependent variables. First, as Table 1 shows, there is quite a bit of variance

across the political knowledge items. Among those questions that many students

were able to answer correctly are whose rights the Bill of Rights addresses

(77.1%), from where the powers of the president are derived (60.8%), and

which amendment deals with cruel and unusual punishment (58.8%). We are

not surprised that the former two are high, but the latter finding is a bit unex-

pected. This result is possibly driven by the question wording. After being

given an example of cruel and unusual punishment, respondents were given

the First, Fifth, Eighth, and Ninth Amendments as possible amendments that

address the issue. Respondents were likely able to eliminate the first two

choices and narrow their choice down to the latter two. Thus, the percent

correct is just over the midpoint. Among those questions that a moderatenumber of students were able to correctly answer are the nature of the rights

described in the Constitution (43.8%), one purpose of the Fourth Amendment

(43.8%), and whether judicial review is a function of the court (41.6%).

Among the least correctly answered questions is what all nongovernmental

organizations (NGOs) have in common (27.7%) and the source of the num-

ber of electoral votes (25.9%). Taken altogether, the average across all eight

items is low at 47.3%. Although clearly these items do not address every-

thing one would expect to be taught in a civic education class, they do covera broad range of topics. Presumably, a student with a solid foundation of

knowledge could respond correctly to more of these questions than one with-

out that foundation. Thus, we think when considered altogether, these are

good measures of a general concept of political knowledge.

The variation is less dramatic across the civic engagement items. For

external efficacy, at one extreme, 30.8% either agreed or strongly agreed that

the government quickly forgets voters needs. At the other extreme, 44.2%

either agreed or strongly agreed that the government tries their best to findout what ordinary people want. Between these two extremes, 35.9% and

42.6%, respectively, disagreed or strongly disagreed that only a few have a

lot of power and that the government cares very little about the opinions of

ordinary people. As for internal efficacy, there is a bit more variation. Whereas

only 25.6% agree or strongly agree that they know more about politics than

most people their age, 60.8% agree or strongly agree that they usually have

something to say in political discussions, and 62.3% agree or strongly agree

that they are able to understand political issues easily. As survey results

regarding turnout in the adult population are typically inflated, the same can

be said for the young: 85.5% say they either probably or certainly plan to vote

as an adult. In addition, as stated above, we are hesitant to place too much



15/36


confidence in the accuracy of this estimate because the measure may simply

represent these students belief that voting is a good thing to do. That said,

this interpretation of the measure does not make it inconsistent with our the-

ory of democratic capacity. Believing voting is a good thing is a likely pre-

cursor to actually voting.

Before getting to the multivariate models, some bivariate results provide

additional context important for the interpretation. Generally speaking, most

of the civic education items have a positive relationship with students knowl-

edge, efficacy, and intent to vote, with a few exceptions. For instructional

breadth, all the individual items with the exception of writing letters to gov-

ernment officials (negatively related, b

= 0.04) and guest visits (not signifi-

cant) are significantly and positively related to the Political Knowledge Index(

b= 0.03 through 0.12). Although this indicates that these varied instruc-

tional methods potentially stimulate knowledge on their own, it does not

mean that increasing the number of these approaches, ceteris paribus, which

educational practitioners have largely deemed as desirable, stimulates politi-

cal knowledge. This will be tested in the multivariate model.

As for efficacy, all the instructional breadth items are positively and sig-

nificantly related to both the external and internal efficacy indices (b= 0.04

through 0.11), with the exception of using worksheets, which is not signifi-cantly related to internal efficacy. Also, all the instructional breadth items,

with the exception of writing letters, are significantly and positively related

to the intent to vote (b= 0.10 through 0.17). The frequency of how often

social studies classes are taught is positively and significantly related to all

four dependent variables (b= 0.03 through 0.12). The curricular breadth

items are all positively associated and significantly related to all four depen-

dent variable items with two exceptions (b= 0.04 through 0.18). First, teach-

ing about international government and organizations is actually negativelyrelated to political knowledge (

b= 0.03 and 0.04), which is not surprising

given that the knowledge index is based on domestic concepts. Perhaps,

teaching about international issues takes up enough time in class to result in

decreased learning about domestic political issues. Second, teaching about

international government is not significantly related to the intent to vote, which

is also not necessarily surprising. Possibly, students are not motivated to vote

by learning about institutions in which they cannot directly participate.

