Building strong futures: literacy practices for developing engaged citizenship in the 21st century.

Lewis-Spector, Jill

Introduction

Current global tensions suggest there has never been a more important time for us to consider the kinds of literacies we are helping our students develop. Recent discussion about literacy in many countries has focused on raising students' academic performance and better preparing students to compete in the global marketplace. This view is evident in such documents as the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians (Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, 2008), which states, 'In the 21st century Australia's capacity to provide a high quality of life for all will depend on the ability to compete in the global economy on knowledge and innovation' (p. 4) and this goal is to be achieved through adopting specific instructional standards and curricula that include 'a strong focus on literacy' (p. 14).

But our literacy instruction--what we teach and how we teach--has other long-term and deeper purposes. Literacy educators must also answer equally to a more long-term responsibility of education that extends to outside our classrooms. This was recognised in 2014 when Australia's Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority put at the very centre of its inaugural curriculum a goal of the 'successful learner, a confident and creative individual' (n.p.) who is also, and of equal importance, 'an active informed citizen' (n.p. italics added). Additionally, in the same year Australia's policy makers, aware of the importance of education as co-extensive with all its citizens, adopted the Remote School Attendance Strategy, initiated to achieve that goal for Indigenous populations. Globally, the United Nation's Millennium Development Goals adopted by all 189 member states in 2000 set a target to ensure that by 2015 children everywhere, boys and girls alike, would be able to complete a full course of primary schooling. There remains the reality that in some parts of the world certain minorities are intent on violently imposing their will on the majority of citizens and see danger in education (for example, the local Taliban attack on Malala Yousafzai who was campaigning for girls' education and the abduction by Boko Haram of more than 200 Nigerian girls from their secondary boarding school). But most nations have made a commitment, however vigorously or hesitantly, to an expansion of democracy; education is seen as key to realising their citizens' potential for constructing their own positive futures, as individuals who are both globally connected and locally engaged, as well as the potential of a positive future for the society in which they live.

Potential is the operative word. Much depends on what young citizens witness and experience as being valued citizen behaviour in their communities. But of equal influence is the experience of the classroom, an early and continuing site of both learning and socialisation. It is here that literacy educators can prepare our students to operate effectively as active citizens in associational arrangements and accomplish goals beneficial for both themselves and their fellow community members.

Given the importance of preparing students for their roles as active citizens, what might this preparation look like and how can literacy educators contribute to it? Print and Lange (2013) advise 'identifying a set of competencies for active citizenship in a modern democracy is a complex, often confusing and challenging task' (p. 47). Indeed, one might ask if the idea of active citizenship is something that has been forgotten. In 2005 a U.S. survey of 1,001 participants aged 18 + living in households were asked to rank in importance six possible civic virtues (Howard, Gibson & Stolle, 2007). This study replicated the 2002 survey conducted in 30 European countries by the European Science Foundation (Jowell, et al., 2003). The least important virtues across continents were political involvement and civic participation (European Social Survey, 2002, p. 15). Virtues rated highest were obedience to laws, autonomy, and electoral participation (voting). Thus, participants seemed to define the ideal citizen as one who visits the ballot box as needed, doesn't spit on the sidewalk, and is not involved in politics--a strange form of ideal citizenship, much less one that is engaged.

Literacy instruction and developing civic competence for engaged citizenship

The contention here is that we can shape our literacy instruction, in both content and delivery, such that our literacy teaching develops skills and guides our students in the direction of certain democratic dispositions and actions, preparing our students for the civic competence needed by the engaged citizen. There are different interpretations of what it means to be engaged, but typically the engaged citizen is described as one who makes their community stronger, healthier and better able to meet the needs of the people who live in it.

Engaged citizens also reap personal benefit, although Weitz-Shapiro and Winters (2008) reported 'Participation is more likely to be an effect, rather than a cause, of higher levels of life satisfaction' (p. 5).

   Empirical results verify that people are more content
   when they are made to feel as if they are independent,
   autonomous citizens whose existence is valued in some
   way ... Political participation--whether voting for
   president, participating in a party caucus or speaking
   during a town meeting--may provide individuals with
   a sense of their worth as individuals, a sense that their
   voice is valued or relevant in some way. This sense of
   autonomy then should contribute to individuals' overall
   subjective well-being. (p. 8)

Many engage by joining organisations (sometimes referred to as civil society organisations, nonprofits, nongovernmental organisations) through which members believe they can make a difference; they can change an existing situation. This feeling is often described as a sense of agency. Such organisations are part of the familiar landscape of Australia: the Australia Literacy Educators' Association, the Centre for Civil Society, and the Australian Refugee Association. The origins of these groups are not found in any legislative decree from a body with authority over a given population; nor is the purpose of these organisations financial gain for the members of the group. Through ongoing collective action the organisations' members address community needs--for example, in education, social services, health, the environment, women's issues that government and the free market cannot or will not address to these citizens' satisfaction. Citizens may also participate alone in activities that go beyond passivity and duty-bound citizenship (for example, respecting the rule of law). They might benefit the community by participating at public meetings or volunteering at a hospital. What can we do as literacy educators so that our students feel competent to be so engaged, at whatever the level or vehicle for participation?

