Abstract
Schools are expected to contribute to preparing students for engaged citizenship. Research shows that open classroom discussions on political issues have a positive effect on political attitudes and behaviour. However, a deeper understanding of why students perceive their classrooms as open for discussion is missing. The purpose of this study is to examine how deliberative democratic theory can be used to explain such perceptions. We argue that the openness of the discussion climate is positively affected by, on the one hand, a context of good student–teacher relations characterised by fairness and respect, and, on the other hand, by the level of collective efficacy, which is the perception of responsiveness of the school towards student demands. Using multilevel analyses on the European data of the International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS 2009), we find that these predictors are significant at the student level and the school level. This means that both the individual experience of a student as well as the average school’s score on good student–teacher relations and collective efficacy affect how students perceive the discussion climate. Our findings, based on high-quality survey data from 22 countries, are a significant contribution to clarifying the underlying mechanism leading to an open classroom climate. As such discussions have proven to be an effective way to stimulate political engagement, we conclude that a school context characterised by fairness and responsiveness, should not be overlooked by schools and policy.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The participating countries are Austria, Belgium (Flanders), Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, England, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Norway, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. The Netherlands were excluded as the sample requirements were not met. Luxemburg and Liechtenstein are not included as the sample size was very small, in accordance with the advice given by the ICCS 2009 user guide (Brese et al. 2009).
Descriptive statistics, including missing values, are listed in “Appendix”.
The sampling design used is a stratified two-stage cluster design, with schools sampled using probability proportional to size. This design calls for sampling weights to compensate for disproportional selection probabilities of a school or a student, as well as a non-response adjustment. When applying multilevel analysis to the ICCS 2009 data, a ‘within-school student weight’ and a ‘school weight’ should be used on the first and the second level of analysis respectively, as described by the ICCS 2009 User Guide for the International Database (Brese et al. 2009). All participating countries received a weight of 1, to make sure all are accounted for equally in the analyses.
The international sample of 38 countries participating the 2009 IEA International Civic and Citizenship Education Study has an average of 50 and a standard deviation of 10 for each scale. This is also the case for the other ICCS scales used in the analyses: ‘value of student participation’ and ‘student–teacher relationship’.
Looking at the countries separately, the correlations between the independent and dependent variables fall within a reasonable range and could not be considered problematic. Also multicollinearity was tested (VIF: 1.018).
Also for this variable we looked at the correlation with the dependent variable for each country separately. The scores fall within a reasonable range and cannot be considered problematic. Multicollinearity was as well tested (VIF: 1.019).
79 items of the cognitive test were used to derive a civic knowledge scale, see ICCS 2009 Technical Report (Schulz et al. 2011).
References
Almond, G., & Verba, S. (1989). The civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five nations. London: Sage Publications.
Avery, P. G., Levy, S. A., & Simmons, A. M. M. (2013). Deliberating controversial public issues as part of civic education. The Social Studies, 104(3), 105–114.
Bächtiger, A., & Steiner, J. (2005). Introduction. Acta Politica, 40(2), 153–168.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Direcstions in Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78.
Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Applied Psychology, 51(2), 269–290.
Barber, C., Sweetwood, S. O., & King, M. (2015). Creating classroom-level measures of citizenship education climate. Learning Environments Research, 18(2), 197–216.
Brese, F., Jung, M., Mirazchiyski, P., Schulz, W., & Zuehlke, O. (2009). ICCS 2009 user guide for the international database (Vol. second). Amsterdam: The IEA Secretariat.
Campbell, D. E. (2007). Sticking together: Classroom diversity and civic education. American Politics Research, 35(1), 57–78.
Campbell, D. E. (2008). Voice in the classroom: How an open classroom climate fosters political engagement among adolescents. Political Behavior, 30(4), 437–454.
Castillo, J. C., Miranda, D., Bonhomme, M., Cox, C., & Bascopé, M. (2015). Mitigating the political participation gap from the school: The roles of civic knowledge and classroom climate. Journal of Youth Studies, 18(1), 16–35.
Chambers, S. (2013). Deliberation and Mass Democracy. In J. Parkinson & J. Mansbridge (Eds.), Deliberative systems (pp. 52–71). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Claes, E., Hooghe, M., & Marien, S. (2012). School experiences, classroom climate and political trust. A two-year panel study among Belgian late adolescents on the impact of school environment characteristics on political trust. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 24(2), 208–224.
