New Evaluative Framework for Civic Curricula
August 8th, 2008 at 10:01am
Deen Freelon
Permalink
CLO has just released a new short report outlining an evaluative framework for civic curricula based on the learning categories developed in our previous report, Young Citizens and Civic Learning. Here is the abstract:
This report introduces the work of the Civic Learning Online Project in developing digital media learning tools. The need for identifying specific online learning goals and opportunities is discussed first. This is followed by the introduction of an online curriculum unit, Blogging in Public, which is evaluated in terms of the civic learning opportunities it offers.
After perusing this report, we would appreciate your input on the following questions, as well as any general feedback:
- Do you see any major categories of civic learning which our evaluative framework would exclude? If so, what?
- Do you think civic practitioners are likely to find our framework useful? What can we do to make it more useful for them?
Entry Filed under: adviser conversations, civic learning goals, participatory media
3 Comments Add your own
1. Howard Rheingold | August 17th, 2008 at 11:27 am
This is great work. One small suggestion, not meant as a criticism of the present work, but as an experiment to try: think about starting with a conversation about what the young people in the discussion really care about. What really matters to them? I’d like to see what happens when discussions are conducted under two different conditions:
1. As framed in this report.
2. Start with a wide-open discussion about what young people really care about BEFORE introducing framing terms such as “youth voice” and “civic.”
My reasoning is that it might enlist enthusiasm more directly by pointing out that caring about the ban on skateboarding downtown is really a civic issue — rather than starting with a discussion of civic issues.
2. Joe Kahne | August 18th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Thanks for sharing this. Very interesting and an important project. I know it’s not easy. Not easy to be concise and to cover such complex ground…
You ask about missing categories of civic learning, I have a few thoughts - not sure if they will be helpful.
1. I wonder if there’s a way to more directly incorporate attention to critical and informed analysis. Seems like good curriculum would emphasize this - but I’m not sure your category of information gets at it. Are either AC or DC committed to this? More in the framework that assessed such issues would be helpful.
2. I’m also not clear how this framework gets at whether the curriculum is helping youth engage in ways that reflect democratic values. For example, might some curriculum that fits AC be more about self-actualization (and sometimes self-absorption) than about democratic participation and might some curriculum that fosters dutiful citizenship lack the questioning of norms needed in a healthy democracy. I think adding some text to the evaluative framework that clarifies when a curriculum is preparing a citizen for democracy (as opposed to civic life more generally) would be great. The classic example is volunteer work. Engaging in volunteer activities often promotes organizational membership and is often tied to dutiful and actualizing citizenship (both in China and in the US) — but, as many have argued, such work is not necessarily fostering an appreciation of citizenship in a democracy.
I hope these ramblings are helpful - it’s been interesting to read and think about.
Best,
JOe
3. Eszter Hargittai | October 3rd, 2008 at 6:06 am
Thanks for putting this together. You do a nice job of introducing and framing the material. I think it should be very helpful to lots of folks out there. I have a few suggestions for possible additions.
1. I’m wondering who is assumed to be the instructor/facilitator. The first section assumes quite a bit of knowledge on behalf of that person. I wonder if you could point to some resources for that person to familiarize him/herself with the material that is to be covered here. That is, the students are expected to know quite a bit about blogging by the end of the session, this assumes that the instructor knows even more.
2. I think there would be some value to addressing the question of whether students should be encouraged to blog anon/pseudonymously or not (or at least introducing the possibility of that approach and the pros and cons). Is it naive of me to think that anyone might actually blog under his or her own name? Perhaps. But if that is something students are considering then there is value to a discussion about what it means for material to be out there on the Web under one’s name. (In a related realm, there may be some value to addressing the issue of what it means to refer to one’s peers using their real names.)
I realize this all may seem somewhat tangential to blogging in particular, but a more general discussion about what it means to put material under one’s own name out on the Web could be very valuable to avoid potential future issues that may arise.
3. Regarding the assignment of having students add comments to others’ blogs, I would recommend a more explicit approach to making sure most/all students’ posts receive at least a couple of comments. Having taught courses where students blog and commenting is required, I know that it is not self-evident that each student will receive comments and that can be very discouraging. The method I had implemented (probably too tedious for many other contexts) concerned the creation of “commenter groups” where students had to comment on two other people’s posts from their own group (and then could comment on any additional blogs). A less structured approach would require students to comment on at least x posts that have not yet received more than y comments. This could help a lot in ensuring that everyone’s writing is engaged by others.
Related to that point, one may need a more systematic approach to discussing “comments they don’t understand” (as per the module), because it may be the case that most students don’t understand comments from the same 1-2 people and that could be (1) especially discouraging to the author/s of those particular comments; (2) would not allow a rotation in the discussion among different commenters.
Regarding the table on civic criteria and which one is satisfied by BIP, I have a comment on the Organization-AC cell. While I agree that the value here is “Yes” if the blogging is done in a continued manner in a class context, it is not clear how this informal community is something that students can take away from the specific exercise (whereas it seems that the other instances of “Yes” are ones that are less restrictive to the specific exercise scenario).
My final comment is a more general reflection on the discussion of AC/DC opportunities mentioned toward the end (right before that final table). While I find the distinction between the two helpful (as per previous reports), I don’t believe it’s always possible to separate them clearly. For example, the document here mentions “DC opportunities such as learning how to register to vote and receiving one way information about the campaign from various site sources managed by the campaign staff” is a bit misleading since if anything, one of the innovative components of the Obama campaign is precisely that various AC approaches are also being managed by the campaign staff. In examples such as that, drawing a clear distinction between DC and AC seems tricky.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed