Social Media for Civic Education

Front matter

Jé PALGRAVE STUDIES IN EDUCATIONAL MEDIA

Engaging Youth for Democracy

Amy L. Chapman əlorəve OPEN ACCESS al

Preface

I knew about 15 years ago that I wanted to write a book. At that time, this is not the book I would have imagined writing. Fifteen years ago, social media was a presence in our lives; today, it has become omnipresent, with serious implications for individuals and society. There has never been a more important time to understand how social media operates and to learn how it can be used for manipulation and social change.

From hashtag movements to cyberterrorism, social media is solidly in the civic sphere. Social media has the power to inform, mislead, rile, connect, and provoke a swell of support and an avalanche of harm. A failure to acknowledge this power only strengthens that power: when we are passive receivers and do not question what we consume, we are setting ourselves up to be confused, manipulated, and hurt. This is true on both the individual and collective levels. How we, as individuals and communities, engage as civic actors is influenced by social media. It is dangerous for all if we are unaware of this.

At the same time, social media has great potential as both a connector and a disrupter. People find meaningful relationships through social media, particularly those who are marginalized or those for whom finding connection may be difficult. Social media can challenge the status quo, providing a free and accessible space in which anyone can push against oppressive systems, illustrate injustice, and engage in civic action. Both sides of this social media coin are intentional: whether someone wants to help or harm; connect or belittle; challenge the system or support hegemonic structures; these choices are made by the individual users and by the underlying algorithms which run social media. If social media use is ix

X PREFACE ubiquitous, and if it functions as part of civic life, learning about, with, and through social media is an imperative of civic education. Young people, who are already civic actors as much as they are social media users, need support in learning about social media and its place in the civic sphere.

This book explores how teachers are teaching civics with social media and what more must be done in order for civic education to allow young people to combat the harms of social media to leverage it for true civic action and social change. It is imperative that young people understand the power for good and the power for harm—both to themselves and to the community—that exists at their fingertips. We are not doing nearly enough to support young people in understanding their use of social media, and in doing so in ways which are intentionally civic minded. At best, this is a lost opportunity; at worst, it is a threat to democracy. The teachers in the study that is the base of this book knew this and worked diligently to teach their students with and about social media. They also knew that there was more to be done. This book shares their experiences and the meaning they made from their work, and it aims to push the fields of educational technology and civic education further to prepare young people to inherit democracy. This is the imperative of our time.

New York, NY Amy L. Chapman

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Writing this book was not a solitary effort, but the circle was intentionally small. Nonetheless, there are many people to acknowledge and thank, because those closest to me furthered my thinking about this work throughout.

This book exists because of my editor, Linda Braus, who invited me to think about whether this research might be a book-length project. Linda has been a true partner in this project from the start. Unfailingly kind, supportive, clear, and thoughtful, Linda has provided feedback and suggestions that made the book better. More than that, Linda’s way of being made the experience of writing the book better. Many thanks, Linda: you are a gift!

My gratitude to Antony Sami, production editor at Springer, whose communications and support from the beginning of this project have been superb. Antony and Linda have provided such clarity about the publishing process that it allayed any anxiety that I had. In doing so, they created the space for me to do deep thinking and spend my time writing. To the editors of the Palgrave Studies in Educational Media Series: thank you for your support and careful reading of this manuscript.

The study that is the crux of this book was conducted at Michigan State University for my dissertation. My thanks to my dissertation committee, particularly my advisor, Christine Greenhow, and methods expert Kyle Greenwalt, who put so much work into this study with me. The teachers who participated in this study gave generously of their time, a limited resource for all teachers. I am grateful for all that they shared which allows xi xii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS us all to think more deeply about our teaching and learning practices around civic education and social media.

I have been teaching since 2004, a great privilege of my life. Knowing and caring about students is the best part of the job, and it has been a joy to walk alongside so many for so long. This book is better because of their inquisitiveness, and the world is better for it, too.

My thinking has evolved thanks to rich conversations with bright people who research social media in education, particularly my great friend and colleague Spencer Greenhalgh. There is no one I would rather be with in the trenches of social media research than you. Who you are makes it possible to see and understand the manipulative and ugly sides of social media and to still see the world as good.

