Keywords

The second main finding of the study centered around students’ inherent worth: the value and dignity that students had as human beings. The teachers in this study were concerned about their students’ self-worth and viewed this as having an impact on their students’ civic education and on their civic participation. Teachers felt that students did not consider themselves to be worthy of participating in civic life because they believed that their students felt that they were not yet seen as members of the community. Consequently, the students felt that they did not have either a right or a responsibility to participate in civic life. Further, teachers felt that this lack of self-worth was reinforced by the structure of civic education and that by not valuing students as civic actors. Consequently, teachers felt that instead of preparing students for later civic participation, civic education may diminish students’ later civic engagement.

Teachers used social media to encourage students to see their own value as civic participants, primarily by having them interact with experts, elected officials, and members of their communities. The teachers believed that the way to address students’ feelings of unworthiness was by having students participate in civic activities that were real; the teachers saw social media as a way to do this.

Student Worth

As mentioned in the previous chapter, citizenship was a common objective across all five teachers. Although “student worth” may not be characterized as or fit the language of educational objectives, for four of the five teachers in this study, it was a critical component of their teaching of civics. Civic engagement is often spoken about in the literature as consisting of rights and responsibilities, and, as stated earlier in my literature review, a component of civic engagement is civic attachment, the feeling or belief that an individual matters to the group (Flanagan, 2004; Flanagan & Faison, 2001). Part of civic education, therefore, is teaching students that their participation in society is meaningful and matters. In this study, four of the five participants approached civic education, or education more broadly, from the perspective of teaching their students that they had not only a responsibility but also a right to participate in civic life.

For instance, it was clear that Donna valued her students; the ways in which Donna taught were grounded in this appreciation of who her students were. Donna felt that her students were limited based on their geographic isolation, whether because those who grew up there tended to remain there into adulthood; because historically students had not thought broadly about future vocational choices; or because people from Donna’s area were easily ignored by elected officials. For each of these reasons, Donna wanted to teach students in ways that gave them options to overcome these limitations. For example, when her principal asked her to design two new elective courses for students, Donna chose to develop courses on current events and women’s history, so that students would know what was going on in the world and also feel represented in it. In describing the creation of her women’s history course, Donna shared that her “passion” for women’s history was to show the young women in her community that there were possibilities available to them beyond marriage and motherhood. For Donna, this was about each student making the choice that was right for her: if students chose to remain in their hometown and raise a family, Donna fully supported that. She only wanted them to intentionally choose that path rather than seeing it as the only one available to them.

Her community’s geographic isolation influenced how Donna spoke about civic education: she saw civic participation as one way for the students in her isolated area to reach beyond geographical boundaries and participate in the wider world. Throughout our conversation, Donna focused her attempts to increase her students’ civic engagement through the lens of how that engagement could show her students that they were important beyond their local community. This view also privileged the use of Twitter for Donna: by using Twitter for civic engagement, her students were able to connect with and impact the world beyond their town. Finally, well beyond the value of civic participation was the value of the students themselves: Donna wanted her students to know that they have worth and importance beyond any boundaries that exist because of where they live or who they are.

All of these uses for Twitter point to Donna’s desire to have her students see themselves as members of a country with a long history which is still evolving and of which they were an important part. From the local community through to the federal government, there was no aspect of civic life to which Donna’s students should not be attuned, and they had the right and responsibility to share their thoughts, whether with their local community via a school hashtag or more widely by directly tweeting to elected officials. This was another way in which Donna used Twitter to connect students to history and the present while communicating her hope that they can and should be active citizens.

Jed also modeled being an advocate for those who are marginalized: much of our conversation focused on people in his community who needed help in seeing themselves as equal members of the community. Jed saw fostering relationships between students as a significant part of this advocacy, whether by bringing students together across his community in ways which are difficult, given the way the districts have been drawn, or helping students in the school’s gay-straight alliance to connect with other similar groups at other schools. Jed’s reasons and expectations for using Twitter in class were fostering these connections, between himself and his students, and between his students and other members of the community. Jed saw this relationship-building as the foundation of being an effective teacher. Whether it was the gay-straight alliance using Twitter to keep up with members of other GSAs around Iowa or African-American students seeing a white teacher make connections between the Civil Rights Movement and the #BlackLivesMatter movement, Jed advocated for the inclusion of all people into the community.

