Cultivating a mindset of civic engagement among young adolescents

The Journal of Social Studies Research ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Journal of Social Studies Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jssr

Cultivating a mindset of civic engagement among young adolescents Brandy P. Quinn, Michelle Bauml n Texas Christian University, College of Education, 3000 Bellaire Drive N., Fort Worth, TX 76129, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o

abstract

Article history: Accepted 10 May 2017

This study explored early stages of civic engagement among 48 young adolescents by examining what they think about as a result of participating in various civic learning activities during a summer civics camp, and whether or not this thinking varied based on participants’ entering civic profiles. Participant thinking was assessed through concept maps. Based on survey data, participants were classified into entering profiles of civic development: justice-oriented or participatory youth; civically purposeful or not, and civically involved or not. Findings show that, of the eight camp activities studied, interactions with guest speakers from various community agencies were most likely to generate thinking about knowledge and civic action. Participant thinking did not differentiate in any consistent ways based on whether or not they were justice-oriented. However, there were differences in thinking when participants were classified by presence or absence of civic purpose and civic involvement. Copyright & 2017, The International Society for the Social Studies. Published by Elsevier, Inc.

Keywords: Civic education Young adolescents Social studies education Extracurricular activities Action civics Middle school

Introduction There is a dire need for more robust, equitable civic learning opportunities nationwide, both within and outside of traditional school contexts (Kahne & Middaugh, 2010). While research about civic education continues to grow (e.g., Berson, Rodríguez-Campos, Walker-Egea, Owens, & Bellara, 2014; Castro & Knowles, 2017), limited research exists about civic education for early adolescents prior to entering high school. Early adolescence is a critical time to explore civic thinking due to cognitive and social cognitive changes that take on particular significance between the ages of 10 and 14 (Blakemore & Mills, 2014; Eccles, 1999). Youth engagement in extra-curricular programs has been shown to promote commitment to civic participation, particularly when such programs challenge students in settings where social bonds with adults and like-minded peers are formed (Kahne & Sporte, 2008). The present study was designed to add to existing research about civic education, and to address a gap in knowledge about civic education prior to high school by exploring diverse young adolescents’ thinking as a result of participating in summer civics camp activities that are transferable to a classroom setting. One tool for examining methods and outcomes in civic education is a developmentally appropriate practice framework. The primary professional organization for middle school educators emphasizes developmental responsiveness to the characteristics of young adolescents as a starting point for determining teaching practices (Association for Middle Level Education, 2010). Those who teach from a developmentally appropriate mindset do so by adjusting their instructional n

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (B.P. Quinn), [email protected] (M. Bauml).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2017.05.003 0885-985X/Copyright & 2017, The International Society for the Social Studies. Published by Elsevier, Inc.

Please cite this article as: Quinn, B. P., & Bauml, M. Cultivating a mindset of civic engagement among young adolescents. The Journal of Social Studies Research (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2017.05.003i

B.P. Quinn, M. Bauml / The Journal of Social Studies Research ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

2

strategies to meet the typical, diverse, and contextual characteristics of students (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009; Meschke, Peter, & Bartholomae, 2012). When considering civic education for early adolescents, thinking about the ways in which civic development is an aspect of overall identity development is developmentally appropriate. While early adolescence is not likely to be characterized by the degree of identity exploration and commitment that occurs during the later adolescent and young adult years (Kroger, Martinussen, & Marcia, 2010), young adolescents are in the process of developing the cognitive and social-emotional skills (Eccles, 1999) that will be the tools they use to more actively construct their identities over the course of their lives. Ideally, the identities that they use these skills to construct will include examined and, possibly, internalized societal standards, as well as examined personal commitments (Erikson, 1968). In other words, early adolescence may mark the very beginning stages of more conscious efforts to understand both the self, and the self in relation to others. In terms of civic development, this search for self-understanding incorporates society's varying ideas about what it means to be a citizen, as well as the ways in which the individual adolescent is beginning to consider his or her most important goals in life. Developmentally appropriate civic education should take into account what each adolescent brings into the learning context if desired outcomes are to be achieved, especially in terms of early adolescent efforts to understand the self and the self in relation to the community. In both positive youth development (PYD) theory and in an action civics framework, what the individual brings into his or her learning experiences in combination with the features of the learning experience are both important components for determining outcomes (Lerner, Dowling, & Anderson, 2003; Levinson, 2014). With this in mind, the theoretical framework utilized for the present study includes ways of understanding alignments between early adolescent conceptions of citizenship and various external models of citizenship available to them, as well as a way of considering the manner in which early adolescents may incorporate growing civic commitments with their most important goals in life. Each of these is conceptualized as a way to classify adolescents by existing profiles of civic development to better understand the interplay between the young adolescent and the different components of action civics learning experiences on the path to positive civic outcomes.

Theoretical framework Two fields of research about civic engagement and education shaped the theoretical framework for the study described here. From the field of applied developmental science, particularly from those who utilize a PYD perspective in that field, we consider different ways of defining civic engagement and understanding what civic engagement may look like in young adolescents. Then, we integrate theory about action civics from the field of social studies education to describe possible ways in which civic education may be implemented. Taken together, we bring together the person-centered focus of developmental researchers with the pedagogical focus of social studies education researchers to make arguments for both why early adolescence is a key developmental window for civic education and why an action civics model is likely to be a developmentally appropriate pedagogical strategy. The construct of civic engagement in the field of applied developmental science Researchers in the field of applied developmental science, who seek to apply what is known about human development to create positive outcomes for individuals and the communities in which they live (Lerner, Fisher, & Weinberg, 2000), have studied civic development during adolescence for at least two decades. During this time, the construct of civic engagement has been the most common way to talk about civic development in youth, but there has never been a true consensus about what, exactly, is meant by this term (Malin, Ballard, & Damon, 2015). As Sherrod, Flanagan, and Youniss (2002) highlight, some of the different ways of defining the construct emerged as a result of the focal areas of the different disciplines of those who have studied civic engagement. Those coming from political science, for example, tend to focus on engagement with the electoral system in democratic societies, while developmental researchers studying the period of adolescence more typically seek to understand what may indicate civic engagement prior to the age of 18, when participation in electoral politics is likely to be limited. Others have written that civic engagement may be indicated by “a connection to one's community, a commitment to improving that community, and the act of helping one's community” (Zaff et al., 2011, p. 1208). Echoing additional ways in which Zaff et al. (2011) discuss civic engagement, in the study described here, we drew from an understanding of civic engagement that includes the behavioral, cognitive, and emotional processes that foster community involvement. In an effort to categorize the varying ways that individuals may demonstrate civic engagement, Westheimer and Kahne (2004) have proposed three types of citizens: personally responsible, participatory, and justice-oriented. In another attempt to respond to the breadth of what is meant by the term civic engagement, Malin et al. (2015) have recently argued that no consensus about the construct of civic engagement has ever really been reached, and that it has been used to refer to civic action and activities ranging from volunteering to voting or protesting, civic attitudes, intentional goals for the future, and skills and capacities. As a result, Malin et al. (2015) propose that civic purpose, a new construct, may be a helpful construct for understanding civic development during adolescence. Both Westheimer and Kahne's (2004) three types of citizens and Malin et al.’s (2015) construct of civic purpose were foundational to how we investigated the ways in which students’ existing profiles of civic engagement may relate to their experiences of civic learning opportunities. Please cite this article as: Quinn, B. P., & Bauml, M. Cultivating a mindset of civic engagement among young adolescents. The Journal of Social Studies Research (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2017.05.003i

B.P. Quinn, M. Bauml / The Journal of Social Studies Research ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

3

Three types of citizens Westheimer and Kahne's (2004) delineation of three types of citizens was proposed as a pathway to answering the question, “What kind of citizen do we need to support an effective democratic society?” (p. 3). The first type of citizen they describe is the personally responsible citizen. Personally responsible citizens, Westheimer and Kahne (2004) suggest, act responsibly in their own communities. They may engage in activities like recycling, giving blood, or picking up litter, and typically will volunteer in community organizations like soup kitchens if asked. Westheimer and Kahne (2004) suggest that many character education efforts often embrace a personally responsible view of citizenship. Next, Westheimer and Kahne (2004) describe participatory citizens. Participatory citizens expand their civic concerns and actions beyond their local communities and participate at the local, state and national levels. Westheimer and Kahne (2004) suggest programs that embrace this vision of citizenship “emphasize preparing students to participate in collective, community-based efforts” (p. 4), and thus focus on teaching students how community and government organizations designed to address human needs work, and the importance of planning and participation in the efforts of these organizations. While there are some similarities in the types of actions in which personally responsible and participatory citizens engage, participatory citizens, according to Westheimer and Kahne (2004) are more invested in the relationships, trust, and commitments of the communities of which they are a part. The third type of citizen that Westheimer and Kahne (2004) describe is the justice-oriented citizen. While justice-oriented citizens may engage in activities that are similar to those engaged in by personally responsible and participatory citizens, the primary concerns of justice-oriented citizens are injustices and the actions that are necessary to achieve social justice (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). Justice-oriented citizens focus on the root causes of social problems, or, as Westheimer and Kahne (2004) say, “If participatory citizens are organizing the food drive, and personally responsible citizens are donating food, justice-oriented citizens are asking why people are hungry and acting on what they discover” (p. 4).

