Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study investigates the convergence and divergence of democratic school culture and open classroom climate in mitigating the influence of students’ family backgrounds on their civic outcomes. Utilizing data from the International Civic and Citizenship Education Study 2016, the research first analyzes how students’ family backgrounds affect their civic aspirations and civic efficacy in Finland and South Korea, highlighting key similarities and differences between the two nations. This study also explores the impact of schooling on the relationship between students’ family backgrounds and their civic outcomes. I conceptualize schooling with a focus on school culture and classroom climate, as these factors provide relatively equitable access to learning opportunities for students, regardless of their voluntary participation. Ultimately, the results highlight the compensating role of schooling in mitigating students’ civic gap from their family background. This research offers implications on the intersectionality among students’ family, schooling and their development of civic outcomes as well as the roles of schooling in mitigating civic gaps in students’ civic outcomes.

Keywords

civic aspiration civic efficacy comparative education study democratic school culture open classroom climate

Introduction

The role of schooling in mitigating civic inequalities among students has been a subject of interest in educational research, as schools are viewed as critical spaces for fostering students’ civic outcomes. However, ongoing civic disparities point to deeper, systemic issues grounded in social inequalities (Saraví et al., 2020; Scales et al., 2011; Wray-Lake and Abrams, 2020). Marginalized communities, particularly, encounter significant barriers that impede their participation in civic life (Wray-Lake and Abrams, 2020). The barriers stem from limited access to education, economic resources, information, and social networks (Saraví et al., 2020; Wray-Lake and Abrams, 2020). The youth, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, face an even greater challenge, as the lack of civic resources not only isolates them from political processes but also limits their ability to acquire the skills and knowledge for meaningful engagement (Brady et al., 2020).

Schools have traditionally been viewed as essential for civic education, responsible for preparing students to actively engage in democratic life. Reformers and public officials have consistently emphasized the civic mission of schools, recognizing their potential to develop, empower, and integrate citizens into the democratic fabric of society. However, research shows that schools struggle to meet the objective for mitigating civic gaps (Brady et al., 2015; Neundorf et al., 2016; Pacheco and Plutzer, 2008).

While education is frequently seen as a solution to disparities in civic participation, its actual impact is more complicated and inconsistent. On the one hand, as key socializing institutions, schools are the mitigators of civic engagement gaps (Alscher et al., 2022; Bischoff, 2016; Campbell, 2019; Westheimer, 2015; Wray-Lake and Abrams, 2020). Advocates of this view argue that schools provide marginalized students with the skills, knowledge, and opportunities necessary for civic participation, thus compensating for deficits that may arise from their socio-economic or familial backgrounds. According to this perspective, schools serve as equalizers by fostering civic outcomes—defined as the knowledge, skills, and dispositions required for active citizenship—among students from diverse backgrounds. On the other hand, other scholars contend that schools reproduce and exacerbate existing socio-economic inequalities, thereby perpetuating gaps in civic engagement (Hemmerechts et al., 2017; Hoskins et al., 2015; Hoskins and Janmaat, 2019; Levy et al., 2019; Pacheco and Plutzer, 2008; Plutzer, 2002). The impact of schooling on political socialization may be limited in under-resourced schools (Mennes et al., 2023).

Given the dual functions of schools, this study explores how schools either mitigate or exacerbate the civic gaps that arise from students’ family backgrounds. This comparative international study aims to identify patterns in how schools address civic disparities. While existing research on students’ civic outcomes has largely focused on European countries (Hoskins et al., 2015; Hoskins and Janmaat, 2019) or cross-national comparisons (Knowles et al., 2018; Torney-Purta and Amadeo, 2011), such as the study between Sweden and the United States (Barber et al., 2015), this study centers on Finland and South Korea. These countries are selected due to their distinctive yet comparable education systems, particularly in their policies aimed at fostering civic outcomes among students. By examining Finland, known for its egalitarian education system, alongside South Korea, characterized by significant socio-economic disparities and a competitive educational environment, this study offers a unique comparative perspective. The research provides insights into how schools function differently within varying national frameworks, shedding light on whether they act as equalizers or perpetuators of civic gaps.

Civic gaps in students and schools

In general, schools are viewed not only as places for academic instruction but as microcosms of democratic society. In school, students can engage in practices that promote an understanding of democratic principles such as equality, collaboration, and critical thinking (Rinnooy Kan et al., 2023). However, the impact of schooling on civic outcomes among students is shaped by a complex interplay of social, economic, and institutional factors. While schools hold the potential to nurture democratic values and equip students with the knowledge and skills necessary for civic life, they also function within broader societal structures that may reinforce existing inequalities.

The dual nature of schools—as both reinforcers of inequality and potential equalizers—underpins the framework of this study. On the one hand, schools perpetuate civic gaps comping from socio-economic disparities, providing greater civic outcomes to students from privileged backgrounds. On the other hand, schools hold the capacity to mitigate the civic inequalities through targeted interventions and equitable civic education. Understanding how schools navigate the opposing forces is foundational to comprehending the roles of schooling in shaping civic outcomes for students, particularly in diverse national and socio-economic contexts. This study aims to explore these dynamics, offering a perspective on how schooling mitigates civic gaps among students across different societal landscapes.

Schools as reinforcers of civic inequality

Schools appear to operate as institutional mechanisms that convert social hierarchies into predictable patterns of political inequality and civic marginalization (Bruch and Soss, 2018). The structural inequalities are embedded within educational institutions that contribute to unequal access to political learning opportunities, particularly for disadvantaged students. The systematic advantages that middle-class students experience in educational settings translate into enhanced civic engagement opportunities compared to their working-class counterparts (Bruch and Soss, 2018; Hemmerechts et al., 2017). Privileged students, who have greater access to social, economic, and educational resources outside of school, tend to benefit disproportionately from the civic learning opportunities provided within educational settings. These students tend to be more familiar with the norms of expressing disagreement and articulating opinions in the classroom, which can influence teachers’ responses and further enhance their civic development (Hoskins and Janmaat, 2016). In addition, they are more likely to come from households where political discussions are common, civic engagement is encouraged, and political socialization occurs at higher levels, further reinforcing their advantages in civic learning (Brady et al., 2015, 2020; Pacheco and Plutzer, 2008; Plutzer, 2002).

The interplay of in-school and out-of-school resources further reinforces their civic advantages, as access to political socialization, civic activities, and educational opportunities enables them to develop a deeper understanding of political processes and a stronger commitment to civic participation. Bernstein (2003) highlights that middle-class students are raised in family environments where open debate is encouraged, fostering autonomy in decision-making and enhancing language skills. Consequently, the students are better positioned to engage in classroom discussions on political issues. The dynamic between in-school and out-of-school creates a self-perpetuating cycle in which middle-class students continue to excel in civic life, while underserved students, lacking similar resources, face persistent marginalization from the opportunities.

Classroom norms and behavioral expectations are more closely aligned with the cultural and social outcomes typically possessed by middle- and upper-class students (Tramonte and Willms, 2010). The privileged students are generally more adept at understanding and adhering to the implicit “rules of the game,” enabling them to navigate classroom interactions in ways that are considered appropriate by both teachers and peers (Brookfield, 2012). Furthermore, students from more advantaged backgrounds are more likely to engage in democratic behaviors and actively participate in discussions on societal issues within the school environment (Hemmerechts et al., 2017). In contrast, disadvantaged students lack familiarity with the normative expectation, which can hinder their ability to engage meaningfully in classroom discussions. For example, teachers often struggle with students they perceive as troublesome, and disadvantaged students who express strong disagreements or challenge their teachers directly are frequently viewed as confrontational or disruptive by both educators and their more privileged peers (hooks, 2014). As a results, students from less privileged backgrounds may find it difficult to articulate their perspectives through the conventional forms of participation that are widely accepted in educational settings (Hoskins and Janmaat, 2019).