The results of the first set of multivariate models are presented in Table 2.

First, and perhaps the most interesting of our empirical contributions, instruc-

tional breadth has a significant negative relationship with political knowledge.

Hence, the more techniques that teachers combine into classroom instruction,

the less students seem to be learning. The odds ratio suggests that for each



16/36

246

Table2.MultivariateModelsoftheDep

endentVariables

Knowledge

Oddsratio

External

efficacy

Odd

sratioInternale

fficacyOddsratio

IntenttovoteO

ddsratio

Instructionalbreadth0.67*(0.22)

0.5

0.76*(0.22)

2.1

1.20*(0.22)

3.3

0.03(0.25)

Socialstudies

frequency

0.31*(0.12)

1.4

0.61*(0.11)

1.8

0.10(0.12)

0.34*(0.13)

1.4

Curricularbr

eadth

0.40*(0.17)

1.5

0.79*(0.16)

2.2

0.73*(0.16)

2.1

0.63*(0.18)

1.9

Othersocialstudies

0.10(0.09)

0.02(0.09)

0.19*(0.09)

0.8

0.05(0.10)

Openclass

1.59*(0.20)

4.9

3.61*(0.21)3

7.0

0.59*(0.20)

1.8

2.01*(0.22)

7.5

SchoolSES

0.65*(0.18)

0.5

0.03(0.18)

0.44*(0.18)

1.6

0.10(0.20)

Homeenviro

nment

4.14*(0.27)

63.0

0.03(0.26)

4.10*(0.27)

60.2

4.20*(0.31)

66.8

Engagement

0.02(0.22)

0.48*(0.23)

1.6

1.24*(0.23)

3.4

0.60*(0.25)

1.8

Female

0.05(0.07)

0.35*(0.07)

0.7

0.66*(0.07)

0.5

0.21*(0.08)

1.2

Latino

0.06(0.10)

0.05(0.10)

0.30*(0.10)

1.4

0.29*(0.12)

0.7

Black

0.75*(0.09)

0.5

0.33*(0.09)

0.7

0.44*(0.09)

1.6

0.36*(0.11)

0.7

PseudoR2

.06

.06

.06

.11

Note:Number

ofcases=2,615.Datacomefroma1999studyconductedbytheInternationalAssociation

fortheEvaluationofEducationalAchieve-

ment(IEA).Tab

leentriesareordered-logitestimates.Standarderrorsarein

parentheses.Oddsratiosared

isplayedforsignificantvariables.

*p.0

5,two-tailedtest.



17/36


extra technique that a teacher adopts, the odds of being higher on the knowl-

edge index are decreased by 0.5 times, holding all other variables constant.

This finding runs counter to the advice teachers are receiving to diversify

their instructional methods to reach as wide a range of students as possible.

Our results seem to suggest, however, that students simply become distracted

or overwhelmed by a proliferation of teaching techniques, leading to dimin-

ishing and even negative returns of pedagogical diversification on democratic

capacity. It is important to remember to place this finding in the context of the

bivariate findings. The varied instructional methods largely had a positive

effect on their own across the board. It is only when they are combined with

other methods that the effect flips. The discovery that students may be learn-

ing less about civics as a result of their teachers doing more, at least in socialstudies classrooms, is one of the central contributions of this study. Although

this finding is limited to civic education, it certainly has interesting implica-

tions for future education research on the pedagogical value of differentiated

instruction.

Despite the negative effect on knowledge, instructional breadth is posi-

tively related to both external and internal efficacy, where a one unit increase

raises the odds of being classified in a higher category on the respective indi-

ces by 2.1 times and 3.3 times. Although instructional breadth is not relatedto the intent to vote, it does appear there is a clear trade-off here. Using a

diversity of instructional methods deters the acquisition of knowledge; yet

offering such variation encourages students to believe the government is

responsive and to feel confident in their own abilities. Whether having a

diverse approach to teaching and exposing students to instructional variety is

deemed a success depending on what one believes should be the primary goal

of civic education. Is it more important to enhance students democratic

capacity by making them more knowledgeable about government or by bettersocializing them into citizenship? The results here beg the question, are some

young people being compelled to participate but not being given the founda-

tional understanding of American government necessary to make informed

political choices? It would appear so, first, if one accepts the measure here as

reflective of a basic foundation of knowledge and, second, if one believes a

basic foundational knowledge of American government is necessary to make

informed political choices.