Print and Lange (2013) discuss civic competence as consisting of five dimensions: Knowledge, Skills, Attitudes, Values and Intentions. Utilising Print's description as a framework to guide our literacy instruction, both what we teach and how we teach, we should be able to plan instruction that raises students' literacy performance while also contributing substantially to the development of the requirements for a successfully engaged citizenry. The instructional suggestions here are a starting point. If this were an interactive e-text, the reader no doubt would have additional and worthwhile suggestions.

Literacy instruction that builds knowledge for engaged citizenship

As Mota suggests, 'We can't shape what we don't understand, and what we don't understand and use ends up shaping us' (2012, para. 7). We cannot act intelligently; we cannot make good decisions, without sufficient and accurate knowledge. But what is knowledge? This question has been asked, and continues to be asked, since the beginning of the Western intellectual tradition and is by no means foreign to other non-Western bodies of thought. Here we examine knowledge on a much smaller scale--how it pertains to what is communicated through instructional content and delivery, concerning cues about the nature of knowledge, and which can have a continuing effect on students after their formal schooling. What do our students understand as knowing something? Do they believe that something you know is a closed case and no longer open to questioning? Is there one correct answer to every question?

William Perry (1969/99) conducted a longitudinal study of the intellectual and cognitive development of male Harvard undergraduates' ideas about knowledge. His influential work concluded that from college through to mature adulthood the study's participants passed through a predictable sequence of nine stages of epistemological growth, moving from viewing knowledge as something with a case-closed certainty, to a view of knowledge as radically relative, and then to a position of qualified relativity. Other researchers (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997; Kuhn & Weinstock, 2002) condensed these nine positions to three.

[Currently] there is general consensus that human development of knowledge progresses through three positions: (1) 'absolutist--the conception of knowledge and knowing as objective and absolute; (2) 'multiplist' regarding all knowledge as subjective and relative and therefore indeterminate because of multiple points of view; to (3) 'evaluativist'--the acceptance and integration of subjective and objective aspects of knowledge that would permit a degree of evaluation and judgment of knowledge claims (Tabak & Weinstock, 2008, p. 178).

All of us construct what we think of as knowledge from our personal experience, the surrounding culture, and exposure to many ideas. From these we obtain particular truths, beliefs, and perspectives. As much as we may rebel against it, what we call our knowledge cannot be called absolute; it is provisional. When we factor in the frequent intertwining of our values with what we claim to 'know', this can become particularly troublesome. What we claim to know is refined over time as we mature and adjust our thinking to integrate new ideas with those we currently hold. This accommodating process enables us to recognise and to handle increasingly sophisticated and specific situations and challenges and to interpret complex information and individual behaviours.

If we view knowledge as provisional, and if knowledge is a requisite for citizen engagement, then exposing students to multiple genre and authentic cross-cultural texts that represent different perspectives becomes essential. Some of these texts may be in conflict with each other; some may be complementary. In an environment of competing perspectives, we want our students to examine, judge and integrate diverse information, concepts and opinions to arrive at what has a claim to be knowledge. But even this is tentative and subject to change. Student knowledge includes also knowing that there is the possibility of there being more than one set of right answers to complex questions, even their own conclusions; knowledge is a process. John Locke (1996) explains, 'Reading furnishes the mind only with materials of knowledge; it is thinking that makes what we read ours' (p. 193). Knowledge is constructed. Identifying those sources from which our students have derived and constructed what they consider knowledge becomes critically important to our literacy instruction, as does introducing students to a wider range of ideas that may cause students to reflect on and make reasoned adjustments to their prior knowledge.

Giving students access to this wide range of ideas and perspectives is prerequisite for engaged citizens who must be skilled in the give and take of discussion and open to the possibility of competing ideas, including their own, that may need to be reconciled. It does not fit well if members of the group are disposed to holding opinions about things with absolute certainty. If texts are read but unexamined, students presume that all texts contain valid information. Explicit instruction for critical literacy has become a necessary skill for 21st century citizens.