Civic purpose While Westheimer and Kahne's (2004) typology of citizenship effectively highlights differences in approaches to civic engagement, Malin et al. (2015) propose that civic purpose helps researchers to understand the ways in which civic engagement may be more fully understood by considering civic intentions and actions in light of what the individual believes is most important to accomplish in life. In other words, civic purpose is one possible expression of a more general purpose in life. Malin and colleagues draw from Damon, Menon, and Bronk's (2003) definition of purpose in life, which states that purpose is a “stable and generalized intention to accomplish something that is at once meaningful to the self and contributes to the world beyond the self” (p. 121). Civic purpose, according to Malin et al. (2015), includes each of the dimensions of Damon et al.’s (2003) definition of purpose, but further specifies that the intentions and actions that are both personally meaningful and of consequence to the world beyond the self take place in the civic realm. Malin et al. (2015) suggest that studying civic development through the lens of civic purpose offers a typology for how youth may or may not be civically engaged in a way that connects to their most important goals in life. They do this by referring to a more general typology for understanding the ways in which individuals are purposeful. In this typology, individuals are considered purposeful if they fulfill all the dimensions of purpose (personally meaningful intention, beyondthe-self consequences to that intention, engaged in efforts to accomplish that intention). Individuals are considered dreamers if they have a personally meaningful, beyond-the-self-oriented intention, but are not engaged in activities to accomplish that intention. Individuals are considered to have a self-oriented goal if they describe a personally meaningful intention, towards which they are actively working, but this intention does not include a beyond-the-self component. Finally, if individuals are engaged in trying out several possible intentions, but do not organize their actions around a single goal that is both personally meaningful and consequential to the world beyond the self, they are considered dabblers. If none of the dimensions are present, then the individual is considered to be non-purposeful. In the civic realm, it seems likely that some young adolescents would be dabblers in civic activity, without organizing their actions around a single goal. Others may engage in activity to accomplish a personally meaningful goal, but their goals do not have beyond-the-self consequences in the civic realm, meaning they would be classified as having a self-oriented goal, as in the more general purpose typology. Still others may describe a personally meaningful intention that is civically consequential to the world beyond the self, but they are not engaged in any efforts to accomplish this activity; these individuals would be civic dreamers. Finally, others may demonstrate all of the dimensions of purpose through an intention in the civic realm, indicating that they are civically purposeful. This means that an individual may demonstrate full purpose, but not civic purpose, instead falling into any of the other civic purpose categories. In the study described here, we were interested in understanding: (a) what types of thinking various civic learning opportunities generated in young adolescents; and (b) if and how civic learning opportunities differentially affected thinking for individuals entering these learning opportunities with different civic profiles. Westheimer and Kahne's (2004) typology provided a framework for considering whether or not individuals embracing different conceptions of citizenship might respond to these opportunities in different ways. Malin et al.’s (2015) civic purpose construct provided a way of thinking about existing levels of intentionality and engagement in the civic realm. Please cite this article as: Quinn, B. P., & Bauml, M. Cultivating a mindset of civic engagement among young adolescents. The Journal of Social Studies Research (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2017.05.003i

B.P. Quinn, M. Bauml / The Journal of Social Studies Research ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

4

Civic education during early adolescence There are several reasons to study civic engagement and education during early adolescence. Early adolescence can be defined as beginning at the time individuals experience the first of many pubertal changes - on average in the United States, at about 10 years of age, until about 14 years of age (Eccles, 1999). During this time, individuals undergo many physical, cognitive, and social and emotional changes. Several of these changes are significant to the study of civic engagement in this age group. Some of the most civically relevant changes that occur during early adolescence involve the development abstract and complex problem solving skills, as well as the development of social cognitive skills, which involve reasoning and problem solving while also taking into account the perspective of another person. In comparison to younger children, young adolescents show significant improvements in reasoning skills, especially deductive, information processing capacities, and in their knowledge base (Steinberg, 2005). In the social cognitive domain, the development of perspective taking skills continues all the way through the adolescent years, and is paired with sensitivity to social and emotional experience (Blakemore & Mills, 2014). This suggests that young adolescents may be particularly ready to receive the sociocultural experiences that may shape the development of the skills necessary for civic engagement. Research about civic engagement during early adolescence typically focuses on precursors to engagement in the political systems of democratic societies. This is largely because young adolescents are not old enough to vote or take part in electoral politics. Young adolescents do, however, form attitudes, beliefs, and opinions, and are able to take action in their schools and communities to vary degrees. Torney-Purta and Amadeo (2011) describe middle childhood and early adolescence as characterized by “emergent participatory citizenship” (p. 182), which they suggest is a developmental niche created by the strengths and competencies of individual adolescents combined with the constraints and affordance of varying layers of context. The challenge for educators is to create civic learning opportunities that fit well with the characteristics of this developmental niche. Action civics Action civics is a form of civic education that takes into account the behavioral, cognitive, and affective components of civic education (Zaff et al., 2011), and that leverages the higher level, yet still developing, cognitive (Steinberg, 2005) and social cognitive (Blakemore & Mills, 2005) capabilities of young adolescents. Action civics is a form of inquiry education that takes students through a five-step cycle: (1) acquire and use knowledge, (2) practice and apply skills, (3) develop empowered and public-spirited attitudes, (4) make a difference, and (5) reflect on achievements and learning (Levinson, 2014). In action civics, students choose an issue that is important to them and work together to take action to make a difference. Several inquiry education programs based on action civics, such as Generation Citizen, the Mikva Challenge, and Project Citizen, have been created for adolescents to positively impact their civic knowledge and development. The Mikva Challenge, founded in 1997, seeks to empower youth for civic action in a variety of ways, such as by conducting civic action projects about local issues. Data from Mikva program evaluations show that it contributes to youth agency, commitment to future action, and civic knowledge (Mikva Challenge, 2017). The Project Citizen curriculum of the Center for Civic Education was introduced in 1992 and continues to be utilized in middle and high schools nation-wide. A study by Vontz, Metcalf, and Patrick (2000) showed that the curriculum had positive effects on adolescents’ civic knowledge, skills, and dispositions. Other programs that do not closely follow the action civics model but involve students studying and discussing community issues (e.g., Student Voices; Deliberating in a Democracy) have been shown to effectively promote civic knowledge and interest (Avery, Levy, & Simmons, 2009; Feldman, Pasek, Romer, & Jamieson, 2007). Collectively, these programs offer evidence that high quality civics curricula can play a significant role in civic learning among adolescents. Action civics is similar to youth participatory action research with the addition of explicit pedagogical goals (Blevins, LeCompte, & Wells, 2016). As such, Blevins et al. (2016) link action civics to Freire's concept of praxis, which includes critical reflection and analysis of problems in the community. Action civics is an appropriate pedagogical approach for young adolescents who are in Torney-Purta and Amadeo's (2011) developmental niche of emergent participatory citizenship. The appropriateness of this approach rests in the way that it relies on and further develops higher level thinking skills and the ways in which students work to make a difference in issues that are of particular interest to them. The present study Drawing from the action civics emphasis on knowledge and reflection as part of a larger cycle that includes action, we believe a key component of civic engagement is thinking about taking action. We aimed to explore whether civic learning opportunities such as conducting civic-oriented inquiry projects and engaging in digital simulations about government would trigger participants’ thinking about other aspects of civic life. We also sought to determine whether or not the thinking of young adolescents who entered the camp experience demonstrating varying civic profiles (e.g., justice or participatory citizenship, the presence or absence of civic purpose, prior civic involvement) would differentiate at all based on these profiles. The research questions guiding this study were as follows: 1. What do young adolescents think about as a result of participating in various civic learning activities during a summer camp? Please cite this article as: Quinn, B. P., & Bauml, M. Cultivating a mindset of civic engagement among young adolescents. The Journal of Social Studies Research (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2017.05.003i

B.P. Quinn, M. Bauml / The Journal of Social Studies Research ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

5

2. Do civic learning opportunities promote differential thinking among young adolescents who display different profiles of civic development?

Methods This study was primarily qualitative, supported by descriptive statistics. Below are descriptions of the content, participants, and data collection and analysis procedures. Context The context for this study was an iEngage Summer Civics Institute (iEngage), a five-day summer civics camp for students in 6th–9th grades. Camp was held on the authors’ campus, a small private university in the southern part of the United States. iEngage was originally developed by social studies professors Karen LeCompte and Brooke Blevins at Baylor University in 2013. Utilizing a framework of action civics, iEngage “was designed to help students understand and engage in civic action” (Blevins et al., 2016, p. 349). In the present study, camp activities replicated Baylor's model as much as possible. iEngage, funded by the Hatton W. Sumners Foundation, was directed by the second author and led by two middle school teachers, a graduate student, and eight undergraduate students attending the university. University student staff members were majoring in education, political science, or economics. Prior to Day 1 of camp, staff members participated in two days of professional development that focused on action civics and camp procedures. The iEngage curriculum for 2016 was based on Making Civics Relevant, Making Citizens Effective: Action Civics in the Classroom, by Millenson, Mills, and Andes (2014). Millenson et al.’s book is a teacher's guide for a student-centered course in action civics, in which students select a civic issue and carry out inquiry that results in making and carrying out a plan of action. During the 5-day iEngage camp, the 48 campers were assigned to small groups (5–9 campers per group); each group conducted its own inquiry based on adaptations Millenson et al.’s procedures. On Day 1 of camp, students participated in a “Community Issues Fair” to learn about various topics in the community: hunger, animal issues, refugees, homelessness, the environment, Internet safety, and community safety/crime. Guest speakers representing non-profit organizations and city departments simultaneously spoke to small groups of students in classrooms for 30 minutes. Individual students self-selected which sessions to attend; they attended three 30-minute sessions. Students had opportunities to ask questions and take notes about the information being shared. The Community Issues Fair was designed to introduce students to potential topics for their group action civics projects, although students were not limited to topics at the fair. Groups were free to select whatever topic they could agree upon. Incidentally, all topics from the Community Issues Fair except hunger were selected for the civic action projects, and no two groups chose the same topic (see Table 1). On Day 2 of camp, each group identified a civic issue and explored that topic for the remainder of the week using evidence from reliable websites and guest speakers. As part of the action civics project, each group engaged in critical thinking exercises that involved examining credible information (i.e., evidence) and attempting to identify root causes of the issue. On Days 4 and 5, groups created and filmed a 2–3 min Public Service Announcement (PSA) video about their topic and uploaded it to a web page, along with an action plan and other information learned. On the final day of camp, groups presented their online web pages and videos to a public audience of family and community members. The civic action project was the main focus of camp; however, students also took part in other civic-oriented activities. For example, on Day 3, they took a field trip to the city hall building where the mayor and various city leaders spoke about their jobs and active citizenship. During camp, students also learned about running a campaign from a city council member; met a state Senator and a state Representative; attended a talk about presidential elections from a political science professor; and participated in a hands-on activity developed by Law Related Education called “Electoral Beans” to understand the Electoral College. In Electoral Beans, dry lima beans and kidney beans represented individuals’ votes and were used to illustrate how a candidate can win a presidential election while losing the popular vote. For each day of camp, participants also played a different digital iCivics simulation game or pair of games on www.icivcs.org. Games included: Activate (Day 1); Table 1 Civic issues selected by each group of campers. Group Number/Grade Level

Topic

1/6th grade 2/6th–7th grade 3/7th grade 4/7th grade 5/8th grade 6/7th–9th grade 7/9th grade

Animal shelters Pedestrian safety Appropriate uses of social media Homelessness Pollution in the [local] River Green energy Refugees

Please cite this article as: Quinn, B. P., & Bauml, M. Cultivating a mindset of civic engagement among young adolescents. The Journal of Social Studies Research (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2017.05.003i

B.P. Quinn, M. Bauml / The Journal of Social Studies Research ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

6

Cast Your Vote and Counties Work (Day 2); Argument Wars and Do I Have a Right? - Bill of Rights edition (Day 3); and LawCraft (Day 4). Students chose any iCivics games to play on Day 5. Participants Participants were 48 adolescents in 6th–9th grades from public or private schools in the [city] area (53% male, 47% female). Forty-five participants responded to our survey question about ethnicity: 47% Caucasian, 31% Hispanic/Latino, 9% Black/African American, 2% Asian/Pacific Islander, 11% other. All participants attended at least 4 days of iEngage, and all campers and their families consented to participate in the study. Data sources Data sources included: (a) pre- and post-camp surveys of civic and moral values, (b) student-generated concept maps collected on the first, third, and final day of camp, and (c) a parent survey. A description of each data source is provided below. Surveys Participants completed three surveys. In the first survey, administered at the beginning of Day 1, researchers collected demographic information and asked students to answer the question, “Why did you come to this iEngage Summer Civics Institute?” The second survey, administered immediately after the demographic survey and again on the last day of camp, included 20 questions (see Appendix) and was used to answer the second research question about whether or not civic learning opportunities promote differential thinking among young adolescents with different profiles of civic development. Sixteen of the survey questions came from the civic measurement model survey developed by Flanagan, Syvertsen, and Stout (2007). Remaining questions dealt with civic knowledge and civic purpose. Questions assessing civic purpose drew from Malin et al.’s (2015) definition of the construct. Parents were also sent a survey via email, in which they were asked to provide information about demographics, personal involvement in civic activities, and their child's civic engagement. For the present study, responses to the following parent survey question were used: “Prior to the iEngage Institute, did your child participate in any volunteer or civic related activities?” Parents were also asked to describe their child's volunteer or civic related activities, if any. Concept maps Concept maps served as qualitative data. Participants recorded information on concept maps on Days 1, 3, and 5. On the first morning of camp, prior to engaging in camp activities, each participant was given a pencil and a sheet of white 11 in.
14 in. paper with a border drawn about two inches from the edge of the paper. The authors gave participants 5 min

Fig. 1. Sample concept map.

Please cite this article as: Quinn, B. P., & Bauml, M. Cultivating a mindset of civic engagement among young adolescents. The Journal of Social Studies Research (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2017.05.003i

B.P. Quinn, M. Bauml / The Journal of Social Studies Research ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

7

Table 2 Sample codes from student-generated concept maps. Code

Data Sample

Knowledge Questions about knowledge Action Question about action Civic opinion Activity details Affect about activity Affect Perspective-taking Career

All lakes in [city] are man-made. How many homeless people are assisted each year? You should donate money to shelters so animals can heal and won’t get put down. How can we stop pollution? I think that people should try to use less water in their everyday tasks. Met the mayor It was very fun. Inspired I think that we should really think about how the people are being affected [because] of all the bad pollution in the air. I might want to go to law school.