The social status of a school also explains the intensifying existing disparities in access to civic learning opportunities. In schools serving disadvantaged communities, students have even fewer chances to engage in political activities, particularly when surrounded by peers from similar socioeconomic backgrounds (Hoskins and Janmaat, 2016). This disparity highlights how school social and economic status is intrinsically linked to variations in learning opportunities, indirectly reinforcing broader civic inequalities.

Schools as equalizers for civic inequality

The role of schools in addressing civic inequalities among students has garnered increasing attention in recent years. By fostering a supportive environment for civic learning, schools have the capacity to reduce disparities in civic engagement that stem from social, economic, and cultural differences (Andolina and Conklin, 2020; Hoskins and Janmaat, 2019; Neundorf et al., 2016). Andolina and Conklin (2020) emphasize the importance of schools in providing high-quality civic engagement opportunities, particularly for students traditionally excluded from the learning opportunities to support civic involvement. Their research highlights a supportive educational environment, where meaningful feedback and attentive classroom practices are essential in promoting student participation and civic development. Schools that create an inclusive atmosphere, in which students feel encouraged to express their views and engage in political discussions, contribute significantly to narrowing the civic engagement gap for disadvantaged students.

Students’ sense of political efficacy is significantly strengthened when they actively engage in political tasks and are repeatedly involved in the activities within a supportive environment alongside politically discourse and decision-making (Levy, 2018). Application-based assignments, such as civic projects, play a foundational role in this process by providing hands-on experiences that foster internal political efficacy and encourage greater political engagement (Levy, 2018). The practical learning opportunities provided in the instructional settings enable students to directly engage in democratic decision-making, thereby deepening their understanding and involvement in civic matters.

Furthermore, civic education is an important means of addressing the lack of political socialization among students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Research shows that its impact is particularly strong for socially marginalized youth or those who have limited exposure to political discussions at home (Campbell, 2019; Campbell and Niemi, 2016; Martens & Gainous, 2013). Studies in the United States, for example, have found that civic education enhances democratic capacity mainly among students from less privileged backgrounds, with its effectiveness influenced by both teaching methods and external factors (Gainous and Martens, 2012). In this context, schools can help mitigate civic gaps by providing structured civic learning experiences that promote political knowledge, democratic engagement, and active citizenship.

Classroom instruction also serves as another fundamental component for mitigating civic gaps as schools’ compensating effects. Specific pedagogical strategies, such as classroom discussions, small-group work, and project-based learning, are highly effective in enhancing students’ democratic competencies (Campbell, 2019; Teegelbeckers et al., 2023). In particular, open discussions in the classroom can promote knowledge acquisition and the ability to engage with diverse perspectives, while small-group work has been shown to foster political engagement and improve students’ ability to navigate differences (Campbell, 2019).

Considering the dual roles of schools in dealing with civic gaps among students, centering the opposite viewpoints, the closing-gap or widening-gap patterns, on capturing the topic of how schools serves for dealing with civic inequalities among students, this study investigates whether schools afford the opportunities of enhancing students’ civic outcomes beyond the influence of family backgrounds on civic outcomes and how schools and teachers facilitate the learning opportunities in promoting civic outcomes of students.

Schools addressing civic outcomes for students

Schools represents the mechanisms through which students acquire the knowledge, skills, and dispositions essential for participating in democratic society (Flanagan & Christens, 2011). Schools serve as microcosms of the broader political and social landscape, making them ideal settings for nurturing democratic values and practices from a young age. This study focuses on school culture and classroom climate because these factors are essential in providing equal access to learning opportunities for all students. School culture and classroom climate help create an environment where students can engage with civic learning without needing to volunteer for specific programs. These elements reflect how well schools offer opportunities to develop civic outcomes.

With focusing on school culture and classroom climate, this study highlights the importance of the learning environment in promoting civic outcomes. Teaching within an open classroom climate, characterized by inclusive practices, positive teacher-student relationships, and democratic school culture, can enhance student participation and interaction. The school culture and classroom climate factors are important in ensuring that all students, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, have the opportunity to develop the civic knowledge and skills needed to participate in democratic processes.

School culture

The role of school culture as an immersive institution in sharping students’ civic outcomes is rooted in the concept that schools do not merely impact knowledge through formal curricula but also serve as environments where civic learning can occur through the broader cultural ethos they foster. This approach aligns with the social capital literature, which posits that individuals adopt the social norms present within their environments, emphasizing the influence of school culture on shaping civic behaviors and attitudes (Coleman, 1988).

A democratic school culture refers to the norms, values, and practices within a school that promote openness, inclusivity, and active student participation in decision-making processes. This culture goes beyond formal instruction, addressing the overall environment in which students interact with peers, teachers, and the broader school community (Rinnooy Kan et al., 2023). Democratic school culture emphasizes the importance of creating spaces where students feel empowered to voice their opinions, engage in dialogue, and participate in actives that reflect democratic values (Alscher et al., 2022; Jagers et al., 2017; Rinnooy Kan et al., 2023; Treviño et al., 2017).

A civic-oriented school culture goes beyond traditional instruction by embedding democratic values and practices within the daily interactions and institutional norms of the school. Such a culture actively promotes civic participation as a fundamental aspect of education, Pondiscio (2018) highlights that alumni from schools with a distinct focus on civic engagement, such as Democracy Prep, exhibit higher rates of voter turnout compared to those from other schools. This suggests that when schools intentionally create a culture centered around civic involvement, they significantly influence students’ long-term commitment to democratic practices.

The long-term effects of a rich civic culture within schools are substantial. Students who attend schools with a culture that explicitly endorses civic values are more likely to engage in civic activities well into adulthood. For instance, Campbell (2008) found that students who attended high schools emphasizing the importance of voting and civic participation continued to demonstrate higher rates of voter turnout and community volunteering up to 15 years after graduation, even when controlling for individual predispositions toward civic engagement. This finding underscores the powerful role of school culture in shaping sustained civic behaviors, highlighting the potential for schools to serve as transformative spaces for democratic engagement. Similarly, Kawashima-Ginsberg and Levine (2014) suggest that students exposed to comprehensive civic curricular are more likely to develop a sense of civic duty and political efficacy, which are essential components of active citizenship.

Open classroom climate

The literature consistently emphasizes the critical importance of an open classroom climate, which is characterized by an environment where students engage in dynamic discussions on political and social issues (Deimel et al., 2020; Knowles, 2020; Knowles et al., 2018; Maurissen et al., 2018). Defined as a learning environment where students engage in lively discussions of political and social issues, this climate encourages them to share their opinions and ensures those opinions are respected by their teachers (Campbell, 2008). The respectful and engaging atmosphere fosters a sense of belonging and active participation, essential for students’ civic development. In this environment, diverse perspectives are openly shared, controversial issues are discussed, and young people are empowered to form their own opinions (Noack and Eckstein, 2023). This approach recognizes that the ways in which teachers interact with students, openly structure classroom discussions, and create opportunities for participation directly influence students’ academic and civic outcomes.

Teaching practices serve as the foundation for cultivating an open classroom climate. Approaches that encourage student input, combined with teaching strategies such as traditional methods and active learning, are particularly effective in creating a productive learning environment (Martens and Gainous, 2013). The open classroom climate approaches, when integrated, provide the necessary flexibility for teachers to optimize knowledge building within the classroom (Hess, 2004). An open classroom climate, as a pedagogical approach, mirrors the dynamics of participatory democracy, helping students appreciate conflicting viewpoints and actively engage with both political ideas and processes from an early age (Hess, 2004). This approach encompasses various elements, including teacher-student interactions and instructional practices that promote openness. Effective teacher-student interactions are substantial in fostering student engagement and a sense of belonging (Havik and Westergård, 2020), which, in turn, creates a positive classroom climate that encourages students to express their perspectives freely and engage in meaningful dialogue (Godfrey and Grayman, 2014).