Next, the results are less surprising concerning the frequency with which

students receive social studies instruction. There is a significant and positive

effect across all the dependent variables, with the exception of internal effi-

cacy. The largest effect is on external efficacy, where the odds ratio suggests

that a one unit increase in the frequency of social studies instruction increases



18/36


the odds of being classified in a higher category on the external efficacy index

by 1.8 times. Although this is the largest predicted effect for this variable, it is

not much different from the predicted effects in the knowledge and intent to

vote models where a one unit increase raises the odds of being higher on

those indicators by 1.4 times for both. It is important to note that we control

here for whether the class is focused on civics or government or some other

social studies discipline. As discussed earlier, social studies education at this

level is often an amalgam of different academic subjects, including govern-

ment, history, economics, and geography. We would expect, at least in regard

to political knowledge, for the effect of having a social studies course that

was not principally focused on civics or government to be negative. Although

the estimate is negative, it is not significant. More importantly, the effects ofthe frequency of social studies instruction remain positive and significant

while controlling for the type of social studies class. The measure for other

social studies instruction is only significant (negative) in the internal effi-

cacy model. Thus, those in a class focused on civics or government as

opposed to some other social studies discipline are 0.8 times more likely to

be higher on the internal efficacy index.

Curricular breadth also has significant effects; the number of civics topics

covered has a positive effect on all four dependent variables in this case. Theeffects here are slightly stronger than those associated with the frequency of

social studies instruction. A one unit increase in the Curricular Breadth Index

raises the odds of being higher on the Knowledge Index, the External Efficacy

Index, the Internal Efficacy Index, and intent to vote by 1.5, 2.2, 2.1, and 1.9

times, respectively. Covering more topics appears to be an effective means of

generating democratic capacity.

As for other classroom effects, consistent with Campbells (2007, 2008)

findings, an open classroom environment that encourages expression anddebate is influential. The models here suggest that it matters for all four of the

outcomes. There is a clear positive relationship with each, with an open class-

room increasing the odds of being classified higher on the Knowledge Index

by nearly 5 times, the External Efficacy Index by a substantial 37 times, the

Internal Efficacy Index by 1.8 times, and the Intent to Vote by 7.5 times. Next,

in addition to the home environment measure we use, we thought it was

important to control for the general aggregate socioeconomic status of the

school to assure that the observed classroom effects were not solely a product

of the social class from which the students come. We used the percentage of

students eligible for free lunch to measure this, leading to some interesting

results. First, as expected, those schools with more students eligible for free

lunch are 0.5 times more likely to score lower on the Knowledge Index. Next,



19/36


those schools are also more likely to score higher on the Internal Efficacy

Index by 1.6 times. Although we cannot make an individual-level inference

here, these results do suggest that less affluent students may exhibit more

political confidence in themselves.

Although it appears that there are some classroom effects, both positive

and negative, on democratic capacity, our results suggest that these effects

pale in comparison with those of home environment, which has a large sig-

nificant and positive effect on knowledge, internal efficacy, and the intent to

vote. In fact, the odds ratio calculation indicates that a one unit increase on

the Home Environment Index increases the odds of being higher on the

Knowledge Index by approximately 63 times, around 60 times on the Internal

Efficacy Index, and by almost 67 times on the Intent to Vote indicator. Thus,the models suggest that civic education, while not inconsequential, does not

drive variation on these outcomes. It is important to remember that the index

for home environment is comprised of more than just parents education; it

is also made up of items that attempt to capture these students aspirations,

information consumption, and discourse. Although all of these are related to

parents education, the index used here goes beyond to capture more nuanced

variation. We want to stress the importance of this result. What goes on out-

side the classroom appears to be far more consequential to the developmentof a students democratic capacity than what goes on inside the classroom.