We all stand on the shoulders of giants. Careful readers may notice that some of the chapter titles and pseudonyms are homages, to scholars (Lowe and Laffey, Chap. 2; boyd and Ellison, Chap. 8), to giants (Thurgood Marshall, Chap. 6; Aaron Sorkin, Chap. 8; Fr. Greg Boyle, S.J., Chap. 9), and to my friends. While there is much to thank them for, as it pertains to this book, my closest friends are teachers, active members of communities, and leaders who themselves think deeply about the questions of social media and civic life. This work is more expansive and thoughtful because of our many conversations which have pushed my thinking around technology’s impacts on individuals and the community, civic responsibility, teaching students from different socioeconomic backgrounds, navigating complex relationships, justice, and peace. My love and gratitude to Kori Oliver Schimpf, Rebecca Stern Nickles, Gwendolyn Crews, Meghan Devine, and Janet Stephens. Next round is on me.

When Linda raised this book as a possibility, I told only one person: Jerry Sloan. Jerry is a writer with whom I have been having conversations about social justice, structural inequality, and our role in societal change for more than 15 years. He also thinks I can do just about anything. This is patently untrue, of course, but everyone should have someone in their lives who thinks so highly of you that it’s not really believable and yet somehow convincing. This would have been a different book had it not been for you, Jerry.

My family could not be more civically or community-oriented. My parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins have made it the norm to participate in civic life, to care deeply about our community, and to make a conscious effort to work for the common good. There are no exceptions, but I want to particularly thank my mom, Cheryl Sankey Chapman,

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xiii who instilled in us a sense of responsibility to our communities and who modeled for me what it was to step in and lead, and my dad, Beau Chapman, who could not be more invested in the health of our local and national communities. Their discussions and work have fostered my own passion for civic action.

My sister, Emily Marotta, is generous, kind, enthusiastic, and usually right. The possibility and hope that lives throughout this book is my homage to her.

Emily tries to make the world a better place every day, and my brotherin-law, Anthony Marotta, lives by the adage “do the right thing.” This book is framed by those two ways of proceeding: grounded in hope and possibility as well as needing to be deeply thoughtful about what is right. My nephews, Chase and Colin, give me great hope that civic education will always support them (and all students) to be as passionate, as thoughtful, as active, and as inquisitive as they are now. Each of these relationships informs my work, and thus each has informed the writing of this book.

Though my interest and participation in civic life has been formed by my family, teachers, friends, students, and experiences in a world which has changed so much and yet not enough in recent decades, The West Wing still accurately captures my paradoxical relationship with being a civic actor, teacher, researcher, and human being all too well. Whatever you think about social media and its role in our democracy, as much as any other, this question continues to frame it for me:

“Are you telling me I can still flummox this thing with something I bought at Radio Shack?”

—Toby Ziegler

What’s next?

18 May 2022 Amy L. Chapman

Contents

Is Twitter for the Birds? The Young and the Restless Don’t Think So

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: How Social Media Operates in the Civic Sphere

#CivicEd: Teachers’ Stories of Connection, Civics, and Social Media

Chapter 1

Civic education in the United States has a long history. American democracy relies on an informed, active, participatory citizenry, and the presumption has long been that young people learn how to engage in civic life in school. Horace Mann, in 1842, gave a speech about civic life in which he noted that most citizens did not know what was required of them and many were corrupt (Mann, 1842). He further spoke about the need for greater learning and teaching about civic matters and noted that while all governments require intelligence and morality in their rulers, in the United States, a country in which everyone is a ruler, all citizens must have intelligence and moral character (Mann, 1842). Mann also noted that citizens are not born with the requisite knowledge and morality to successfully participate in American democracy, but they are certainly capable of achieving it through education (Mann, 1842). While participation in civic life can be learned outside of the classroom, in the United States there has been a focus on teaching civics, primarily in social studies classes, since the 1890s (Hahn, 1999). John Dewey argued that schools were a microcosm of society, and a place where young people first learned how to interact in community; thus, it was the responsibility of the school to model democracy for those in it (Dewey, 1897), and schools continue to be seen as the primary and most appropriate setting in which young people learn what it is to be in community (Parker, 2003; Payne et al.,

© The Author(s) 2023 1 A. L. Chapman, Social Media for Civic Education, Palgrave Studies

2020). Further, the general consensus in the United States continues to be that it is the school’s responsibility to prepare students to be active and informed democratic citizens (Elam & Rose, 1996).

