This article was downloaded by: [Florida Atlantic University]On: 12 November 2014, At: 09:58Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Theory & Research in SocialEducationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utrs20

What Makes a Citizen? Criticaland Multicultural Citizenshipand Preservice Teachers'Understanding of CitizenshipSkillsAntonio J. Castro aa University of MissouriPublished online: 28 May 2013.

To cite this article: Antonio J. Castro (2013) What Makes a Citizen? Criticaland Multicultural Citizenship and Preservice Teachers' Understanding ofCitizenship Skills, Theory & Research in Social Education, 41:2, 219-246, DOI:10.1080/00933104.2013.783522

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2013.783522

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or

indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:58

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Theory & Research in Social Education, 41: 219–246, 2013Copyright © College and University Faculty Assembly of

National Council for the Social StudiesISSN 0093-3104 print / 2163-1654 onlineDOI: 10.1080/00933104.2013.783522

What Makes a Citizen? Critical and MulticulturalCitizenship and Preservice Teachers’ Understanding

of Citizenship Skills

Antonio J. CastroUniversity of Missouri

Abstract: Utilizing a framework of critical and multicultural citizenship, thisqualitative study investigates how preservice teachers at a Midwestern universitydefined ideal citizenship, how these definitions influenced which civic skill they valuedmost, and how they envisioned teaching for this skill in the classroom. Findings indi-cated that participants adopted either a conservative-values-based or awareness-baseddefinition of citizenship. Conservative-values-based approaches related ideal citizenshipto possessing various character traits and good morals. Awareness-based approachescentered on the citizen being aware of issues in the community so as to be able to changethe community. The data revealed that participants held different civic worldviews,which served as the primary motivation underlying their beliefs about civic education.Findings suggest that teacher educators must work to increase civic competence amongpreservice teachers to foster more critical and multicultural citizenship.

Keywords: citizenship, multicultural education, teacher education, civic worldviews,civic practices, civic education

Despite the long-standing notion that public school education serves tofoster the next generation of citizens, researchers constantly report huge gapsin the practice and the quality of civic education. Kahne, Rodriguez, Smith,and Thiede (2000), for instance, found in their study of Chicago schools thatminimal opportunities for citizenship instruction were available for secondarystudents. Likewise, Levinson (2012) lamented a rising civic empowermentgap occurring for low-income, minority students. Indeed, today’s climate ofaccountability-driven, technocratic schooling disregards the Deweyian ideal of

Correspondence should be sent to Antonio J. Castro, Department of Learning,Teaching and Curriculum, University of Missouri, 303 Townsend Hall, Columbia, MO65211. Email: castroaj@missouri.edu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:58

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

220 Castro

creating democratic spaces for children, creating instead what Sleeter (2008)termed a “corporatocarcy” that stifles democratic teaching.

In social studies education, the quality of civic education has also comeunder scrutiny. While scholars (Knight-Abowitz & Harnish, 2006; Westheimer& Kahne, 2004) acknowledge the promise of participatory and social justice-oriented citizenship, they admit that public schools instill in youth a sense ofobedience and passive forms of citizenship. For example, a mixed-methodstudy of 155 middle and secondary social studies teachers revealed thatteachers equated civic education to these more basic forms of citizenship(Patterson, Doppen, & Misco, 2012). Relying on these civic practices rein-forces what Ross (2000) called civic spectatorship, in which students areinculcated to be merely observers in the democratic processes. Furthermore,given the growing cultural and global diversity of the political and sociallandscape, these simplistic views of citizenship do little to prepare stu-dents to cross cultural boundaries or understand diverse perspectives (Banks,2004; Dilworth, 2008). As a result, social studies scholars must seek tolearn more about how teachers come to think about and implement civicpractices.

Research studies on preservice teachers’ views of citizenship and diversityoften show that future teachers hold shallow understandings of democracy andcitizenship (Avery & Walker, 1993; Gallavan, 2008; Kickbusch, 1987; Martin,2008, 2010; Mathews & Dilworth, 2008; Rubin & Justice, 2005; Sunal, Kelley,& Sunal, 2009). For example, Martin (2008, 2010), across two different studies,found that preservice teachers favored personally responsible views of citizen-ship that center on teaching students good moral character and how to be acooperative member of a society. Mathews and Dilworth (2008), in their casestudy of how preservice teachers responded to multicultural citizenship edu-cation, found that participants did not acknowledge the continuance of racism,clinging to previously held and idealistic conceptions of citizenship. In terms ofglobal citizenship, Gallavan (2008) and Barchuk and Harkins (2010) noted thatwhile preservice teachers agreed with the need for global citizenship, they oftenlacked a sense of global consciousness and awareness. These research studiessuggested that prospective teachers lack awareness, perspective consciousness,and experiences with citizenship. Missing from the literature, however, is adeeper understanding of the roots of these shortcomings and of how teacherscome to envision civic spheres and democratic processes.

This study investigates how preservice teachers view not just citizenship,but the role that specific citizenship skills play in a democracy and how theseskills ought to be taught in today’s public schools. In this process, participantsrevealed particular civic worldviews about democracy and the public spherethat illuminate connections between participants’ beliefs about citizenship anddemocracy and their potential practices in civic education. These findings offerdeeper insights as to how preservice teachers come to envision civic practicesthat may inform the direction of social studies teacher education.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:58

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

What Makes a Citizen? 221

CRITICAL AND MULTICULTURAL CITIZENSHIP ANDCIVIC COMPETENCE

In the research literature, scholars have identified different orientationsto citizenship and civic education. Barr, Barth, and Shermis (1978) clas-sified social studies teaching as promoting citizenship transmission, whichemphasizes loyalty to the country, citizenship as social science that rootsgood citizenship in strong disciplinary knowledge, or citizenship as reflectiveinquiry, which champions problem-solving. In their national survey of socialstudies teachers, Anderson, Avery, Pederson, Smith, and Sullivan (1997) iden-tified four orientations to citizenship: critical thinkers (similar to reflectiveinquiry), cultural pluralists (advocates for multicultural education), legalists(who encourage knowledge and obedience to laws), and assimilations (whopromote patriotism and a unified national culture). More recently, Westheimerand Kahne (2004) constructed three forms of citizenship based on their analysisof civic education programs. These included personally responsible citizenshipbased on good moral character and responsibility; participatory citizenship,which stresses community engagement and political participation; and socialjustice-oriented citizenship, comprising more activist notions of citizenshipand actions geared toward rectifying social and political injustice. Knight-Abowitz and Harnish (2006), likewise, distinguished three types of citizenshipdiscourse: civic republican citizenship (loyalty centered), liberal citizenship(participatory), and critical citizenship. Miller-Lane, Howard, and Halagao(2007) organized these varied citizenship approaches across two different axes:critical and non-critical along an X-axis and unity driven and diversity drivenalong the Y-axis (see Figure 1). This organizational structure illuminates keydifferences across these orientations.

In discussing the tensions between unity and diversity, Miller-Lane andfellow researchers (2007) asserted that “each end of the continuum representsa different vision of the United States and the extent to which all citizens havebeen included in the office of citizen” (p. 556). Those advocating for teachinga common “American” story, based on loyalty and unity around a particularpast, see little conflict in who has been historically (or currently) disenfran-chised from civic participation. These individuals see democracy as alreadyobtained. On the other hand, those seeking a more diversity-oriented view rec-ognize that not all people have been able to participate in civic life on an equalplaying field, noting a history of injustice and marginalization that exists evenin today’s society. These “visions” of the political and civic spheres undergirdthe conceptions that individuals hold with regards to citizenship and how toprepare youth for future civic life.