We turn now to consider our control variables. First, a one unit increase on

the Civic Engagement Index raises the odds of being higher on the External

Efficacy Index by 1.6 times, the Internal Efficacy Index by 3.4 times, and the

intent to vote indicator by 1.8 times. These results are consistent with studies

that suggest youth participation in civic and school activities are important

indicators of political socialization (Andolina et al., 2003; Verba et al., 1995).

Next, for the demographic controls, the odds that females are lower on theExternal and Internal Efficacy Indices are 0.7 and 0.5 times greater than

males. Conversely, the odds that females certainly plan to vote are 1.2 times

higher than males. Latinos are not significantly different from races other than

Blacks (the reference category as Blacks are included in the models) on the

Knowledge Index or External Efficacy Index. The odds are 1.4 times greater

that Latinos are higher on the Internal Efficacy Index and 0.7 times greater that

they certainly do not plan to vote as adults. Among Blacks, the odds that they

are lower on the Knowledge Index are 0.5 times greater than those who are a

race other than Latino (again this is the reference category based on the speci-

fication of the models), the odds they are lower on the External Efficacy Index

and the intent to vote indicator are 0.7 times greater for both. Similar to

Latinos, they are more likely to be classified higher on the Internal Efficacy



20/36


Index by 1.6 times. This last finding is consistent with the school SES result,

if we assume that minorities tend to be less affluent.

As discussed above, one of our central contributions is that we explore the

influence of home environment in more depth than previous research. The

results presented in Table 3 suggest that all of the classroom effects, with the

exception of open classroom, predicted in the models in Table 2 are condi-

tional on variation across the Home Environment Index. This is one of our

most meaningful findings because the implications could be quite contro-

versial. For example, the results suggest policymakers may want to consider

discontinuing civic education for those whose democratic capacity is being

developed elsewhere.

Turning to the issue of instructional breadth, which is our other majorcontribution, we first discuss how its effects may be conditional on home

environment. The results indicate that the negative effect on knowledge pre-

dicted in the model in Table 2 is only present for those who fall below the

mean on the Home Environment Index. Thus, instructional breadth increases

the odds of scoring lower on the Knowledge Index by 0.5 times for those

below the mean and does not deter learning (though it does not stimulate

knowledge either) for those above the mean on the Home Environment Index.

We suspect there may be a relationship between the pedagogical goal of usingmultiple instructional techniques to reach students marginalized by their dif-

fering ability levels, as recommended by educational practitioners, and the

differential effects of doing so on learning outcomes for those above and below

the mean on home environment. However, our data are not sufficient to draw

a firm conclusion on that point. Second, it appears that the positive effect of

instructional breadth is only highly reliable for those below the mean when it

comes to stimulating both external and internal efficacy (although it does

reach the 0.10 threshold in the external efficacy model for those above themean). The odds that a one unit increase on the Instructional Breadth Index

will result in being classified higher on the External Efficacy Index are raised

by 2.2 times for those below the mean on the Home Environment Index. These

results may bear further investigation, given the caution urged by Junn (2004)

and Kahne and Westheimer (2006) in stimulating external efficacy for stu-

dents in traditionally marginalized groups. As for internal efficacy, the odds

go up by four times for those below the mean.

The results for frequency of social studies instruction in Table 2 are also

only replicated for those below the mean on the Home Environment Index

(again, it is important to note that the models include a control for whether the

course taken focuses principally on civics or government or other social stud-

ies subjects). First, increasing the frequency of social studies instruction



21/36

251

Table3.MultivariateModelsofDepend

entVariablesAcrossHome

Environment

Knowledge

Externale

fficacy

Internale

fficac

y

Intenttovo

te

Instructional

breadth

0.69*(0.26)

0.62(0.47)

0.80*(0.25)

0.83(0.48)

1.40*(0.26)

0.5

9(0.47)

0.14(0.28)0

.33(0.55)

Socialstudies

frequency

0.33*(0.13)

0.22(0.27)

0.69*(0.13)

0.46(0.26)

0.04(0.13)

0.3

0(0.28)