The establishment of an open classroom climate is fundamentally dependent on the teachers’ ability to create a respectful and inclusive learning environment. In such a setting, students are encouraged to express their thoughts and ideas freely, even when the diverge from the opinions held by their peer (Havik and Westergård, 2020; Martyn and Dimitra, 2019). According to Martyn and Dimitra (2019), openness in classroom climate encourages students to voice their opinions, listen to a variety of perspectives, and develop their own reasoned conclusions. Teaching practices not only validates diverse perspectives but also lays the foundation for critical engagement and meaningful dialogue among students. When teachers create a safe space for establishing norms of mutual respect and valuing diverse perspective, the inclusive environment encourages students to explore and articulate their ideas without fear of judgement, thus facilitating a more engaged and dynamic learning process.

The presence of a democratic climate in the classroom, characterized by fairness, inclusivity, and respect for diverse opinions, is strongly associated with heightened levels of civic responsibility among students (Lenzi et al., 2012). Lenzi et al. (2012) demonstrate that an open classroom climate is effectively mediated by the quality of discussions regarding civic and political issues. These findings suggest that merely promoting democratic values is insufficient; it is the active engagement of students in meaningful discussions about these issues that significantly enhances their sense of civic duty. Noack and Eckstein (2023) highlights the impact of civics instruction is likely to be more pronounced when students are immersed in a democratic climate and supported by positive social connections within the classroom. Establishing an open classroom climate is indispensable for nurturing democratic capacity among students (Martens and Gainous, 2013).

The concept of civic outcomes

Civic outcomes pertain to an individual's accumulated competences to effectively navigate civic engagement and participations. It includes cognitive civic competences (Hoskins et al., 2015, 2017; Hoskins and Janmaat, 2016; Knowles et al., 2018; Manganelli et al., 2014), non-cognitive civic competences (Blaskó et al., 2019; Janmaat, 2015), participatory engagement (LeCompte et al., 2020), which often overlap.

In terms of cognitive civic aspects, civic knowledge stands as an essential element of civic outcomes, facilitating not only informed citizenship but also fostering the attitudes and aspirations necessary for active and positive civic participation. For example, the cultivation of cognitive understanding of civic processes is related to more inclusive and constructive attitudes towards democratic institutions and the promotion of diversity within society (Hoskins et al., 2015) as well as associated with the development of a disposition towards active engagement in social movements, a phenomenon referred to as “social movement citizenship” (McCafferty-Wright and Knowles, 2016). “With political knowlege, citizens operate as effectively to recognize and to realize their interests and goals and they are likely to view the democratic order favorably (Galston, 2001).” Civiv knowledge also acts as a catalyst for civic aspirations, particularly in the context of political participation, thereby bolstering the capacity for meaningful civic engagement among students (Manganelli et al., 2014).

When it comes to non-cognitive civic factors, they primarily comprises civic attitudes, which wield considerable influence in the promotion of inclusivity and the cultivation of trust within diverse communities. In this context, non-cognitive civic outcomes are conceptualized as manifestations of support for democratic principles and practices (Blaskó et al., 2019), alongside an embracing attitude towards diversity (Janmaat, 2015). Blaskó et al. (2019), for instance, conceptualize non-cognitive civic outcomes as support for democratic principles and practices and openness to diversity, which can increase depending on their level of civic knowledge and political self-efficacy in civic and citizenship issues. Janmaat (2015) also constructs a social trust scale and inclusive attitudes towards immigrants for examining the effects of diversity in schools by placing an emphasis on democratic practices.

Lastly, participatory engagement emphasizing the acquisition and cultivation of valuable skills, competences, and social connections is an element of civic outcomes. Engagement in participatory civic opportunities equips students with essential skills and competences that extend beyond the realm of civic involvement. Such engagement has the potential to enhance academic performance as well as facilitate the establishment of collegial relationships with both adults and peers (Levinson and Levine, 2013). Levinson and Levine (2013) also points out participatory engagement enhances their self-efficacy and confidence in their abilities, as it empowers individuals to actively engage in civic and political processes with a sense of agency and purpose. Similarly, LeCompte et al. (2020) investigate the effects of action civic programs, with exemplifying how participation in such initiatives positively relate to the accumulation of civic outcomes. Their measurement of students’ political engagement, including activities such as organizing and running meetings, expressing views in public forums, writing for local newspapers, and contacting elected officials, underscores how participation in these activities equips students with concrete skills and competences that are invaluable for effective civic and political engagement.

Convergence and divergence of the contexts in Finland and South Korea

In this study, using a lens of comparative and international education, the focus is placed on Finland and South Korea—two countries known for their high levels of educational performance and increasing emphasis on civic outcomes among students (OECD, 2021). This study is motivated by the national contexts of Finland and South Korea. Finland, celebrated for its egalitarian approach to education and consistently high rankings in international assessments such as PISA, has long been recognized for its efforts to promote equity in education and civic engagement (Sahlberg, 2011). Finnish schools place a strong emphasis on fostering democratic values, critical thinking, and active citizenship, aligning with the broader goals of cultivating informed and engaged citizens (Simola, 2014). Civic education is embedded within the national curriculum, which prioritizes student autonomy, equality, and a holistic approach to social and moral education (Suwalska, 2021). South Korea, by contrast, presents a distinct socio-economic and educational landscape. Renowned for its academic rigor and highly competitive education system, the country consistently demonstrates strong performance, particularly in subjects such as math, science, and literacy. The South Korean government places significant emphasis on education, viewing it as a vital and efficient tool for fostering national development and strength (Bermeo, 2014). However, its education system is also marked by significant socio-economic disparities, which have raised concerns about unequal access to civic and social learning opportunities. Civic education in South Korea is increasingly emphasized, particularly in light of the country's recent democratic transitions and ongoing social movements, which highlight the importance of active citizenship in sustaining democratic governance (Roh, 2004). Despite these efforts, concerns remain about the unequal distribution of resources and opportunities, which may limit the civic outcomes of students from lower socio-economic backgrounds.

Finland and South Korea consistently rank among the top-performing countries in international assessments, though they achieve this success through markedly different educational approaches (OECD, 2021). Understanding the unique elements of each country's education system and their impact on civic outcomes can provide valuable insights for policymakers in other national contexts. This study seeks to identify which aspects of the Finnish and South Korean educational models provide the patterns in identifying the roles of schooling in mitigating civic gaps in students’ civic outcomes, contributing to the global discourse on effective educational policies and practices for cultivating civics and citizenship.

Finland's education system is renowned for its distinctive student-centered approach, which has garnered global recognition for promoting active student participation in decision-making processes at both classroom and school levels (Sahlberg, 2011). Finland's model is deeply rooted in a commitment to fostering holistic student development, going beyond traditional academic performance to prioritize the overall well-being, creativity, and critical thinking abilities of students (Gustafsson and Blömeke, 2018; Lundahl, 2016). This holistic perspective aligns with the broader educational goal of nurturing active, informed, and engaged citizens who can contribute meaningfully to democratic processes.

A defining characteristic of Finland's education system is its commitment to inclusivity. The system strives to meet the diverse needs of all learners, ensuring that each student has the opportunity to succeed, regardless of background (Lundahl, 2016). This inclusivity is evident not only in classroom instruction but also in the decision-making processes, where students are empowered to take an active role in shaping their own educational experiences. The Finnish model, therefore, emphasizes both equity and democratic participation, which are seen as fundamental to developing civic engagement and fostering a cohesive society.

In contrast, South Korea has historically emphasized a highly centralized education system focused on academic achievement and standardized testing. Centralized decision-making, a nationally controlled curriculum, and examination-driven evaluations have long been central features of the South Korean educational landscape (Sung and Lee, 2018). However, recent societal changes have prompted a shift in focus, as policymakers recognize the limitations of an education system that prioritizes academic outcomes at the expense of other critical skills, such as civic participation and critical thinking.