Tensions between critical and non-critical views even further mark a dis-tinction in how individuals conceive democratic life. Those falling into thenon-critical aspects tend to see society as already working just fine and its var-ious corporate and political institutions as neutral aspects of democratic living.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:58

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

222 Castro

Diversity

Unity

Critical Non-Critical

CMC

AB

CVB

Figure 1. Intersections of Critical and Multicultural Citizenship (CMC = Critical andMulticultural Citizenship; AB = Awareness-Based Citizenship; CVB = Conservative-Values-Based Citizenship)

These individuals may wish to socialize youth with the values and beliefs thatwill allow them to fill their place within the community as it is and also toteach basic political knowledge (e.g., how government works). On the otherhand, those seeing democracy from a critical stance will regard democracy as a“goal” or “path” not yet accomplished (Marri, 2003; Parker, 2003). The criticalcitizen questions any marginalization of individuals in society, any injustice,and any deterrent to the realization of democracy. The critical citizen, likeDewey (1916/2007), equates democracy with the ways in which people livein relationship to each other and critiques structures that perpetuate unequalaccess to civic life.

For the purposes of this article, critical and multicultural citizenship willserve as the theoretical framework that will guide much of the interpreta-tion of the data presented here. Critical and multicultural citizenship, muchlike the connection between critical theory and multicultural education (Gay,1995, 1997), combines the quest for critical inquiry and awareness with actionsnecessary to increase access to democratic ways of life in a diverse society(see Figure 1). According to Dilworth (2008), multicultural citizenship “rede-fines traditional notions of citizenship and what it means to be a citizen bymoving beyond conventional approaches and definitions such as voting, pay-ing taxes, and obeying the law” (p. 425). The ultimate goal of critical andmulticultural citizenship involves the fostering of citizens who not only becomeaware of and participate in democracy, “but [who] also . . . create and livein an ethnically diverse and just community” (Dilworth, 2004, pp. 56–57).As a result, citizens engage in meaningful deliberation about the ideals ofdemocracy and gaps in its realization in everyday life and pursue social action

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:58

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

What Makes a Citizen? 223

to close these gaps (Castro, 2010a). To accomplish this task, citizens musthave strong civic competence. Miller-Lane and colleagues (2007) defined civiccompetence as “the desire and ability to investigate diverse, problematic, andcontroversial issues in pursuit of a more inclusive, just, and equitable soci-ety” (p. 563). To promote critical and multicultural civic competence, teachersmust guide students to acquire the necessary skills for more active and criticalcitizenship.

The research literature provides case studies of teachers who illustratemodels of teaching that provide such civic competence (Branch, 2004; Castro,2010a; Dilworth, 2004; Fickel, 2000; Marri, 2005; Salinas & Castro, 2010).Across these studies, these teachers sought to promote critical and social con-sciousness, whereby students learn to question and challenge social, political,and institutional deterrents to democracy as well as the corresponding citi-zenship skills necessary bring to about social change (collective organization,critical thinking, and activism). These teachers engaged students in authenticdiscussions and deliberations about current events (Castro, 2010a; Dilworth,2004; Marri, 2005), guided students through cultural explorations of them-selves and others (Branch, 2004; Fickel, 2000), and taught the “codes ofpower” (Delpit, 1995), those unwritten rules that form the cultural capital nec-essary to negotiate and manage institutional structures in society (Marri, 2005).Paramount across these studies, these teachers valued diversity as a core com-ponent of democratic citizenship and sought ways to improve society throughteaching, dialogue, and activism.

This study seeks to uncover how participants envisioned the civic sphereand teaching for citizenship. First, participants discussed their view of an idealcitizen. Then, they were asked to consider three basic citizenship skills identi-fied by Robertson (2008), which include deliberation, negotiation/bargaining,and activism, and to rank them in order of importance. Through participants’justifications and explanations, deeper insights into their civic worldviewsemerged. I will briefly discuss these three basic citizenship skills.

First, deliberation occurs when citizens work toward finding solutionsto common problems through collaborative inquiry and dialogue. Barton andLevstik (2004) described this process when they wrote, “citizens have to talktheir way through issues confronting them. They must jointly arrive at publicdecisions and agree to political actions and they have to justify these deci-sions and actions to each other” (pp. 33–34). Thus, in the deliberative process,a “common ground” is created across citizens. In a diverse society, Parker(2003) emphasized the importance of “listening across differences” (p. 88).In a deliberative space, all parties share an equal voice or means of represen-tation, all viewpoints are considered, and the resulting decision is agreeable toall involved.

Unlike the coming-together aspect of deliberation, the process ofnegotiating/bargaining involves parties that are “seeking to secure their own

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:58

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

224 Castro

interests, not necessarily to transcend them through appeal to a common con-ception of justice or concern for the common good” (Robertson, 2008, p. 34).Agreements reached become accommodations to each other, a give-and-take,where the resolution may not really be the “best” solution but a workable one.Negotiation and bargaining often occurs when two parties are forced to worktogether to achieve their self-interest (e.g., labor unions and owners). The pro-cess of conflict resolution illustrates a form of negotiation and bargaining in alocal community setting.

Finally, while deliberation and negotiation and bargaining work within andaround political and social institutions, activism seeks to alter and change theseinstitutions. According to Roberston (2008), “The activist believes that delib-eration typically occurs in contexts that have been structured in ways that servethe interests of those in power . . . . [Instead] activists employ other strategies ofmobilization, protest, and disruption that call attention to their causes” (p. 36).These strategies aim to alter political and social institutions that perpetuateinjustices that limit the realization of democracy.

While activism mirrors much of the transformative aspects of criticaland multicultural citizenship, deliberation still exists as a worthy goal fordemocratic living. Santora (2011) noted that the deliberative process createscommunities, and she sought to incorporate critical and emotional conscious-ness as additional components for deliberation, whereby citizens problematizethe practices, policies, and institutional mechanisms that inhibit social jus-tice. As a whole, these three basic skills (deliberation, negotiation/bargaining,activism) serve as points of reference for participants to locate their stance oncitizenship.

METHODOLOGY

This qualitative study investigates how preservice teachers characterize theideal citizen, what skills this citizen would need to have to be successful in ademocracy, and how educators ought to prepare youth with these skills. Morebroadly, the question of how participants envision the democratic and civicsphere runs within and across these data.

Participants and Research Context

The study was conducted at a large research university in the Midwest,located in a suburban city, with some 35,000 undergraduates and roughly600 preservice teachers in the college of education. Ninety percent of thestudents in the college came from mostly Anglo-American, middle-classbackgrounds (as reflected in the sample).

Participants included 15 preservice teachers who were enrolled in eitheran elementary social studies methods course (8 participants) or a secondary

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:58

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

What Makes a Citizen? 225

social studies methods course (7 participants). Fourteen participants reportedbeing Anglo-American and one reported being Asian-American. The sampleincluded 12 women and 3 men. In addition, 14 participants indicated thatthey attended a primarily middle-class, Anglo-American high school prior tocoming to the university. Only six participants (all female) shared having hadsome experience with cultural or global diversity, which occurred in short vaca-tion visits to international resorts. The one Asian-American, Boa, shared thather mother was Korean and her father was Anglo-American (all names arepseudonyms). While she had learned about her Korean background from hermother, she attended mostly suburban schools. She had also recently visitedfamily in Korea.

During the data collection, all participants were classified as juniors andin their initial social studies methods course. The interviews occurred at thebeginning of the term prior to course instruction related to civic education anddemocracy. Furthermore, these participants had little field experiences relatedto social studies education at the elementary or secondary level. Thus, I hadhoped to capture participants early in their thinking about citizenship educa-tion. At the time of this study, neither I nor my graduate research assistantswho helped with data collection served as instructors for these courses. Hence,participation in this study was not directly related to activities occurring in themethods course.

Because participants included both elementary and secondary prospectiveteachers, I coded the data independently for each group and drew comparisonsto determine whether or not qualitative differences arose between these groups.I could discern no qualitative difference in terms of findings between elemen-tary and secondary preservice teachers. As a result, both groups were combinedfor later additional analysis.

Data Collection and Analysis

Participants were interviewed in one session averaging about 60–70 min-utes in length. The session included two parts. First, a standard semi-structuredinterview protocol was utilized (see Appendix A). The initial questionsestablished demographic information from participants. Subsequent questionselicited participants’ views on the purpose of schooling and social studies edu-cation, the characteristics of an ideal citizen, and how educators might instillthese characteristics in their students. The final section asked participants toreflect on their experiences interacting with individuals from different culturaland global backgrounds.