0.43*(0.14)0

.15(0.31)

Curricular

breadth

0.47*(0.19)

0.06(0.37)

0.95*(0.18)

0.25(0.37)

0.79*(0.18)

0.5

2(0.37)

0.65*(0.20)0

.43(0.43)

Othersocial

studies

0.11*(0.11)

0.07(0.19)

0.06(0.10)

0.15(0.19)0.25(0.10)

0.0

1(0.18)

0.07(0.12)0

.03(0.22)

Openclass

1.78*(0.23)

1.24*(0.40)

3.67*(0.24)

3.71*(0.42)

0.83*(0.24)

0.1

0(0.40)

1.90*(0.26)2.63*(0.47)

SchoolSES

0.71*(0.20)

0.20(0.44)0.03(0.20)

0.22(0.42)

0.39*(0.20)

0.6

2(0.43)

0.09(0.22)0

.24(0.50)

Home

environmen

t

3.32*(0.39)

4.59*(1.28)0.57(0.38)

1.09(1.23)

3.04*(0.38)

7.02

*(1.25)

3.66*(0.43)6.90*(1.58)

Engagement

0.13(0.26)

0.22(0.43)

0.36(0.27)

0.80*(0.42)

1.61*(0.27)

0.3

5(0.42)

0.57*(0.29)0

.81(0.49)

Female

0.08(0.08)

0.08(0.15)0.40*(0.08)

0.22(0.15)0.66*(0.08)0.72

*(0.15)

0.25*(0.09)0

.07(0.18)

Latino

0.05(0.11)

0.36(0.31)0.07(0.11)

0.06(0.29)

0.30*(0.11)

0.1

4(0.31)0.26*(0.13)0

.61(0.34)

Black

0.76*(0.10)0.78*(0.23)0.27*(0.10)0.71*(0.23)

0.48*(0.10)

0.3

7(0.24)0.26*(0.12)0.87*(0.26)

PseudoR2

.05

.02

.06

.04

.05

.03

.08

.08

Note:Number

ofcases:=619

).Datacomefroma1999stud

yconductedbytheInternationalAssociationfortheEvaluationofEdu-

cationalAchiev

ement(IEA).Tableentriesareordered-logitestimates.referstothesubsamplesw

hereonlythosecasesbelowandabove

themeanonth

eHomeEnvironmentIndexareused.Standarderrorsarein

parentheses.

*p.0

5,two-tailedtest.



22/36


raises the odds of being higher on the Knowledge Index by 1.4 times for

those below the mean and does not stimulate knowledge among those who

are above the mean. Second, the odds of a one unit increase in frequency

resulting in being higher on the External Efficacy Index are approximately

2 times greater for those below the mean, and the relationship is not signifi-

cant at the 0.05 level for those above the mean (it does reach the 0.10 level).

Third, it appears that the noneffect on internal efficacy predicted in Table 2 is

consistent for both those below and above the mean on the Home Environment

Index. Finally, the positive effect of frequency on the intent to vote predicted

in Table 2 appears to only hold up for those below the mean on the Home

Environment Index, increasing the odds of being higher on the index by 1.5

times.The positive effects for curricular breadth on all four democratic capacity

dependent variables holds up only for those below the mean on the Home

Environment Index. A one unit increase in curricular breadth raises the odds

of scoring higher on the Knowledge Index by 1.6 times, on the External

Efficacy Index by 2.6 times, on the Internal Efficacy Index by 2.2 times, and

on the intent to vote indicator by 1.9 times. Again, the effects are not signifi-

cant for those above the mean on the Home Environment Index. Although

our measure of other social studies is primarily intended as a control, it is worthnoting that its negative effect on knowledge appears to be happening only for

those below the mean. So, taken altogether, the three classroom effects (and

other social studies) discussed up to this point only matter for those who are

less privileged. That said, the positive effect of open classroom holds up across

both groups in every case, with the exception of the internal efficacy model

where the effect seems to only be present for those below the mean on the

Home Environment Index.

There are both some modest changes and interesting consistencies in theeffects of the other variables across home environment. First, the predicted

negative effects in Table 2 of school SES on knowledge and internal efficacy

are only present for those below the mean on the Home Environment Index.