to record responses to the prompt: “Write everything you already know or think you know about helping or being involved in your community.” Responses were written along the outer edge of the border. At the end of camp Day 3, concept maps were returned to the participants. The authors asked students to use the left center of the page to list (in blue pen) five predetermined camp activities from the first three days of camp and then to “write down some things you are thinking about related to [each activity]. These could be things you learned, questions you have or things you want to do that are related to [the activity].” In order to prompt thinking about each item separately, the researchers identified one activity at a time. The process of prompting students to record ideas, questions, and comments continued for all five activities: (1) Community Issues Fair, (2) Electoral Beans (Electoral College activity), (3) Field Trip to City Hall, (4) Do I Have a Right? (iCivics game), and (5) Evidence (action civics project task). Near the end of camp Day 5, concept maps were revisited and three additional activities were added in red pen: (6) Root causes (action civics project task), (7) Public Service Announcement (PSA) video (action civics project task), (8) LawCraft (iCivics game). Participants had 2–3 min to record their responses to each activity. Additionally, participants were invited to draw and label lines to connect related concepts or ideas, circle questions, and draw a box around actions. Fig. 1 provides an example of a completed concept map. Data analysis Identifying information was removed from all data by assigning each participant a unique number. The authors and two research assistants analyzed the data. Concept maps Student-generated concept maps (qualitative data) were analyzed using an iterative approach and consensus building among coders (Saldaña, 2013; Wheeldon & Faubert, 2009). The authors began by reading a subset of concept maps (N ¼3) together and identifying preliminary “concept codes” (Saldaña, 2013, p. 119) in list form. Because the concept maps included a variety of one-word responses, questions, phrases, and complete sentences, concept coding was useful in that it allowed data to be grouped into meaningful categories that transcended individual camp activities. Next, the second author used the preliminary set of codes to analyze a second subset of concept maps (N ¼6). The second author then met with a research assistant to discuss the subset of concept maps and define the codes. The research assistant then independently coded a small subset (N ¼ 3) of concept maps and later met with both authors to discuss coding decisions. Codes were refined and several lengthy discussions about coding decisions took place. Initially, “knowledge” and “action” were stand-alone categories. However, we realized that separating questions about knowledge and questions about action would allow us to recognize nuances in the data. As a result, we expanded our list of codes to include separate categories for questions about knowledge and action. After reaching consensus about concept codes, the research assistant independently coded the remaining concept maps using an Excel spreadsheet. A final meeting among both authors and the research assistant took place to review the completed spreadsheet. Categories of thinking included: knowledge, questions about knowledge, action, questions about action, civic opinion, activity details, affect about activity, affect, perspective-taking, and career. A second research assistant counted the number of responses for each category and organized them by camp activity. Sample student responses for each code are shown in Table 2. In order to answer the first research question, the second research assistant tallied the number of participants who demonstrated a particular category of thinking associated with each of the different activities. In other words, the overall presence or absence of the type of thinking associated with the activity was counted, rather than each instance within a particular type of thinking. The authors engaged in a similar process to answer the second research question, separating the counts by the three different ways of classifying entering civic profiles. Determining entering profiles of civic engagement Survey responses were used to create groups of participants to answer the second research question, which asked whether or not types of thinking would differentiate based on entering profiles of civic engagement. Because the construct Please cite this article as: Quinn, B. P., & Bauml, M. Cultivating a mindset of civic engagement among young adolescents. The Journal of Social Studies Research (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2017.05.003i

B.P. Quinn, M. Bauml / The Journal of Social Studies Research ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

8

Table 3 Participant thinking according to camp activities. Camp Activity

Knowledge Knowledge Questions

Action Action Questions

Civic Opinion

Activity Details

Affect About Activity

General Affect

Perspectivetaking

Career

Community Issues Fair Electoral Beans Field Trip to City Hall iCivics: Do I Have a Right? Evidence Root Causes PSA Video iCivics: Law Craft Total

13

10

14

3

1

0

2

1

2

0

15 5

14 7

0 4

1 1

1 2

3 4

4 8

1 5

2 4

1 4

3

4

4

0

2

7

12

0

1

2

15 9 5 4 69

5 4 2 2 48

4 6 12 2 46

4 2 3 0 14

2 5 0 0 13

2 1 10 8 35

5 5 12 19 67

0 0 0 0 7

5 0 2 0 16

0 0 0 1 8

Note. n¼ 48; Cell counts refer to the number of participants who wrote statements in each category of thinking.

of civic engagement includes many different aspects, we wanted to consider different ways of characterizing what students bring to the classroom in terms of their existing civic engagement profiles. We considered three different ways of categorizing entering civic profiles among study participants: justice vs. participatory citizens, presence or absence of civic purpose, and parent reports of participants’ prior civic involvement. Once these groups were created, we compared percentages of different types of thinking generated by the activities of the camp across the different entering civic profiles. Justice-oriented vs. participatory citizens Westheimer and Kahne's typology formed the basis for one of the ways we tested entering profiles of civic engagement. Using scores on scales for personally responsible, participatory, and justice-oriented citizenship included in Flanagan, Syvertsen, and Stout's (2007) survey, we found that most participants scored highest on the personally responsible scale. Given that the iEngage Summer Civics Institute was designed to help students learn about ways to participate in electoral politics as well as develop skills that would help them examine issues of justice, we set aside the scores on the personally responsible scale and then separated participants into two groups based on whether their participatory or justice-oriented score was higher in relation to the other. Of the 48 participants, 16 were classified as justice-oriented. Civic purpose Malin et al.’s (2015) definition of civic purpose, grounded in Damon et al.’s (2003) broader definition of purpose, provided the rationale for how we coded participants on this variable. Participants responded to several questions about purpose on the survey. Two of these were used to classify individuals as having self-identified civic purpose. First, we selected all participants who responded either “agree” or “strongly agree” to the statement, “I know what my purpose is.” Then, from those participants, we further selected participants who answered “agree” or “strongly agree” to the statement, “My purpose is a way I can help my community be a better place,” as this indicated the centrality of civic engagement to their overall goals in life. Of the 48 participants, 8 classified as demonstrating self-identified civic purpose. Existing levels of civic involvement Finally, we wanted to know whether or not various civic learning opportunities differentially affected the thinking of individuals based on whether or not they were already civically involved in their communities. We turned to parent survey responses to create two groups. Parents were asked, “Prior to the iEngage Institute, did your child participate in any volunteer or civic related activities?” to which parents could answer “yes,” “no,” or “unsure.” Participants whose parents were “unsure” were classified as uninvolved. Of the 46 participants whose parents answered this question, 25 classified as civically involved.

Limitations This study offers important insights for the field; however, it is not without limitations. First, although most of the original survey questions for this study were developed by Flanagan et al. (2007) for students in grades 7–12, the majority of participants involved in that survey's development were in grades 11–12. Participants in the present study were entering grades 6–9. Second, results are based on 48 participants, which—when classified into binary categories of citizenship (e.g., justiceoriented vs. participatory)—leads to descriptive statistics with low numbers per category. In particular, the civic purpose Please cite this article as: Quinn, B. P., & Bauml, M. Cultivating a mindset of civic engagement among young adolescents. The Journal of Social Studies Research (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2017.05.003i

B.P. Quinn, M. Bauml / The Journal of Social Studies Research ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

9

category included only eight participants, so our results, which are presented in percentages, should be interpreted accordingly. Additionally, concept map data varied considerably, depending on how much text students chose to write. We addressed this limitation to a certain degree by omitting data from our analysis when there was not enough information provided. For example, we did not analyze non-descriptive responses such as donkey, elephant, news, and political parties. Nonetheless, we acknowledge that our results are limited to the degree to which participants recorded their thinking on paper.