Second, the session involved a definition/card sorting activity. Participantswere given three cards containing definitions for each of the three basic cit-izenship skills (deliberation, negotiation/bargaining, activism) identified byRobertson (2008). Participants were asked to study the definitions and arrange

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:58

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

226 Castro

them in order of most importance to least importance. A series of probing ques-tions followed this activity that sought to uncover the participants’ explanationsbehind their choices (see Appendix B). As an elicitation technique, this strat-egy attempted to reveal how participants made sense of the citizenship skillspresented in the definitions and then how they justified their ranking of theseskills. These explanations offered more nuanced insights into their views oncitizenship.

The interview sessions were recorded and later transcribed for data anal-ysis. A constant-comparative analysis method was employed (Boeiji, 2002;Pidgeon & Henwood, 2004). This data analysis strategy allowed me to drawcomparisons within and across different subsections of the data. In this way, Icould further tease out nuances within the data that I had identified across sub-groups in the sample. Originally, my analysis focused on differences betweenelementary and secondary preservice teachers. However, few qualitative differ-ences were evident. I reanalyzed the data as a whole and then made additionalcomparisons across the data.

When coding the data, I first tagged and labeled all data pieces related tocitizenship and participants’ understanding of civic education. Second, linesof data were then placed into a grid system (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Thissystem helped me discover patterns and themes across all participants. Fromthis process, I discerned two different orientations toward citizenship. Usingconstant comparative analysis, I then separated the data into two groups basedon the view of citizenship to which the participants subscribed. I analyzed eachdataset separately to discover which skills participants favored and how partic-ipants envisioned civic education practices (see Table 1). I compared findingsacross both groups to identify any trends based on participants’ conceptions ofcitizenship. As a result, I was able to establish themes that demonstrated a morecomplex view of participants’ understanding of citizenship and civic practices.Finally, to ensure deeper rigor in my data analysis, I made additional compar-isons across sub-groups (e.g., elementary and secondary participants, femalesand males, civic practices and skills favored). I also reviewed the data again toseek confirming and disconfirming statements to strengthen the credibility ofthe findings.

Limitations

All research studies have limitations that affect thegeneralizability/transferability of its findings. For this study, a few majorlimitations exist within its design and implementation. First, all data werecollected from one session with each participant, which limits the ability toachieve a more robust triangulation. The use of the definition/card-sortingactivity does provide for differentiation in data, but additional kinds of datawould be useful for future studies. Second, participants come from a mostly

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:58

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Tabl

e1.

Part

icip

ant’

sV

iew

sof

Citi

zens

hip

Nam

e/te

achi

nggr

ade

leve

lM

osti

mpo

rtan

tski

llT

hem

esfr

omea

chgr

oup

abou

tho

wto

teac

hfo

rci

tizen

ship

Con

serv

ativ

e-va

lues

-ba

sed

defin

ition

sof

citiz

ensh

ip

Ang

ela

(ele

men

tary

)E

lizab

eth

(ele

men

tary

)L

inds

ey(e

lem

enta

ry)

Mac

kenz

ie(e

lem

enta

ry)

Reb

ecca

(ele

men

tary

)Ja

ck(s

econ

dary

)Jo

hn(s

econ

dary

)M

adis

on(s

econ

dary

)

Del

iber

atio

nN

egot

iatio

n/ba

rgai

ning

Del

iber

atio

nD

elib

erat

ion

Del

iber

atio

nD

elib

erat

ion

Del

iber

atio

nD

elib

erat

ion

•Foc

uson

clas

sroo

mru

les

•Bui

ldin

gcl

assr

oom

com

mun

ity•P

ract

icin

gde

liber

ativ

ean

dco

oper

ativ

eex

erci

ses

with

stud

ents

Aw

aren

ess-

base

dde

finiti

ons

ofci

tizen

ship

Cam

eron

(ele

men

tary

)M

ary

(ele

men

tary

)K

athl

een

(ele

men

tary

)O

livia

(ele

men

tary

)B

oa(s

econ

dary

)M

icha

el(s

econ

dary

)V

icto

ria

(sec

onda

ry)

Neg

otia

tion/

barg

aini

ngN

egot

iatio

n/ba

rgai

ning

Neg

otia

tion/

barg

aini

ngN

egot

iatio

n/ba

rgai

ning

Neg

otia

tion/

barg

aini

ngN

egot

iatio

n/ba

rgai

ning

Neg

otia

tion/

barg

aini

ngA

ctiv

ism

•Foc

uson

bein

gaw

are

ofis

sues

inth

eco

mm

unity

•Und

erst

andi

ngm

ultip

lepe

rspe

ctiv

es•C

ritic

alth

inki

ngsk

ills

•Deb

atin

gsk

ills

227

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:58

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

228 Castro

homogeneous population in one Midwestern university. While I provide somecontext about the sample for this study, future researchers might attempt togain a more diverse set of participants. Finally, increasing the number ofparticipants may offer more data from which to draw conclusions. Despitethese limitations, findings from this study still make a significant contributionto the research literature.

FINDINGS

Participants’ definitions of an ideal citizen fell into two distinct categories:conservative-values-based definitions (eight participants) or awareness-baseddefinitions (seven participants). Conservative-values-based definitions high-lighted important values that citizens should have, such as honesty, loyalty, andresponsibility, echoing more traditional, loyalty-centered citizenship. Thesevalues are typically seen as more conservative in nature. Those adopting anawareness-based definition of citizenship felt that the ideal citizen should beaware of issues and concerns in the democracy so as to attempt to improvesociety, suggesting a more critical orientation toward citizenship (Miller-Lane et al., 2007). Findings also demonstrated that each of these definitionscorresponded with a particular civic worldview, which deeply influencedhow participants ranked different citizenship skills and how they envisionedteaching for citizenship (see Table 1).

Definitions of Citizenship

Conservative-values-based definitions of citizenship. Eight participantsoffered value-based characterizations of the ideal citizen. These participantshighlighted such character traits as pride, respect, honesty, and morality. Thefocus of these definitions centered exclusively on the ways the person as acitizen both contributes to the maintenance of one’s community and exhibitsa sense of loyalty or patriotism to that community. For these participants,future citizens are defined by their allegiance and integration to their local andnational communities.

First, participants suggested that feeling pride for one’s country distin-guishes a good citizen. For example, Elizabeth described this citizen as being“involved in the community, honest, and an all-around good person. They havea sense of pride, national pride.” Similarly, Jack stated that a good citizen has“a set of values: patriotic, involved in the community, like a good neighbor.”Elizabeth and Jack connected having “pride” with a person’s good character asif an ideal citizenry must arise from the strong moral fiber of the person. Hence,good citizens are also loyal patriots. Likewise, Mackenzie defined the purposefor social studies education as “giv[ing] you pride in your country when you

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:58

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

What Makes a Citizen? 229

understand history,” which mirrored the transmission citizenship approachidentified by Barr and colleagues (1978). Mackenzie further described howAmericans should “have pride in their own country and be knowledgeableabout it,” especially when they visit other countries. The assumption here isthat citizens ought to feel positive toward their own country in comparisonto other countries they may visit. A sense of American exceptionalism rangthroughout these comments.

One participant, Rebecca, stressed that citizens ought to have an undyingloyalty to the country. She found Americans lacking in their sense of loy-alty as compared to individuals in more fundamentalist regions of the world.She said, “I think you need to have loyalty to your country, because if youlook at [suicide] bombers who are strapping their bombs onto themselvesjust to be loyal to their country, I think we can step up our loyalty a littlemore.” Rebecca placed allegiance to the country above all other characteris-tics of citizenship. Like others who hold conservative-values-based definitionsof citizenship, Rebecca exhibited a commitment to the idea of citizenship asunity. For her, citizens ought to take on a blind faith in their country withoutexception.