To address the concerns focused on the academic achievement, South Korea has implemented a range of policies aimed at enhancing students’ civic outcomes and promoting more democratic school climates. The recent reforms acknowledge the importance of nurturing well-rounded individuals who can think critically and actively engage in civic life. Recent initiatives encourage student participation in shaping school policies, thereby fostering a greater sense of ownership and collaboration within the school environment (Sung and Lee, 2018). This shift represents a growing recognition of the need to balance academic rigor with the development of civic outcomes, ensuring that students are equipped not only for academic success but also for meaningful participation in democratic processes.

This study compares the educational systems of Finland and South Korea to investigate how these two contrasting, yet high-performing nations foster civic outcomes among students. In examining the distinct educational models, the research contributes to a broader understanding of how various approaches can be adapted to promote civic outcomes, offering valuable insights for global educational policy discussions.

Despite their cultural and contextual differences, both Finland and South Korea share a strong emphasis on education as a driver of both economic growth and social mobility. Both countries allocate substantial resources to ensure that students receive high-quality education, reflecting the central role of education in their national agendas. This study seeks to uncover best practices from each system that can inform educational reforms aimed at improving civic engagement. Secondly, one of the key similarities between Finland and South Korea is their focus on fostering social cohesion and a strong sense of community within their educational systems (Cook, 2019; Croissant and Walkenhorst, 2019). Both nations emphasize group work and collaborative learning environments as core pedagogical strategies. In Finland, this is evident in its holistic, student-centered approach, which encourages collaboration and inclusivity. South Korea, while traditionally more centralized and academically focused, has also begun to integrate group work into its curriculum, reflecting a shift toward promoting interpersonal skills and community building among students. Lastly, another parallel between the two countries is their shared commitment to fostering critical thinking and problem-solving skills as essential components of civic engagement. Finland's “phenomenon-based learning” model encourages students to apply theoretical knowledge to real-world problems, promoting a deep understanding of societal issues (Kangas and Rasi, 2021). Similarly, South Korea has increasingly focused on developing students’ critical thinking abilities, recognizing the importance of these skills in cultivating informed and active citizens (Choi et al., 2011). This study aims to highlight how both systems equip students with the competencies needed for civic participation.

Taken together, both Finland and South Korea place significant importance on promoting student voice and participation in school governance. In Finland, there is a deliberate effort to involve students in decision-making processes within schools, encouraging them to take an active role in shaping their educational experiences and fostering a sense of agency and responsibility (Salokangas et al., 2020). South Korea has also implemented policies that promote student participation in school governance and community service activities, underscoring the country's commitment to nurturing civic responsibility and engagement (Yang and Tan, 2019). The current initiatives demonstrate how both nations recognize the value of empowering students to foster civic outcomes among students.

Research questions

This study investigates the mechanisms within schooling that mitigating civic gaps in students’ civic outcomes. This research aims to examine how student's family backgrounds, classroom climate, and school culture interact to influence their civic outcomes in Finland and South Korea. Specifically, it explores how democratic school culture and teaching within an open classroom climate affect the civic gaps among students. The following research questions guide the study.

To what extent do students’ family backgrounds influence their levels of civic outcomes in Finland and South Korea, and what are the patterns between the two countries?

Whether and how does open classroom climate mitigate civic gaps arising students’ family backgrounds in Finland and South Korea?

Whether and how is democratic school culture mitigating civic gaps from students’ family backgrounds in Finland and South Korea?

To address the research questions, this study employs three statistical models using data from the International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS) 2016. The model 1 aims to examine the influence of students’ family backgrounds on their levels of civic outcomes. Building upon the first model, the model 2 will corporate open classroom climate, including specific teaching practices and the nature of teacher-student interactions. This model seeks to elucidate how the pedagogical elements influence students’ civic gaps. The final model will integrate school-level factors that pertain to democratic school culture in order to investigate the mitigating roles of school culture. By comparing the effects across Finland and South Korea, this analysis will highlight any significant similarities and differences in the impact of these factors on students’ civic outcomes.

Methods

Data

This study utilizes the student survey data from ICCS 2016, a large-scale international comparative research project aimed at examining the state of civic and citizenship education among young individuals globally. The primary objective of ICCS 2016 is to provide a detailed understanding of how young people develop the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary for active engagement in their communities and democratic societies (Schulz et al., 2018). To achieve this, ICCS 2016 employs a mixed-methods approach, collecting data through student surveys, teacher surveys, and school contextual information (Schulz et al., 2018). With a comprehensive dataset that includes reposes from over 140,000 students, 5300 teachers, and 3500 schools across 24 countries, ICCS 2016 stands as one of the most extensive and inclusive studies on civic and citizenship education to date.

The ICCS 2016 study employed a stratified cluster sampling design, utilizing a probability proportional to size (PPS) method to ensure that the sample was representative of the population. Schools were selected as the primary sampling units, with students then randomly chosen within each school to participate in the survey. This approach allows for the analysis of data at multiple levels, including individual students, classes, and schools, while maintaining the robustness and representativeness of the findings. In the analysis, the unit of description includes characteristics at both the student and school levels to provide a comprehensive view of the factors influencing civic outcomes.

For this study, a comparative analysis focuses on data from Finland and South Korea. The selection for two countries is motivated to explore the impact of schools in mitigating civic gaps in students’ civic outcomes. The analysis draws on a robust dataset that includes 2407 student observations from Finland and 1757 from South Korea, across 179 schools in Finland and 106 schools in South Korea.

To address the issue of missing data, this study employs a multiple imputation technique, which utilizes Bayesian estimation methods to generate plausible values for the missing observations. Multiple imputation is advantageous as it leverages the interrelationships between variables and the available case information to fill in the gaps. For this analysis, all relevant variables described in the subsequent sections are included in the imputation process, accounting for distinctions between countries, schools, and classes. I generate 10 separate imputed datasets to ensure the reliability of the results (Hemmerechts et al., 2017). This approach allows for the accommodation of item-level non-response, ensuring that late involvement items with missing data are effectively combined into coherent indices for the study's analyses.

Operationalization of the dependent variables

This study employs two key measures to evaluate students’ civic outcomes: students’ sense of civic efficacy and civic aspirations for participatory citizenship. The first dependent variable, S_CITEFF, represents a latent construct measuring students’ civic efficacy. This variable is derived from students’ responses to specific survey items that capture their confidence in engaging with civic and political issues. The items include discussing a newspaper article about an international conflict, arguing a point of view on a controversial political or social issue, standing as a candidate in a school election, organizing a group of students to advocate for change in their school, following a televised debate on a controversial issue, writing a letter or email to a newspaper expressing an opinion on a current issue, and speaking in front of the class about a social or political issue. Collectively, these items assess students’ perceived ability to actively participate in civic discourse and influence social or political matters. The second dependent variable, S_POLPART, measures students’ civic aspirations for participatory citizenship by evaluating their anticipated engagement in various political activities. This construct is assessed through survey items that capture students’ likelihood of assisting a candidate or political party during an election campaign, becoming a member of a political party, joining a trade union, standing as a candidate in local elections, and joining an organization advocating for a political or social cause. These measures reflect students’ expectations regarding their future participation in formal and informal political activities.

Operationalization of the independent variables

The independent variables in this study include various demographic and family backgrounds factors of the students. Research has established that family environments significantly influence young people's civic and political engagement. Specifically, parental political interest, political knowledge, partisanship, civic and political practices, as well as family values and climate, have been linked to variations in youth civic and political participation (Martyn and Dimitra, 2019). The present study operationalizes the independent variables as follows. 1) Parental political and social interest is measured using a four-point Likert scale, ranging from 0 (no interest) to 3 (high interest), to assess the extent of political and social discourse within the household. 2) Parental educational attainment is classified using the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED), ranging from 0 (below lower secondary education) to 4 (postgraduate education), serving as an indicator of the family's educational resources. 3) Parental occupational status is evaluated using Socio-Economic Index (SEI) scores based on the International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO-08), providing a standardized measure of socio-economic standing. 4) Home literacy resources are assessed by the number of books available in the home, categorized from 0 (0–10 books) to 4 (more than 200 books), as an indirect measure of the literacy environment. 5) Student gender is recorded as a binary variable, where 1 represents female students and 0 represents male students, to examine potential gender-based differences. 6) Expected educational achievement is determined through self-reported anticipated attainment levels, categorized according to ISCED from 0 (lower secondary education or below) to 3 (bachelor's degree or higher), reflecting students’ educational aspirations.

Open Classroom Climate. This variable captures students’ perceptions of a classroom environment that fosters open discussions and critical engagement. It is measured through indicators assessing teacher encouragement of independent thinking, discussions on political events, dialogue among differing viewpoints, and the presentation of multiple perspectives. Student-teacher relationships are also evaluated based on fairness, support, and responsiveness, reflecting the overall quality of interactions.

Democratic School Culture. These variable addresses three dimensions. First, students’ perceived value of participation reflects their beliefs about the impact of student involvement in school decisions. Second, actual participation in school activities is measured through engagement in debates, elections, decision-making, and student assemblies. Third, peer and school interactions assess respect among students, peer relationships, and perceived safety.

Analytic approaches

First, descriptive statistics are computed using Stata version 18, incorporating final student weights for student-level and nationally aggregated variables. Multiple imputation techniques are applied to address missing data in key student-level variables, ensuring robust statistical estimates. Second, to examine the mediating effects of school culture and open classroom climate on the relationship between students’ civic outcomes and family backgrounds, two mediating variables are constructed. Finally, given the nested structure of the data, where students are nested within schools, a two-level Hierarchical Generalized Linear Model (HGLM) is employed to address research questions 2 and 3. The statistical model is applied separately to each country to compare the significance and magnitude of associations across different national contexts.

Results

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics of the study variables for students in Finland and South Korea. Fathers in both countries show slightly higher interest in politics than mothers, with moderate variability in interest levels. Mothers, on average, have slightly higher educational attainment than fathers, with some variability in education levels across both countries. Fathers also have higher occupational status than mothers, with notable variability in this measure. South Korean students report slightly higher expected educational attainment compared to Finnish students, with some variability in these expectations. Additionally, South Korean students have more books in their homes than Finnish students, with considerable variability in home literacy resources. Model 2 analyzes teacher factors, revealing that Finnish students perceive higher classroom openness than their South Korean counterparts, with significant variation in these perceptions. The average level of student-teacher relationships is similar in both countries, though with moderate variability in students’ views. In Model 3, school factors are assessed. The perceived value of student participation is similar in both countries, with moderate variability, but South Korean students report higher participation in school activities than Finnish students, showing significant variability in participation levels. The data for student interaction at school is only provided for Finland, with no data for South Korea. South Korean students, on average, exhibit higher civic efficacy than Finnish students, with significant variability in scores across both countries. Finally, students’ civic aspirations are similar in both countries, with moderate variability in scores, indicating comparable aspirations for participatory citizenship despite individual differences.

Table 1.

Weighted descriptive statistics.

Variables	Finland		South Korea		Minimum	Maximum
Variables	Mean	S.E	Mean	S.E	Minimum	Maximum
Independent Variables
[Model 1] Student Factors
Father's interest	1.95	0.70	2.22	0.65	0.00	3.00
Father's highest educational attainment	2.70	0.98	3.15	0.98	0.00	4.00
Father's occupational status	46.58	16.70	44.39	14.80	10.00	90.00
Mother's interest	1.87	0.66	1.98	0.66	0.00	3.00
Mother's highest educational attainment	2.86	0.92	3.04	1.00	0.00	4.00
Mother's occupational status	42.86	16.81	44.04	13.27	10.00	90.00
Student gender	0.48	0.50	0.46	0.50	0 (Boy)	1 (Girl)
Student's expected educational attainment	2.22	0.92	2.58	0.74	0.00	3.00
Home literacy resources	2.37	1.13	2.84	1.15	0.00	4.00
[Model 2] Teacher Factors
Openness in classroom discussion	49.42	8.12	41.63	12.89	16.67	78.16
Student-teacher relations at school	53.20	9.35	52.75	10.32	18.78	71.68
[Model 3] School Factors
Value of participation at school	50.57	9.42	50.49	11.09	17.22	68.37
Participation at school	48.67	8.36	52.54	12.29	22.69	68.18
Student interaction at school	50.25	8.38	51.69	10.17
Dependent variables
Civic efficacy	48.34	8.70	59.07	126.52	16.59	78.42
Civic aspirations toward participatory citizenship	49.10	6.85	50.16	134.32	29.89	75.12
Valid N (listwise)	2407		1754

Table 2 presents the coefficients and standard deviations for models predicting students’ civic efficacy. Model 1 controls for demographic and socio-cultural factors, revealing common patterns in both Finland and South Korea. Political interest from either parent is positively linked to students’ civic efficacy, with the relationship being significant for both mothers and fathers in South Korea, and for mothers in Finland. Additionally, both students’ expected educational attainment and home literacy resources are positively associated with civic efficacy in both countries, although with differing effect sizes. In South Korea, a positive relationship is also found between mothers’ educational attainment and students’ civic efficacy. Furthermore, male students in South Korea show higher civic efficacy than females.

Table 2.

The effect of student, teacher, and school factors on student's civic efficacy.

Variables	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3
	Student Factors		Teacher Factors		School Factors
	Finland	South Korea	Finland	South Korea	Finland	South Korea
	Coefficient (S.E)	Coefficient (S.E)	Coefficient (S.E)	Coefficient (S.E)	Coefficient (S.E)	Coefficient (S.E)
[Student Factors]
Father's interest	0.52 (0.34)	1.66*** (0.42)	0.37 (0.33)	1.40*** (0.41)	0.38 (0.31)	0.66 (0.39)
Father's educational attainment	0.38 (0.23)	−0.13 (0.30)	0.40 (0.22)	−0.15 (0.28)	0.34 (0.21)	−0.20 (0.27)
Father's occupational status	0.01 (0.01)	−0.00 (0.02)	0.01 (0.01)	−0.00 (0.02)	0.01 (0.01)	−0.00 (0.01)
Mother's interest	1.3*** (0.36)	1.28** (0.42)	1.03** (0.35)	0.77 (.41)	0.71* (.34)	0.76*(0.38)
Mother's educational attainment	−0.07 (0.25)	0.62 (0.30) *	0.05 (0.24)	0.55 (0.28)	0.04 (0.23)	0.48 (0.27)
Mother's occupational status	0.02 (0.01)	0.01 (0.02)	0.02 (0.01)	0.02 (0.02)	0.01 (0.01)	0.00 (0.02)
Student gender	0.10 (0.35)	−1.41** (0.45)	−0.16 (0.34)	−0.73 (0.43)	−0.37 (0.32)	−0.76 (0.31)
Student's expected educational attainment	1.20*** (0.20)	0.71* (0.34)	1.08*** (0.20)	0.26 (0.32)	0.72*** (0.19)	−0.09 (0.31)
Home literacy resources	0.63*** (0.16)	0.68* (0.22)	0.55*** (0.16)	0.62* (0.21)	0.28 (0.15)	0.31 (0.20)
[Teacher Factors]
Openness in classroom discussion			0.21*** (0.02)	0.04* (0.02)	0.13*** (0.02)	−0.01 (0.02)
Student-teacher relations at school			0.00 (0.02)	0.26*** (0.02)	−0.03 (0.02)	0.11*** (0.03)
[School Factors]
Value of participation at school					0.13*** (0.02)	0.23*** (0.02)
Participation at school					0.30*** (0.02)	0.13*** (0.02)
Student interaction at school					0.02 (0.02)	0.06* (0.03)
Constant (S.E)	38.43*** (0.79)	47.85*** (1.37)	29.14*** (1.37)	35.16*** (1.65)	15.66*** (1.58)	27.77*** (1.67)
R-squared (Adjusted R-squared)	0.08 (0.07)	0.06 (0.06)	0.11 (0.11)	0.142 (0.14)	0.212 (0.21)	0.23 (0.23)

Note. Observations (valid N) are 2407 in Finland and 1754 in South Korea. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

Model 2 examines teacher factors, indicating that in Finland, openness in classroom discussion is positively related to civic efficacy, while student-teacher relations show no significant effect. In South Korea, both student-teacher relations and classroom openness are positively related to civic efficacy, with a stronger effect from student-teacher relations. These differences suggest that cultural context influences the impact of teacher factors on civic efficacy.