Across all of these examples, Jed’s intent was to make students who felt ostracized or separated feel included, valued, and important, not only through school programs but also through supportive relationships with teachers. In using Twitter to showcase students’ work and extracurricular accomplishments, Jed was working to build a culture of support and encouragement around those students. As he noted,

Especially with high-school students, it’s not like parents are, you know, excited to get to put [student work] on their fridge. Our district, it does use social media as well. So they’ll tweet it to everybody that follows the district.

Jed wanted his students to make connections, feel supported, and see themselves as members of a larger community. For Jed, being in relationship with others; advocating for those who are marginalized; including a plurality of voices into the conversation; and learning how to understand information in order to make well-informed opinions were all ways in which to engage civically.

Leo also saw teaching as being at the service of helping his students to see themselves as citizens who needed to participate in the life of their community and that they were already capable of doing this. One way that Leo engaged students with the community was by asking them to engage in meaningful work which would be shared with others. He wanted his students to feel that they were not just doing work just to keep them busy, but rather that what they were doing in class mattered beyond the scope of class. Further, Leo wanted his students to know that what they did was important and valuable, both because he believed that to be true and because he wanted them to produce work that matched those expectations. Showing students’ work to others was one way to demonstrate to his students how valuable their work was. The processes through which they created, shared, received feedback, and revised their work was the method through which Leo taught them that what they thought and produced is worthwhile, and because of that, they needed to be active members of society.

One example of how Leo supported student worth was by advocating for students to find and share their voice through multiple modalities. As an example, he described a “quiet kid” who chose to make a video about Adam Smith and Karl Marx; she posted the video on YouTube, where it had, at the time of our interview, over 300,000 hits. Leo related this back to his overall purposes of engaging activities that promote value in student work in this comment:

And she’s just this quiet kid. So it was kinda cool to give her an audience outside of her class that she felt comfortable with. All I really wanted was products that meant something to the kids that have a life cycle beyond like them to me to recycle bin. That just seemed so pointless.

This anecdote showed everything that was critical to Leo as a teacher: providing students with options so that they could choose ways to engage with material and present in ways that were comfortable and meaningful to them and which can be viewed, valued, and responded to by others.

Leo’s focus on student worth had impacts on both student learning and on his teaching. Leo felt that he became a better teacher when he began to give his students more freedom in how they showed evidence of their learning. Leo’s teaching changed because when he “knew my kids better,” he “spent more time helping them rather than telling them everything.” Through this creative process, he observed that students were more proactive in their learning because they found that in doing their projects they needed to learn skills or information in order to do them well. Leo’s shift to providing students with time and space to construct their learning in ways that were meaningful and relatable to them changed his students’ approach to learning; it also changed Leo’s approach to teaching.

In many instances, Will spoke about his hopes and concerns for his students in the same way as some of the other participants in this study, but in Will’s case, the meaning of those words was different because of the vastly different context in which Will taught. A primary objective for Will as a teacher was to prepare his students for adulthood, and he saw his students’ civic engagement as a way that his students could be productive adults. Similar to Donna, Will used Twitter to help them to understand how this might be possible for his students. Like Donna, Jed, and Leo, Will wanted his students to feel like they mattered: he wanted them to make a difference and to believe that they could and should reach out to political officials and other leaders and expect a response. Unlike the other participants in this study, Will and his students were not marginalized, and so it is easy to believe that there was no inherent deficit which they needed to overcome in order to be heard or feel included or respected. However, while Will’s students may have had significant advantages that the students of the other participants do not enjoy, Will’s students may have needed just as much convincing as any other students that they had worth. Further, the sincerity of Will’s beliefs about the value his students had was genuine.

Overall, it was clear that all but one of these teachers were focused on helping his or her students to feel that their ideas and work were worthy of respect and attention, that each of them mattered to the group (society) as individuals. Donna, Jed, Will, and Leo each taught their students that the students’ opinions and work had value, going to great lengths to not only communicate this value to the students themselves but also to the wider community. Additionally, these teachers felt that it was an important part of their role to convince their students that they could and should participate in civic life because their opinions and work mattered. Finally, each of these saw Twitter as a way to both share and validate student work. They believed by sharing student work or student ideas via Twitter, students could feel connected to and validated by others.

Revisiting Effective Civic Education Methods

This finding of the importance of recognizing students as members of their communities who are already able to participate in civic life has impacts for civic education. As previously discussed, the most effective methods for teaching civic knowledge have been shown to be participatory, in which students created discussions, held debates, or engaged in interactive experiences (Gibson & Levine, 2003; Kahne & Middaugh, 2008; Niemi & Chapman, 1999; Torney-Purta et al., 1999; Torney-Purta et al., 2001). Civic skills, such as the ability to evaluate sources and debating issues, were best learned through specific and relatable contexts that students understood and the use of current events in class (Gibson & Levine, 2003; Hess & Posselt, 2002; Hibbing & Theiss-Morse, 1996; Niemi & Junn, 2005; Pasek et al., 2008; Syvertsen et al., 2007). Finally, civic action was best learned through involvement in the community (Gibson & Levine, 2003; Kahne & Middaugh, 2008; Niemi & Chapman, 1999; Torney-Purta et al., 1999; Torney-Purta et al., 2001).

Teachers in this study reported engaging in some of these methods deemed effective for teaching civics, specifically participatory activities such as discussions, practicing source evaluation through specific and relatable contexts, and the use of current events, while others remained elusive. For instance, Leo’s beliefs about the value and efficacy of more creative assignments as measurements of civic learning aligned with what prior research had identified as effective civic education: he thought that these creative projects were more relatable to students’ experiences (Gibson & Levine, 2003; Niemi & Junn, 2005; Pasek et al., 2008); more participatory and student-created (Gibson & Levine, 2003; Kahne & Middaugh, 2008; Niemi & Chapman, 1999; Torney-Purta et al., 1999; Torney-Purta et al., 2001); have greater involvement with the community (Gibson & Levine, 2003; Kahne & Middaugh, 2008; Niemi & Chapman, 1999; Torney-Purta et al., 1999; Torney-Purta et al., 2001); and demonstrate a variety of ways to be civically involved (Torney-Purta et al., 2001). Teachers focused on these methods particularly because they were concerned with ways in which students could participate in civic life immediately so as to develop skills that could be used throughout life. Additionally, teachers were attentive to using teaching methods which would support students’ effective civic engagement, as a way of increasing interest that could be sustained over a lifetime. Each of these pedagogical approaches recognized that students were already able to engage in the civic sphere and gave them opportunities to do so.

Considering Social Media in K-12 Education

The concept of student worth also expands our understanding about teaching with social media in K-12 education generally, and in secondary civics education specifically, both of which are under-explored terrain in the current social media in education literature (Greenhow et al., 2020; Greenhow & Askari, 2017; Manca & Ranieri, 2013, Manca & Ranieri, 2016). Moreover, educational research on how and why educators use Twitter specifically found four dimensions of learning with Twitter: who participates in learning, when learning happens, what is learned, and how learning happens (Gao et al., 2012). This study aligns with Gao et al.’s conclusions: (1) that Twitter expands the pool of learners and instructors; (2) expands learning content; and (3) fosters interactive learning. Adding student worth into this mix sheds light on why these factors may be important.

Taking this first dimension of learning with Twitter, that Twitter expands the pool of learners and instructors (Gao et al., 2012), researchers noted that using Twitter connected students to a variety of others who were interested in their course of study, including peers, practitioners and professionals in their fields, and interest groups. Similarly, the teachers in this study wanted their students to reach out to others via Twitter, including their parents (Jed and Leo); members of their local community (Donna, Jed, and Leo); political leaders (Donna, Jed, Leo, and Will); and to other students, in their own class or school, or outside of their district (Jed, Leo, and Charlie). In some cases, these connections were explicitly made to include others in the class’s community of learners, such as when Leo had students reach out to their parents and other adults to ask their opinions on the day’s topics. In other cases, the connections to learning were less explicit, such as when Jed and Leo shared student work on Twitter in hopes that the community would see, and perhaps comment on, student accomplishments. Regardless, each of these connections potentially expands the learning community.

Moreover, in each of these experiences, students were situated as members of the community, of value to those with whom they were interacting. Twitter did not only pull new people into the learning community; it brought students into the greater community as equal members. At the same time that value was placed on interactions with others with whom the students interacted on Twitter, teachers also emphasized the value that the students offered in those interactions. In a way, Twitter offered a community space in which students were equal participants to all others who gathered there, whether they were students from another state or country, subject matter experts, or elected officials. In these interactions, students were expected to be polite, but not deferential. Teachers worked hard to ensure a healthy balance for their students in this space, where students could share their learning and opinions, connect with people who represented them in the government, and be in dialogue with others in a genuine and meaningful way.