Literacy skills for engaged citizenship

Australian schools vary in many ways, such as size, structure, and resources. Nevertheless all students in all schools will need similar skills to be able to contribute to local and global communities as active citizens. The ability to participate effectively in knowledge construction and share ideas with a critical eye is dependent upon a multitude of skills. Skills are different from knowledge. At a basic level, skills help us to gain access to and select the texts from which we construct knowledge; they help us utilise available information and make decisions about it. Skills citizens need for printed and oral texts range from such foundational skills as the ability to access, select, and decode text (or know the language), as well as to comprehend stated ideas and identify provided details, to those more complex skills that require critical thinking, such as being able to ask those questions needed to determine whether personal opinions are being presented as knowledge or truth. Critical thinkers have strategies for recognising whether arguments are logical and well supported. Such sophisticated skills are derived from literacy instruction that guides students towards recognising features of language that reflect bias, such as word choice, tone, persuasive techniques, or that convey particular social, political, and cultural contexts that target particular audiences and marginalise some voices. As students become increasingly skilful in identifying how authors construct ideas and use language for specific purposes, they will become more adept at recognising the perspectives and/or biases contained in what they read, and more able to assess the relative veracity of the claims being presented to them.

Access to the Internet can contribute enormously to literacy educators' efforts to provide diverse and challenging texts through which we can increase students' exposure to new ideas and opportunities for skills application. Not surprisingly, Internet usage among Australians, fewer than 34% of the population in 2000, had nearly tripled by 2012 (Miniwatts Marketing Group, 2012). However, this may not indicate a positive development. A 2012 study by the Pew Foundation (Pew Research Centre's Internet & American Life Project, 2012) to learn about Internet usage among U.S. students surveyed nearly 2,500 Advanced Placement and National Writing Project teachers. Nearly 86% reported that for today's students, conducting research means Googling, cutting and pasting what is found, suggesting that availability of information does not necessarily guarantee potential benefits.

The Internet demands a more active form of reading. Its advent has made the skills associated with critical literacy more recognisably relevant than ever. Prior to the Internet, the production cost of society-wide information distribution (newspapers, radio, television, movies) was such that control was limited to certain individuals and groups. This is obviously no longer the case. The increased heterogeneity of available information has flattened out what used to be a more clearly demarcated topography between what was considered legitimate versus less legitimate information/opinion sources. The volume of information now available online and to everyone provides the instructional opportunity to foreground with a new urgency those very questions that students also should have been asking about texts pre-Internet, when the objectivity and authority of canonical texts was on much firmer ground than today. All these questions addressed to texts now have an immediate and obvious relevance.

* Who is talking?

* What does that author want me to conclude?

* For whom is this written?

* What assumptions, values and beliefs does this author have or believe the reader has?

* Whose voice is not heard?

* What information would that voice contribute to this posting?

* How would this change the conclusions?

* Is this information true? Are the aims of the material clear?

* Does the material achieve its aims?

* Can the information be checked?

* When was the material produced?

* Is the information relevant to me? What else do I need to know in order to have a complete picture of this issue?

* How does this information compare to what else I know?

* How do my own values, beliefs and assumptions affect my interpretation of the text?

The nature of our teaching may well change if our literacy instruction positions students to do their own thinking, draw their own conclusions and take responsibility for them, as well as to identify messages that are personally meaningful. As literacy educators intent on preparing students for engaged citizenship, we may, in fact, experience an instructional tension between what we may feel is one instructional obligation, for example, to inculcate cultural mores/norms/standards (regardless of personal views towards these), and another obligation, for example, to develop literacy skills and actions that generate new ideas and produce critical thinkers who will be participants capable of contributing to the sustainability and progress of democratic communities. It is akin, perhaps, to a parent's experience of wanting his/her child to be independent, yet not so independent that the parent's wishes or rules of good behaviour are ignored.

Preparing students for their future roles as citizens demands that we develop literacy skills that enable students to think independently. We are encouraged by such researchers as McCluskey, Deshpande, Shah and McLeod (2004) who explain, 'Educators may adopt curriculum that helps citizens better understand how they can effectively influence the political world and help them develop skills to make a difference' (p. 450). We can only guess at the many communication and technical digital skills our students will need for text literacy in the years to come. A generation ago, who would have thought that even very young children would be using computers, let alone tablets and smart phones? The literacy skills suggested here, however, will be essential to students in any situation, with any mode of communication. These are enduring skills needed for all generations, for all citizens.