Model 3 investigates school factors. In both countries, students’ perceptions of participation value and actual participation in school are positively associated with civic efficacy. While student interaction at school is significant only in South Korea, teacher factors show varying effects: openness in classroom discussion is positively related to civic efficacy in Finland, while student-teacher relations are significant in South Korea but not Finland.

Table 3 presents the impact of various factors on students’ civic aspirations toward participatory citizenship. Model 1 examines student factors, revealing that both fathers’ and mothers’ political interest positively influence students’ civic aspirations in both Finland and South Korea. In Finland, fathers’ interest (effect size = 1.01) and mothers’ interest (effect size = .93) are strongly significant. In South Korea, fathers’ interest (effect size = 1.22) and mothers’ interest (effect size = 1.08) also show positive relationships. Male students in both countries have a negative association with civic aspirations. In Finland, home literacy resources are positively related to civic aspirations, but this relationship is not significant in South Korea.

Table 3.

The effect of student, teacher, and school factors on student's civic aspiration.

Variables	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3
	Student Factors		Teacher Factors		School Factors
	Finland	South Korea	Finland	South Korea	Finland	South Korea
	Coefficient (S.E)	Coefficient (S.E)	Coefficient (S.E)	Coefficient (S.E)	Coefficient (S.E)	Coefficient (S.E)
[Student Factors]
Father's interest	1.01*** (0.27)	1.21** (0.45)	0.97*** (0.27)	1.14* (0.46)	0.97*** (0.27)	0.90* (0.46)
Father's educational attainment	−0.22 (0.18)	−0.52 (0.32)	−0.22 (0.18)	−0.52 (0.31)	−0.24 (0.18)	−0.53 (0.31)
Father's occupational status	0.03 (0.01)	−0.01 (0.02)	0.01 (0.01)	−0.01 (0.02)	0.01 (0.01)	−0.01 (0.02)
Mother's interest	0.93** (0.29)	1.08* (0.46) *	0.85* (0.29)	0.87 (0.46)	0.74* (0.29)	0.88 (0.45)
Mother's educational attainment	0.05 (0.20)	0.32 (0.32)	0.09 (0.20)	0.30 (0.32)	0.09 (0.20)	0.28 (0.32)
Mother's occupational status	−0.00 (0.01)	−0.02 (0.02)	−0.00 (0.01)	−0.00 (0.02)	−0.00 (0.01)	−0.01 (0.02)
Student gender	−0.92*** (0.28)	−2.01*** (0.49)	−1.00*** (0.28)	−1.91*** (0.49)	−1.06 (0.28)	−1.84*** (0.49)
Student's expected educational attainment	0.23 (0.16)	−0.32 (0.36)	0.20 (0.16)	−0.44 (0.36)	0.08 (0.16)	−0.55 (0.36)
Home literacy resources	0.54*** (0.13)	−0.38 (0.23)	0.52*** (0.13)	−0.44* (0.23)	0.42** (0.13)	−0.51* (0.23)
[Teacher Factors]
Openness in classroom discussion			0.07*** (0.02)	0.11*** (0.02)	0.04* (0.02)	0.09*** (0.02)
Student-teacher relations at school			−0.01 (0.02)	−0.01 (0.03)	−0.02 (0.02)	−0.07* (0.03)
[School Factors]
Value of participation at school					0.04* (0.02)	0.08** (0.03)
Participation at school					0.11*** (0.02)	0.02 (0.02)
Student interaction at school					0.01 (0.02)	0.04 (0.03)
Constant (S.E)	43.87*** (0.63)	49.76*** (1.48)	41.21*** (1.12)	46.65*** (1.85)	36.45*** (1.35)	44.14*** (1.97)
R-squared (Adjusted R-squared)	0.05 (0.05)	0.03 (0.02)	0.06 (0.05)	0.04 (0.04)	0.08 (0.07)	0.05 (0.05)

Note. Observations (valid N) are 2407 in Finland and 1754 in South Korea. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

Model 2 incorporates teacher factors. Openness in classroom discussions is positively related to civic aspirations in both countries. Interestingly, in South Korea, home literacy resources show a negative relationship with civic aspirations, while in Finland, they remain positively associated, suggesting that teaching practices in South Korea may moderate the impact of home literacy resources.

Model 3 adds school factors. In Finland, fathers’ and mothers’ political interest, along with home literacy resources, are positively associated with civic aspirations. In South Korea, only fathers’ interest is significant, and home literacy resources show a negative relationship. Additionally, students’ perception of the value of participation and school participation are positively related to civic aspirations in both countries, with the exception of student-teacher relations, which have a negative impact in South Korea.

Discussions

Teaching practices for openness in classroom

The results of this study suggest that teaching practices, particularly the promotion of openness in classroom discussions, play a critical role in shaping students’ civic outcomes, including their civic efficacy and aspirations towards participatory citizenship. In both Finland and South Korea, the positive relationship between openness in the classroom and students’ civic engagement outcomes underscores the importance of teaching methods that prioritize the free exchange of ideas and perspectives. Open dialogue in the classroom, as discussed by Freire (1973), cultivates civic literacy by creating a safe space for students to express their views without fear of judgment, thus promoting critical thinking and active participation. Through open dialogue, students can engage with diverse perspectives, fostering a deeper understanding of societal issues and a commitment to democratic principles.

This study's findings support Freire's argument that the classroom should be a space for mutual learning, where students not only share their own perspectives but also learn from others. The ability to articulate and critically engage with different viewpoints is central to the development of informed and active citizens. Therefore, teaching practices that encourage open discussions contribute significantly to the development of civic efficacy, empowering students to engage meaningfully in civic life. The positive association found between classroom openness and students’ civic outcomes highlights the transformative potential of pedagogical approaches that foster critical engagement with social and political issues.

Democratic school cultures of valuing student engagement

The results further demonstrate that a democratic school culture, which prioritizes equality, participation, and respect for diversity, significantly influences students’ civic aspirations and outcomes. A school culture that embodies democratic principles encourages student engagement, fostering a sense of responsibility and ownership within the school community. This aligns with previous research, which has shown that exposure to democratic practices within the school environment is positively correlated with civic engagement (Lenzi et al., 2014; Mitra et al., 2012).

The findings underscore the importance of integrating democratic principles not only in the curriculum but also in school governance. Schools that offer students opportunities to participate in decision-making processes and shape their learning environment create a culture of civic engagement. By encouraging student participation in governance and decision-making, schools empower students to become active participants in their communities, both inside and outside the school setting. The provision of such opportunities nurtures a sense of civic responsibility and prepares students to be engaged and active citizens, thereby contributing to the broader goals of democratic societies.

