Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Social justice–orientated citizenship education (SJCE) can help young people to develop the knowledge, skills and dispositions to work collectively towards solutions to problems such as human rights violations, global poverty and environmental sustainability (DeJaeghere and Tudball, 2007; Banks, 2017; Hartung, 2017). Furthermore, SJCE can enable young people to think critically, consciously and compassionately and allow them to grow intellectually with a concern for equality and justice. This paper presents a conceptual framework for SJCE for educators and educational researchers wishing to explore citizenship education within social justice contexts. The framework is based on four constitutive elements: agency, dialogue, criticality and emancipatory knowledge, and has its philosophical foundations deeply rooted in the values and principles of critical pedagogy (Kincheloe, 2004; McLaren, 2014; Giroux, 2016). This conceptual framework for SJCE is ultimately concerned with developing justice-orientated active agents of change who are concerned with making the world more democratic, equitable and just.

Keywords

social justice citizenship education social justice–orientated citizenship education critical pedagogy education equity

Introduction

We are living in an age of significant political, economic and social uncertainty. The COVID-19 pandemic poses a significant threat to global peace and security (Guterres, 2020) which could lead to political unrest, violence and armed conflict (Muggah et al., 2020). One need only look at the current tensions in Europe to see how volatile the political landscape currently is (Tisdall, 2022). Furthermore, the climate crisis is resulting in inevitable and irreversible damage to the planet, and is predicted to cause widespread devastation (Harvey, 2021). As such, there is an increasing need for education for global citizenship which teaches young people about solidarity and how best to take actions that benefit all of humankind. Indeed, citizenship education should be concerned with developing active, critical, democratic global citizens who are not only committed to social justice, human rights and climate change but also feel empowered to challenge systems of inequity and make the world more sustainable and just (Banks, 2017; DeJaeghere and Tudball, 2007; Hartung, 2017). From this perspective, citizenship education is not about civic obedience and economic entrepreneurialism but rather educating young people for active and critical global citizenry with the ability to think consciously, critically and compassionately. This paper provides a conceptual framework for social justice–orientated citizenship education (SJCE), built upon four constitutive elements – agency, dialogue, criticality and emancipatory knowledge – for educators and educational researchers wishing to explore citizenship education within social justice contexts. The paper begins with a discussion on the philosophical foundations which are deeply rooted in the values and principles of critical pedagogy.

Critical pedagogy: The philosophical foundations for social justice–orientated citizenship education

During the early 20th century, the American philosopher John Dewey reasoned that schools should provide a transformative model of education by promoting human values such as social justice and equality (Dewey, 1916). While Dewey’s social reconstructionism provides the philosophical basis for critical pedagogy, the term was first used by Henry Giroux (1983) who argued for radical pedagogies to challenge the cultural reproduction permeating public schools in America. Giroux’s critical pedagogy was very much influenced by the writings of Paulo Freire whose seminal work, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, advocated for the emancipation of the oppressed peoples of Brazil through the development of literacy as a vehicle for social transformation. Indeed, Freire (2000) argues that traditional education perpetuates social inequalities and power imbalances and should be challenged by students and educators. The purpose of Freirean education, therefore, is to enhance democratic participation, social agency and critical consciousness (Freire, 2000). Freire’s emancipatory education has since grown through the writings of Western critical pedagogues such as bell hooks, Henry Giroux, Maxine Greene, Michael Apple and Peter McLaren, to name but a few.

Critical pedagogues argue that schools are inherently political institutions that have been shaped by neoliberalism, where teachers’ autonomy has been vastly reduced as they are forced to adopt prescriptive and restrictive policies and practices (Giroux, 2016; Hursh, 2007; Zembylas, 2021). Resultingly, teachers have become more compliant and less radical with an expectation that they should be apolitical rather than taking an open stand against inequity and anti-democratic practices (Giroux, 2016; McLaren, 2014). The ambitious objective of critical pedagogy, therefore, is to achieve equity through a moral vision of justice-orientated education (Kress, 2011; Sandars, 2017; Spaaij et al., 2016; Zembylas, 2021). Here, it is claimed that critical pedagogy can provide historical, political and ethical guidance to those who believe in the transformative and emancipatory power of education (Kincheloe, 2004).

Educators who wish to become critical pedagogues must begin to question how the traditional model of education cements teacher/student power dynamics. As Kress (2011, p. 262) asserts, ‘embracing critical pedagogy, as a form of action, involves committing to fighting oppression that emerges from and maintains these power inequalities that negatively impact people’s lives’. Indeed, critical pedagogy aims to empower disadvantaged members of society and challenge inequities (McLaren, 2014; Sandars, 2017; Spaaij et al., 2016). This must, however, be achieved by providing the conditions for students to become self-empowered through the acquisition of emancipatory knowledge, skills and dispositions. Critical pedagogy is not concerned with developing a set of teaching techniques, but rather, it is a way of being as a teacher: a disposition, a philosophy and an enactment of values and principles.

The principles of critical pedagogy

Defining the principles of critical pedagogy remains a site for contestation; however, Darder et al. (2017) provide a summary of critical pedagogy’s main philosophical principles which are adopted within this conceptual framework: historicity of knowledge, political economy, cultural politics, resistance and counter-hegemony, dialectical theory, and conscientisation dialogue and praxis.