Literacy instruction and requisite attitudes for engaged citizenship

We now literally get to the heart of the matter. Particular knowledge and skills can be positioned as part of the content curriculum, can be overtly taught and, if so desired, tested. Attitudes are something else. Attitudes might best be thought of as dispositions, or outlooks on life. Even the very youngest students entering our classrooms already carry with them particular attitudes, or outlooks on life, that they have learned through their interactions with family, friends, and the larger community. As Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) wrote, 'an attitude represents a person's general feeling of favourableness or unfavourableness toward some stimulus object' (p. 216). Our attitudes are often reflected in how we respond to situations, often positively or negatively. As we get to know our students, we learn our students' beliefs about what is possible and what is not, what is acceptable and what is less acceptable; some of these attitudes may contribute to an engaged citizenry and some may make such engagement problematic. The important point here is that particular attitudes which can be cultural or possibly a result of the individual's personal history--are relatively unexamined and unaddressed in today's schools. These attitudes are not considered as something learned or as cultural constructions. They are considered and experienced as the way things are or as natural. We cannot force students to have certain attitudes, nor should we, but we can provide students with certain experiences that point them in directions that will benefit themselves as individuals as well as their communities. We can accomplish this not by explicit instruction on attitudes, but by attending to how we teach.

Engaged citizens and self-efficacy

Some years ago I was a volunteer for a USAID/IRA (1) project in a Balkan country that was interested in educational reform, especially reform that would promote critical thinking and interactive learning. On my first classroom visit, I discovered that the desks were in neat rows facing the front of the class and were all nailed to the floor. I observed students standing one by one to face the teacher and recite portions of material they'd read for their homework assignment. Clearly, this regurgitation of information did not require critical thinking; personal response was neither invited nor even needed. Teaching was synonymous with transmitting information and learning was synonymous with memorisation. To be taught meant that students sat and listened and did not engage with their fellow students. The teacher and the text were the authorities; students did not question either.

How would it be possible for students taught in this way to develop the capacity or agency that is needed for active citizen participation? How would they have sufficient self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977) to believe that they could effect what happened in their communities, especially if their actions required questioning authority? Fortunately, nations seeking to be more democratic are looking to classroom practice as a mechanism for change. They recognise that how teaching occurs can have lasting effects on what citizens do. Akey (2006) found that 'Teachers whom students see as supportive ... help create an atmosphere in which students feel in control and confident about their ability to succeed in future educational endeavors' (p. iii). But beyond the contribution self-efficacy makes to academic performance, researchers have found that variance in citizen participation can be explained by self-efficacy. For instance, Barati, Abu Samah, Ahmad and Idris's 2013 study of citizens in Tehran, Iran, reported that those with higher self-efficacy were more likely to participate in neighbourhood councils. Others (Vecchione, Caprara, Caprara, Alessandri, Tabernero & Gonzalez-Castro, 2014) found a positive relationships between perceived political efficacy and participation and even suggested a reciprocal one, with those engaging community activity developing a greater sense of self-efficacy (Ohmer, 2007).

Peer collaboration to develop attitudes for active citizens

Students who are taught through collaborative peer activity can learn content while simultaneously developing the attitudes that are needed for engagement in a society and a world where cultural, social, economic and political differences between groups may be large. This collaborative space has the potential for collapsing personal distance and altering attitudes. Students may or may not rethink stereotypes and biases when they are called upon to work with students from other backgrounds; but at the very least, it can eliminate one important factor upon which bias can flourish: it addresses the fact that stereotypes and biases thrive best when there is no contact with the stereotyped individuals and groups. Collaborative activity that has been designed to draw upon the strengths and experiences of all the participants may begin (or reconfirm) what could have enduring positive effects for all. As students work together, social trust will have to be negotiated. Rather than being passive recipients, peers may challenge each other's ideas and insist that the group listen to other perspectives and opinions. As students combine their collective energy and ideas, we can guide them towards building a social support system, establishing a workable code of conduct, and provide a model for how community interdependence can function effectively. 'A student who effectively modifies his/her behaviours and language to align with these expectations will likely have his or her membership in the learning community validated by teachers and peers' (Lewis-Spector & McGriff, 2015, p. 184).