Despite these long-held aspirational goals, civic education has not been recognized as a priority in the United States for decades. The relative value we place on civic education can be seen in the way that it is funded: per pupil in 2019, the United States spent $54 on STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) education, compared to $0.05 on civic education (U.S. Department of Education, 2019). Perhaps consequently, the amount of time students spend in history and social studies classes, where civics is most frequently taught, has been declining since the late 1990s (Hanson et al., 2018). In a recent survey which asked respondents how to improve American society, improving civic education was the only potential reform which was supported by the majority (Luntz, 2020). Recent political and world events have brought the shortcomings of civic education into sharp relief, and some work is now being done to improve civic education (Educating for American Democracy, 2021). However, while we know that young people use social media for civic engagement (CIRCLE, 2021a), we have largely neglected how civic education can support youth civic participation via social media, in favor of more traditional approaches to civic education.

YOUTH Civic ENGAGEMENT

Many, including scholars and teachers, have been and continue to be concerned by the apparent lack of interest among youth in civic activities (Educating for American Democracy, 2021; Putnam, 2000). For their part, youth, when asked how they would define a good citizen, most frequently respond with one quality, often obeying laws or voting (Sherrod, 2003). However, limiting an understanding of civic engagement to voting only leaves the possibility of misunderstanding the ways in which youth understand their civic roles in society and the ways in which they choose to exercise them.

For decades, researchers and others have been concerned about what they see as a declining participation in civic life from youth (Educating for American Democracy, 2021; Putnam, 1995, 2000). Those concerned about this declining participation cite decreases in youth consumption of traditional or legacy news sources as well as a decline in traditional forms of civic engagement, such as belonging to a political party, writing letters to elected representatives or newspapers, and voting, as potential contributing factors (Bennett et al., 2012). More recently, the picture appears more nuanced. While youth are engaging with traditional forms of civic engagement and media less often, it could be that this is not a decline but rather a reorganization of youth civic engagement given new media and technology affordances which have changed the way in which youth understand and use both knowledge and action (Bennett et al., 2012). This hypothesis is supported by the recent uptick in youth voting (CIRCLE, 2021b) and civic engagement via social media (CIRCLE, 2021a). At the same time, however, civic education has not shifted to support the ways in which young people are engaging in the civic sphere (Bennett et al., 2012). Instead, civic education remains largely ineffective in preparing young people to participate in civic life (Educating for American Democracy, 2021).

Further, young people have been telling us for decades that there was a gap between their civic education and how they wanted to participate in civic life. In 1968, high school seniors who had taken one (or more, though very few respondents had taken more than one) civics course were more likely to be interested in politics, to be knowledgeable about government and its functions, to show more interest in accessing political information on their own and discussing that information with others, to have tolerance for others, and were more likely to feel politically efficacious (Langton & Jennings, 1968). However, the correlations between completion of civics courses in high school and any greater interest or aptitude for civic engagement were extremely weak for all measures (Langton & Jennings, 1968). In other words, by 1968, there was already a disconnect between civic education and civic participation.

Civic education was understudied in the United States from the late 1960s until the 1990s; then, as now, there was a heightened concern about youth civic preparation (Bennett et al., 2009). In the late 1990s, a large study of youth civic education found that nearly 80% of students reported that they had no intention of engaging in traditional political processes which were taught in schools, such as joining a political party or writing letters to the editor of newspapers (Torney-Purta et al., 2001). However, 59% of those students responded that they would fundraise for a cause and 44% reported that they would march for one (Torney-Purta et al., 2001). However, those methods of civic engagement favored by students were not discussed or supported in schools (‘Torney-Purta et al., 2001). The knowledge and skills required for these changing ways of participating in civic life had, in some ways, grown and changed from the models that had existed for decades, and civic education had not kept up with these changes.