Historicity of knowledge

Critical pedagogues maintain that knowledge is ‘produced in a larger process and can never be understood outside of its historical development and its relationship to other information’ (Kincheloe, 2004: p. 17). It is argued that schools provide a distorted view of history which undermines the social and critical consciousness needed to bring about equitable transformation and heal social division. Critical pedagogues view knowledge as being deeply entrenched and geopolitically positioned within interconnected power relations (McLaren, 2014). Critical pedagogues are concerned with why some constructions of knowledge are legitimised over other forms of knowledge. As such, they aim to decolonise dominant cultural knowledge while recognising the symbiotic relationship between knowledge control and economic power (Apple, 1982; Giroux, 2016).

Political economy

It is maintained that schools work against the class interests of the most disadvantaged and disenfranchised students (Sandars, 2017; Spaaij et al., 2016). Here, class is conceptualised as the political, ethical, social and economic relationships that govern society. Critical pedagogues argue that schools are used to replicate and exacerbate the political, cultural and economic dominance of the privileged classes to the detriment of marginalised members of society (Apple, 1982; Giroux, 2016; Kincheloe, 2004; McLaren, 2014). It is argued that the traditional model of schooling is designed to produce passive and compliant workers who can contribute to the economy rather than thoughtful citizens who are more concerned with human wellbeing and equity (Giroux, 2016; Hursh, 2007). It is, therefore, the role of critical pedagogy to provide discursive spaces to challenge hegemonic culture in schools.

Cultural politics

For critical pedagogues, culture has to be viewed as a site of struggle where the production of knowledge is a highly contested process (Kincheloe, 2004). According to Apple (1982, p. 42), schools exacerbate and perpetuate cultural privilege by legitimising and prioritising the culture of powerful groups as ‘they teach norms, values, dispositions, and culture that contribute to the ideological hegemony of dominant groups’. Critical pedagogy aims to challenge this dominance by committing to the development of school cultures that empower marginalised and disadvantaged students (Sandars, 2017; Spaaij et al., 2016). As such, critical pedagogy confronts the dominant narrative around legitimate culture, and empowers students to construct perceived truth through their own lived experience (Darder et al., 2017). Critical pedagogy provides a critique of, and an antidote to, educational practices which cement cultural and ideological hegemony in schools and other educational settings.

Resistance and counter-hegemony

McLaren (2014) argues that the dominant culture maintains control and power through the process of hegemony. Hegemony refers to the preservation of domination through social practices and structures produced in sites such as schools (McLaren, 2014). One of the main purposes of critical pedagogy is to help students to scrutinise the political, social and economic foundations of larger society and resist hegemonic practices. Critical pedagogy aims to challenge and change structures that exacerbate inequity and injustice by developing democratic cultures that inspires and empowers students (Cho, 2010; McLaren, 2014). Moreover, critical pedagogues argue hegemony cannot be separated from ideology which permeates all aspects of social life (Kincheloe, 2004; McLaren, 2017). Subversion, resistance and counter-hegemony are ultimately about equity, liberation and anti-marginalisation (Cho, 2010).

Dialectical theory

Dialectical theory is concerned with the complexities and contradictions in human behaviour and therefore aims to avoid simplistic notions of human relationships (Mayo, 2013). Within dialectical theory, social problems and systemic injustices cannot be viewed as isolated entities but rather as a consequence of the interactions between individuals and society (McLaren, 2014). The complexities of these relationships and interactions means that there are multiple sides to any given problem, which are shaped by certain race, gender and class interests and intersectionalities (McLaren, 2014). Dialectical theory aims to provide students with a framework to analyse and critique underlying social and political factors through dialogue and a heightened sense of critical consciousness (Darder et al., 2017).

Conscientisation, dialogue and praxis

The task of critical pedagogy is to bring members of oppressed groups to a level of critical consciousness of their situation so they feel empowered to become active agents of change (Darder et al., 2017; Freire, 2000; Giroux, 2011; Kincheloe, 2004). One of the most effective ways to achieve this is through open dialogue between teachers and students (Burbules and Berk, 1999; Giroux, 2011; hooks, 1994; Shor, 1992). According to Freire (2000), dialogue is the only way to understand and answer political questions and truly grasp the nature of one’s being. This pedagogical approach is rooted in the idea that education should be participatory and not passive (hooks, 1994; Shor, 1992). Dialogue should help to develop a greater understanding of one’s world and a desire to change it. Freire (2000) refers to this as ‘praxis’ which is where theory meets social action through the desire to seek how things might be instead of how they are.

This article has, thus far, laid the philosophical foundations for the conceptual framework for SJCE which are deeply rooted in the principles of critical pedagogy. Indeed, critical pedagogy is concerned with social injustice and how to transform undemocratic, inequitable and oppressive social relations (Burbules and Burk, 1999).

The following section outlines the constitutive elements of the framework: agency, dialogue, criticality and emancipatory knowledge.

A conceptual framework for social justice–orientated citizenship education

The conceptual framework for SJCE draws on elements of cosmopolitan citizenship education (Osler and Starkey, 2003), critical citizenship education (DeJaeghere and Tudball, 2007), global citizenship education (Hartung, 2017) and transformative citizenship education (Banks, 2017). What emerges from these conceptualisations of citizenship education is a clear focus on developing agentic, critical, democratic global citizens who are committed to social justice, human rights and environmental sustainability (Banks, 2017; DeJaeghere and Tudball, 2007; Hartung, 2017; Osler and Starkey, 2003). Moreover, these conceptualisations are concerned with ensuring that young people have the knowledge, skills and dispositions to become active changemakers with a desire to make the world more equitable and just. In order to achieve this, the conceptual framework presented here is built on four interconnected and constitutive elements: agency, dialogue, criticality and emancipatory knowledge.

Agency

Agency can be defined as the power people have to think independently and take action in ways that help shape their lives. For the purpose of this framework, it is Emirbayer and Mische’s (1998) conceptualisation of agency that is adopted. Emirbayer and Mische (1998: p. 971) define agency as being a temporal and relational three-dimensional process involving the ‘continual reconstruction of their orientations toward past and future in response to emergent events’. Consequently, they distinguish three elements of human agency: ‘iteration, projectivity, and practical evaluation’ (Emirbayer and Mische, 1998: p. 971, emphasis included):

‘The iterational element — refers to the selective reactivation by actors of past patterns of thought and action, as routinely incorporated in practical activity, thereby giving stability and order to social universes and helping to sustain identities, interactions and institutions over time’.

‘The projective element — encompasses the imaginative generation by actors of possible future trajectories of action, in which received structures of thought and action may be creatively reconfigured in relation to actors’ hopes, fears, and desires for the future’.

‘The practical-evaluative element — entails the capacity of actors to make practical and normative judgement among alternative possible trajectories of action, in response to the emerging demands, dilemmas, and ambiguities of presently evolving situations.

Biesta and Tedder (2007) maintain that agency should be understood as something that can be achieved through engagement with temporal-relational contexts. In this respect, young people need agency if they are to believe that they can influence change within varying contexts. It is suggested that one of the most powerful ways to develop young people’s sense of agency is through participatory practices (Biesta, 2007; Hart, 1992; Kisby, 2017; Short, 2012; Vandenbroeck, 2006). For example, one of the most effective ways to learn about democracy is to ‘live it’ through active participation (Kisby, 2017; Mayo, 2013; Short, 2012). Indeed, it is difficult to teach democratic participation as an abstraction as it is better understood through experience and practice (Hart, 1992). However, within many Western democracies, young people are given very few opportunities to experience democracy in action (Biesta, 2007; Hart, 1992; Short, 2012). Unsurprisingly, it can be difficult for young people to learn about democratic participation when they are afforded few opportunities to actively experience these processes in schools.

Critical pedagogy, however, requires participating in democratic classroom practices governed by non-hierarchical relations (Mayo, 2013; Shor, 1992). One way to achieve this is through dialogue and ‘a deliberative model of democratic decision-making - which on a respectful and non-dominating basis, includes and accords agency to all who might significantly be affected by problems under discussion’ (Zipin and Reid, 2008: p. 534). Here, members can express and challenge ideas and arrive at more socially just decisions (Zipin and Reid, 2008). Democratic decision-making can also be achieved through practices such as negotiating classroom rules, electing classroom representatives or incorporating class members’ suggestions for learning activities into curricula design. Though small in gesture, these approaches can be quite significant in helping young people grasp difficult concepts such as democratic participation. Furthermore, it enhances opportunities for socially just education and positions school as ‘a collaborative community and as the engine for meaningful change in and of communities, moving beyond pathologizing practices which reproduce inequalities’ (Karakatsani and Papaloi, 2018: p. 174).

Agency can also be developed through active experiential learning opportunities which are important and relevant to young people’s lives and communities (Karakatsani and Papaloi, 2018; Kisby, 2017; Short, 2012; Torres-Harding, 2018). This can be achieved through action civics which provides young people with opportunities to actively participate in community projects and develop the knowledge, skills and dispositions required to become informed agentic citizens (Blevins et al., 2016). Blevins et al. (2016: p. 347) identify the key proponents of action civics programmes:

- Students learn by engaging in civic activities in the classroom and beyond.

- Students choose an issue that is important to them and work to make a difference.

- Students reflect on their actions, successes and challenges throughout the project.

- Student voices, experiences and decisions are valued.

Students could, for example, focus on local foodbank usage or homelessness and consider ways to address these community issues through collective action. Here, young people learn about democratic citizenship ‘as a consequence of their participation in the actual practices that make up their lives' (Zipin and Reid, 2008: p. 534). Indeed, active participation in the community develops responsibility and shared culture and helps young people acquire the knowledge, skills and dispositions for active citizenship (Karakatsani and Papaloi, 2018). Torres-Harding (2018: p. 4) suggests that ‘participation in student activism can foster civic engagement by enabling participation in political processes, help instil hope, and reaffirm their own personally meaningful commitments to improving their own communities’. Through this participatory process of action civics and student activism, critical praxis becomes a real possibility as classroom learning is connected to cultural communities (Zipin and Reid, 2008). Also, valuing student voice allows for democratic and dialogic spaces for young people to discuss social injustices and how best to tackle systems of inequity.