A second underlying concept expressed by those advocating for aconservative-values-based approach to citizenship involves how citizens inte-grate into and maintain their local, state, or national communities. Accordingto participants, the ideal citizen should understand how their community worksand functions and the roles that they play within that community. Madisonexplained that the ideal citizen “knows what the laws are and abides by them.”Angela also described the citizen as “obeying the laws from the country, justdoing . . . trying to get along with everyone, not really creating a big commo-tion.” The ideas communicated by Madison and Angela represent the focuson citizens sustaining the community as it is, suggesting that these partic-ipants saw the civic sphere as embodying a sense of harmony, unity, andpeacefulness. For example, Lindsey used the term “community building” todescribe how a citizen works “to bring together peace and unity” in theircommunity. She elaborated, “I think a good citizen is someone who givesback to the community as much as the community gives to them.” In herconceptions of civic life, Lindsey elevates the community as the referentialpoint from which a citizen ought to define herself/himself. Likewise, Johnportrayed the citizen as both “responsive to events outside their control andalso responsive to events inside their control” and respectful to others inthe society, which he described as being “key to really any type of effec-tive living.” These participants regard the community with great deference,seeing it as harmonious and constructive. The citizenship should act “peace-fully,” claimed Madison, not with “violence” when wanting to change thingsin the community. Hence, community preservation appears as a central goal forcitizenship.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:58

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

230 Castro

Overall, participants adopting a conservative-values-based definition ofcitizenship held the public sphere in high esteem. For them, ideal citizenshipentails a series of character traits, such as being patriotic, loyal, respectful,responsible, responsive, and peaceful. This approach to citizenship idealizesthe community within American democracy and seeks to explore how indi-viduals integrate and maintain this community. Value-based definitions ofcitizenship can be marked by the intersection of unity-driven and non-criticalorientations to citizenship.

Awareness-based definitions of citizenships. Whereas conservative-values-based definitions of citizenship see the moral character of the individu-als as the key to fostering democratic living, those adopting awareness-basedviews of citizenship envision the ideal citizen as active participants, very muchin the same vein of participatory citizenship (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004).These participants expressed less concern for integrating into and maintainingthe community and gave more attention to promoting an aware and informedcitizenry. Through such awareness, the citizens become agents of change toimprove or alter their communities.

Like those asserting a conservative-values-based view of citizenship, sev-eral participants describing an awareness-based view communicated the needfor citizens to know the laws and possess what Michael referred to as “basichistory” and a “general understanding of the Constitution and the Bill ofRights.” Boa indicated the ideal citizen should “at least, not necessarily knoweverything, but main events like there was genocide in Africa . . . I mean bigevents, World War II.” Knowing the basic structures of how American democ-racy works and which laws regulate democracy served only as a precursor fora more aware citizen. These participants anticipated the ideal citizen would bean advocate for change. For example, Victoria said citizens should be “respect-ful of the laws that are in place, but understanding why they are there and . . .

the ones that you don’t agree with, then finding a way to influence that change[emphasis added].” Here, Victoria’s statement assumes that an ideal citizenwould naturally act to change their community rather than to maintain it as is.These participants carried faith in the citizen as an actor in the public sphere.

Kathleen summarized twin aspects of awareness-based definitions:knowledge/awareness and action. She said,

An ideal citizen is someone who is aware, who can read the newspapers,can have a conversation about something with someone about what’sgoing on in society, not just our society, but globally, and can vote andcan really figure out where they stand and have their opinions, and canaffect society.

Kathleen emphasized first that the ideal citizen ought to be conversanton important issues in society. Cameron characterized the “knowledgeable”

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:58

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

What Makes a Citizen? 231

citizen as someone who “watches the news” and is “up on current events.”Being “knowledgeable” and “aware,” according to Mary, helps the citizenmove from “just being a person in the world [to] being able to contribute to it.”Olivia concurred, stating, “I really think the key to having involved active, par-ticipatory citizens is to keep people informed.” Furthermore, Michael referredto a citizen as “someone who works on behalf of the country . . . recognizingcertain problems [and] tries to make a difference.” Part of this recognition forVictoria included that citizens “not just blindly following one political party orideology” but consider the issues before taking action.

For these participants, knowing about issues inevitably leads to actingon these issues. Awareness-based definitions of citizenship valued individualagency and resolve over the maintenance and integration within local, state,or public communities. While the conservative-values-based vision for citi-zenship champions the community, stressing values of integration, harmony,and unity, the awareness-based view of citizenship recognizes faults within thecommunity and relies on citizens as change agents to improve society.

Civic Worldviews and Citizenship Skills

When presented with three essential skills for citizenship (deliberation,negotiation/bargaining, activism) and asked to select the most importantcitizenship skill, nearly all participants selected either deliberation (seven par-ticipants) or negotiation/bargaining (seven participants). Only one participantranked activism as the top skill. Constant-comparative analytical techniquesrevealed that how participants defined ideal citizenship influenced which skillthey identified as most significant (see Table 1). All but one participant whoexpressed a conservative-values-based view of citizenship rated deliberationas most important, and all but one participant who held an awareness-baseddefinition chose negotiation/bargaining as the primary skill. Further analysissuggests that participants held two vastly different visions for civic life and thepublic sphere. Here, I label these civic worldviews as (1) a quest for harmony,unity, and peace and (2) citizenship for a give-and-take world.

The quest for harmony, unity, and peace. Participants who related char-acter values and traits as central elements in citizenship almost exclusivelyturned to deliberation as a way to foster community cohesion and unity. Johnsaid, “I think deliberation is the key because it has the collective good andalso your interests in mind . . . really a holistic approach.” Likewise, Rebeccasaw deliberation as “collective inquiry, so they take everyone’s [ideas] andcome up with a decision.” Mackenzie also stressed the concept of achieving a“common goal as different individuals peacefully, but taking action and beingdeliberate, create a better society.” These comments reveal how participantsfavored deliberation because they perceived this skill as also promoting unity

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:58

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

232 Castro

and stronger communities. Madison, for example, felt attracted to deliberationbecause “you are just working together to solve stuff.” Even Elizabeth, whochose negotiation/bargaining, defined this process as being “about compromiseand working with someone else to figure out what the best solution would be.”Throughout these transcripts, participants valued citizens “working together”to maintain their communities. In the quest for harmony, unity, and peace,these participants found the definition of deliberation to most closely align thisparticular civic worldview.

Participants disliked the other skills because they perceived thatnegotiation/bargaining and activism caused conflict and interrupted commu-nal bonds. Mackenzie complained that activism “does cause a lot of conflict. . . I don’t like conflict.” Instead, Mackenzie related deliberation with “peace-fully deciding” on issues. Aligned with these beliefs, Rebecca felt that activismconjured notions “of protest and disruption. I think of chaos and not gettinganywhere.” This fear of conflict occurred in Angela’s statement that delibera-tion “is not a debate. In a debate, they are getting angry at the other group.”Like Angela, Madison and John also distinguished deliberation from debate,favoring deliberation as more communal. Madison contrasted deliberation withnegotiation/bargaining, commenting that “[in] bargaining and negotiation . . .

somebody has the upper hand; in deliberation you are just working together.”Lindsey suggested that negotiation/bargaining “is a lower level than delib-eration” and argued that “deliberation is the one people should be shootingfor.” Overall, participants sought deliberation because they perceived that itserved to avoid conflict and preserve democratic communities. This sense ofthe preservation of the community emanated throughout the data, as if conflict,discord, and disagreement only work to tear apart the bonds of democracy.