Second, the positive effects of home environment hold up across all four mod-

els. This is interesting because it suggests that those who are at the bottom of

the Home Environment Index are lower on knowledge, efficacy, and the intent

to vote than those who are at the middle of the Home Environment Index and

those at the middle are lower across all four democratic capacity indicators

than those near the top. Third, the effects of civic engagement change by

becoming insignificant in the external efficacy model for those below the

mean on the Home Environment Index, insignificant for those above the

mean in the internal efficacy model, and insignificant for those above the mean



23/36


in the intent to vote model. Fourth, concerning the demographic controls, only

those females below the mean on the Home Environment Index are less likely

to be externally efficacious and to have intentions on voting. The other gen-

der results are consistent with Table 2. The effects for Latinos hold up in the

knowledge and external efficacy models, but only those Latinos who are

below the mean on the Home Environment Index are more internally effica-

cious and more likely to intend to vote. Finally, Although Blacks are still less

likely to score high on the Knowledge Index, the external Efficacy Index,

and the intent to vote indicator regardless of their placement on the Home

Environment Index, only those below the mean on that index are likely to

score higher on the Internal Efficacy Index.

Discussion

The results presented here provide ample food for thought. Civic education

undoubtedly enhances the democratic capacity of Americas youth, but

numerous trade-offs come into play. First, the results concerning instructional

breadth clearly suggest that the kind of instructional diversity commonly

promoted in the education literature may actually be detrimental to student

learning at the same time that it stimulates political efficacy. It may be thatpolitical efficacy is the most critical aspect of democratic capacity to nurture

in these young students, given the importance of its development in adoles-

cence, but that is a choice policymakers should make knowingly (Verba et al.,

1995). Adding more complexity, these effects may vary across socioeconomic

status as represented in our home environment measure. Thus, educators

intent on increasing knowledge may need to consider a more discriminating

approach in selecting their teaching techniques, targeting fewer methods for

civics instruction when attempting to appeal to the broad range of studentsin their classroom, particularly those students at the bottom of the economic

ladder. Our finding is, of course, only a first step. Upon learning that they

should be using fewer instructional methods in the classroom to improve

students political knowledge, social studies teachers will inevitably want

to know which methods work best. The current research on the effects of an

open classroom, active learning techniques, media consumption, service

learning, and community involvement on democratic capacity all provide

useful guidance for paring down to the most productive methods of civics

instruction, but they are just a start and often focus on approaches to civic

education that go beyond the classroom itself. Social studies teachers would

be greatly aided by future research from political scientists and educational

practitioners that pinpointed which methods, or combination of methods, of



24/36


classroom instruction, such as role-playing, debates, discussion, worksheets,

textbook reading, videos, and so forth, were most effective at enhancing the

different elements of students democratic capacity. Such research would

assist these instructors in determining the optimal balance and types of teach-

ing techniques necessary to motivate students and suitably differentiate civ-

ics instruction in a classroom of diverse learners without simultaneously

overwhelming students and deterring learning.

Second, although the effects of the frequency and breadth of civics instruc-

tion seem positive at first glance, the results here suggest that they, too, may

vary across socioeconomic status. As a result, it may be more efficient to

require civics instruction only for some students. Why invest, especially in

tough economic times that call for tight budgets, in teaching students fromhomes with higher educational attainment and political engagement what

they already know? A possible solution may be to make civic education con-

tingent on student testing, particularly in later grades, exempting those stu-

dents who demonstrate proficiency in civics from further instruction. Of

course, there may be other benefits of civic education to students that go

beyond our measures of democratic capacity that would counsel against such

exemptions, but those benefits are beyond the scope of our study. Regardless,

our findings suggest that policymakers prioritize their goals for civic educa-tion by determining which aspects of democratic capacity are most critical to

develop, and for whom, and invest accordingly, as it may not be possible to

improve every aspect of our young peoples citizenship, or indeed every

young persons citizenship, simultaneously in the classroom.

