Stephen K. Hunt and Chad E. Woolard

21Service Learning and Innovative Pedagogies

Abstract: This chapter provides an overview of innovative pedagogies designed to enhance civic education at institutions of higher education across the world. As several scholars have noted, youth civic and political disengagement is a serious problem that should concern all of those in higher education. Although some progress has been made in addressing this problem in recent years, it is clear that much more can be done to deploy innovative educational experiences designed to enhance students’ civic skills. This chapter begins with a review of the extant literature regarding student engagement and meaningful learning. We then explore innovative civic education pedagogies including service learning, civic engagement, political engagement, democratic engagement, critical engagement, social justice, and antifoundational approaches to civic education. By examining the theoretical assumptions of each of these approaches, the chapter fills an important gap in the civic education literature. We conclude with implications for the development of civic education pedagogy.

Keywords: student engagement, civic education pedagogy, service learning, civic engagement, political engagement, democratic engagement, critical engagement, social justice, antifoundational engagement, student engagement, involvement theory

This chapter provides an overview of innovative pedagogies designed to enhance civic education at institutions of higher education. Several well-known scholars have persuasively argued that civic and political disengagement among a wide contingent of the population is a serious concern. In the United States it is clear that far too many Americans have turned their backs on politics and the public sphere (Bauerlein, 2008; Macedo, 2005). Although some aspects of participation remain robust (e.g., voter turnout in the last Presidential election), too many of our citizens, it is asserted, are ill-prepared, uninterested, or otherwise unwilling to participate in civic and political life. For example, participation in such activities as rallies, demonstrations, political campaigns, and writing letters to the editor has decreased substantially over the last 30 years (Putnam, 2000). At the same time, civic education has dwindled – the number of civics courses offered in public schools has declined by two-thirds according to some estimates (Delli Carpini & Keeter, 1996).

Beyond the United States, a commitment to educate students for citizenship and civic engagement has swept around the globe (McIlrath & MacLabhrainn, 2007). For example, Watson, Hollister, Stroud, and Babcock (2011) document the efforts of 20 institutions of higher education worldwide to engage students to tackle societal problems like poverty, public health, and environmental quality. In discussing the globalization of civic engagement in higher education, Bawa and Munk (2012) argued,

It is no longer enough to see civic engagement as something that must/ought to be done, or for that matter, as often happens, to see it as an add-on to the core functions of a higher education institution. This theorization will allow us to begin to think of civic engagement as a necessary and fundamental component of the core functions of the university. (p. xii)

The necessity of higher education to play a role in preparing students for meaningful civic participation is clearly a global concern.

Youth civic and political disengagement is an issue that should concern all of those in higher education (Beaumont, Colby, Ehrlich, & Torney-Purta, 2006; Butin, 2010; Colby, Beaumont, Ehrlich, & Corngold, 2007; Colby, Beaumont, Ehrlich, & Stephens, 2003; Hillygus, 2005; Hunt, Simonds, & Simonds, 2009; Spiezio, Baker, & Boland, 2005). This is a problem worth addressing because, as Galston (2003) argues, the withdrawal of a cohort of citizens from our political system places democracy at risk and makes it more difficult to address the most pressing problems facing communities around the globe. Although some progress has been made in addressing students’ civic skills over the last 10 years, colleges and universities can do much more to deploy innovative educational experiences that are designed to intentionally develop students’ civic skills (Beaumont et al., 2006; Colby et al., 2007). As Beaumont et al. (2006) note, higher education institutions are “well positioned to promote democratic competencies and participation” (p. 250).

Modern approaches to civic engagement have centered on the development of young people’s political development from a liberal political perspective – teaching individuals how to be good citizens in a democracy (Carr, 2008). The political and philosophical foundations of citizenship are clearly evident in the American constitution, many of the constitutions developed in Europe during the 19th century, and the constitutions of West Germany and Japan following the end of World War II. The writings of John Stuart Mill and Alexis de Tocqueville also influence our understanding of citizenship and civic education, particularly their pronouncement that “all can be active citizens if they care, but must mutually respect the equal rights of fellow citizens within a regulatory legal order that defines, protects, and limits those rights” (Crick, 2008, p. 15). Although civic education is often associated with Western notions of democracy, Palczewski, Ice, and Fritch (2012) suggest that civic education is really about facilitating “people’s participation in individual or collective action to develop solutions to social, economic, and political challenges in their communities, states, nations, and world” (p. 13).