Literacy instruction readily affords opportunities for peer collaboration. During my work with the Balkan teachers, the other volunteer teacher trainers and I used Structured Academic Controversy (SAC) developed by D.W. Johnson and R. Johnson (1985) to give our workshop teachers the experience of grappling with controversy and alternative perspectives, leading to autonomous decision making. We had the teachers form groups of four and each group was asked to discuss whether snack bars should be required to use more environmentally friendly but more costly paper cups for beverages they sold at sporting events instead of the less expensive ones. The group of four became two pairs and we assigned each pair either the 'pro' or 'con' position. For 30 minutes each pair searched for evidence to support their side of the controversy, using newspaper articles, essays, some scientific data about the properties of paper cups versus other beverage containers, etc. that we provided. Each pair then defended their assigned position while the other pair listened carefully. Next, each foursome was asked to discuss the issue as a team, to change their position if they wanted to, and to either reach consensus or be prepared to explain where they disagreed.

The Balkan teachers found this exercise challenging. One teacher's comment most clearly expressed her difficulty and, perhaps, what was the cultural norm: 'If someone disagrees with you, they should just be quiet.' But as Parker (2011) explains, 'Despite prior deliberation and, perhaps, a settled opinion on the issue, or without either of these, the sharing of and listening to reasons followed by the opportunity to form a position anew may be an occasion for deeper learning and, perhaps, growth' (p. 3). Parker (2011) comments on the necessity of classroom experiences such as SAC, suggesting 'it is on the deliberative platform that educators can help young people to develop the habits of exchanging reasons rather than the habits of bringing only settled views to the table and arguing for them' (p. 3-4). Fortunately, as we unpacked this lesson, the teachers appreciated the importance of having evidence for opinions, listening to others, and the freedom to change one's mind.

Students can use many sources and collaboratively create questions for class consideration. They can be based on an author's work or a particular novel, or real world problems, especially problems faced by residents in the students' local community. These problems can be analysed and solutions offered via letters to local newspapers, whether online or print. If available, students can also use Google docs and wikis for collaborative writing and research. A space can be created for student blog postings in response to texts, with students responding to each other's comments. For instance, students can utilise the web-based collaborative writing platform at www.mixedinc.com to edit the same document simultaneously in real time.

Learning communities can also be established with other classrooms within a single school. We can, for instance, connect our classes with global online communities through such websites as National Geographic's ePals Projects for Classroom Collaboration, a website that facilitates joining students to each other to investigate topics of global interest, and where classes have the option of hosting a new project or joining one already underway.

There are empirically validated academic benefits to students who are learning through collaboration (Gokhale, 1995; Vygotsky, 1978; Kessler, Bikowski, & Boggs, 2012). As students become more successful at academic tasks, they are more likely to persist longer in the task and to use cognitive and metacognitive strategies that improve their performance, (see for example, Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Pintrich & Garcia, 1991). In their collaborative communities, students are also able to accomplish goals that, in turn, build self-esteem and confidence, that sense of agency that is a prerequisite for active citizen engagement.

Choice and voice to promote requisite attitudes

Civic engagement for positive futures requires that citizens believe they have the right to self-determination, to make certain choices and that their choices have the potential to benefit themselves and/or their communities. During peer collaboration, students may need to compromise, and through discussion personal choice can yield to group consensus. But we can also promote personal decision making when we have our students voice preferences for what they read, choose how they demonstrate their learning, and with whom they will share what they've learned. By offering individual choice opportunities as well as those requiring peer collaboration, students may learn how to balance personal and group desires--what matters to them with what the group needs.

Students who will become successful community-builders understand that personal choices they make can affect others and believe that this matters. Agency includes responsibility. Common Sense Media (n.d.) provides an excellent example of how to develop awareness and encourage this attitude by asking students to answer some questions about posting a photo of a friend on social media: 'Is it a good photo? Would my friend agree? Could it get my friend into trouble? Is it going to cause drama? Am I aware that anyone can share it? Would I be okay with my grandma seeing it? A year from now will I feel good about making this public?' Common Sense Media suggests that when students ask such questions, they are engaging in digital citizenship. As students become increasingly practiced in such reflection, the interconnections between critical thinking and personal responsibility become clear.

Literacy instruction and requisite values for engaged citizenship

Values are the guiding principles we live by; they are beliefs we hold dear and they provide a sense of direction in our lives. Personal values undergird our own actions as well as how we interpret actions by others. Values affect our attitudes. Values necessary for sustaining civil societies and building positive futures include respect for differences, respect for the rule of law, honesty, gender equality, belief in equal treatment of all citizens, belief in the importance of nonviolent resolution to conflicts, valuing independence, and consideration for others. Literacy educators cannot command students to hold these values, but we do have options for increasing the likelihood that they will incorporate them into their personal value systems. For instance, I recently visited Bartle Middle School, located in a small town in New Jersey, USA and attended by students aged 8-11. Hallways were posted with 'Bartle Awards', certificates that recognised individual students' kindness towards others, such as picking up another student's book that had dropped, or telling an 11 year-old to stop bullying a younger student.