Gender gap in students’ civic outcomes

The study also reveals significant gender disparities in students’ civic aspirations and efficacy, particularly in South Korea. Male students, on average, display higher levels of civic efficacy and greater aspirations for active political participation compared to their female counterparts. This gender gap in civic engagement aligns with previous research that has explored how societal norms and expectations shape the civic and political dispositions of youth (Martyn and Dimitra, 2019).

The results of this study challenge the findings of Jagers et al. (2017), which reported higher levels of civic engagement attitudes among female students in certain contexts. The divergence may be attributed to the varying cultural and institutional factors that shape gender roles in different countries. In South Korea, for instance, traditional gender norms may discourage female students from pursuing active civic engagement, despite the influence of school and teaching practices. This highlights the need for a broader exploration of the macro-level factors, such as societal norms and institutional structures, that perpetuate gender disparities in civic and political engagement.

Moreover, the findings suggest that gender differences in civic aspirations and efficacy are not solely shaped by educational experiences but are deeply rooted in the broader social and institutional context. As noted by Martyn and Dimitra (2019), gendered patterns of engagement are often shaped by intersecting factors such as societal expectations, cultural norms, and the specific educational experiences of students. The influence of gender on civic engagement requires a comprehensive understanding of the complex interactions between individual experiences and societal structures.

The study's findings imply that addressing the gender gap in civic engagement requires interventions that challenge traditional gender norms and create opportunities for female students to develop the skills, knowledge, and confidence necessary for active political and civic participation. This includes promoting environments where both male and female students feel equally encouraged to engage in political discourse and activities. Cultivating positive gender relations in educational and social contexts is essential to ensuring that all students, regardless of gender, have the opportunity to engage in meaningful civic participation.

Conclusion

This study highlights the compensating role of educational practices, school culture, and family background in shaping students’ civic aspirations and efficacy toward participatory citizenship. Teaching practices that emphasize openness in classroom discussions and a democratic school culture significantly contribute to students’ civic outcomes in both Finland and South Korea. These findings support the idea that schools play a vital role in preparing students for active citizenship, fostering critical thinking and engagement with societal issues.

However, the study also reveals important gender disparities in civic aspirations, pointing to the influence of broader societal norms and institutional factors. These disparities suggest that efforts to address civic engagement gaps should not only focus on educational practices but also consider the societal context in which students develop their civic identities.

Despite its contributions, the study is limited by factors such as self-reported data and the focus on a narrow age group and two specific countries. Future research should seek to address these limitations by incorporating diverse data sources, expanding the sample to include different countries and age groups, and exploring additional factors such as extracurricular activities and media exposure. Such efforts will enrich our understanding of the complex factors that shape youth civic engagement and provide valuable insights for developing effective civic education strategies that promote active and equitable participation in democratic societies.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Ari Kim

References

Alscher

Ludewig

McElvany

(2022) Civic education, teaching quality and students’ willingness to participate in political and civic life: Political interest and knowledge as mediators. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 51(10): 1886–1900.

Andolina

Conklin

(2020) Fostering democratic and social-emotional learning in action civics programming: Factors that shape students’ learning from project soapbox .

Barber

Sweetwood

King

(2015) Creating classroom-level measures of citizenship education climate. Learning Environments Research 18(2): 197–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-015-9180-7.

Bermeo

(2014) South Korea’s successful education system: Lessons and policy implications for Peru. Korean Social Science Journal 41(2): 135–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40483-014-0019-0.

Bischoff

(2016) The civic effects of schools: Theory and empirics. Theory and Research in Education 14(1): 91–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878515619794.

Blaskó

Da Costa

Vera-Toscano

(2019) Non-cognitive civic outcomes: How can education contribute? European evidence from the ICCS 2016 study. International Journal of Educational Research 98: 366–378.

Brady

Chaskin

McGregor

(2020) Promoting civic and political engagement among marginalized urban youth in three cities: Strategies and challenges. Children and Youth Services Review 116: 105184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105184.

Brady

Schlozman

Verba

(2015) Political mobility and political reproduction from generation to generation. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 657(1): 149–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214550587.

Bruch

Soss

(2018) Schooling as a formative political experience: Authority relations and the education of citizens. Perspectives on Politics 16(1): 36–57.

10.

Campbell

(2008) Voice in the classroom: How an open classroom climate fosters political engagement among adolescents. Political Behavior 30(4): 437–454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-008-9063-z.

11.

Campbell

(2019) What social scientists have learned about civic education: A review of the literature. Peabody Journal of Education 94(1): 32–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2019.1553601.

12.

Campbell

Niemi

(2016) Testing civics: State-level civic education requirements and political knowledge. American Political Science Review 110(3): 495–511. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055416000368.

13.

Choi

Lee

Shin

, et al. (2011) Re‐conceptualization of scientific literacy in South Korea for the 21st century. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 48(6): 670–697. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.v48.6.

14.

Coleman

(1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital. American journal of sociology 94: S95–S120.

15.

Cook

(2019) Sustainability, human well-being, and the future of education. Springer Nature.

16.

Croissant

Walkenhorst

(2019) Social cohesion in Asia: An introduction. Social Cohesion in Asia: 1–25.

17.

Deimel

Hoskins

Abs

(2020) How do schools affect inequalities in political participation: Compensation of social disadvantage or provision of differential access?. Educational Psychology 40(2): 146–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2019.1645305.

18.

Flanagan

Christens

(2011) Youth civic development: Historical context and emerging issues. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 2011(134): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.v2011.134.

19.

Freire

(1973) By learning they can teach. Convergence 6(1).

20.

Galston

(2001) Political knowledge, political engagement, and civic education. Annual Review of Political Science 4(1): 217–234. https://doi.org/10.1146/polisci.2001.4.issue-1.

21.

Godfrey

Grayman

(2014) Teaching citizens: The role of open classroom climate in fostering critical consciousness among youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 43(11): 1801–1817.

22.

Gustafsson

J-E

Blömeke

(2017) Development of school achievement in the Nordic countries during half a century. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 62(3): 386–406. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2018.1434829.

23.

Havik

Westergård

(2020) Do teachers matter? Students’ perceptions of classroom interactions and student engagement. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 64(4): 488–507.

24.

Hemmerechts

Agirdag

Kavadias

(2017) The relationship between parental literacy involvement, socio-economic status and reading literacy. Educational Review 69(1): 85–101.

25.

Hess

(2004) Controversies about controversial issues in democratic education. PS: Political Science & Politics 37(2): 257–261. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096504004196

26.

hooks

(2014) Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

27.

Hoskins

Janmaat

(2016) Educational trajectories and inequalities of political engagement among adolescents in England. Social Science Research 56: 73–89.

28.

Hoskins

Janmaat

(2019) Education, democracy and inequality: Political engagement and citizenship education in Europe. Palgrave Macmillan UK.

29.

Hoskins

Janmaat

Melis

(2017) Tackling inequalities in political socialisation: A systematic analysis of access to and mitigation effects of learning citizenship at school. Social Science Research 68: 88–101.

30.

Hoskins

Saisana

Villalba

CMH

(2015) Civic competence of youth in Europe: Measuring cross national variation through the creation of a composite indicator. Social Indicators Research 123(2): 431–457.

31.

Jagers

Lozada

Rivas-Drake

, et al. (2017) Classroom and school predictors of civic engagement among black and latino middle school youth. Child Development 88(4): 1125–1138.

32.

Janmaat

(2015) School ethnic diversity and White students’ civic attitudes in England. Social Science Research 49: 97–109.

33.

Kangas

Rasi

(2021) Phenomenon-Based learning of multiliteracy in a Finnish upper secondary school. Media Practice and Education 22(4): 342–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/25741136.2021.1977769.

34.

Kawashima-Ginsberg

Levine

(2014) Diversity in classrooms: The relationship between deliberative and associative opportunities in school and later electoral engagement: Diversity and electoral engagement. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 14(1): 394–414. https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12038.