Cohen, J. (2007). Deliberative Democracy. In S. W. Rosenberg (Ed.), Deliberation, participation and democracy: Can The people govern? (pp. 219–236). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Dassonneville, R., Quintelier, E., Hooghe, M., & Claes, E. (2012). The relation between civic education and political attitudes and behavior: A two-year panel study among Belgian late adolescents. Applied Developmental Science, 16(3), 140–150.
Delli Carpini, M. X. (2000). Youth, civic engagement, and the new information environment. Political Communication, 17(4), 341–349.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: Macmillan.
Dijkstra, A. B., Geijsel, F., Ledoux, G., van der Veen, I., & ten Dam, G. (2015). Effects of school quality, school citizenship policy, and student body composition on the acquisition of citizenship competences in the final year of primary education. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 26(4), 524–553.
Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dryzek, J. S. (2009). Democratization as deliberative capacity building. Comparative Political Studies, 42(11), 1379–1402.
Eccles, J. S., & Roeser, R. W. (2011). Schools as developmental contexts during adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(1), 225–241.
Eidhof, B. B. F., ten Dam, G. T. M., Dijkstra, A. B., & van de Werfhorst, H. G. (2017). Youth citizenship at the end of primary school: The role of language ability. Research Papers in Education, 32(2), 217–230.
Enslin, P., Pendlebury, S., & Tjiattas, M. (2001). Deliberative democracy, diversity and the challenges of citizenship education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 35(1), 115–130.
Ercan, S., & Dryzek, J. (2015). The reach of deliberative democracy. Policy Studies, 36(3), 241–248.
Fishkin, J., & Luskin, R. (2005). Experimenting with a democratic ideal: Deliberative polling and public opinion. Acta Politica, 40(3), 284–298.
Flanagan, C. (2013). Teenage citizens: The political theories of the young. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Flanagan, C. A., Cumsille, P., Gill, S., & Gallay, L. S. (2007). School and community climates and civic commitments: Patterns for ethnic minority and majority students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 421–431.
Flanagan, C., Kim, T., Collura, J., & Kopish, M. (2014). Community service and adolescents’ social capital. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 25(2), 295–309.
Gainous, J., & Martens, A. (2012). The effectiveness of civic education: Are “good” teachers actually good for “all” students? American Politics Research, 40(2), 232–266.
Geijsel, F., Ledoux, G., Reumerman, R., & ten Dam, G. (2012). Citizenship in young people’s daily lives: Differences in citizenship competences of adolescents in the Netherlands. Journal of Youth Studies, 15(6), 711–729.
Gimpel, J., Lay, C., & Schuknecht, J. (2003). Cultivating democracy: Civic environments and political socialization in America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institutions.
Gniewosz, B., & Noack, P. (2008). Classroom climate indicators and attitudes towards foreigners. Journal of Adolescence, 31(5), 609–624.
Godfrey, E., & Grayman, J. K. (2014). Teaching citizens: The role of open classroom climate in fostering critical consciousness among youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(11), 1801–1817.
Gundersen, A. (2000). The socratic citizen: A theory of deliberative democracy. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Gutmann, A. (1995). Civic education and social diversity. Ethics, 105(3), 557–579.
Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (2004). Why deliberative democracy?. Princeton: Pinceton University Press.
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action vol. 1: Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston: Beacon Press.
Habermas, J. (2006). Political communication in media society: Does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research. Communication Theory, 16(4), 411–426.
Hahn, C. L. (1998). Becoming political: Comparative parspectives on citizenship education. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Hess, D. E. (2009). Controversy in the classroom: The Democratic power of discussion. New York: Routledge.
Hess, D. E., & McAvoy, P. (2015). The political classroom: Evidence and ethics in democratic education. New York: Routledge.
Hox, J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (Vol. second). New York: Routledge.
Jacobs, L. R., Cook, F. L., & Delli Carpini, M. X. (2009). Talking together: Public deliberation and political participation in America. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 491–525.
Kahne, J., & Sporte, S. (2008). Developing citizens: The impact of civic learning opportunities on students’ commitment to civic participation. American Educational Research Journal, 45(3), 738–766.
Langton, K. P., & Jennings, M. K. (1968). Political socialization and the high school civics curriculum in the United States. American Political Science Review, 62(3), 852–867.
Lenzi, M., Vieno, A., Sharkey, J., Mayworm, A., Scacchi, L., Pastore, M., et al. (2014). How school can teach civic engagement besides civic education: The role of democratic school climate. American Journal of Community Psychology, 54(3–4), 251–261.