Findings Our analysis of the concept maps provided information about both the overall participant thinking associated with the activities of the camp, and the degree to which their thinking differentiated by entering civic profiles. First, we discuss findings related to the general patterns of thinking found across participants. Then, we discuss findings related to patterns of thinking based on justice-oriented vs. participatory citizenship, the presence or absence of civic purpose, and prior civic involvement. Thinking about civic learning activities Our first research question was: What do young adolescents think about as a result of participating in various civic learning activities during a summer camp? Table 3, created with data from the concept maps, shows 10 categories of thinking according to the eight camp activities explored in this investigation. Each row shows the number of participants whose concept map responses fit each category. Viewed through a theoretical lens of action civics, in which students are encouraged to take informed action on social issues, the first four columns of Table 3 reveal that as they reflected on selected camp activities, participants’ thinking fell primarily into categories of knowledge and action. Although the category affect about activity also included many comments about how “fun” or “cool” camp activities were, we focus chiefly on the four knowledge and action categories because students’ interest in the camp was secondary to our study's purpose. Knowledge: facts and questions Taken together, the knowledge and questions about knowledge categories produced the highest number of responses, which came from a total of 35 participants (72.92%). In the knowledge category, data show that participants could recall facts and information from all eight of the camp activities on the concept maps. Students appeared to glean the most knowledge from the Community Issues Fair, the inquiry project activity that required them to analyze information to learn about their topic (Evidence), and the activity in which the Electoral College was explained (Electoral Beans). There were many facts written about water pollution, refugees, the homeless population, and animals—topics that were introduced during the Community Issues Fair. The Evidence activity, led by the small group leaders, involved discussions and reading for information, and 15 participants wrote facts or questions as a result of reflecting on the activity. For example, in the group of 9th graders whose topic was refugees, one girl recalled, “we talked about refugees and why so many need help,” and one of her group members offered similar notes on the concept map. For the Electoral Beans activity, several students echoed a 6th grade boy's written statement that “270 is the magic number” by noting that 270 electoral votes are required in order for a presidential candidate to win an election. Nineteen participants (39.58%) raised questions about what they were learning during the camp. Of these, 14 asked questions about the Electoral College. A few participants wanted to know more about the Electoral College, asking questions such as which states have the most electoral votes and why the U.S. uses this system. However, most participants’ questions about the Electoral College appeared to critique the process. For example, participants wanted to know whether this was “the best way” to elect a president and what other countries use this system. A 7th grade girl asked directly, “Why does the electoral college rule over the popular votes? Isn’t the country run by ‘We the people?’”. Concerns about global issues emerged in a few participants’ questions. One participant asked whether there is any society that does not have the kinds of community issues that were introduced on the first day of camp (e.g., homelessness, water pollution), while another asked, “Why is there so much war, blood shed, and violence in this world?” Someone else wanted to know, “Why is the U.S.A. not helping the homeless when [we’re] rich?” All together, questions about knowledge were raised in all eight camp activities under investigation. Civic action Data from concept maps revealed that all of the camp activities we studied promoted thinking or questions that were action-oriented. Thirty-three participants (68.75%) made comments classified as action or questions about action. The majority of the responses in the action category dealt with helping or informing others, especially by volunteering. Seventeen participants (35.42%) used the word “help” in their responses for the action category. These participants typically wrote in general terms, without including themselves in their action statements. Examples were phrases such as “helping people,” “helping your community,” or “helping friends,” which were often listed on the concept maps in association with the Community Issues Fair, in which stories of people, animals, and the environment in need were shared by the adult guest Please cite this article as: Quinn, B. P., & Bauml, M. Cultivating a mindset of civic engagement among young adolescents. The Journal of Social Studies Research (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2017.05.003i

B.P. Quinn, M. Bauml / The Journal of Social Studies Research ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

10

Table 4 Participant thinking based on justice vs. participatory citizenship. Percentages of participants demonstrating different types of thinking within each group Knowledge Camp Activity Community Issues Fair Electoral Beans Field Trip to City Hall iCivics: Do I Have a Right? Evidence Root Causes PSA Video iCivics: Law Craft

JO 31.25% 31.25% 6.25% 6.25% 18.75% 18.75% 6.25% 12.5%

P 25% 31.25% 12.5% 3.13% 37.5% 15.63% 9.38% 6.25%

Knowledge Questions

Action

JO 25% 18.75% 6.25% 0% 12.5% 0% 6.25% 0%

JO 31.25% 0% 0% 6.25% 6.25% 6.25% 31.25% 6.25%

P 15.63% 31.25% 15.63% 12.5% 9.38% 12.5% 3.13% 6.25%

Action Questions P 28.13% 0% 12.5% 9.38% 9.38% 15.63% 18.75% 3.13%

JO 0% 0% 0% 0% 12.5% 6.25% 6.25% 0%

P 9.38% 3.13% 3.13% 0% 6.25% 3.13% 6.25% 0%

Note. Justice Oriented (JO) n¼ 16, Participatory (P) n¼ 32.

Table 5 Participant thinking based on presence or absence of civic purpose. Percentages of participants demonstrating different types of thinking within each group Knowledge Camp Activity Community Issues Fair Electoral Beans Field Trip to City Hall iCivics: Do I Have a Right? Evidence Root Causes PSA Video iCivics: Law Craft

CP 37.5% 25% 0% 12.5% 37.5% 37.5% 37.5% 12.5%

NCP 25% 32.5% 12.5% 5% 30% 15% 5% 7.5%

Knowledge Questions

Action

CP 62.5% 62.5% 37.5% 12.5% 37.5% 25% 0% 12.5%

CP 25% 0% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 0%

NCP 12.5% 22.5% 10% 7.5% 5% 5% 5% 2.5%

Action Questions NCP 30% 0% 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% 12.5% 27.5% 5%

CP 12.5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 12.5% 12.5% 0%

NCP 5% 2.5% 2.5% 0% 10% 2.5% 5% 0%

Note. Civic Purpose (CP) n¼8, No Civic Purpose n¼ 40.

Table 6 Participant thinking based on prior civic involvement. Percentages of participants demonstrating different types of thinking within each group Knowledge Camp Activity Community Issues Fair Electoral Beans Field Trip to City Hall iCivics: Do I Have a Right? Evidence Root Causes PSA Video iCivics: Law Craft

CI 28% 28% 12% 4% 24% 16% 8% 4%

NCI 28.57% 23.8% 9.52% 9.52% 38.09% 14.28% 14.28% 14.28%

Knowledge Questions

Action

CI 28% 32% 20% 8% 20% 12% 8% 8%

CI 32% 0% 8% 8% 8% 24% 16% 8%

NCI 14.28% 23.8% 9.52% 4.76% 0% 4.76% 0% 0%

Action Questions NCI 23.8% 0% 9.52% 9.52% 9.52% 0% 28% 0%

CI 8% 4% 0% 0% 4% 4% 8% 0%

NCI 4.76% 0% 4.76% 0% 14.29% 4.76% 4.76% 0%

Note. Civically In (CP) n¼ 8, No Civic Purpose n¼ 40.

speakers. In the questions about action category, three participants asked about how they might be able to “help” others by using more inclusive words including “I” and “we” (e.g., “How can we help others?”). Twelve participants (25%) commented about the Public Service Announcement (PSA video) that each group was working on as the participants completed their concept maps the last day of camp. In the action and questions about action categories, individual responses to creating, filming, and publicly sharing a short video about the inquiry topics ranged from awareness of the video messages to thoughts about impact on a larger scale. Several participants wrote comments about the video task that were directly connected to the messages they wanted to convey about their topics. For example, a 7th grader whose group video dealt with pedestrian and neighborhood safety wrote “being safe in your neighborhood” on her concept map. Similarly, a 6th grade boy jotted down “adopting a dog,” which was the main message of his group's completed video. Other participants expressed ideas that went beyond the content of their videos, such as an 8th grade boy who asked about pollution in the nearby river, “How can we fix this?” In a different group, a 7th grader investigating homelessness wondered, Please cite this article as: Quinn, B. P., & Bauml, M. Cultivating a mindset of civic engagement among young adolescents. The Journal of Social Studies Research (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2017.05.003i

B.P. Quinn, M. Bauml / The Journal of Social Studies Research ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