Third, discussion of tight budgets and tough economic times inevitably

raises the question of whether we are really getting adequate bang for our

buck in financing civic education? Although civic education undoubtedly

improves many students democratic capacity, the magnitude of these effects,as we have demonstrated, is dwarfed by the effects of home environment on

every indicator. Stimulating external influences on students, such as their

parents educational attainment, books and news resources in the home, or

family political discussion, will almost certainly lead to far greater gains in

democratic capacity than classroom instruction can offer. Of course, accom-

plishing such improvements in young peoples home environment through

public policy is not always practical, cost effective, or socially or politically

palatable, leaving school intervention in many instances as the best possible

option for preparing young people for democratic citizenship. In trying to

make these tough choices, policymakers might target for investment in the

growing number of civic education programs that attempt to creatively capi-

talize on these external influences by, for instance, promoting greater news



25/36


consumption outside the classroom, encouraging family political discussion,

or modeling political engagement in the home, such as with the Kids Voting

USA program.5

Finally, our study indicates that civic education works for 14-year-olds.

Other scholars, such as Niemi and Junn (1998) and Niemi and Sobieszek

(1977), have suggested that civic education might be most effective for stu-

dents nearing graduation as they are about to gain their voting rights and enter

the civic realm more fully as adults. However, we demonstrate that students

do not need to be activated by an approaching change in their civic or political

status to benefit from civic education. More research needs to be done on the

political socialization of children and adolescents to determine when civic

education is most effective and also whether any cumulative benefits accruewith repeated exposure to civics instruction across grades, so that policymak-

ers can make the best possible allocation of scarce resources.

In this study, we demonstrated civic educations effectiveness in building

more politically competent and democratically responsible young citizens

across a broad range of citizenship indicators. Not content to take those salu-

tary effects at face value, we dug deeper to discover how they vary in impor-

tant and sometimes unexpected ways across both classroom and home

environments. Yet we have only scratched the surface in learning more aboutwhat, when, who, and how we need to be teaching young Americans about

political life to ensure that we live up to our democratic ideals.

Appendix

Political knowledge

1. Which of the following documents describes the powers of the pres-

ident of the United States?

The Declaration of Independence

The Mayflower Compact

The Constitution

The Articles of Confederation

2. The number of electoral votes each state is allotted is based on the

states . . .

Size

Representation in Congress

Average income

Number of years as a state

(continued)



26/36


3. In the United States, what do labor unions, civil rights groups, business

associations, and environmental organizations all have in common?

They try to influence public policy and get people elected

They share the same ideas about political issues

They are all funded by the federal government

They have to pay state and federal taxes

4. The function of the court that Chief Justice Warren described is

called . . .

Judicial restraint

Advise and consent Judicial review

Impeachment

5. As a whole, the Bill of Rights mostly addresses the rights of . . .

States

Individuals

Cities

Public officials

6. Which of the following is true because of the Fourth Amendment? Legal limits on power of police to enter your home

Have right to lawyer before answering police questions

Police certain crime committed before get search warrant

May never be tried for the same crime twice

7. According to the Bill of Rights, what is true about the rights described

in the Constitution?

No guaranteed rights other than those listed in Bill of Rights

Rights not listed in Bill of Rights not recognized in the United States Federal government can interfere with peoples rights

Fact only some rights listed does not mean no other rights

8. Imagine that a person was convicted of stealing a candy bar and sen-

tenced to 50 years in prison. He or she might challenge the sentence

by citing the . . .

First Amendment

Fifth Amendment

Eighth Amendment

Ninth Amendment

Note: Correct answers are in bold print.

Appendix (continued)

(continued)



27/36


External efficacy (all items had a 4-point response category scale

strongly agree, agree, disagree,strongly disagree)

1. People in government care a lot about what all of us think about new

laws.

2. The people in government are doing their best to find out what ordi-

nary people want.

3. The powerful leaders in government care very little about the opin-

ions of ordinary people.

4. In this country, a few individuals have a lot of political power whilethe rest of the people have very little power.

5. The politicians quickly forget the needs of the voters who elected them.

6. When people organize to demand change, the leaders in government

listen.

Note: Each was coded where higher values represented stronger external effi-

cacy before summing them to create an index ( = .61).