When describing civic education in the classroom, these participantsimagined the school as a representative community in which they wouldmodel values and morals related to ideal citizenship. Elizabeth, who chosenegotiation/bargaining as the most important skill, stated that “one way todo that [teach for citizenship] is setting up classroom rules; that’s importantbecause that relates a lot to how you are in the world, how you act around otherpeople, not just in the classroom.” Angela described rules that emphasize val-ues of “be respectful, be safe” as “kind of small-scale rules for getting by inthe community.” John suggested that he would model the value of integrity inhis high school social studies classroom. He said, “I think day-to-day interac-tion with kids is huge—treating them like they have inherent value, that theyare created for a purpose, like they have an inherent human value.” Lindseyreported wanting to stress the golden rule. “That’s what my mom told meevery day when my sister and I got into a fight,” she recalled, “treat herwith respect and she’ll treat you with respect.” Lindsey would make this partof her “community-building” activities in her elementary classrooms. Finally,Rebecca, Angela, and Elizabeth indicated that they would assign students jobsor classroom roles as a way to foster responsibility. By teaching and modeling

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:58

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

What Makes a Citizen? 233

these values, participants sought to instill in students a respect for democraticcommunity as it is. They also connected adhering to these values as essentialin the quest for harmony, unity, and peace in society.

In addition to explicitly teaching values, some participants reported thatthey would create opportunities for students to engage in cooperative groupactivities or deliberative exercises. Participants working toward secondarysocial studies certification described activities that included group problem-solving, mock United Nations, and other forms of cooperative learning.Madison would “put them [students] into groups and be like ‘what would youdo to solve this?’ Not really debate it, but have them work it out together.”Jack, who wanted to use a mock United Nations as a way to foster deliber-ation in the classroom, warned that “if you try to practice something whereyou get the common good, you’re going to have that bell curve [with] kidson each side [of the issue], even though it appeals to the majority of theclassroom.” The goal of the teacher then would be to promote the commongood for the class. Mackenzie, Elizabeth, and Rebecca described wanting toteach similar activities in their elementary classrooms. Elizabeth describedhaving “a whole class activity to bring up the situation [a problem in theclass or concern in the community] and see what opinions you have andwhat you can come up with at the end.” Rebecca spoke about using delib-eration activities with her students to decide things like a charity or causefor which to raise money. Mackenzie discussed using problem-based learn-ing strategies to have students “com[e] together as a group to make a solutionto a problem,” which will help them with “learning how to work with otherpeople.” Consistent with the ideals of establishing and maintaining commu-nity in the classroom, these deliberative and cooperative learning activitiesaimed to foster the values of cooperation, harmony, and relationships and pre-pare students to integrate into their civic communities. Ironically, deliberationstrategies can be a powerful tool to work toward critical and multicultural citi-zenship. For these participants, however, the process of community building ismore significant than the power of deliberation to transform social injustice indemocracy.

Citizenship for a give-and-take world. While participants holdingconservative-values-based views of citizenship strove for peace and harmony,those adopting awareness-based definitions of citizenship recognized disagree-ment, conflict, and tension within the civic arena. All of but one of theseparticipants selected bargaining/negotiation as the most important skill forideal citizenship. Michael summarized the position of several others:

It’s [negotiation/bargaining] basically like in politics and world politics,how it is all negotiating and bargaining. Nobody is usually ever happy at apeace agreement or treaty or anything like that is agreed upon at the U.N.[United Nations], but if we work with deliberation to make everyone

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:58

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

234 Castro

happy, you would get nowhere. Negotiation and bargaining is the mostgive and take [solution] to get everyone to get along.

Michael portrayed the world in terms of compromises and disagreements.This idea that not everyone can reach consensus in the civic sphere was echoedby Kathleen when she said, “I think not very often do both people agree onsomething or a whole group of people agree on something.” As a result of theapparent tension existing among civic actors, these participants advocated tak-ing the middle ground of bargaining and negotiating. In his quotation above,Michael admitted that “nobody is usually ever happy” when it comes to diffi-cult agreements. Olivia agreed, claiming that “with so many different views andopinions being shoved together, it’s definitely give and take. No one is goingto win all the time; no one is going to be right all the time.” For these partici-pants, managing these conflicts became an essential skill. Cameron explained,“Obviously conflicts arise . . . but being able to come up with resolutions tothat, to your problems, to disagreements, regardless of how it is done, even ifyou bargain, maybe lose a little bit on your side” will be a benefit and will endthe conflict.

Being successful in the negotiation and bargaining process, according toparticipants, required a certain awareness of the issues and perspectives ofall parties involved. For example, Boa stated that bargaining and negotiation“forces you to be aware of both sides, not just your own opinion,” which“could open your eyes and even change your opinion.” Mary stated that “if youeach give and take, then you have a collective outlook” about the viewpointsinvolved in the conflict. Cameron referred to these skills of bargaining andnegotiation as “conflict-resolution” skills. Although Victoria selected activismas the most important skill, her comments reiterated the concept of being awareof different perspectives. She said, “I think of awareness again, just putting itout there . . . these are tools I can give my students to help them formulatetheir own opinions or at least the resources.” Victoria chose activism becauseshe felt that activism helped citizens create their own opinions, claiming that“If you don’t have activism, then you can’t really form an opinion on how tobest solve a problem.” Victoria’s reasoning for activism aligned more closelywith her view that the citizen should be aware of different stances on an issuerather than on an interest in activism for social change.

Participants supporting an awareness-based definition of citizenship con-nected being informed and aware of the issues and various perspectives asimportant when engaging in dialogue involving negotiation or bargaining. As aresult, participants proposed a series of classroom activities geared toward cre-ating more informed and aware citizens. Activities in the elementary classroomincluded having students make connections between social studies contentand everyday life. Kathleen said, “Talking about current events, history, whathappened today in history . . . they [students] might not be aware that we’relearning social studies.” For Kathleen, negotiation and bargaining is something

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:58

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

What Makes a Citizen? 235

“you are going to be able to teach maybe not through a formal lesson” butthrough these connections. Likewise, Olivia spoke of teaching negotiation andbargaining “even in small scale situations . . . daily tasks, that always some-thing kids can learn, and you can draw parallels between that and how weuse that [negotiation/bargaining] in a bigger scale.” Mary and Cameron spokeof having students learn about current events and becoming better informed.Cameron, for example, indicated that she would “just get them differentresources to look at whether it be magazines, news articles” as a way to helpthem see various sides of an issue. Mary also wanted to incorporate “open dis-cussion about maybe something that’s not straightforward, something that willhave children with different opinions and then explaining [their views] to eachother.”

Secondary citizenship activities mirrored much of the comments of theelementary participants. Victoria would have students “take an issue that’simportant . . . and then break it down . . . maybe bring that debate into theclassroom.” Michael would highlight key points in history, as during the con-stitutional convention, when compromises, negotiation, and bargaining wereessential. Michael would stress “how big things happen when you can giveand take a little.” Finally, Boa would introduce current events in the classroomand foster “intellectual conversations about things, perhaps starting off [with]something simple, but being able to make connections with history, currentevents in their own lives, so that it makes some sort of sense.” Through theseintellectual conversations, Boa hoped her students would become more awareof diverse perspectives.

Significantly, most of these participants rated the skills ofnegotiation/bargaining above activism. Engaging in the process of nego-tiation and bargaining accepts the structures and processes of the communityas the status quo. Thus, these participants stand somewhere in the middle onthe continuum between critical and non-critical forms of citizenship. Theyimagine the democratic sphere as a give-and-take world, one in which citizens,empowered by knowledge and awareness, vie with others to achieve theirpersonal goals. Unlike those holding a conservative-values-based view ofcitizenship, these participants see civic actors as change agents but with morelimited goals and intentions. The idea of having a “collective outlook” so as toengage others in conflict resolution does not necessarily equate to the conceptof a “common good.” What defines the “good” for these civic actors may bebased more on how much of a stake they have with the issue or conflict at hand.

DISCUSSION

While the research literature documents a shallow and limited under-standing about citizenship and democracy held by preservice teachers anda dominant preference for traditional and personally responsible forms of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:58

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

236 Castro

citizenship, findings from this study suggest that the roots of citizenship beliefsand conceptions of civic practice lie within each participant’s civic worldview.The idea that prior beliefs inform one’s vision for teaching has been well estab-lished in the teacher education research literature (Raths, 2001; Richardson,1996). However, uncovering the nature of these civic worldviews for preserviceteachers has yet to be a major focus for social studies researchers.