11

“Will people get the message? Will it raise awareness?” These types of comments and questions show that the process of creating the PSA video during camp evoked different levels of thinking about civic action. Although comments and questions about the iCivics games appeared on the concept maps only six times in relation to action, we believe it is worth noting how these participants connected the games to civic action. Four participants wrote action statements for the game “Do I Have a Right? Bill of Rights Edition.” In this game, players worked in a simulated law firm and made decisions about incoming clients’ rights based on knowledge of Constitutional rights in the first 10 Amendments. The game assisted players as needed by providing tutorials about the Bill of Rights. Reflecting on this game, two 7th graders wrote about “helping” others, which was their role in the simulated law firm. The two 9th graders who responded wrote about “speaking out if something like this happened” and “standing up for what you believe in or for your rights that you know you have and were wrongfully disregarded.” Two students wrote about the game “LawCraft,” in which players become a member of Congress and attempt to propose legislation about a civic issue they choose from a menu of options. Successful players must work through compromises to get their bill passed. The same 7th grade girl who wrote about “helping” for the previous game did so again here, while a boy in 8th grade recorded ideas about goals and compromising while playing LawCraft: “How to appeal to as many people [as possible] without forgetting your ambitions.” Emotions about camp activities The majority of participants (58%) recorded affective statements about camp activities as they responded to our prompts to “write down some things you are thinking about” on the concept maps. Together, the two iCivics games elicited the highest number of affective comments out of all camp activities studied, as shown in Table 3 for the category affect about activity. Responses about the games included numerous brief remarks such as “hard,” “easy,” “boring,” and “fun.” Several participants offered more detailed reflective feedback about playing the games. For example, one 7th grade boy revealed, “It helped me make difficult choices and if I made mistakes, I learned from them.” Elaborating on what she thought made LawCraft “hard,” a 9th grade girl pointed out, “Getting everyone on your side is hard.” Twelve participants made comments about the PSA video as well, noting that the process of writing and filming required “teamwork,” was “difficult” in some cases, and overall a good experience. Using all capital letters for emphasis, a 7th grade girl exclaimed, “I CAN ACT!!” and added, “I liked how we all worked together.” Differentiation of types of thinking by entering civic profiles The second research question of this study was: Do civic learning opportunities promote differential thinking among young adolescents who display different profiles of civic development? Given varying ways of conceptualizing civic engagement, we considered three different ways of assigning civic profiles to students: justice-oriented vs. participatory citizens, the presence or absence of self-identified civic purpose, and prior civic involvement. Tables 4–6 contain full results related to the second research question; we highlight those activities that resulted in greater amounts of knowledge and action thinking here. Knowledge: facts and questions Overall, the Community Issues Fair generated knowledge thinking at a rate greater than other activities. By civic profile, the fair was more likely to generate knowledge thinking for students who were justice-oriented than for students who were more oriented towards participatory citizenship (knowledge statements¼ 31.25% of justice-oriented vs. 25% of participatory participants; knowledge questions ¼25% of justice-oriented vs. 15.63% of participatory participants). The Community Issues Fair was also more likely to generate knowledge thinking for those with civic purpose than those without (knowledge statements ¼37.5% of participants with civic purpose vs. 25% of those without; knowledge questions ¼62.5% of participants with civic purpose vs. 12.5% of those without). Distinctions in knowledge thinking were less clear for those who were already civically involved versus those who were not, with the percent of participants making knowledge statements approximately equal (28% of those who were already civically involved and 28.5% of those who were not), and more knowledge questions asked by those who were already civically involved (28%) than those who were not (14.28%). The Electoral Beans activity also generated relatively higher levels of knowledge thinking across the profiles of civic engagement than other activities. Unlike the findings related to the Community Issues Fair, there was no difference in the percentages of participants who generated knowledge statements associated with the Electoral Beans activity based on whether or not they were justice-oriented (31.25% of participants in each group). However, those classified as justiceoriented were more likely to generate knowledge questions (25%) as compared to those in the participatory group (15.63%). When participants were classified according to self-identified civic purpose, the Electoral Beans activity generated more knowledge statements for those without civic purpose (32.5% vs. 25% of those with civic purpose) and more knowledge questions for those with civic purpose (62.5% vs. 22.5% of those without civic purpose). The Electoral Beans activity generated more knowledge statements and questions for those who were already civically involved as compared to those who were not (knowledge statements ¼28% of those who were already civically involved vs. 23.8% of those who were not; knowledge questions ¼32% of those who were already civically involved vs. 23.8% of those who were not). The Evidence activity from the inquiry project also generated relatively higher levels of knowledge thinking than other activities, and there were differences in the types of knowledge thinking across the three civic engagement profiles. More participants who were in the participatory group wrote down knowledge statements associated with this activity (37.5%) as Please cite this article as: Quinn, B. P., & Bauml, M. Cultivating a mindset of civic engagement among young adolescents. The Journal of Social Studies Research (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2017.05.003i

12

B.P. Quinn, M. Bauml / The Journal of Social Studies Research ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

compared to those in the justice-oriented group (18.75%). A slightly higher percentage of justice-oriented participants, however, wrote down knowledge questions in association with the evidence activity (12.5%) as compared to the percentage of participatory participants who wrote down knowledge questions (9.38%). When participants were divided by selfidentified civic purpose, a higher percentage of those who identified as having civic purpose generated knowledge statements in both categories as compared to those who did not identify as having civic purpose (knowledge statements ¼37.5% of participants with civic purpose vs. 30% of those without; knowledge questions ¼37.5% of participants with civic purpose vs. 5% of those without). Finally, those who already demonstrated some level of civic involvement were less likely to generate knowledge statements and more likely to generate knowledge questions than those who were not already civically involved (knowledge statements ¼24% of those who were already civically involved vs. 38.09% of those who were not; knowledge questions ¼20% of those who were already civically involved vs. 0% of those who were not). Civic action Overall the Community Issues Fair, compared to other activities, generated more thoughts about action in the form of both statements and questions. When participants were classified by justice orientation, those who were justice-oriented were slightly more likely to write down action statements (31.25%) than those who were in the participatory group (28.13%). However, those were in the participatory group were more likely to generate questions about action (9.38%) than were those who were justice-oriented. When divided by self-identified civic purpose, participants who did not identify a civic purpose for themselves were slightly more likely to write down action statements in association with the community issues fair (30%) than those who did identify as having a civic purpose (25%). This trend was reversed for action questions associated with the Community Issues Fair, with 12.5% of those who identified as having civic purpose generating questions about action as compared to 5% of those who did not identify as having civic purpose. Finally, when students were classified by existing levels of civic involvement, those who were already involved generated more action statements and questions in association with the Community Issues Fair in comparison with those who were not already involved (knowledge statements ¼32% of those who were already civically involved vs. 23.8% of those who were not; knowledge questions¼8% of those who were already civically involved vs. 4.76% of those who were not). The other activity that generated relatively higher levels of action thinking among participants was the creation of the PSA video. When participants were classified by justice orientation, more participants in the justice-oriented group wrote down action statements (31.25%) than those in the participatory group (18.75%). However, the percentages of participants in each of these groups was the same for action questions (6.25%, each). When participants were classified by self-identified civic purpose, more participants without self-identified civic purpose generated action statements in association with making the video (27.5%) than those who did identify as having civic purpose (12.5%). This trend was reversed for action questions, with 12.5% of those with self-identified civic purpose writing down action questions in association with the video making activity as compared to 5% of those without self-identified civic purpose. When participants were divided by existing levels of civic involvement, the pattern was similar to that found when they were divided by self-identified civic purpose. A higher percentage of those who were not already civically involved wrote down action statements associated with the video making activity (28%) than those who were already civically involved (16%), and yet a slightly higher percentage of those who were civically involved (8%) wrote down action questions in association with this activity than the percentage of those who were not already civically involved (4.76%).

Discussion Results from this study support findings about the value of action civics programs (e.g., Mikva Challenge, 2017; Vontz, Metcalf, & Patrick, 2000) and offer new information about early stages of civic action and optimal ways of supporting civic development during these stages. Using statements written by participants on concept maps throughout participation in a civics summer camp, we were able to identify 10 types of thinking associated with different activities and the ways in which the thinking generated by these activities was sometimes different for participants who entered the camp with different existing profiles of civic engagement. Our interpretation of these findings leads to four areas of consideration for researchers and practitioners. First, when we examined overall frequency and types of thinking generated by the different camp activities, it was clear that the Community Issues Fair generated the highest levels of both knowledge and action related thinking. Recall that the Community Issues Fair involved community members active in various organizations visiting the camp and describing the particular need in the community that was met by the work of their organization. Overall, meeting these real people who were civically involved generated more knowledge and action-related thinking than other more traditional classroom activities or the computer games that were a part of the camp. In her discussion of why action civics empowers youth, Levinson (2014) notes that action civics introduces students to “networks of civically engaged peers and adults who get to know one another and encourage each others’ participation” (p. 70). The Community Issues Fair provided the opportunity for campers to meet adults in their community who were able to introduce them to specific ways to contribute to their local communities. Teachers who want to encourage civic thinking may want to consider the ways in which their students can meet people in the community who are already engaged in civic action. These real people, involved in work in local Please cite this article as: Quinn, B. P., & Bauml, M. Cultivating a mindset of civic engagement among young adolescents. The Journal of Social Studies Research (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2017.05.003i

B.P. Quinn, M. Bauml / The Journal of Social Studies Research ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