Levine, P. (2006). The civic mission of schools. Knowledge Quest, 34(4), 18–21.
Macedo, S. (1995). Liberal civic education and religious fundamentalism: The case of God v. John Rawls? Ethics, 105(3), 468.
Manganelli, S., Lucidi, F., & Alivernini, F. (2015). Italian adolescents’ civic engagement and open classroom climate: The mediating role of self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 41, 8–18.
Mansbridge, J. (1999). Everyday talk in the deliberative system. In S. Macedo (Ed.), Deliberative politics (pp. 211–239). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mansbridge, J. (2003). Rethinking representation. Amercian Political Science Review, 97(4), 515–528.
McFarland, D., & Starmanns, C. (2009). Inside student government: The variable quality of high school student councils. Teachers College Record, 111(1), 27–54.
Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. S. (1989). Student/teacher relations and attitudes toward mathematics before and after the transition to junior high school. Child Developement, 60(4), 981–992.
Mutz, D. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Neundorf, A., Smets, K., & Garcia-Albacete, G. M. (2013). Homemade citizens: The development of political interest during adolescence and young adulthood. Acta Politica, 48(1), 92–116.
Niemi, R. G., & Junn, J. (1998). Civic education: What makes students learn. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Nieuwelink, H., Dekker, P., Geijsel, F., & ten Dam, G. (2016). “Democracy always comes first”: Adolescents’ views on decision-making in everyday life and political democracy. Journal of Youth Studies, 19(7), 990–1006.
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.
Paccagnella, O. (2006). Centering or not centering in multilevel models? The role of the group mean and the assessment of group effects. Evaluation Review, 30(1), 66–85.
Parker, W. (2003). Teaching democracy: Unity and diversity in public life. New York: Teachers College Press.
Parker, W., & Hess, D. (2001). Teaching with and for discussion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 273–289.
Pasek, J., Feldman, L., Romer, D., & Jamieson, K. H. (2008). Schools as incubators of democratic participation: Building long-term political efficacy with civic education. Applied Developmental Science, 12(1), 26–37.
Persson, M. (2012). Does type of education affect political participation? Results from a panel survey of Swedish adolescents. Scandinavian Political Studies, 35(3), 198–221.
Persson, M. (2015). Classroom climate and political learning: Findings from a Swedish panel study and comparative data. Political Psychology, 36(5), 587–601.
Quintelier, E. (2010). The effect of schools on political participation: a multilevel logistic analysis. Research Papers in Education, 25(2), 137–154.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (Vol. Second). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., Cheong, Y. F., Congdon, R. T., & du Toit, M. (2011). HLM7: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood: Scientific Software International.
Rawls, J. (1993). Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
Reichert, F. (2016). Students’ perceptions of good citizenship: A person-centred approach. Social Psychology of Education, 19(3), 661–693.
Resh, N., & Sabbagh, C. (2017). Sense of justice in school and civic behavior. Social Psychology of Education, 20(2), 387–409.
Roeser, R. W., Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. C. (1996). Perceptions of the school psychological environment and early adolescents’ psychological and behavioral functioning in school: The mediating role of goals and belonging. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3), 408–422.
Schulz, W., Ainley, J., & Fraillon, J. (2011). ICCS 2009 technical report. Amsterdam: The IEA Secretariat.
Schulz, W., Ainley, J., Fraillon, J., Kerr, D., & Losito, B. (2010). ICCS 2009 international report: Civic knowledge, attitudes, and engagement among lower-secondary school students in 38 countries. Amsterdam: The IEA Secretariat.
Sohl, S., & Arensmeier, C. (2014). The school’s role in youths’ political efficacy: Can school provide a compensatory boost to students’ political efficacy? Research Papers in Education, 30(2), 133–163.
Sohl, S., & Arensmeier, C. (2015). The school’s role in youths’ political efficacy: Can school provide a compensatory boost to students’ political efficacy? Research Papers in Education, 30(2), 133–163.
Sullivan, J. L., & Transue, J. E. (1999). The psychological underpinnings of democracy: A selective review of research on political tolerance, interpersonal trust, and social capital. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 625–650.
Thompson, D. (2008). Deliberative democratic theory and empirical political science. Annual Review of Political Science, 11(1), 497–520.
Torney-Purta, J., Barber, C. H., & Wilkenfeld, B. J. (2007). Latino Adolescents’ civic development in the United States: Research results from the IEA Civic Education Study. Youth and Adolescence, 36(2), 111–125.