In their varied responses, participants revealed pieces of how they imag-ined the public sphere to be. First, those holding a strong conservative-values-based definition of citizenship placed the community in high regard. Theirattachment to the ideals of harmony, unity, and peace exhibited an idealisticunderstanding and hope for democracy. These notions align with non-criticaland unity-driven citizenship (see Figure 1). Their civic practices attempted tomodel values associated with this belief. Significantly, participants’ choice ofdeliberation as the most important skill indicated that as participants read thedefinition provided, they were drawn to parts of the definition that aligned withtheir idealistic vision of the public sphere, seeing deliberation as a process thatcreates community and missing its potential as a tool for transforming soci-ety. Apple (2008) warned of the “dangers of romanticizing the public sphere”(p. 106) and elevating the ideal situation as a goal to pursue over attackingthe barriers to achieve this ideal and utilizing deliberation as a means of socialjustice. Responses from these participants illustrate Apple’s concern.

Compared to critical and multicultural approaches to citizenship,conservative-values-based orientations ignore present inequities in democraticlife and elevate obedience and allegiance to political and community structuresas the core of ideal citizenship. Rebecca’s comparison of suicide bombers “whoare strapping their bombs onto themselves just to be loyal to their country” withthe average American citizen offers an extreme example. Here, she admonishedAmericans for lacking loyalty to their country, without considering the ethicalnature of these actions and whether or not nations themselves are justified.In contrast, critical and multicultural citizens question the role of governmentand its policies and challenge ways in which political and economic institutionsperpetuate injustice and inequity, which inhibit democratic life. The outcomeof critical and multicultural citizenship is not in obedience or blind patriotismbut in a thoughtful, critically aware, and activist-oriented citizenry devoted tothe realization of a just democracy for all its citizens.

Second, positioned at the crossroads between critical and non-critical anddiversity-driven and unity-driven citizenship, participants adopting awareness-based definitions saw the public sphere with perhaps a more realistic lens, not-ing conflict and tension. These participants’ coupling of knowledge/awarenessand action almost resembled the critical theory concepts of critical conscious-ness and praxis—the combining of political action with critical awareness(Freire, 1999). However, a closer analysis reveals major differences betweenparticipants’ beliefs and those espoused by critical theorists. First, while par-ticipants viewed the citizen as an agent of change, they missed two important

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:58

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

What Makes a Citizen? 237

aspects of critical and multicultural citizenship. Their statements failed toquestion the very institutions within the community and how such institu-tions perpetuate inequities that limit the realization of democracy. Furthermore,these participants connected the actions of citizens to achieving more personalgoals rather than the aims of social justice. Although some participants madereference to citizens working for the betterment of the community, throughrecycling programs and the like, such activities often fulfilled the citizen’spersonal goals.

Awareness-based views of citizenship also stood in the middle of thecontinuum between diversity-driven and unity-driven citizenship. Participantsacknowledged a diversity of ideas throughout their responses regarding howthey view citizenship. Phrases such as “many different views,” “aware of bothsides,” and “collective outlook” all point to the conception that the publicsphere consists of a diversity of individuals with different ideas. Few par-ticipants mentioned diversity issues when discussing citizenship education.Cameron stated that citizens should “learn to interact with multiple cultures,”indicating that this would enable the citizen to be “able to come up with res-olutions to your problems, to disagreements.” Michael spoke directly to the“disparity between races and classes” and how marginalized citizens “maynot feel as loyal or dedicated to the country because they are getting the rawend of the deal.” However, Michael made no additional statements connect-ing citizenship and race. Finally, Mary made a reference to hearing abouthow some elementary schools were raising money for Haitian victims of anearthquake. She applauded the activity, saying “Haiti isn’t really personallyaffecting us, but if we give back, they could give back to us . . . it’s sendinga good message to children.” This comment reflects a “give-and-take” visionof the public sphere. Here the citizen contributes to the cause in order to reapsome personal gain.

Awareness-based definitions of citizenship pale in comparison to criticaland multicultural citizenship with respect to issues of social justice and diver-sity. As mentioned, the critical and multicultural citizen places diversity as acore component of citizenship education and seeks to end the marginaliza-tion and disenfranchisement of all individuals from civic participation. Thatthese participants positioned negotiation/bargaining above activism highlightsa major difference in the ways that participants understand structural andinstitutional racism and inequity. Hence, although many of the skills thatthese participants sought to incorporate into their teaching (multiple perspec-tives, debating skills, critical thinking, etc.) could also support critical andmulticultural citizenship, without the multicultural competence—that “desireand ability to investigate diverse, problematic, and controversial issues inpursuit of more inclusive, just, and equitable society” (Miller-Lane et al.,2007, p. 563)—these teaching practices would do little to facilitate a criticalexamination of democracy or the social action necessary to create more justsocieties.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:58

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

238 Castro

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR TEACHER EDUCATION?EXPANDING CIVIC WORLDVIEWS

The findings of this study suggest that teacher educators must broadenthe civic worldviews of future teachers in order to encourage more criticaland multicultural views of citizenship. The challenge of expanding preserviceteachers’ worldviews is documented across a variety of research literaturein teacher education, multicultural education, global education, and socialstudies (Banks, 2008; Castro, 2010b; Castro, Field, Bauml & Morowski,2012; Hollins & Guzman, 2005; Lowenstein, 2009; Wade, 2003; Zong,2009). Ukpokodu (2010) proposed that teacher education seek to be trans-formative, which she defined as “when it challenges learners to questionworld realities, their own experiences, beliefs, and values, and helps themrethink the ways that they have come to see the world” (p. 129). To betransformative, teacher education ought to foster critical thinking that accom-plishes three main tasks. First, it must challenge learners to reconstruct whatthey know about the world. Second, it must help the individual adopt anew perspective consciousness, awareness, or frame of reference. Finally, itmust lead the person to adopt a sense of social responsibility by engen-dering new actions in the world based on this new perspective (Ukpokodu,2010). To expand the civic worldviews of social studies preservice teach-ers, teacher educators ought to facilitate critical dialogue and reflection onthe civic sphere and on the gaps and challenges of democracy. Essentially,educators must promote civic competence for critical and multiculturalcitizenship.

Miller-Lane and colleagues (2007) indicated that civic competence canbe “fostered through critical, inquiry-based, and collaborative study of thedynamic interplay between historical and contemporary conditions—whetherlocal, national, or global—and by applying what is learned through authentic,self-motivated, and social justice-oriented acts” (p. 563). At the heart of thisinstruction, critical conversation should lead future teachers to question thevery nature of citizenship, uncover how marginalization impairs democraticrealities, and finally, consider which kinds of social action may lead to greaterjustice. Fearing that “activism in teacher education—and by extension in P–12 schooling—has atrophied” (p. 476), Heybach and Sheffield (2011) urgedteacher educators to guide preservice teachers through “difficult knowledge,”or knowledge about issues of inequity, racism, and global injustice. “Thisengagement with difficult knowledge,” Heybach and Sheffield claimed, “canonly succeed if we first engage future educators in such difficult knowledgeexperiences such that they both see its value and are then encouraged to utilizeit in their future classrooms” (p. 486). As part of communicating the value ofsuch knowledge, preservice teachers must respond emotionally when becom-ing aware of unexpected and harsh realities. Deliberation, the kind advocatedby Santora (2011) and Apple (2008), which places injustice and inequity as thecentral focus, the common problem to be resolved, can provide a democratic

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:58

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

What Makes a Citizen? 239

space within the teacher education classroom for future teachers to grapplewith such issues.

However, the research literature illustrates frequent resistance ofpreservice teachers to consider potentially transformative learning experiences,which can be disruptive to their current worldview (Hill-Jackson, Sewell, &Waters, 2007; Rodriguez, 1998; Sevier, 2005; Wade & Raba, 2003). Conklin(2008) noted, “this resistance among prospective teachers—which may surfacein many forms—can, in turn, lead to anger among teacher educators” (p. 657).She encouraged teacher educators to be compassionate and caring. Lowenstein(2009), likewise, asserted that teacher educators should see preservice teachersas learners. Educators must model the democratic practices, the compassionfor communities, the concern of democratic equity and justice in their teachingand professional commitments. As a result, teaching beginning teachers aboutdemocracy ought to be democratic. The space created in the teacher educa-tion classroom must be safe to allow teacher candidates the ability to take riskswith their ideas, bound by mutual respect among all parties, and committed todeeper personal reflection about the self and society—a necessary componentfor diversity-oriented teacher education (Castro, 2010b).

How beginning teachers envision the civic sphere, their notions of citi-zenship and civic practices, and how they come to adopt more sophisticatedunderstanding of democratic teaching will continue to be important questionsfor additional research. As social studies researchers, we must come to under-stand more of the nuances of how these civic worldviews are shaped throughvarious experiences and whether or not (and how) teacher education instructioncan provide opportunities for teachers to reshape and re-envision democraticspaces and civic practices for the community and for the classroom. While theresearch literature addresses preservice teachers who hold more conservative-values-based definitions and, perhaps, more naïve conceptions of the publicsphere, few studies have attended to those who hold more critical notions ofcitizenship but who have not taken on more critical and multicultural under-standings of democratic life. As teacher educators, let us also continue ourself-exploration and self-study of how we teach and model the values of socialjustice in our own teacher education classrooms.

NOTE

I would like to acknowledge Ron Evans and Hilary Conklin for feedbackon an early draft of this manuscript. In addition, I would like to thank RebeccaC. Aguayo, Gregory Soden, and members of my writing group for their helpfulcomments and support. Finally, this research was conducted with the help ofgraduate research assistants Paul Knell and Emily Mark. Drafts of this articlewere presented at the American Educational Research Association Conferenceand the College and University Faculty Assembly of the National Council forSocial Studies.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:58

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

240 Castro

REFERENCES

Anderson, C., Avery, P. G., Pederson, P. V., Smith, E. S., & Sullivan, J.L. (1997). Divergent perspectives on citizenship education: A Q-methodstudy and survey of social studies teachers. American Educational ResearchJournal, 32, 333–364. doi:10.2307/1163361

Apple, M. W. (2008). Is deliberative democracy enough in teacher educa-tion? In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, & D. J. McIntyre (Eds.),Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changingcontexts (3rd ed., pp. 105–110). New York, NY: Routledge.

Avery, P. G., & Walker, C. (1993). Prospective teachers’ perceptions of eth-nic and gender differences in academic achievement. Journal of TeacherEducation, 44, 27–37. doi:10.1177/0022487193044001005

Banks, J. A. (2004). Teaching for social justice, diversity, and cit-izenship in a global world. The Educational Forum, 68, 296–305.doi:10.1080/00131720408984645

Banks, J. A. (2008). Diversity and citizenship education in global times. InJ. Arthur, I. Davies, & C. Hahn (Eds.), Sage handbook of education forcitizenship and democracy (pp. 80–91). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Barchuk, Z., & Harkins, M. J. (2010). Why teach globalization? Pre-serviceteachers’ perceptions of the benefits and challenges of teaching globalizationissues. Social Studies Research and Practice, 5, 13–23.

Barr, R., Barth, J. L., & Shermis, S. S. (1978). The nature of the social studies.Palm Springs, CA: ETC Publication.

Barton, K. C., & Levstik, L. S. (2004). Teaching history for the common good.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Boeiji, H. (2002). A purposeful approach to constant comparative methods inanalysis of qualitative interviews. Quality and Quantity, 36, 391–409.

Branch, A. J. (2004). Modeling respect by teaching about race and ethnicidentity in the social studies. Theory & Research in Social Education, 32,523–545. doi:10.1080/00933104.2004.10473268

Castro, A. J. (2010a). Challenges in teaching for critical multicultural citizen-ship: Student teaching in an accountability driven context. Action in TeacherEducation, 32, 97–109. doi:10.1080/01626620.2010.10463553

Castro, A. J. (2010b). Themes in the research on preservice teachers’ viewsof cultural diversity: Implications for researching millennial preserviceteachers. Educational Researcher, 39, 198–210. doi:10.3102/0013189X10363819

Castro, A. J., Field, S. L., Bauml, M., & Morowski, D. (2012). “I wanta multicultural classroom”: Preparing social studies teachers for cultur-ally diverse classrooms. The Social Studies, 103, 97–106. doi:10.1080/

00377996.2011.575419Conklin, H. G. (2008). Modeling compassion in critical, justice-oriented

teacher education. Harvard Educational Review, 78, 652–673.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:58

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

What Makes a Citizen? 241

Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom.New York, NY: New York Press.

Dewey, J. (2007). Democracy and education. Teddington, England: EchoLibrary. (Original work published 1916)

Dilworth, P. P. (2004). Multicultural citizenship education: Case studies fromsocial studies classrooms. Theory & Research in Social Education, 32,153–186. doi:10.1080/00933104.2004.10473251

Dilworth, P. P. (2008). Multicultural citizenship education. In J. Arthur, I.Davies, & C. Hahn (Eds.), The Sage handbook of education for citizenshipand democracy. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Fickel, L. H. (2000). Democracy is messy: Exploring the personal theories of ahigh school social studies teacher. Theory & Research in Social Education,28, 359–390. doi:10.1080/00933104.2000.10505913

Freire, P. (1999). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.Gallavan, N. P. (2008). Examining teacher candidates’ views on teaching world

citizenship. The Social Studies, 99, 249–254. doi:10.3200/TSSS.99.6.249-254

Gay, G. (1995). Mirror images on common issues: Parallels betweenmulticultural education and critical pedagogy. In C. E. Sleeter & P. McLaren(Eds.), Multicultural education, critical pedagogy, and the politics of differ-ence (pp. 155–189). New York: State University of New York.

Gay, G. (1997). The relationship between multicultural and democratic educa-tion. The Social Studies, 88(1), 5–11. doi:10.1080/00377999709603738

Heybach, J. A., & Sheffield, E. C. (2011). (Re)imaging activism: Educatingteachers for change. In J. L. DeVitis (Ed.), Critical civic literacy: A reader(pp. 475–487). New York, NY: Lang.

Hill-Jackson, V., Sewell, K. L., & Waters, C. (2007). Having our sayabout multicultural education. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 43, 174–181.doi:10.1080/00228958.2007.10516477

Hollins, E., & Guzman, M. T. (2005). Research on preparing teachers fordiverse populations. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studyingteacher education: The report of the AERA Panel on Research and TeacherEducation (pp. 477–548). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kahne, J., Rodriguez, M., Smith, B., & Thiede, K. (2000). Developing citi-zens for democracy? Assessing opportunities to learn in Chicago’s socialstudies classrooms. Theory & Research in Social Education, 28, 311–338.doi:10.1080/00933104.2000.10505911

Kickbusch, K. W. (1987). Civic education and preservice educators: Extendingthe boundaries of discourse. Theory & Research in Social Education, 15,173–188. doi:10.1080/00933104.1987.10505544

Knight-Abowitz, K., & Harnish, J. (2006). Contemporary discourseson citizenship. Review of Educational Research, 76, 653–690.doi:10.3102/00346543076004653

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:58

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

242 Castro

Levinson, M. (2012). No citizen left behind. Boston, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Lowenstein, K. L. (2009). The work of multicultural teacher educa-tion: Reconceptualizing White teacher candidates as learners. Review ofEducational Research, 79, 163–196. doi:10.3102/0034654308326161

Marri, A. R. (2003). Multicultural democracy: Toward a better democracy.Intercultural Education, 14, 263–277. doi:10.1080/1467598032000117060

Marri, A. R. (2005). Building a framework for classroom-based multiculturaldemocratic education: Learning from three skilled teachers. TeachersCollege Record, 107, 1036–1059. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2005.00503.x

Martin, L. A. (2008). Elementary and secondary teacher education students’perspectives on citizenship. Action in Teacher Education, 30(3), 54–63.doi:10.1080/01626620.2008.10463502

Martin, L. A. (2010). A comparative analysis of teacher education students’views about citizenship education. Action in Teacher Education, 32(2),56–69. doi:10.1080/01626620.2010.10463550

Mathews, S. A., & Dilworth, P. P. (2008). Case studies of preserviceteachers’ ideas about the role of multicultural citizenship education insocial studies. Theory & Research in Social Education, 36, 356–390.doi:10.1080/00933104.2008.10473380

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: Anexpanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Miller-Lane, J., Howard, T. C., & Halagao, P. E. (2007). Civicmulticultural competence: Searching for common ground in demo-cratic education. Theory & Research in Social Education, 35, 551–573.doi:10.1080/00933104.2007.10473350

Parker, W. C. (2003). Teaching democracy: Unity and diversity in public life.New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Patterson, N., Doppen, F., & Misco, T. (2012). Beyond personally respon-sible: A study of teacher conceptions of citizenship education. Education,Citizenship and Social Justice, 7, 191–206.