Internal efficacy (all items had a 4-point response category scale

strongly agree, agree, disagree,strongly disagree)

1. I know more about politics than most people my age.

2. When political issues or problems are being discussed, I usually have

something to say.

3. I am able to understand most political issues easily.

Note: Each was coded where higher values represented stronger internal effi-

cacy before summing them to create an index ( = .69).

Other social studies (what social studies do you teach?)

1. Do you teach (civics/government/citizenship, social studies, his-

tory, ethics/religion, law, economics, English, geography) this

school year?

Note: Responses were either yes or left blank. Yes was coded as 1 and

blank as 0. Then a dummy variable was created (1 = responses

other than civics/government/citizenship, 0 =civics/government/

citizenship).


(continued)



28/36


Open class (all items had a 4-point response category scalenever,

rarely,sometimes, often)

1. Students feel free to disagree openly with their teachers about politi-

cal and social issues during class.

2. Students are encouraged to make up their own minds about issues.

3. Teachers respect our opinions and encourage us to express them during

class.

4. Students feel free to express opinions in class even when their opinions

are different from most of the other students.

Note: Each was coded where higher values represented the perception of a

more open classroom environment before summing them to create an index

( = .78).

School SES

1. Around the first of October 1999, what percentage of students atthis school were eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunches

through the National School Lunch Program?

Civic engagement

1. Have you participated in a student council/student government?

2. Have you participated in a youth organization affiliated with a

political party or union?3. Have you participated in a group which prepares a school newspaper?

4. Have you participated in an environmental organization?

5. Have you participated in a United Nations or UNESCO Club?

6. Have you participated in a human rights organization?

7. Have you participated in a group conducting voluntary activities to

help the community?

8. Have you participated in a charity collecting money for a social

cause?

9. Have you participated in boy or girl scouts?

10. Have you participated in a cultural organization based on

ethnicity?Note: Yes/notype responses. Yes was coded as 1 and no

as 0 before summing them to create an index ( = .61).




29/36


Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,

authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publica-

tion of this article.

Notes

1. Requirements for civic education vary widely both across and within states, and

many school districts across the country require no separate civics or government

course for their students. Instead, civics instruction for American 14-year-olds gen-

erally takes place across a wide assortment of courses that fall under the broad

interdisciplinary heading of social studies, such as government, history, civics,

global studies, geography, economics, or social studies itself, which might survey a

broad range of subjects including sociology, religion, and anthropology in addition

to the aforementioned disciplines (Baldi et al., 2001, p. 25; Niemi & Junn, 1998;

Niemi & Smith, 2001).

2. We did not choose to impute these cases because it would have resulted in imputedvalues for entire classes of students. That said, to avoid the loss of other data, we

did impute the remaining missing values maximizing sample size and increasing

the accuracy of our estimates in the process. Littles missing completely at random

(MCAR) test indicated that neither were the student data missing completely at

random (p< .001) nor were the combined teacher and school data (p< .001). They

may still be missing at random (MAR). Thus, listwise deletion may have biased our

estimates. We replaced all missing values using the expectation maximization (EM)

algorithm (Dempster, Laird, & Rubin, 1977). This is a technique that finds maxi-mum likelihood estimates (MLEs) in parametric models for incomplete data (for

a complete description, see Little & Rubin, 1987; McLachlan & Krishnan, 1997;

Schafer, 1997). The calculation used when finding the MLEs incorporated a degree

of random error to assure that the standard errors were not underestimated. After

finding the estimates, all variables were centered between 0 and 1 and rounded to

the first decimal place (0.1).

3. We describe the operationalization of the civic education indices and the Home

Environment index below in the text. We create dummy variables for self-reported

race and gender. All other variables, including three of the four dependent vari-

ables, are described in the appendix. We also estimated these models with controls

for whether the school was public or private, average size of classroom, years

the teacher has taught civics education, whether the teacher has a degree in a



30/36


civics-related discipline, and sex of the teacher (see the codebook available at

http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/ for question wording). The results

were largely insignificant and did not change the substantive

Date post:	03-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	nucleo-artes-practicas-culturales
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

Gainous & Martens 2012. the Effectiveness of Civic Education. Are 'Goog' Teachers Actually Good for...

Documents