The second dimension of learning with Twitter that it expands learning content (Gao et al., 2012) argues that using Twitter broadens the information to which students are exposed, by allowing students to contribute and share information, examples of key concepts, and news stories related to class content. This study supports this earlier finding in several ways. One example of extending learning content through Twitter was Donna’s making connections between tweets from modern-day presidents and the founding documents of the United States. Another example was Leo’s invitation for students to engage in creative work in response to assessments, which connected civics content with a variety of creative skills. Additionally, Will’s outreach to public figures to participate in his class, such as the Curator of the Smithsonian and former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, brought new voices and analysis of history to Will’s students. A last example from this study of how Twitter expanded learning content was Leo’s use of Twitter to connect students with people around the world experiencing history-making events, which provided those students with a perspective on those events that they otherwise would not have had.

In each of these instances, the students played an active, rather than passive, role. They were finding and engaging with new content and making connections in organic ways. Teachers honored students’ inherent worth by allowing them to have creative responses and to engage with material and people in ways which were guided by teachers but driven by students. This, in turn, supported students’ civic engagement: by giving them the freedom to participate in ways of their choosing, teachers were telling and showing students that they were worthy of doing so.

The third dimension of learning with Twitter was that Twitter fostered interactive and collaborative learning (Gao et al., 2012). Using Twitter increased the time and space that students could spend working together with peers, instructors, or interested others outside of class or asynchronously. In some classes, students were learning how to communicate with political leaders by actually reaching out to them (Donna, Jed, Leo, and Will). Students were asked to interact with family and community members (Donna, Jed, Leo, and Will), and in some cases members of the community were invited to interact with students (Donna, Leo, and Will). In some cases, students connected with other students across the state, country, or world and learned with them (Jed and Leo). Students also interacted with a variety of people specifically to ask questions during history-making events (Donna and Leo). Finally, some of the teachers used Twitter to foster discussion outside of class (Jed and Charlie).

Related to the finding in the civic education literature that effective civic learning should be participatory (Gibson & Levine, 2003; Kahne & Middaugh, 2008; Niemi & Chapman, 1999; Torney-Purta et al., 1999; Torney-Purta et al., 2001), this dimension of learning with Twitter situates students as collaborators. In this way, learning with Twitter, particularly in the ways in which such learning was structured by the teachers in this study, brings students into the center of civic participation and conversation, rather than asking them to learn about it in the abstract or watch things unfolding from the outside. This collaborative and participatory approach to civic education honors students’ inherent worth and recognizes them as civic actors.

As to the fourth dimension, that Twitter supports informal learning or fosters reflective things, the teachers in this study did not use Twitter for these purposes (Gao et al., 2012). Although previous studies discuss the benefits of social media for informal learning (e.g., Greenhow & Askari, 2017) and the connections between formal and informal learning that social media can help bring about, these connections were not discussed by the teachers in this study. Teachers in this study did not use Twitter for informal learning out of concerns for privacy, both their own and also the privacy of their students. This aligns with the teachers’ and administrators’ well-founded concerns over privacy (Warnick et al., 2016). Out of their concern for privacy, the teachers in this study did not conceive of Twitter as a tool for informal learning.

While teachers had reasons or systemic limitations for not using Twitter for informal or reflective learning, doing so should be a consideration for civic education in the future. As a means of connecting formal and informal learning, Twitter could provide an excellent means of connecting what students do inside the classroom and what they do outside of it. This may, in turn, allow students to see civic participation as both more fluid and more connected; that they are worthy to engage in the school community, in the larger community, and that they have the means to participate across contexts.

A finding of this study was the importance of Twitter in showcasing student worth. Teachers in this study perceived that one of the reasons young people do not participate in civic life is that they feel unworthy of doing so. The common approach to civic education, of preparing students to be part of a community when they reach the age of 18, reinforces this lack of worth. The teachers in this study recognized that young people are already members of a community, not merely preparing to be initiated into society. Young people can, and do, participate in civic life, and the teachers in this study felt that civic education should recognize what they were already doing and support them in further civic engagement. The teachers in this study used Twitter to teach students that they could already play a role in the civic sphere while at the same time providing support so that students were encouraged and guided in their civic participation.

Civic education should attend to questions of student worth. Young people can be discounted or even demonized for engaging in civic actions, which may impede their continued civic participation. Both because of this and beyond it, student voices are often marginalized, both within schools and in the larger civic sphere. This, too, can inhibit further civic engagement. Understanding the role that student worth can play in civic engagement is significant not only because of the intrinsic value of student worth to student growth and development but also because of the related benefits to effective civic education of students seeing themselves as worthy of participating in society.