Pidgeon, N., & Henwood, K. (2004). Grounded theory. In M. A. Hardy & A.Bryman (Eds.), Handbook of data analysis (pp. 625–648). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Raths, J. (2001). Teacher beliefs and teaching beliefs. Early ChildhoodResearch and Practice, 3, 385–393.

Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach.In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed.,pp. 102–119). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Robertson, E. (2008). Teacher education in a democratic society: Learning andteaching the practices of democratic participation. In M. Cochran-Smith, S.Feiman-Nemser, & D. J. McIntyre (Eds.), Handbook of research on teachereducation: Enduring questions in changing contexts (3rd ed., pp. 27–44).New York, NY: Routledge.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:58

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

What Makes a Citizen? 243

Rodriguez, A. J. (1998). Strategies for counterresistance: Toward sociotans-formative constructivism and learning to teach science for diversity andfor understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 589–622.doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199808)35:6<589::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-I

Ross, E. W. (2000). Redrawing the lines: The case against traditional socialstudies instruction. In D. Hursch & E. W. Ross (Eds.), Democratic socialeducation: Social studies for social change (pp. 43–63). New York, NY:Falmer.

Rubin, B. C., & Justice, B. (2005). Preparing social studies teachers to be justand democratic: Problems and possibilities. In N. M. Michelli & D. L. Keiser(Eds.), Teacher education for democracy and social justice (pp. 79–103).New York, NY: Routledge.

Salinas, C., & Castro, A. J. (2010). Disrupting the official curricu-lum: Cultural biography and the curriculum decision making of Latinopreservice teachers. Theory & Research in Social Education, 38, 428–463.doi:10.1080/00933104.2010.10473433

Santora, E. D. (2011). 21st century democratic social and citizenship educa-tion: A hybrid perspective. In W. B. Russell (Ed.), Contemporary socialstudies: An essential reader (pp. 7–31). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Sevier, B. (2005). “What does this have to do with us?”: Pursuing transfor-mative possibilities and cultural relevancy in a social foundations teachereducation course. Theory & Research in Social Education, 33, 347–375.doi:10.1080/00933104.2005.10473286

Sleeter, C. E. (2008). Teaching for democracy in an age of corporatocracy.Teachers College Record, 110, 139–159.

Sunal, C. S., Kelley, L. A., & Sunal, D. W. (2009). Citizenship education inthe elementary classroom: Teacher candidates photograph and describe theirperceptions. Journal of Social Studies Research, 33, 33–70.

Ukpokodu, O. N. (2010). Teacher preparation for global perspectivespedagogy. In B. Subedi (Ed.), Critical global perspectives: Rethinkingknowledge about global societies (pp. 121–142). Charlotte, NC:Information Age.

Wade, R. (2003). Teaching preservice social studies teachers to beadvocates for social change. The Social Studies, 94, 129–133.doi:10.1080/00377990309600195

Wade, R., & Raba, S. (2003). The Chicago experience: Border crossing forsocial studies preservice teachers. Theory & Research in Social Education,31, 153–173. doi:10.1080/00933104.2003.10473220

Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). What kind of citizen? The politicsof educating for democracy. American Educational Research Journal, 41,237–269. doi:10.3102/00028312041002237

Zong, G. (2009). Global perspectives in teacher education. In T. F. Kirkwood-Tucker (Ed.), Visions in global education: The globalization of curriculumand pedagogy in teacher education and schools (pp. 71–89). New York, NY:Lang.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:58

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

244 Castro

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

ANTONIO J. CASTRO is an Assistant Professor in the Department ofLearning, Teaching and Curriculum at the University of Missouri, Columbia,MO 65211. He can be contacted at castroaj@missouri.edu.

APPENDIX A

Interview Protocol

General Information about School Experience

● Please describe the high school you graduated from.

◦ Was it urban, suburban, or rural?◦ Was it public, private, or international?◦ What is your perception of the make-up of the student body (socio-

economic, racial, and cultural)?◦ Did you attend more than one high school? If so, how did these

schools compare?

● Do you see yourself teaching in a school similar to the one in which youattended? (What grade level do you see yourself teaching in?)

● Do you think the make-up of the student population in your high schoolwas similar to or different from the make-up of the student populationhere at the University? Explain.

The Social Studies and Citizenship

● What do you think is the purpose for teaching social studies in publicschools today?

◦ What experiences have helped shape your sense of social studiesteaching?

◦ As a future teacher, what do you hope your students will gain as aresult of your social studies lessons?

● What do you see as the major events occurring in your lifetime that haveimpacted your outlook on the world? How have these events influencedthe way you see the teaching of social studies?

● Many equate the teaching of social studies with creating effectivecitizens. How would you characterize an ideal citizen?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:58

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

What Makes a Citizen? 245

◦ How would you facilitate these characteristics in your classroom?

● Given the growing cultural diversity in today’s society, do you think thatthe way schools think about and teach for citizenship needs to change?

Multicultural and Global Experiences

● Tell me a little bit about your experiences with interacting with individ-uals who have different cultural or racial or economic backgrounds fromyou?

◦ What has been the nature of these experiences?◦ Positives? Negatives?◦ What have you learned from these experiences?

● What is your understanding of the term “cultural diversity”?● What experiences have you had interacting with globally diverse others

(people from other countries), such as through service projects, study-abroad programs, travel, or other social situations?

APPENDIX B

Definitional Card-Sort Activity

You will be given three cards. Each card offers a definition of one ofthree essential characteristics associated with being an effective citizen. Pleasereview these cards.

Being an effective citizen might require citizens to take on different roles.The following are different skills that are important for being an effectivecitizen. Please select one that you feel would be the most essential skill.

Deliberation—Deliberation occurs when citizens try to figure out the bestsolution to a problem in society by jointly considering the reasons for andagainst different proposed actions. The goal of deliberation is to have allmembers of the group reach consensus about which proposal for action tosupport. Deliberation is not a debate, but a collective inquiry that addressesthe various perspectives on the issue at hand and evaluates evidence to makea decision about which action to take to improve the common good.

Negotiation/Bargaining—Negotiation/bargaining represents the give-and-take approach to addressing problems or concerns. Here, not all partiesagree, but they make compromises that each other can live with in orderto reach an agreement. Each side must be willing to anticipate the goals

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:58

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

246 Castro

and biases of the opposing side in order to bargain on specific terms.Conflict-resolution strategies are used to make peaceful accommodation ofthe others’ interests, while also preserving one’s own interests.

Activism—Activism employs strategies of mobilization, protest, and disrup-tion that call attention to a particular cause or current injustice. Here, thecitizen refuses to accommodate or give up on her/his ideals. Instead, thefocus is on changing the structures and power relationships that perpetu-ate the problem or injustice. The citizen must recognize the role of biasand stereotypes, be able to organize with like-minded others, and reflect onways to change the current situation through both daily individual choicesand larger collective action.

Follow-up Questions

● Why have you chosen this skill as opposed to the other two skills?● How might this skill be useful for citizenship for your students?● How would you teach for this skill in your classroom?● What barriers might you face when trying to teach for this skill in the

classroom?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:58

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14