Torney-Purta, J., Lehmann, R., Oswald, H., & Schulz, W. (2001). Citizenship and education in twenty-eight countries, Amsterdam: The IEA Secretariat.
Wentzel, K. R. (1997). Student motivation in middle school: The role of perceived pedagogical caring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 411–419.
Wentzel, K. R., & Wigfield, A. (2007). Motivational interventions that work: Themes and remaining issues. Educational Psychologist, 42(4), 261–271.
Youniss, J. (2011). Civic education: What schools can do to encourage civic identity and action. Applied Developmental Science, 15(January 2015), 98–103.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Appendix
Appendix
Descriptive statistics
n | Mean | SD | Min | Max | % missing | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Open classroom climate | 67,695 | 50.41 | 9.65 | 14.83 | 78.98 | 1.3 |
Student–teacher relation | 67,695 | 48.85 | 9.60 | 17.62 | 73.53 | 1.2 |
Value of participation | 67,695 | 49.36 | 9.76 | 15.18 | 69.83 | 1.4 |
Gender | 67,695 | 0.51 | 0.50 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 1.1 |
Immigration background | 67,695 | 0.09 | 0.28 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 2.1 |
Home literature | 67,695 | 2.49 | 1.32 | 0.00 | 5.00 | 1.2 |
Political knowledge | 67,695 | 520.55 | 95.52 | 133.08 | 887.01 | 0.0 |
Political discussion family | 67,695 | 1.78 | 0.96 | 1.00 | 4.00 | 1.3 |
Political discussion friends | 67,695 | 1.49 | 0.78 | 1.00 | 4.00 | 1.4 |
Student teacher relation—school | 3212 | 48.95 | 4.11 | 33.07 | 64.96 | 0.0 |
Value of participation—school | 3212 | 49.15 | 3.49 | 36.05 | 60.78 | 0.0 |
1.1 Variables
Open classroom climate
Q: When discussing political and social issues during regular lessons, how often do the following things happen? Response options: never–rarely–sometimes–often.
-
Teachers encourage students to make up their own mind.
-
Teachers encourage students to express their opinion.
-
Students bring up current political events for discussion in class.
-
Students express opinions in class even when their opinions are different from most of the other students.
-
Teachers encourage students to discuss the issues with people having different opinions.
-
Teachers present several sides of the issues when explaining them in class.
IRT-scale International average of 50—standard deviation of 10 for the weighted dataset. Cronbach’s alpha is 0.751 for the sample of 22 European countries (Schulz et al. 2011).
Student–teacher relations
Q: how much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about you and your school? Response options: strongly agree–agree–disagree–strongly disagree.
-
Most of my teachers treat me fairly
-
Students get along well with most teachers
-
Most teachers are interested in students’ wellbeing
-
Most of my teachers really listen to what I have to say
-
If I need extra help, I will receive it from my teachers
IRT-scale International average of 50—standard deviation of 10 for the weighted dataset. Cronbach’s alpha is 0.784 for the sample of 22 European countries (Schulz et al. 2011).
Value of student participation
Q: How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about student participation at school? Response options: strongly agree–agree–disagree–strongly disagree.
-
Students participation in how schools are run can make schools better
-
Lots of positive changes can happen in schools when students work together
-
Organizing groups of students to express their opinions could help solve problems in schools
-
All schools should have a school parliament
-
Student can have more influence on what happens in schools if they act together rather than alone
IRT-scale International average of 50—standard deviation of 10 for the weighted dataset. Cronbach’s alpha is 0.729 for the sample of 22 European countries (Schulz et al. 2011).
Gender Boys 0–Girls 1
Immigration background = first or second generation migrants
Students without immigration background 0—Students with immigration background 1
Political discussion with friends and with family
Question asking how often students engage in a discussions about political or social issues.
Response categories never to hardly ever–monthly–weekly–daily or almost daily.
Civic knowledge
Student civic knowledge scores are derived from 79 items in the cognitive test. The constructed achievement scale has an international mean of 500 and a standard deviation of 100 for the weighted dataset.
Home literacy
Question asking students about the number of books at home: 0 to 10 books (0)—11 to 25 books (1)—26 to 100 books (2)—101 to 200 books (3)—201 to 500 books (4)—more than 500 books (5).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Maurissen, L., Claes, E. & Barber, C. Deliberation in citizenship education: how the school context contributes to the development of an open classroom climate. Soc Psychol Educ 21, 951–972 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-018-9449-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-018-9449-7