13

communities, may empower young adolescents to consider the networks of individuals who can help them become more involved. Second, looking across the activities of the camp, there were no clear patterns in the type of thinking generated based on whether or not campers started the camp as more participatory or justice-oriented according to Westheimer and Kahne's (2004) typology. This is an optimistic finding for the appropriateness of an action civics framework for encouraging civic engagement across a diversity of students. Different activities reached different types of students. For example, across participants, the Community Issues Fair generated relatively more knowledge and action thinking. However, those who entered the camp more oriented to justice were slightly more likely to write down knowledge statements, questions about knowledge, and action statements in association with this activity. Given that the Community Issues Fair was one of the first activities of the camp, participants who were already justice-oriented may have been slightly more ready to receive the information of the fair, because they were already more likely to be asking the sorts of questions about community issues that were answered by the speakers. However, those who entered the camp more oriented towards a participatory style of citizenship were more likely to write down knowledge statements in association with the Evidence activity, the first activity during which small groups were able to learn about an issue that they chose and found personally meaningful. As an inquiry cycle (Levinson, 2014), action civics is designed, in part, to give students the knowledge and skills that will allow them to ask the “why” questions that are at the heart of justice-oriented citizenship. However, for the student who is not already justice-oriented, personal interest and motivation must be addressed in order for this deeper thinking to occur. Levinson (2014) suggests that one of the reasons that action civics empowers youth is because it “provides opportunities for civic involvement via personally meaningful experiences and projects that reflect students’ own actions” (p. 70). Furthermore, in action civics programs, students’ voices are “encouraged, valued, and incorporated in decision-making to the fullest extent possible” (CIRCLE, 2013, p. 2). The opportunity to learn more about an issue of personal interest may have provided a pathway to engagement for students who were not already oriented towards justice. Taken together, our findings related to differentiation of participant thinking based on entering justice orientation suggest that teachers who wish to encourage civic engagement across a variety of students may want to consider incorporating the range of activities offered in an action civics framework. These include both activities that provide information and ways to get involved for those who are already justice-oriented, and pathways to pursuing personal interests for those who may need an extra motivational push. Third, for those who identified as having civic purpose, most of the camp activities grounded in the action civics framework generated more knowledge statements and questions than for those who did not identify as having civic purpose. It is not expected that all, or even most, individuals will integrate their civic commitments and actions with their most important life goals in a way that would denote civic purpose (Malin et al., 2015). However, a healthy democracy does need individuals who will be civic leaders, or individuals who are likely to demonstrate civic purpose. In existing literature about purpose development, purpose commitments have been found to lead to further cycles of purpose exploration (Burrow & Hill, 2011). Our findings suggest that for adolescents who had already identified a civic purpose for themselves, most of the activities of the camp led to further exploration in the form of trying to learn more about the community issues to which they were introduced. In other words, while these eight individuals may have already known that their purposes would help their communities in some way, the activities of the camp may have generated further cycles of thinking that will eventually refine these participants’ thinking about how and in what specific ways their purposes will help their communities. With this in mind, teachers who want to encourage life-long leaders in the civic realm should consider the range of activities offered in the action civics framework as likely pathways to the cycles of exploration necessary to the development of civic purpose. Finally, camp activities elicited comments and questions about knowledge and action among participants whether or not they had prior civic involvement as reported by their parents. This finding offers evidence that using an action civics instructional model that includes different kinds of activities can benefit young adolescents with different life experiences. Participants with no prior civic involvement were able to participate in the activities and demonstrate in writing that they were thinking about civic ideas and actions. Such thoughts may eventually result in these students intentionally becoming involved in civic activities moving forward. Interestingly, participants with prior civic involvement consistently asked questions about knowledge at a higher rate than those who had no prior experience with civic involvement. Asking questions about information is the basis for engaging in the inquiry process and “the key to student learning” (NCSS, 2013, p. 17). Given existing research that connects civic involvement to academic progress (Dávila & Mora, 2007) and commitment to civic participation (Kahne & Sporte, 2008) among high schoolers, encouraging civic involvement among youth appears to be good for the community as well as good for youth. Although the data collected did not allow us to ascertain how recently or how frequently participants had been civically involved, we believe they offer additional reasons to promote youth participation in volunteer activities, service-learning, and other civic opportunities within and outside of school.

Conclusion In 2011, the authors of a national report produced by the Campaign for the Civic Mission of Schools called upon researchers to carry out studies that would examine “innovative civic learning approaches” and “offer solutions to the Please cite this article as: Quinn, B. P., & Bauml, M. Cultivating a mindset of civic engagement among young adolescents. The Journal of Social Studies Research (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2017.05.003i

14

B.P. Quinn, M. Bauml / The Journal of Social Studies Research ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

disparity of civic learning opportunities in schools” (p.43). The present study of middle school students who took part in a five-day summer civics camp was designed to address this call by exploring what youth think about as a result of participating in civic learning activities, and determining whether civic learning opportunities promote differential thinking among young adolescents who display different profiles of civic engagement. Findings from this study suggest that for educators wishing to cultivate a mindset of civic engagement among young adolescents, utilizing an action civics model in which students are given opportunities to engage in meaningful inquiries about topics they care about is a promising pedagogical option. Additionally, educators should seek ways to provide face-toface interactions with individuals who are actively engaged in civic life, as well as opportunities for students to participate in authentic civic activities.

Funding The iEngage camp was funded by the Hatton W. Sumners Foundation and [the authors’ institution]. Neither the Foundation nor [the institution] were involved with the research, and the ideas expressed in this article belong to the authors.

Appendix Pre- and post-camp surveys administered to students on the first and last days of iEngage. Items #1-16 are from the survey developed by Flanagan et al. (2007). Remaining questions dealt with civic knowledge and civic purpose. Items #1718 were developed by Blevins et al. (2016). Items #19-20 assessing civic purpose, developed by the authors, drew from Malin et al.’s (2015) definition of the construct. 1. If you found out about a problem in your community that you wanted to do something about (for example, illegal drugs were being sold near a school, or high levels of lead were discovered in the local drinking water), how well do you think you would be able to do each of the following? (Scale of 1–5, from “I definitely can’t” to “I definitely can”) a. Create a plan to address the problem. b. Get other people to care about the problem. c. Organize and run a meeting. d. Express your views in front of a group of people. e. Identify individuals or groups who could help you with the problem. f. Write an opinion letter to a local newspaper. g. Call someone on the phone that you had never met before to get their help with the problem. h. Organize a petition. 2. When you think about your life after high school, how likely is it that you would do each of the following? a. Contact or visit someone in government who represents your community. b. Contact a newspaper, radio, or TV talk show to express your opinion on an issue. c. Sign an e-mail or written petition. 3. When you think about your life after high school, how likely is it that you would do each of the following? a. Vote on a regular basis. b. Wear a campaign button to support a candidate. c. Volunteer for a political party. 4. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement? a. I enjoy talking about politics and political issues. 5. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement? a. I am interested in a career in politics and government. 6. When you think about your life after high school, how likely is it that you would do each of the following? a. Participate in a boycott against a company. b. Refuse to buy clothes made in sweatshops. c. Participate in political activities such as protests, marches, or demonstrations. 7. When you think about life after high school, how likely is it that you would do each of the following? a. Do volunteer work to help needy people. b. Get involved in issues like health or safety that affect your community. c. Work with a group to solve a problem in the community where you live. 8. How much do you agree or disagree with each of these statements? a. I think people should assist those in their lives who are in need of help. b. I think it is important for people to follow rules and laws. c. I try to help when I see people in need. d. I am willing to help others without being paid. e. I try to be kind to other people. f. I think it is important to tell the truth. Please cite this article as: Quinn, B. P., & Bauml, M. Cultivating a mindset of civic engagement among young adolescents. The Journal of Social Studies Research (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2017.05.003i

B.P. Quinn, M. Bauml / The Journal of Social Studies Research ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