Teachers lead by example. This includes giving girls and boys, students of majority cultures and minority cultures, equal opportunities that involve classroom responsibility, for example, taking attendance, and bringing notices to the office. Promoting equitable classroom dialogue is perhaps the most obvious way we can model essential values.

Traditional teaching utilises an IRE discussion approach: the teacher initiates discussion by asking students a question, a student responds, and the teacher evaluates the response (Edwards & Mercer, 1987). Such an approach generates little student-to-student interaction. Rather than participating in such a teacher-dominated conversation, our students would have a greater chance of honing their communication skills and valuing the give-and-take of ideas if they had more opportunity for peer-to-peer academic discussions. The peer discourse dynamic is different, especially when we become dialogue facilitators who scaffold discussion and help students explore and negotiate ideas through talk. While not every student enjoys participating in student-led discussion, learning how to express ideas thoughtfully, to be open-minded to ideas others express, and to be accountable for what one says are essential ingredients for successful participation in civic life. The Institute for Learning (2002) suggests we explicitly teach a series of discussion stems, referred to as Accountable Talk stems, for productive student-led discussion: 'Could you clarify your statement...?', ' I do not understand, could you tell me more about...?', 'My evidence is...', 'I can connect this to...', 'I would like to tie into what_just said...', 'I want to respectfully disagree with_...'. 'Through dialogue with others, we become better able to name our feelings and thoughts, and place ourselves in the world. We can develop a language of critique and possibility which allows us to act' (Giroux, 1983, p. 208)

Promoting citizen values through self-assessment

Students become overly dependent on teachers if we are the only ones who comment on their progress. If, instead, students collaboratively develop a set of criteria for evaluating their participation as a community member in the classroom, values key to participation as active citizens become articulated and assessed. The Idaho Association of Teachers of Language and Culture (n.d.) Self Evaluation Form for Group Work (Table 1) illustrates specific criteria students might suggest for self-assessment. As students recognise their own strengths and address weaknesses, they will become better able to contribute to group goals.

Literacy instruction for realising intentions

One of the hallmarks of civil societies is that individuals have voluntarily come together to accomplish certain goals. In our classrooms, students can experience realising intentions by setting goals and achieving them through communal action. A body of research supports the importance of empowering students through greater participation in classroom and school decision making. Purposeful projects determined, designed, and undertaken by students might include: creating instructional podcasts; writing classroom bulletins; performing readers theatre for youtube; student-run campaigns for library books; student-created websites; creating a class/school newspaper; student-conducted community activities such as observing and writing about community events, videos, reading to seniors; student-authored letters to advertisers about their products; or student-led campaign to promote a particular issue, for example, anti-smoking campaign. New technologies can motivate students to act to achieve common goals that extend well beyond their schools and local communities. Websites such as iEarn, links students across the globe where they may choose to collaborate on projects that address common concerns, for example, global warming. Australia, a founding member of iEarn centres, is involved in a number of school projects including The Teddy Bear's Project, The First Peoples' Project, Faces of War, and The Fight Against Child Labour Project.

All of these activities require students to use sophisticated literacy skills. They also send a powerful message to students about the potential they have to shape their futures and grapple with civic issues. Describing his work with high school students who use technology to communicate directly with researchers, Cone (2014) comments, the reason 'teaching about global issues works so well is because it taps into teenagers' acute sense of justice. It is the rare high school student who fails to feel angry when she learns about the violence in Syria or the lack of access to cheap, life-saving drugs in many parts of the world. Unlike so many adults who assume that they are powerless to impact these situations, my students believe that they can play a role in righting these wrongs' (para. 6).

Leadership opportunities in classrooms

Experiencing shared governance in classrooms is key to understanding how civil societies behave. Sometimes class leaders emerge naturally, perhaps by helping others to take responsibility, work as a team, set expectations and/or resolve conflicts. We can also deliberately encourage shared governance, guiding students through project-based learning and alternating leadership roles we may assign through such literacy activities as book clubs and debate, to ensure that all students gain practice with leadership skills and come to understand the role of a leader in empowering others.

Concluding thoughts

The development and sustainability of democratic societies depends on the willingness and competence of citizens to participate in ways that promote positive futures for all. It requires that they have the knowledge, skills, values, attitudes and dispositions characteristic of democracies. The position taken here is that supporting students in the development of these requisites is the larger purpose of our teaching, notwithstanding the seemingly global concern for students' academic performance, especially so that students can compete in the global marketplace. To succeed at the enormous responsibility of preparing our students to be engaged citizens, we must examine how we use our literacy instruction to replicate a democratic society in which individuals matter, critical examination of ideas is the norm, and there is potential for communal and individual action to make a difference.