Dialogue

Dialogue has the power to energise, motivate and enhance young people’s critical thinking through collaboration, interaction, argumentation, cognitive processing and self-regulatory behaviour (Alexander, 2020; Fisher, 2007). Furthermore, it is guided by a social-constructivist view of learning where teachers and class members are active participants in the co-construction of knowledge through shared ideas and experiences (Hardman and Abd-Kadir, 2010). Creating a dialogic classroom does, however, require inclusive pedagogic practices, mutually respectful relationships and skilful facilitation. While there are numerous conceptualisations of dialogic pedagogy (see, for example, Mercer, 2008; Nystrand et al., 1997; and Skidmore, 2000), this framework draws predominantly on the work of Alexander (2011, 2020). Alexander (2020: p. 131, emphasis included) outlines the main features of dialogic pedagogy which, he asserts, separates it from other forms of classroom communication such as rote, recitation and direct instruction as being:

‘Collective’ as the teacher and class members address learning activities together rather than in isolation.

‘Reciprocal’ as participants listen to each other and react by sharing and challenging ideas and providing different, and often conflicting, viewpoints.

‘Supportive’ as contributions are valued and respected by all participants with a goal to achieve a collective understanding.

‘Cumulative’ as the teacher and class members build on each other’s contributions and weave them into coherent and logical lines of enquiry.

‘Purposeful’ as the teacher has certain learning goals in mind. These are well planned and skilfully facilitated rather than dictatorially and didactically imposed.

‘Deliberative’ as class members discuss alternative viewpoints and work towards reasoned positions.

Alexander’s (2020) features of dialogic pedagogy help to create a democratic community of enquiry. In democratic communities of enquiry, ‘diverse agents share equivalent agency to shape their self-governing discourses, norms, practices and relations through knowledge-constructing communicative interactions’ (Zipin and Reid, 2008: p. 535). Indeed, a democratic community of enquiry provides a dialogic space to challenge ideas and promote reasoned debate (Fisher, 2007). It is also built on open-ended questions and responses between the teacher and class members. Communities of enquiry bear a resemblance to Freirean culture circles which are designed to enhance problem-posing and problem-solving while bringing participants to an awareness of their situation and heightened levels of critical consciousness (Souto-Manning, 2010). Although democratic in nature, communities of enquiry require some organisational and structural coordination to ensure that they provide a platform for voices to emerge equally. Indeed, dialogue ‘is not about winning and losing but about ways of relating in which justice can be done to all who take part’ (Biesta, 2007: p. 3). In this respect, dialogue becomes an empowering democratic process where everyone’s contribution is encouraged and valued.

Dialogue should be at the very heart of citizenship education as a means of developing thoughtful, active and critical citizens. As Alexander (2011: p. 7) observes, ‘democracies need citizens who can argue, reason and challenge, question, present cases and evaluate them. Democracies decline when citizens listen rather than talk, and when they comply rather than debate’. This was also recognised in the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre’s (cited in Alexander, 2011: p. 34) systematic review of citizenship education on students’ learning and achievement, who noted:

‘The quality of dialogue and discourse is central to learning in citizenship education…Dialogue and discourse are connected with learning about shared values, human rights, and issues of justice and equality…Transformative, dialogical and participatory pedagogies complement and sustain achievement rather than divert attention from it’.

Unfortunately, classroom dialogue has yet to be afforded a similar status in England as it has in other European countries where it is deemed to be a prerequisite for education for active and democratic citizenship. If young people are to develop the knowledge, skills and dispositions needed to become active agents of change, then they need democratic dialogic spaces where articulacy and argumentation can flourish. Segal et al. (2017) have observed several significant factors for the implementation and facilitation of effective dialogue:

Participation structure: Smaller group sizes of between eight and 12 class members is optimum for dialogic interactions and enables deeper exploration of issues and ideas, allowing voices to emerge equally. Within larger groups, class members can have considerably less time to contribute, explore ideas and reach a deeper level of critical consciousness.

Teacher role: The teacher should act as a participant in all discussions. Here, dialogue becomes a shared human experience that can reduce the usual hierarchical classroom power dynamics.

Topic of the lesson: Here, it is suggested that dialogue is enhanced by choosing topics that sit on the periphery of the curriculum. For example, controversial socio-political issues can increase the challenge and nature of dialogue in the classroom. This does not mean that topics should be overtly controversial, but lessons that deal with injustice and inequity often have the emotive power to ignite and fuel classroom dialogue.

Co-construction of discursive space: The discursive space in which the ideas are presented and challenged through reasoning should be jointly constructed by all class members. For dialogic spaces to be inclusive, class members must have a sense of agency. For example, negotiating the group guidelines can increase the likelihood that the participants will adhere to them.

It should also be noted that quality classroom dialogue is underpinned by effective questioning techniques employed by the teacher, both as an inclusive pedagogical practice and a mode for extrapolating ideas and insights in the classroom. Effective questioning can involve, amongst other things, responding to questions with additional questions, seeking to understand the logic and rationale of classroom members’ responses, encouraging the connection of points and treating all answers as needing further development. Indeed, dialogic pedagogy is based on authentic open-ended questions where the teacher does not know the answer and ‘accepts the response as supplying genuine fresh knowledge that will contribute to the development of classroom discourse' (Ross, 2008: p. 499). Consequently, dialogic pedagogy can move discussion onto philosophical levels where class members are able to engage in critical analysis and higher levels of critical thinking (Fisher, 2007). Alexander (2011) argues that dialogic pedagogy can be particularly beneficial in helping young people to develop core skills of citizenship such as listening and responding to others, forming questions, evaluating ideas and justifying opinions. As such, ‘the practice of dialogue is an essential element in their development as future independent learners and active citizens’ (Fisher, 2007: p. 618).

Dialogue can help young people to develop the ‘capacity to narrate, explain, instruct, ask different kinds of questions, listen to and build upon answers, analyse and solve problems, speculate and imagine, discuss, argue, reason, negotiate, explore and evaluate ideas’ (Fisher, 2007: p. 618). These skills and dispositions are essential in developing thoughtful, active critical citizens who feel empowered to bring about change. As Kazepides (2012, p. 925) observes, ‘nothing else will improve our educational institutions and the character of our civilization so much as our efforts to cultivate genuine rational dialogue within all our schools as well as within our world’. However, for young people to become active agents of change, they must also have the ability to think critically about their lives and the social and political worlds within which they reside.

Criticality

Awan et al. (2018: p. 141) argue that ‘the major goal of citizenship education is to teach how to think rather than what to think’. Indeed, the ability to think critically is essential for active democratic citizenship (Bermudez, 2015; Banks, 2016). However, the term ‘critical thinking’, is highly contested, primarily because of how it is often appropriated and applied across various disciplines (Bermudez, 2015; Burbules and Berk, 1999; Mason, 2008). Mason (2008) suggests that critical thinking is based on one of three conceptions: critical thinking as a skill, critical thinking as a domain-specific skill and critical thinking as a value-based moral perspective. For the purpose of this framework, critical thinking is positioned as a skill that involves assessing the validity of arguments, inferring, judging the credibility of sources, challenging unstated assumptions and presenting reasoned and considered arguments based on that evidence (Awan et al., 2018; Mason, 2008; Ennis, 2016).

When developed as a skill, critical thinking can act as a buffer against ideological indoctrination as it is a process that involves determining whether to accept a claim following careful assessment of the evidence provided. It is worth noting that over the past two decades, there has been a significant growth in social media platforms as a means of communicating ideas. For its many benefits, the cyber revolution has drastically increased the amount of easily accessible online information which one may, or may not, be able to trust (Awan et al. (2018). Indeed, the ability to think critically has become even more urgent in an increasingly challenging and capricious world. In England, for example, there has been a recent rise in extremist views and conspiracy theories among schoolchildren with teachers feeling ill-equipped to support them in challenging these beliefs (Taylor et al., 2021). In the vast landscape of fake news and online propaganda, young people need opportunities to question and critically evaluate the information sources they are subjected to.

In order to enhance critical thinking, Bermudez (2015) identifies four tools of critical inquiry that can be used in the classroom:

Problem-posing: is used to raise critical questions and initiate further enquiry around social practices. Active participation in dialogue leads to the co-construction of knowledge and meaning around issues concerning injustice, oppression and inequity. In summary, ‘problem-posing cultivates the purposeful, sensitive, sharp and courageous spirit of a critical thinker.’ Bermudez (2015: p. 108).

Reflective skepticism: is concerned with questions about truth and involves the scrutiny of arguments, examination of one’s underlying assumptions and the correction of distortions. Probing and scrutinising arguments and evidence helps to ‘nurture the judicious spirit of a person that pauses to ponder and examine issues more deeply, following methodical procedures of inquiry’ (Bermudez (2015: p. 109).

Multi-perspectivity: is used to identify different perspectives for understanding a social problem or moral dilemma. Multi-perspectivity enables a diversity of thinking by considering different and often divergent points of view. As such it becomes a tool for critical thinking that ‘fosters the fair-minded, curious, nuanced, and pluralist spirit of a critical thinker that is open to recognising alternative ways of understanding and being in the world’ (Bermudez (2015, p. 111).

Systemic thinking: is used to deconstruct and reconstruct systems in which people exist. Systemic thinking requires situating personal experience within wider historical, social, cultural and political contexts; helping to understand the complex relationship between structural forces and individual agency. As such, ‘systemic thinking embodies the ecological spirit of a critical thinker that strives to maintain the big picture and not lose sight of diversity, complexity, and transformation (Bermudez, 2015: p. 113).

Wade (2001, p. 25) suggests that ‘social just education begins with children’s lived experience and then moves toward fostering a critical perspective and action directed toward social change’. Indeed, by utilising tools such as problem-posing, reflective scepticism, multi-perspectivity and systemic thinking (Bermudez, 2015), young people can develop the critical thinking dispositions to become agents of change. Critical thinking is a powerful tool that enables and encourages ‘young people to think critically about contemporary issues and to engage actively in political and civic participation to address such matters, as well as to protect and promote rights’ (Kisby, 2017: p. 19).

hooks (2009) contends that young people’s enthusiasm for critical thinking is often dampened through traditional education that is centred around obedience and conformity, with little opportunities to engage critical thought (hooks, 2009). Creating the right conditions for critical thinking and dialogue can not only enthuse young people but can also lead to the co-construction of the types of emancipatory knowledge required to become active citizens.

Emancipatory knowledge

McLaren (2014) suggests that there are three types of knowledge: productive knowledge, practical knowledge and emancipatory knowledge. Productive knowledge is knowledge that can be measured and quantified through standardised modes of assessment. This is often centred around ‘knowledge banking’ (Freire, 2000) which involves transmitting subject content from the expert (the teacher) to the novice (student) in a one-way transaction fused by a hierarchical power dynamic. This, as Ross (2008: p. 499) contends, is ‘itself inimical to democratic processes and a denial of the identity of and experience of the learner, whose previous understanding and encounters with social life are overwritten by the teachers’ narrative. Here, the focus is on passivity, rote learning, memorisation and high-stakes testing as opposed to active, dialogic and transformative pedagogies (Foreman-Peck and Heilbronn, 2018). Productive knowledge is static and pre-ordained, where young people are viewed as passive beneficiaries of knowledge rather than social agents, knowledge-makers and intellectual beings in their own right (Yandell, 2017; Jarmy, 2019).

Practical knowledge, on the other hand, is designed to help young people gain a wider and deeper understanding than that provided by productive knowledge; however, it often leads to students becoming unquestioning and passive (Banks, 2014; McLaren, 2014). Within the context of citizenship education, Banks (2014) refers to this as mainstream knowledge which, he argues, does little more than maintain the status quo. Indeed, the main emphasis of mainstream citizenship education is on learning facts about the constitution and other government apparatus rather than developing critical thinking skills and active participatory dispositions (Banks, 2014). Furthermore, when citizenship education is focused on productive and practical knowledge, it tends to be taught through traditional pedagogies such as textbooks, lectures and worksheets (Blevins et al., 2016).

McLaren (2014: p. 134) is highly critical of both productive and practical knowledge by suggesting ‘knowledge that does not go beyond contemplating the world and observing it objectively without transcending given social conditions merely affirms what already exists’. Emancipatory knowledge, on the other hand, aims to achieve a heightened sense of critical and political consciousness and a belief that one can bring about social change. Although speaking within the context of adult education, Cranton (2002: p. 64) offers a useful definition of emancipatory knowledge:

‘Emancipatory knowledge, the self-awareness that frees us from constraints, is a product of critical reflection and critical self-reflection. Gaining emancipatory knowledge can be a goal in all facets of adult education, as we critically question, for example…the underlying assumptions of a political system…The acquisition of emancipatory knowledge is transformative’.

Within this conceptual framework for SJCE, emancipatory knowledge is both situational and relational. It is situational as it draws on local contexts and communities as ‘critical pedagogy is cognizant of the importance of understanding the context in which educational activity takes place’ (Kincheloe, 2004: p. 33). Knowledge within this framework is concerned with raising young people’s awareness and interest in local, national and global issues and fostering a desire to become more politically and critically engaged. In this sense, knowledge is relational as it allows children and young people to see ‘others as essentially similar to themselves and arrive at a sense of citizenship based on a consciousness of humanity rather than an allegiance to the state’ (Osler and Starkey, 2003: p. 23). It is guided by a commitment to social justice and equity and addresses issues such as human rights, power, equality, identity and diversity. Indeed, Banks (2014, 2016) refers to this as transformative knowledge which enables young people to develop the knowledge, skills and dispositions to challenge inequality – locally, nationally and internationally – by taking action to create more equitable and democratic societies.

SJCE should also be relevant to young people’s lives within local, national and global dimensions if it is to have an impact and long-term effect on their interest in political issues (Banks, 2017; Hartung, 2017; Osler and Starkey, 2003; Zipin and Reid, 2008). When engaged in local social activism, young people show great enthusiasm and personal investment in socio-political issues which affect their own communities (Torres-Harding et al., 2018). Unfortunately, most knowledge taught in schools is decontextualised and often lacks meaningful connection to students’ lives (Kincheloe, 2004; Zipin and Reid, 2008). However, for citizenship education to make a difference, it is important for young people to understand that they live interconnected lives and appreciate that what they do derives from their involvement in society. As such, citizenship education should be about creating opportunities for young people to understand and become increasingly ‘concerned both with the quality of civic life within their own national boundaries and with human rights violations and oppression wherever they occur’ (Osler and Starkey, 2003: p. 24).

Within social justice–orientated citizenship education, knowledge is not imposed from top-down orthodoxies and certitudes but is framed within a social-constructivist view of learning which positions young people as highly skilled co-creators of knowledge (Mashford-Scott and Church, 2011; Shor, 1992). Accordingly, it is the antithesis of banking pedagogies that consider knowledge propositional and static rather than open and developmental. Knowledge is not presented as universal truth but rather as problems for democratic and dialogic enquiry. This, argues Shor (1992), negates the dogmatic imposition of selective, hegemonic and legitimised knowledge and culture. It also enables young people to see themselves as knowledgeable individuals rather than intellectual and cultural deficits. Many traditionalist educators employ the adage ‘knowledge is power’; however, as Shor (1992: p. 6) contends, ‘knowledge is not exactly power. Knowledge is the power to know, to understand, but not necessarily the power to do or to change’. Emancipatory knowledge, on the other hand, is more concerned with developing young people’s agency, critical consciousness and self-belief to be able to challenge inequity and injustice and bring about social and political change (Banks, 2016).