15

9. How much do you agree or disagree with each of these statements? a. After high school, I will work with others to change unjust laws. b. I think it is important to protest when something in society needs changing. c. I think it's important to buy products from businesses who are careful not to harm the environment. d. I think it is important to challenge inequalities in society. 10. How much do you agree or disagree with each of these statements? a. Being actively involved in community issues is my responsibility. b. Being concerned about state and local issues is an important responsibility for everybody. c. I believe I can make a difference in my community. d. By working with others in the community I can help make things better. 11. Indicate how much you agree or disagree with each statement. a. My parents/guardians are active in the community. b. My parents/guardians are active in local politics (e.g., school board, city council). c. My parents/guardians do volunteer work in our community. 12. Here are some questions about your political discussions with others. Indicate how much you agree or disagree with each statement. a. I talk to my parents/guardians about politics. b. I'm interested in my parents'/guardians' opinions about politics. c. My parents/guardians encourage me to express my opinions about politics and current events, even if they are different from their views. 13. Here are some questions about your political discussions with others. Indicate how much you agree or disagree with each statement. a. I talk to my friends about politics. b. I'm interested in my friends' opinions about politics. c. My friends encourage me to express my opinions about politics, even if they are different from their views 14. When you think about your life and your future, how important are the following? It is important to me to… a. … work to stop prejudice. b. … improve race relations. 15. When you think about your life and your future, how important are the following? It is important to me to… a. … help those who are less fortunate. b. … help people in my community. 16. When you think about your life and your future, how important are the following? It is important to me to… a. … do something to stop pollution. b. … help protect animals. c. … preserve the earth for future generations. 17. Where would you find your rights as a citizen of the United States? a. From the President's national address b. From your student handbook c. From your teacher d. From the United States Constitution 18. Which of the following actions is a service that benefits a community? a. Cleaning your room b. Helping your mom do the dishes c. Picking up trash in the local park d. Helping a friend with homework 19. Here are some questions about purpose in life. For these questions, “purpose” refers to the most important and meaningful overall goal or goals for your life. Indicate how much you agree or disagree with each statement. a. I have a sense that my life has purpose. b. I know what my purpose is. c. I work towards accomplishing my purpose. d. I am trying to discover my purpose. e. I do things to try to figure out what my purpose is. f. My purpose is a way I can help other people. g. My purpose is a way I can help my community be a better place. 20. Here are some questions about what you think about the world and other people. Indicate how much you agree or disagree with each statement. a. No matter how hard people try to change things, big problems in my community will not go away. b. If people work hard enough, big problems in my community can be fixed. c. When I see big problems in my community, I think they can be changed if people work hard enough on them.

Please cite this article as: Quinn, B. P., & Bauml, M. Cultivating a mindset of civic engagement among young adolescents. The Journal of Social Studies Research (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2017.05.003i

B.P. Quinn, M. Bauml / The Journal of Social Studies Research ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

16

d. People who make mistakes in life will probably always make the same types of mistakes. e. If people work hard enough, they can change. f. When I see someone who has made a lot of mistakes in life, I think they will probably always be that way.

References Association for Middle Level Education. (2010). This we believe: Keys to educating young adolescents. Westerville, OH: Association for Middle Level Education. Avery, P. G., Levy, S. A., & Simmons, A. M. M. (2009). The Deliberating in a Democracy (DID) Project evaluation report: Cumulative years 1-5 executive summary (Retrieved from) 〈http://wwwdid.deliberating.org/about_us/documents/DID%20Cumulative%20Years%201-5%20(04-09)%20Executive%20Summary.pdf 〉. Berson, M. J., Rodríguez-Campos, L., Walker-Egea, C., Owens, C., & Bellara, A. (2014). Youth engagement in electoral activities: A collaborative evaluation of a civic education project. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 2, 81–87. Blakemore, S. J., & Mills, K. L. (2014). Is adolescence a sensitive period for sociocultural processing? Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 187–207. Blevins, B., LeCompte, K., & Wells, S. (2016). Innovations in civic education: Developing civic agency through action civics. Theory and Research in Social Education, 44, 344–384, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2016.1203853. Burrow, A. L., & Hill, P. L. (2011). Purpose as a form of identity capital for positive youth adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 47(4), 1196–1206, http://dx. doi.org/10.1037/a0023818. Castro, A. J., & Knowles, R. (2017). Democratic citizenship education: Research across multiple landscapes and contexts. In M. M. Manfra, & C. M. Bolick (Eds.), The Wiley Handbook of Social Studies Research ((Eds.)). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement (CIRCLE). (2013). Civic learning through action: The case of Generation Citizen (Retrieved from) 〈http://wwwcivicyouth.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Generation-Citizen-Fact-Sheet-July-1-Final.pdf〉. Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2009). ((3rd ed.) Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age, 8. Washington, D. C.: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Damon, W., Menon, J., & Bronk, K. C. (2003). The development of purpose during adolescence. Applied Developmental Science, 73, 119–128. Dávila, A., & Mora, M. T. (2007). Civic engagement and high school academic progress: An analysis using NELS data. CIRCLE Working Paper, 52 (Retrieved online) 〈http://civicyouth.org/PopUps/WorkingPapers/WP52Mora.pdf〉. Eccles, J. S. (1999). The development of children ages 6 to 14. The Future of Children, 9(2), 30–44. Erikson, E. (1968). Identity, youth, and crisis. Hillsdale, NJ: W. W. Norton. Feldman, L., Pasek, J., Romer, D., & Jamieson, K. H. (2007). Identifying best practices in civic education: Lessons from the Student Voices Program. American Journal of Education, 11475–100. Flanagan, C., Syvertsen, A., & Stout, M. (2007). Civic measurement models: Tapping adolescents' civic engagement. CIRCLE Working Paper, 55 (Retrieved online) 〈http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/WorkingPapers/WP55Flannagan.pdf〉. Kahne, J. E., & Middaugh, E. (2010). High quality civic education: What is it and who gets it?. In W. C. Parker (Ed.), Social studies today: Research and practice ((Ed.)). New York, NY: Routledge. Kahne, J. E., & Sporte, S. E. (2008). Developing citizens: The impact of civic learning opportunities on students' commitment to civic participation. American Educational Research Journal, 45(3), 738–766. Kroger, J., Martinussen, M., & Marcia, J. E. (2010). Identity status change during adolescence and young adulthood: A meta-analysis. Journal of Adolescence, 33(5), 683–698, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.11.002. Lerner, R. M., Dowling, E. M., & Anderson, P. M. (2003). Positive youth development: Thriving as the basis of personhood and civil society. Applied Developmental Science, 7(3), 172–180, http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S1532480XADS0703_8. Lerner, R. M., Fisher, C. B., & Weinberg, R. A. (2000). Toward a science for and of the people: Promoting civil society through the application of developmental science. Child Development, 71(1), 11–20. Levinson, M. (2014). Action civics in the classroom. Social Education, 78(2), 68–70. Malin, H., Ballard, P. J., & Damon, W. (2015). Civic purpose: An integrated construct for understanding civic development in adolescence. Human Development, 58(2), 103–130. Meschke, L. L., Peter, C. R., & Bartholomae, S. (2012). Developmentally appropriate practice to promote healthy adolescent development: Integrating research and practice. Child & Youth Care Forum, 41(1), 89–108, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10566-011-9153-7. Mikva Challenge (2017). Our impacts: By the numbers. Retrieved from 〈http://www.mikvachallenge.org/our-impacts/by-the-numbers/〉. Millenson, D., Mills, M., & Andes, S. (2014). Making civics relevant, making citizens effective: Action civics in the classroom. International Debate Education Association National Council for the Social Studies. (2013). College, career, and civic life (C3) framework for social studies state standards: Guidance for enhancing the rigor of K-12 civics, economics, geography, and history. Silver Spring, MD: NCSS. Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers ((2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Sherrod, L. R., Flanagan, C., & Youniss, J. (2002). Dimensions of citizenship and opportunities for youth development: The what, why, when, where, and who of citizenship development. Applied Developmental Science, 6(4), 264–272. Steinberg, L. (2005). Cognitive and affective development in adolescence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(2), 69–74. Torney-Purta, J., & Amadeo, J. (2011). An international perspective on participatory niches for emergent citizenship in early adolescence. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 633, 180–200. Vontz, T. S., Metcalf, K. K., & Patrick, J. J. (2000). Executive summary: Project citizen and the civic development of adolescent students in Indiana, Latvia, and Lithuania. ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education and the Adjunct ERIC Clearinghouse for International Civic Education in association with Civitas: An International Civic Education Exchange Program Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for democracy. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 237–269. Wheeldon, J., & Faubert, J. (2009). Framing experience: Concept maps, mind maps, and data collection in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(3), 68–83. Zaff, J. F., Kawashima-Ginsberg, K., Lin, E. S., Lamb, M., Balsano, A., & Lerner, R. M. (2011). Developmental trajectories of civic engagement across adolescence: Disaggregation of an integrated construct. Journal of Adolescence, 34(6), 1207–1220.

Please cite this article as: Quinn, B. P., & Bauml, M. Cultivating a mindset of civic engagement among young adolescents. The Journal of Social Studies Research (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2017.05.003i