35.

Knowles

(2020) Ideological composition of the classroom: Testing the effects of polarization on perceptions of open classroom climate among students in five countries. Educational Psychology 40(2): 167–185.

36.

Knowles

Torney-Purta

Barber

(2018) Enhancing citizenship learning with international comparative research: Analyses of IEA civic education datasets. Citizenship Teaching & Learning 13(1): 7–30.

37.

LeCompte

Blevins

Riggers-Piehl

(2020) Developing civic competence through action civics: A longitudinal look at the data. The Journal of Social Studies Research 44(1): 127–137.

38.

Lenzi

Vieno

Perkins

, et al. (2012) Family affluence, school and neighborhood contexts and adolescents’ civic engagement: A cross‐national study. American Journal of Community Psychology 50(1-2): 197–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-012-9489-7

39.

Lenzi

Vieno

Sharkey

, 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.

40.

Levinson

Levine

(2013) Taking informed action to engage students in civic life. Social Education 6.

41.

Levy

BLM

(2018) Youth developing political efficacy through social learning experiences: Becoming active participants in a supportive model United Nations Club. Theory & Research in Social Education 46(3): 410–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2017.1377654.

42.

Levy

BLM

Akiva

(2019) Motivating political participation among youth: An analysis of factors related to adolescents’ political engagement. Political Psychology 40(5): 1039–1055. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.v40.5.

43.

Lundahl

(2016) Equality, inclusion and marketization of Nordic education: Introductory notes. Research in Comparative and International Education 11(1): 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745499916631059.

44.

Manganelli

Lucidi

Alivernini

(2014) Adolescents’ expected civic participation: The role of civic knowledge and efficacy beliefs. Journal of Adolescence 37(5): 632–641.

45.

Martens

Gainous

(2013) Civic education and democratic capacity: How do teachers teach and what works?. Social Science Quarterly 94(4): 956–976. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.2013.94.issue-4.

46.

Martyn

Dimitra

(2019) Social and demographic factors linked to youth civic and political engagement. In: Martyn

Dimitra

(eds) Youth Civic and Political Engagement. 1st ed. Routledge, 45–75. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429025570-3.

47.

Maurissen

Claes

Barber

(2018) Deliberation in citizenship education: How the school context contributes to the development of an open classroom climate. Social Psychology of Education 21(4): 951–972.

48.

McCafferty-Wright

Knowles

(2016) Unlocking the civic potential of current events with an open classroom climate. Social Studies Research and Practice 11(3): 112–121. https://doi.org/10.1108/SSRP-03-2016-B0009.

49.

Mennes

van de Werfhorst

Dijkstra

, et al. (2023) Are schools’ qualification and civic outcomes related? The role of schools’ student composition and tracking. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 18(3): 263–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/17461979221084109.

50.

Mitra

Serriere

Stoicovy

(2012) The role of leaders in enabling student voice. Management in Education 26(3): 104–112.

51.

Neundorf

Niemi

Smets

(2016) The compensation effect of civic education on political engagement: How civics classes make up for missing parental socialization. Political Behavior 38(4): 921–949.

52.

Noack

Eckstein

(2023) Populism in youth: Do experiences in school matter?. Child Development Perspectives 17(2): 90–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.v17.2.

53.

OECD (2021) Adapting curriculum to bridge equity gaps: Towards an inclusive curriculum. Paris, France: OECD.

54.

Pacheco

Plutzer

(2008) Political participation and cumulative disadvantage: The impact of economic and social hardship on young citizens. Journal of Social Issues 64(3): 571–593. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.2008.64.issue-3.

55.

Plutzer

(2002) Becoming a habitual voter: Inertia, resources, and growth in young adulthood. American Political Science Review 96(1): 41–56. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055402004227.

56.

Pondiscio (2018) Contributing to a ‘More Perfect Union’: Mathematica study of civic engagement of students at democracy prep is encouraging but only a beginning. Retrieved May 22, 2023, from https://www.the74million.org/article/contributing-to-a-more-perfect-union-mathematica-study-of-civic-engagement-of-students-at-democracy-prep-is-encouraging-but-only-a-beginning.

57.

Power

Whitty

(2002) Bernstein and the middle class. British journal of sociology of education 23(4): 595–606.

58.

Rinnooy Kan

Munniksma

Volman

, et al. (2023) Practicing voice: Student voice experiences, democratic school culture and students’ attitudes towards voice. Research Papers in Education: 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2023.2178496.

59.

Roh

Y-R

(2004) Democratic citizenship education in the information age: a comparative study of South Korea and Australia. Asia Pacific Education Review 5(2): 167–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03024954.

60.

Sahlberg

(2011) The fourth way of Finland. Journal of Educational Change 12(2): 173–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-011-9157-y.

61.

Salokangas

Wermke

Harvey

(2020) Teachers’ autonomy deconstructed: Irish and Finnish teachers’ perceptions of decision-making and control. European Educational Research Journal 19(4): 329–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904119868378.

62.

Saraví

Bayón

Azaola

(2020) Constructing school belonging(s) in disadvantaged urban spaces: Adolescents’ experiences and narratives in Mexico city. Youth & Society 52(7): 1107–1127.

63.

Scales

Benson

Roehlkepartain

(2011) Adolescent thriving: The role of sparks, relationships, and empowerment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 40(3): 263–277.

64.

Schulz

Ainley

Fraillon

, et al. (2018) Becoming citizens in a changing world: IEA international civic and citizenship education study 2016 international report. Springer International Publishing.

65.

Simola

(2014) The Finnish education mystery: Historical and sociological essays on schooling in Finland. Routledge.

66.

Sung

Y-K

Lee

(2018) Politics and the practice of school change: The hyukshin school movement in South Korea. Curriculum Inquiry 48(2): 238–252.

67.

Suwalska

(2021) Ethical education for grades 1 and 2 in Finland from the values perspective. Multidisciplinary Journal of School Education 10(20): 153–170. https://doi.org/10.35765/mjse.2021.1020.08.

68.

Teegelbeckers

Nieuwelink

Oostdam

(2023) School-based teaching for democracy: A systematic review of teaching methods in quantitative intervention studies. Educational Research Review 39: 100511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100511.

69.

Torney-Purta

Amadeo

J-A

(2011) Participatory niches for emergent citizenship in early adolescence: An international perspective. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 633(1): 180–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716210384220.

70.

Tramonte

Willms

(2010) Cultural capital and its effects on education outcomes. Economics of Education Review 29(2): 200–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2009.06.003.

71.

Treviño

Béjares

Villalobos

, et al. (2017) Influence of teachers and schools on students’ civic outcomes in Latin America. The Journal of Educational Research 110(6): 604–618.

72.

Westheimer

(2015) Teaching for democratic action. Educação & Realidade 40(2): 465–483. https://doi.org/10.1590/2175-623653285.

73.

Wray-Lake

Abrams

(2020) Pathways to civic engagement among urban youth of color. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 85(2): 7–154.

74.

Yang

Tan

(2019) Advancing student-centric education in Korea: Issues and challenges. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 28(6): 483–493.

A comparative study of convergence and divergence in the impact of school culture and open classroom climate on civic outcomes in mitigating the influence of students’ family backgrounds: insights from Finland and South Korea

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Civic gaps in students and schools

Schools as reinforcers of civic inequality

Schools as equalizers for civic inequality

Schools addressing civic outcomes for students

School culture

Open classroom climate

The concept of civic outcomes

Convergence and divergence of the contexts in Finland and South Korea

Research questions

Methods

Data

Operationalization of the dependent variables

Operationalization of the independent variables

Analytic approaches

Results

Discussions

Teaching practices for openness in classroom

Democratic school cultures of valuing student engagement

Gender gap in students’ civic outcomes

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References