Conclusion

We are currently living through uncertain and unprecedented times. The world is still in the grip of a global pandemic with the long-term social, political and economic consequences likely to be seismic and long-lasting (Guterres, 2020; Muggah et al., 2020). Furthermore, there has been a worrying rise in populist discourse across the globe in recent years (Lewis et al., 2019) as well as a climate crisis that is resulting in inevitable and irreversible damage to the planet (Harvey, 2021). As such, there is a growing need for social justice–orientated citizenship education which develops active, critical, global citizens who are committed to human rights, social justice and environmental sustainability (Banks, 2017; DeJaeghere and Tudball, 2007; Hartung, 2017). Based on the philosophical foundations of critical pedagogy, the conceptual framework presented in this article is concerned with developing young people’s critical consciousness, dialogic dispositions and the emancipatory knowledge needed to become active agents of change who are concerned with making the world more democratic, equitable and just.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Funding

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

ORCID iD

Daryn Egan-Simon

References

Alexander

(2011) Towards Dialogic Teaching: Rethinking Classroom Talk. 4th edition. York: Dialogos.

Alexander

(2020) A Dialogic Teaching Companion. London: Taylor & Francis.

Apple

(1982) Education and Power. London: Routledge.

Awan

Perveen

Abiodullah

(2018) An analysis of the critical thinking for citizenship education in the curriculum at secondary level. Bulletin of Education and Research 40(1): 141–153.

Banks

(2014) Diversity, group identity, and citizenship education in a global age. Journal of Education 194(3): 1–12.

Banks

(2016) Cultural Diversity and Education: Foundations, Curriculum, and Teaching. 6th edition. London: Routledge.

Banks

(2017) Failed citizenship and transformative civic education. Educational Researcher 46(7): 366–377.

Bermudez

(2015) Four tools for critical inquiry in history, social studies, and civic education. Revista de estudios sociales 52: 102–118.

Blevins

LeCompte

Wells

(2016) Innovations in civic education: developing civic agency through action civics. Theory & Research in Social Education 44(3): 344–384.

10.

Biesta

(2007) Education and the democratic person: towards a political conception of democratic education. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education 109(3): 740–769.

11.

Biesta

Tedder

(2007) Agency and learning in the lifecourse: towards an ecological perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults 39(2): 132–149.

12.

Burbules

Berk

(1999) Critical thinking and critical pedagogy: relations, differences, and limits. In: Popkewitz

Fendler

(eds) Critical Theories in Education. New York: Routledge, 45–65.

13.

Cho

(2010) Politics of critical pedagogy and new social movements. Educational Philosophy and Theory 42(3): 310–325.

14.

Cranton

(2002) Teaching for transformation. New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education 2002(93); 63–72.

15.

Darder

Baltodano

Torres

(2017) Critical pedagogy: an introduction. In: Darder

Baltodano

Toress

(eds) The Critical Pedagogy Reader. 3rd edition. New York: Routledge, 1–25.

16.

Dejaeghere

Tudball

(2007) Looking back, looking forward: critical citizenship as a way ahead for civics and citizenship education in Australia. Citizenship Teaching and Learning 3(2): 40–57.

17.

Dewey

(1916) Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. New York: Macmillan.

18.

Emirbayer

Mische

(1998) What Is Agency? American Journal of Sociology 103(4): 962–1023.

19.

Ennis

(2016) Critical thinking across the curriculum: a vision. Topoi 37(1): 165–184.

20.

Fisher

(2007) Dialogic teaching: developing thinking and metacognition through philosophical discussion. Early Child Development and Care 177(6–7): 615–631.

21.

Foreman‐Peck

Heilbronn

(2018) Does action research have a future? A reply to Higgins. Journal of Philosophy of Education 52(1): 126–143.

22.

Freire

(2000) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. 30th anniversary edition. New York: Continuum.

23.

Giroux

(1983) Theory and Resistance in Education: A Pedagogy for the Opposition. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.

24.

Giroux

(2011) On Critical Pedagogy. Oxford: Blackwell.

25.

Giroux

(2016) When schools become dead zones of the imagination: a critical pedagogy manifesto. The High School Journal 99(4): 351–359.

26.

Guterres

(2020) Now is the time for unity. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/un-coronavirus-communications-team/“now-time-unity” (accessed on 9 August 2021).

27.

Hardman

Abd-Kadir

(2010) Classroom discourse: towards a dialogic pedagogy. In: Wyse

Andrews

Hoffman

(eds) The Routledge International Handbook of English, Language and Literacy Teaching. London: Routledge, 254–264.

28.

Hart

(1992) Children's participation: from tokenism to citizenship. Innocenti Essay no. 4 Available at: https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/childrens_participation.pdf (accessed on 3 September 2021).

29.

Hartung

(2017) Global citizenship incorporated: competing responsibilities in the education of global citizens. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 38(1): 16–29.

30.

Harvey

(2021) Major Climate Changes Inevitable and Irreversible – IPCC’s Starkest Warning yet. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/aug/09/humans-have-caused-unprecedented-and-irreversible-change-to-climate-scientists-warn (accessed on 9 August 2021).

31.

hooks

(1994) Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. New York: Routledge.

32.

hooks

(2009) Teaching Critical Thinking: Practical Wisdom. London: Routledge.

33.

Hursh

(2007) Assessing no child left behind and the rise of neoliberal education policies. American Educational Research Journal 44(3): 493–518.

34.

Jarmy

(2019) Subject knowledge: the ‘knowledge-rich’ agenda, Buber and the importance of the knowing subject in Religious Education. British Journal of Religious Education 43(2): 1–10.

35.

Karakatsani

Papaloi

(2018) School learning architecture for active citizenship and social justice based on organisation meaningfulness. In: Palaiologou

Zembylas

(eds) Human Rights and Citizenship Education: An Intercultural Perspective. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 155–174.

36.

Kazepides

(2012) Education as dialogue. Educational Philosophy and Theory 44(9): 913–925.

37.

Kincheloe

(2004) Critical Pedagogy Primer. New York: P. Lang.

38.

Kisby

(2017) Politics is ethics done in public: exploring linkages and disjunctions between citizenship education and character education in England. Journal of Social Science Education 16(3): 7–20.

39.

Kress

T M

(2011) Inside the 'thick wrapper' of critical pedagogy and research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 24(3): 261–266.

40.

Lewis

Barr

Clarke

, et al. (2019) Revealed: the rise and rise of populist rhetoric. The Guardian. Available at https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2019/mar/06/revealed-the-rise-and-rise-of-populist-rhetoric (accessed on 10 August 2021).

41.

Mashford-Scott

Church

(2011) Promoting children's agency in early childhood education. Novitas-ROYAL 5(1): 15–38.

42.

Mason

(2008) Critical thinking and learning. Educational Philosophy and Theory 39(4): 339–349.

43.

Mayo

(2013) Echoes from Freire for a Critically Engaged Pedagogy. New York: Bloomsbury.

44.

McLaren

(2014) Life in Schools: An Introduction to Critical Pedagogy in the Foundations of Education. 6th edition. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.

45.

McLaren

(2017) Critical pedagogy: a look at the major concepts. In: Torres

Darder

(eds) The Critical Pedagogy Reader. New York: Routledge, 56–79.

46.

Mercer

(2008) Classroom dialogue and the teacher's professional role. Education Review 21(1): 60–65.

47.

Muggah

Steven

Tørres

(2020) We urgently need major cooperation on global security in the COVID-19 era. Available at: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/we-need-major-cooperation-on-global-security-in-the-covid-19-era (accessed on 20 February 2022).

48.

Nystrand

Gamoran

Kachur

, et al. (1997) Opening Dialogue. New York: Teachers College Press.

49.

Osler

Starkey

(2003) Learning for Cosmopolitan Citizenship: theoretical debates and young people's experiences. Educational Review 55(3): 243–254.

50.

Ross

(2008) Organising a curriculum for active citizenship education. In: Arthur

Davies

Hahn

(eds) The SAGE Handbook of Education for Citizenship and Democracy. London: SAGE, 492–505.

51.

Sandars

(2017) When I say … critical pedagogy critical pedagogy. Medical Education 51(4): 351–352.

52.

Segal

Pollak

Lefstein

(2017) Democracy, voice and dialogic pedagogy: the struggle to be heard and heeded. Language and Education 31(1): 6–25.

53.

Shor

(1992) Empowering Education: Critical Teaching for Social Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

54.

Short

(2012) Children's agency for taking action. Bookbird: A Journal of International Children's Literature 50(4): 41–50.

55.

Skidmore

(2000) From pedagogical dialogue to dialogical pedagogy. Language and Education 14(4): 283–296.

56.

Souto-Manning

(2010) Freire, Teaching, and Learning. New York: Peter Lang.

57.

Spaaij

Oxford

Jeanes

(2016) Transforming communities through sport? critical pedagogy and sport for development. Sport, Education and Society 21(4): 570–587.

58.

Taylor

Mills

Elwick

, et al. (2021) Addressing Extremism through the Classroom. A Research Report from the Centre for Teachers & Teaching Research. Available at: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10133809/1/Addressing%20Extremism%20Through%20the%20Classroom%20-%20Final%20Report.pdf (accessed on 15 September 2021).

59.

Tisdall

(2022) Ukraine-Russia crisis: who’s winning the international influence war? Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/19/ukraine-russia-crisis-whos-winning-the-international-influence-war-russia-putin (accessed on 21 February 2022).

60.

Torres-Harding

Baber

Hilvers

, et al. (2018) Children as agents of social and community change: enhancing youth empowerment through participation in a school-based social activism project. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 13(1): 3–18.

61.

Vandenbroeck

(2006) Autonomous children, privileging negotiation, and new limits to freedom. International Journal of Educational Policy, Research and Practice 7: 71–80.

62.

Wade

R C

(2001) Social action in the social studies: From the ideal to the real. Theory Into Practice 40(1): 23–28.

63.

Yandell

Hirsch

(2017) Culture, knowledge and power: what the conservatives have Learnt from E.D. Hirsch. Changing English 24(3): 246–252.

64.

Zembylas

(2021) The affective dimension of everyday resistance: implications for critical pedagogy in engaging with neoliberalism's educational impact. Critical Studies in Education 62(2): 211–226.

65.

Zipin

Reid

(2008) A justice-oriented citizenship education: making community curricular. In: Arthur

Davies

Hahn

(eds) The SAGE Handbook of Education for Citizenship and Democracy. London: SAGE, 533–544.

Active agents of change: A conceptual framework for social justice-orientated citizenship education

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Critical pedagogy: The philosophical foundations for social justice–orientated citizenship education

The principles of critical pedagogy

Historicity of knowledge

Political economy

Cultural politics

Resistance and counter-hegemony

Dialectical theory

Conscientisation, dialogue and praxis

A conceptual framework for social justice–orientated citizenship education

Agency

Dialogue

Criticality

Emancipatory knowledge

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References