This same pattern has continued to the present day. Despite calls for renewed attention to civic education from scholars and the public, a recent systematic review of civic education in the United States over the last decade showed that little has been done to understand or teach civic education differently than in previous decades (Fitzgerald et al., 2021). Although teachers and researchers alike have called for reconceptualizing civic education and consequently revisiting civic education pedagogies, particularly for students who are marginalized (Ginwright, 2010), these calls have largely gone unanswered (Fitzgerald et al., 2021). In both theory and practice, civic education remains focused on outdated approaches which minimize young people’s contributions to their communities (Payne et al., 2020), maintain inequitable access to civic learning (Atkins & Hart, 2003; Kirshner, 2015), and ignore calls to see civic participation more broadly to include ways in which young people are already engaged in civic life (Fitzgerald et al., 2021).

CURRENT PRACTICES IN CIVIC EDUCATION

When civic education research resumed in the 1990s, it illuminated the qualities of schools and classrooms which promote the development of civic knowledge, skills, and action (Kahne & Middaugh, 2008). These studies, taken together, provide a broad picture of what civic education in the United States looks like, and more importantly, how content, pedagogical approaches, and classroom climate can make civic education more robust.

Climate

Classroom climate is a critical factor in the success of civic education (Campbell, 2005; Gibson & Levine, 2003; McIntosh et al., 2007; Pasek et al., 2008; Torney-Purta, 2002). Several studies have examined the impact of classroom climate on civic education. Classrooms were evaluated for how open (to what extent students were encouraged to express opinions and whether disagreeing opinions were respected) they were, and pedagogies were assessed as being traditional (based on lectures and textbooks) or not. Students were grouped into four categories: both, students who reported high levels of openness and traditional instruction; neither, students who reported low levels of openness and traditional instruction; interactive, students who only reported high levels of openness; and J/ectwre, students who only reported high levels of traditional instruction (Torney-Purta & Wilkenfeld, 2009).

Students who reported learning in open classrooms scored higher across all twelve measures used to assess civic knowledge, attitudes, responsibilities, and behaviors (Torney-Purta & Wilkenfeld, 2009). There were no measures on which students who only used traditional methods of learning scored higher than those who came from open classrooms, and those who neither had open classrooms nor traditional instruction represented approximately 25% of the sample (Torney-Purta & Wilkenfeld, 2009). Students were more likely to have greater civic knowledge if they attended schools which had a more open and democratic climate (Torney- Purta & Wilkenfeld, 2009). Conversely, students who were learning in classrooms which were less open or more teacher-centered felt less confident about understanding and analyzing political information and experienced less political efficacy compared to students who learned in more open classrooms (Syvertsen et al., 2007).

Some of these studies have also found that teaching civic knowledge and skills in contexts that are understandable to students and which speak to their own experiences is important (Gibson & Levine, 2003; Niemi & Junn, 2005; Pasek et al., 2008). The creation of a school culture which encourages students to question, debate, and practice civic engagement fosters students’ sense of belonging and connectedness, which in turn promotes civic participation (Chapman et al., 2021; Chapman & Miller, 2022).

Content

Another key component of civic education is the content of instruction. For decades, research has shown that civic education includes very little variety in the topics which are taught (Educating for American Democracy, 2021; Hahn, 1999; Lopez et al., 2006). These topics were often limited to the U.S. Constitution, wars and military heroes, or the American form of government (Lopez et al., 2006). In contrast, only 11% of the students reported that civics classroom topics included discussion of contemporary problems or issues for the United States today (Lopez et al., 2006). While this type of content is undoubtedly important, the focus on these topics alone suggests a more traditional approach to civic education. Students who are more interested in a broader understanding of participation in civic life would be better supported if the civic education curriculum included the history and practice of other forms of civic engagement, such as protests, conservation efforts, or civil debate. Consequently, the topics and the manner of approaching them seem to best fit a smaller number of students, leaving the majority as lesser prepared citizens.