Literacy educators recognise that when our students enter our classrooms, they vary in their exposure to, experiences with, and inclination to engage in actions aimed at improving their communities. For some, this difference may be the result of the cultural values emphasised at home and within a student's dominant cultural group, especially those of independence, which values autonomy to act, and interdependence, which places greater value on deference to the group's desires (Triandis, 1995). The former, while giving an individual a strong sense of agency necessary for citizen participation, may result in a focus on achieving individual goals to the neglect of the communal. The latter may lead to great concern for the welfare of the group, but without a sense of personal agency that is needed to initiate and continue action. Levinson (2010) also found a civic empowerment gap wherein poorer, minority, and non-college bound youth are less civically involved than wealthier, White, and college-bound youth. Wherever such a gap might exist, in whatever nation, it can indeed have a bearing on the degree to which students feel their voices matter, that they have control over their lives, that they can effect their futures, and are able to contribute to positive change. It means that some students will enter our classrooms with more knowledge and skills, productive values and attitudes, and a belief that goals they set for themselves are achievable. Nevertheless, our literacy instruction, both how and what we teach, can meet the challenges noted here and increase the possibility of promoting citizen engagement among all of our students while in our classrooms and continuing into their adult lives.

Jill Lewis-Spector

New Jersey City University, United States of America

Note

(1.) IRA (formerly International Reading Association) now ILA (International Literacy Association)

References

Akey, T.M. (2006). School context, student attitudes and behavior, and academic achievement: An exploratory analysis. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corp. Retrieved May 1, 2015 from www.mdrc.org/sites/ default/files/full_519.pdf.

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2014). Australian curriculum. Retrieved June 14, 2014, from htp://www.australiancurriculum. edu.au/GeneralCapabilities/Overview/general-capabilitiesin-the-australian-curriculum.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Barati, Z., Abu Samah, B., Ahmad, N. & Idris, K.B. (2013). Self-efficacy and citizen participation in neighborhood council in Iran. Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 911-919. DOI: 10.1002/jcop.21516

Common Sense Media. (n. d.). Retrieved January 12, 2014, from http:// www.commonsensemedia.org/educators/middlehigh_poster.

Cone, M. (2014, August 14). Engaging in global issues in the classroom. Retrieved August 20, 2014, from http:// kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/0 8/14/engaging-in-globalissues-in-the-classroom-and-beyond/?_php=true&_ type=blogs&_ php=true&_ type= blogs&emc=edit_ tnt_2 0140814&nlid=19614786&tntemail0=y&_r=1.

Edwards, D. & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. London: Methuen.

European Social Survey. (2002). Exploring public attitudes, informing public policy: Selected findings from the first three rounds. Retrieved September 3, 2013, from ESSFindingsBooklet.pdf.

Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Giroux, H.A. (1983). Theory and resistance in education. A pedagogy for the opposition. London: Heinemann.

Gokhale, A.A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of Technology Education, 7, 22-30. Retrieved January 23, 2014, from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ ejournals/JTE/v7n1/gokhale.jte-v7n1.html.

Hofer, B. & Pintrich, P. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 88-140.

Howard, M.M., Gibson, J.L. & Stolle, D. (2007). United States Citizenship, Involvement, Democracy (Cid) Survey, 2006. ICPSR04607-v1. Washington, DC: Georgetown University, Center for Democracy and Civil Society (CDACS) (producer), 2007. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (distributor), 2007-11-14. http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR04607.v1

Idaho Association of Teachers of Language and Culture. (n.d.). Self evaluation. Retrieved January 19, 2014, from iatlc.org/downloads/Peer%20and%20self%20evaluation.doc.

Institute for Learning. (2002). Principles of learning: Study tools for educators: Accountable talk (CD-Rom). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh, Learning and Research Development Center.

Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R. (1985). Classroom conflict: Controversy vs. debate in learning groups. American Educational Research Journal, 22, 237-256.

Jowell, R & the Central Co-ordinating Team, European Social Survey 2002/2003: Technical Report. London: Centre for Comparative Social Surveys, City University (2003). Retrieved December 18, 2014: http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/data/download.html?r=1.

Kessler, G., Bikowski, D. & Boggs, J. (2012). Collaborative writing among second language learners in academic web-based projects. Language Learning & Technology, 16, 91-109. Retrieved September 8, 2014, from http://llt.msu. edu/issues/february2012/ kesslerbikowskiboggs.pdf.