Pedagogies

How civics is taught is as important as what is taught. A recent report on civic education pedagogies, “The Republic Is (Still) at Risk,” identified ten approaches which prepare students to be informed, engaged citizens (Levine & Kawashima-Ginsberg, 2017). Each of these pedagogies was participatory and focused on the intertwining of knowledge with practices which support civic engagement. These included student participation in school government, service learning, news media literacy, and simulations of democratic processes (Levine & Kawashima-Ginsberg, 2017). This report extended prior research which had found that participatory pedagogies, such as the use of classroom discussion or current events or other issues (Gibson & Levine, 2003; McDevitt et al., 2003; Parker, 2003; Syvertsen et al., 2007); discussion of contested topics has been shown to increase student interest in politics (Hess & Posselt, 2002; Hibbing & Theiss-Morse, 1996; Niemi & Junn, 2005; Syvertsen et al., 2007); and teaching civic knowledge and skills in contexts that are understandable to students and which speak to their own experiences (Gibson & Levine, 2003; Niemi & Junn, 2005; Pasek et al., 2008) were more effective at supporting students’ civic development.

Even though there is clear evidence that students learn more effectively and develop an interest in civic and political life if they have the chance to debate contested topics in an open and encouraging classroom (Hahn, 1999; Hanson et al., 2018; Niemi & Junn, 2005), few of the teachers or students reported the use of these pedagogical approaches in their classrooms or school (Hahn, 1999; Hanson et al., 2018). Although teachers’ intentions were to stress critical thinking with their students (Torney- Purta et al., 2001), they reported that their classes usually consisted of the transmission of facts to their students through lectures, textbooks, and worksheets or discussion (Education for American Democracy, 2021;

Hanson et al., 2018; Torney-Purta et al., 2001). As a result, most civic education is focused on knowledge acquisition, limiting students’ opportunities to engage in civic activities or to see themselves as civic actors.

State Standards

However, much of civic education was not aligned with these best practices, and the gap between young people’s civic engagement and mainstream civic education persists. Forty-two states and Washington, D.C., require one course related to civic education prior to high school graduation, though courses which include civics topics count toward this requirement (Hanson et al., 2018). The standards for these courses vary, though most focus on classroom instruction, knowledge building, and discussion activities (Hanson et al., 2018). Some state requirements do include more participatory strategies: 26 states and Washington, D.C., mention simulations and 11 states mention service learning (Hanson et al., 2018). Despite its historical importance and the fact that schools are largely relied upon to provide civics education, the requirements to learn and succeed in civics seem thin and uneven. Further, though decades of research indicate that more participatory pedagogies and practical experience engaging in civic activities are critical for effective civic education, these are not the approaches which are prioritized in state standards.

OBSTACLES TO EFFECTIVE CIVIC EDUCATION

If we know what civic education approaches are effective, and how civic education can be improved, why has civic education not improved in the last several decades? There are a number of significant obstacles to effective civic education. Niemi and Chapman (1999) found that students who were good students in other school subjects were generally inclined to be attentive to several markers of civic engagement, including attention paid to the news, a sense of political efficacy in communicating with the government, a developed understanding of the functioning of the government, and general tolerance of the views of others. These findings indicated that students who were academically successful in other subjects were more likely to succeed in civic education courses, thus privileging students who do well in school to be the best prepared citizens (Bennett et al., 2009). An emphasis on academic success as a precursor for civic involvement and the findings of what topics are taught in civic education classrooms are problematic for three reasons. First, academically successful students are not equally and evenly dispersed throughout schools, with more academically successful students coming from schools with high socioeconomic demographics (Hahn, 1999; Niemi & Chapman, 1999). Secondly, academic success in civic education courses has not been shown to correlate to increased civic engagement or civic action; knowing information about how the government and political systems work does not necessarily mean that one will act upon that knowledge in civic life (Hart & Gullan, 2010).

Evidence of further disparity between students exists, as not only academically strong students but also those who come from higher socioeconomic environments are more likely to be successful in civic education courses (Torney-Purta & Barber, 2004; Niemi & Junn, 2005; Bennett et al., 2009). Students who came from homes with a lower socioeconomic status scored significantly below the mean on civic knowledge and skills measures (Torney-Purta & Barber, 2004). Civic education is also not equitably offered across races: White students score considerably higher on civic assessments than do Black or Latino students (Hanson et al., 2018). There is also a disparity at the school level: schools with the highest outcomes for civic skills development were those in high socioeconomic areas (Niemi & Junn, 2005). These gaps are growing: on scores on tests of civic knowledge, the difference between affluent and impoverished students, as well as the gap between White and Black students, have been increasing significantly in recent decades (Hanson et al., 2018). Importantly, when these gaps are eliminated, and marginalized students receive civic education which is participatory and student-centered, they thrive (Atwell et al., 2017; Levine & Kawashima-Ginsberg, 2017; Levinson, 2012).

A further obstacle to robust civic education is that teachers lack a variety of resources to support it. These included content-related resources: teachers reported that if they had better materials, civic education could be improved (Torney-Purta et al., 2001). Another resource which teachers lacked was time allocated to teaching civics, which made it difficult to make civic education a priority (Hahn, 1999; Hanson et al., 2018). Teachers felt that they were inadequately prepared to teach civics and needed more specific professional development to teach it; this need was amplified when teaching students with special needs or who were learning English (Educating for American Democracy, 2021). Similarly, some teachers feared the potential controversy of teaching about diversity. Finally, a number of teachers cited school policies or school climates which discouraged students from speaking out or having any power to be directly opposed to what they were trying to teach in civics (Hahn, 1999; Hanson et al., 2018). The variety in these obstacles provides a sense of how many factors are involved in providing impactful and long-lasting civic education to youth.

At the school level, many teachers felt the effects of school climate on civic education, noting that it was more difficult to teach about democracy and participation in civic life when the school culture was primarily concerned about order and quiet behavior (Hahn, 1999). It is important to note that schools and classrooms which had less democratic environments also used fewer interactive instructional methods and that these schools and classrooms were often in urban areas and served students from lower socioeconomic levels (Hahn, 1999). The result was that the civic education of students in higher socioeconomic groups was considerably different than the civic education of students in lower socioeconomic groups, a finding which has been seen across studies for decades (Atkins & Hart, 2003; Fitzgerald et al., 2021; Hahn, 1999; Kahne & Middaugh, 2008; Kirshner, 2015; Levinson, 2012).

CREATING More INCLUSIVE AND PARTICIPATORY Civic EDUCATION

Like many other aspects of learning, civic education in the United States is seen as preparatory for one’s life in the future, not a place to receive support and guidance in the ways in which one is already engaged in life (Chapman & Greenhow, 2021; Payne et al., 2020). Although schools are seen both as the site of civic education and as the first experience of community young people have outside of the family, young people are not seen as civic actors. Rather, civic education is built around the idea that students should participate in civic life when they are older. This is harmful in a few ways. First, it fails to recognize that students, as members of both their school and larger communities, are already able to engage in many aspects of civic life (Chapman & Greenhow, 2021). Further, young people do choose to participate in civic life, but often in ways which are not recognized (Castro & Knowles, 2017; Knight & Watson, 2014; Payne et al., 2020). Because these methods of civic participation are not recognized, they are often unsupported in schools (Chapman & Greenhow, 2021). Finally, this approach to civic education, which ignores the experiences and capabilities of children in favor of centering adults as experts who can pass on knowledge, reflects the “banking” model of education described by Freire (1972), where children will receive what they need to become citizens from adults who know the world better (Payne et al., 2020). As Freire argued for education more broadly, this approach to civic education not only discounts all that young people bring to the civic sphere, it also reinforces traditional power structures by passing along what is already operative rather than encouraging new ways of seeing or structuring the world. Consequently, this approach to civic education maintains oppressive societal structures (Chapman & Greenhow, 2021). The impact of this conceptual approach to civic education further marginalizes young people, particularly those who are already vulnerable.