Kuhn, D. & Weinstock, M. (2002). What is epistemological thinking and why does it matter? In B.K. Hofer & P.R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 121-144). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Levinson, M. (2010). The civic empowerment gap: Defining the problem and locating solutions. In L. Sherrod, C. Flanagan, & J. Torney-Purta, (Eds.), Handbook of research on civic engagement in youth (pp. 331-362). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley& Sons, Inc.

Lewis-Spector, J. & McGriff, M. (2015). Addressing adolescents' need for voice and interaction. In F. Falk-Ross, (Ed.), Language-based approaches to support reading comprehension (pp. 181-208). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Locke, J. (1996). Some thoughts concerning education (1693) and Of the conduct of the understanding (1706). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing.

McCluskey, M.R., Deshpande, S., Shah, D.V. & Mc Leod, D.M. (2004). The efficacy gap and political participation: When political influence fails to meet expectations. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 16, 438-455 DOI: 10.1093/ijpor/edho38.

Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. (2008). Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians. Canberra: Author. http://www.mceecdya.edu.au/mceecdya/publications,11582.html.

Miniwatts Marketing Group. (2012). Internet world stats. Retrieved June 8, 2014, from www.internetworldstats.com.

Mota, C. (July, 2012). Play with smart materials. TED talk. Transcript (translated by Joseph Geni). Retrieved January 8, 2014, from http://www.ted.com/talks/catarina_mota_ play_with_smart_materials/transcript?language=en.

Ohmer, Mary L. (2007). Citizen participation in neighborhood organizations and its relationship to volunteers' self- and collective efficacy and sense of community. Social Work Research, 31, 109-120.

Parker, W. (2011). Feel free to change your mind. A response to 'The Potential for Deliberative Democratic Civic Education.' Democracy and Education, 19, 1-4. Available at: http://democracyeducationjournal.org/home/vol19/iss2/9.

Perry, W.G. Jr. (1968/1999). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project. (2012, November). How teens do research in the digital world. Author. Retrieved May 11, 2014, from http://www.pewinternet.org/2012/11/01/ how-teens-do-research-in-the-digital-world/.

Pintrich, P.R. & De Groot, E.V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40.

Pintrich, P.R. & Garcia, T. (1991). Student goal orientation and self-regulation in the college classroom. In M. Maehr & P.R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: Goals and self-regulatory processes, 7, (pp. 371-402). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Print, M. & Lange, D. (Eds.). (2013). Civic education and competencies for engaging citizens in democracies. Boston, MA: Sense Pub.

Tabak, I. & Weinstock, M. (2008). A sociocultural exploration of epistemological beliefs. In M.S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, knowledge and beliefs: Epistemological studies across diverse cultures (pp. 177-195). Amsterdam: Springer.

Triandis, H.C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Vecchione, M., Caprara, G.V., Caprara, M.G., Alessandri, G., Tabernero, C. & Gonzalez-Castro, J.L. (2014). The perceived political self-efficacy scale-short form (PPSE-S): A validation study in three Mediterranean countries. Cross-Cultural Research 48, 368-384. Originally published online February 25, 2014. DOI: 10.1177/1069397114523924.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.

Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Weitz-Shapiro, R. & Winters, M.S. (2008). Political participation and quality of life. Working Paper #638. Washington, D.C.: Inter-American Development Bank. Retrieved May 11, 2015 from http://www.iadb.org/res/.

Jill Lewis-Spector, a former middle and high school teacher in the United States and currently professor emerita from New Jersey City University, was President of the International Reading Association at the time of delivering the keynote in Darwin in 2014. She received her doctorate from Rutgers University. Her books include Academic Literacy: Readings and Strategies; Essential Questions in Adolescent Literacy; and Educators On the Frontline: Advocating Effectively for Your School, Your Students, and Your Profession. Her numerous peer-reviewed articles address literacy policy, critical literacy, and reading in the disciplines and she has spoken frequently at professional conferences. Her current research examines literacy policy and advocacy, critical literacy, teacher preparation, and literacy leadership.

Table 1. Self evaluation form for group work

                             Seldom   Sometimes   Often
Contributed ideas

Listened to and
respected the ideas of
others

Compromised and cooperated

Took initiative when
needed

Worked outside of class
if necessary

Spent time browsing for
appropriate material

Did my share of the
workload/tasks

My two greatest strengths from the list above are:

1.

2.

The two skills I need to work on from the list above are:

1.

2.

Overall grade you would give yourself:

(A+--F)__