From service learning to democratic engagement to the pedagogies of civic and political engagement, this chapter critically examines the significant approaches to educating for citizenship that have become popular in higher education over the last several years. While it is clear to most students that the skills they are learning in various courses may enhance their career aspirations, it too frequently is not immediately clear to them what their responsibilities are as engaged citizens in their communities. However, beyond equipping students for personal success, all those in higher education have an obligation to prepare them to be engaged citizens.

Understanding Pedagogies of Engagement

The pedagogies we discuss in this chapter rest on the premise that motivating students to become actively involved in their classrooms, campuses, and communities will result in meaningful learning as well as a commitment civic participation. In other words, these strategies require students to participate in their communities in order to better understand and appreciate how they might act as agents of social change. In this way, students do not simply learn about communication, or any other disciplinary content area for that matter, but they learn how to use appropriate disciplinary theory and research to improve their communities. As you will see, the assignments and activities employed with each of the pedagogical approaches vary, but they all require students to be active rather than passive participants in the learning process. A long line of research regarding student engagement indicates that deep learning is more likely in situations where students are highly involved and engaged in the learning process (Astin, 1999; Fink, 2003; Harper & Quaye, 2009; Kember & Gow, 1994). Before we turn to the specific pedagogies for educating for citizenship, it is important to better understand the research and theory related to student engagement and involvement that underpins these approaches.

Creating Significant Learning Experiences

Educators and scholars working in this area are interested in how active student engagement promotes learning. The question of how to design pedagogy for optimal learning has been a topic of discussion for many years. Although a full review of the domains of learning and instructional design is beyond the purview of this chapter, it is worth noting some of the seminal work relating to cognitive, affective, and behavioral (or psychomotor) learning. In the late 1950s, Bloom, Englehart, Furst, Hill, and Krathwohl (1956) developed a taxonomy of cognitive learning that served as the foundation for instructional design in higher education for decades. Bloom et al.’s (1956) taxonomy identifies six distinct types of cognitive learning (intellectual reasoning) arranged in hierarchical order: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Similar taxonomies were developed later exploring affective learning (how students feel about course content and the instructor; see Krathwohl, Bloom, & Masia, 1964) and behavioral learning (psychomotor and kinesthetic skill development; see Harrow, 1972). Importantly, proponents of active learning claim that instructors should blend and integrate these three domains whenever possible. For example, Barkley (2010) stated,

The learning activities that teachers design to help students progress cognitively will be most successful if students are engaged on an affective level (enjoying the tasks and giving them their full attention) and, when appropriate, a kinesthetic level (applying the theoretical and abstract by doing a physical activity). (pp. 37–38)

Building on the work of Bloom and others, Shulman (2002) created a table of learning outlining six hallmarks of student learning:

Engagement and Motivation

Knowledge and Understanding

Performance and Action

Reflection and Critique

Judgment and Design

Commitment and Identity

Shulman’s table departs significantly from the hierarchical taxonomy of learning developed by Bloom et al. (1965). For Shulman, student learning is an interdependent and cyclical process:

Learning begins with student engagement, which in turn leads to knowledge and understanding. Once someone understands, he or she becomes capable of performance or action. Critical reflection on one’s practice and understanding leads to higher order thinking in the form of a capacity to exercise judgment in the face of uncertainty and to create designs in the presence of constraints and unpredictability. Ultimately, the exercise of judgment makes possible the development of commitment. In commitment, we become capable of professing our understandings and our values, our faith and our love, our skepticism and our doubts, internalizing those attributes and making them integral to our identities. These commitments, in turn, make new engagements possible – even necessary. (p. 38)

Shulman’s table of learning was motivated in part by the work of Edgerton (1997), who produced a white paper for the Pew Charitable Trusts calling for the development of new pedagogies of engagement. Such pedagogies require students to be actively involved in doing tasks related to the discipline they are studying. As Shulman (2002) notes, student engagement “is one of the most interesting and important aspects of learning” (p. 40).

It should be evident that contemporary instructional design scholars have advanced taxonomies of learning to account for student learning outcomes that do not easily emerge from the work of Bloom and his colleagues. For example, Fink (2003) developed a taxonomy of significant learning for higher education that recognizes “learning how to learn, leadership and interpersonal skills, ethics, communication skills, character, tolerance, and the ability to adapt to change” (p. 29). As Fink (2003) explains, higher education must recognize student learning outcomes “that go well beyond the cognitive domain of Bloom’s taxonomy and even beyond cognitive learning itself. This suggests that the time may have arrived when we need a new and broader taxonomy of significant learning” (pp. 29–30). As with Shulman’s (2002) table of learning, Fink’s (2003) taxonomy of significant learning is dynamic, interactive, and relational. This interaction is important to Fink (2003) because it means that “the various types of learning are synergistic. And this in turn means that teaching is no long a zero-sum game. That is, teachers don’t automatically have to give up one kind of learning to achieve another” (p. 32). The frameworks for learning discussed in this section have fueled new lines of research on student engagement in many disciplines.

Research on Student Engagement

Given the relationships among participation, motivation, and learning, investigating innovative ways to engage students both inside and outside of the classroom is an important topic for instructional communication and communication pedagogy scholars (Christophel, 1990; Fassinger, 2000; Howard, Short, & Clark, 1996; Rattenborg, Simonds, & Hunt, 2005). Indeed, many educational researchers have devoted significant attention to understanding the most important predictors of student success in higher education. For example, scholars have developed lines of programmatic research in this area, exploring the relationships between variables such as student effort, active learning strategies, grades, and persistence (Braxton, Milem, & Sullivan, 2000; Kuh, Cruce, Shoup, & Kinzie, 2008). According to Pascarella (2001), “An excellent undergraduate education is most likely to occur at those colleges and universities that maximize good practices and enhance students’ academic and social engagement” (p. 22).

As Harper and Quaye (2009) note, student engagement is “characterized as participation in educationally effective practices, both inside and outside the classroom, which leads to a range of measurable outcomes” (pp. 2–3). According this approach, passive pedagogies, including lecturing, are far less effective at promoting student learning outcomes compared to active learning pedagogies designed to meaningfully engage students (Kuh, Hu, & Vesper, 2000). Barkley (2010) further distinguishes between active and passive teaching approaches in the following terms:

Active learning means students are building their own minds through an active, involved process in which they make an idea, a concept, or a problem solution their own by assimilating it into their own understandings. In the traditional model, teachers stand at the front of the room and teach by “telling” students what they have learned with the expectation that they will transfer this knowledge into students’ heads efficiently and accurately. In the active learning model, teachers create conditions in which students do the work, actively making connections and organizing learning into meaningful concepts. The advantages of cooperative and collaborative learning for actively engaging students are clear when compared with more traditional methods – such as lecture and large-group discussions – in which only a few students typically can, or do, participate. (pp. 25–26)

Importantly, effective engagement requires significant work on the part of students as well as an institutional commitment to provide the resources to facilitate active learning. Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, and Hayek (2007) further clarify the student engagement construct:

Student engagement represents two critical features. The first is the amount of time and effort students put into their studies and other educationally purposeful activities. The second component of student engagement is how the institution deploys its resources and organizes the curriculum, other learning opportunities, and support services to induce students to participate in activities that lead to the experiences and desired outcomes such as persistence, satisfaction, learning, and graduation. (p. 44)

Extant research in this area demonstrates that purposeful engagement is associated with numerous positive student outcomes including critical thinking development (Anaya, 1996; Kuh et al., 2000), moral development (Rest, 1993), college adjustment (Kuh, Palmer, & Kish, 2003), higher grades (Astin, 1993; Tross, Harper, Osher & Kneidinger, 2000), positive self-image (Harper & Quaye, 2007), and persistence rates (Astin, 1985; Kuh et al., 2008). In the next section we explore notable constructs, principles, and theories that have been developed to explain the relationship between active participation and student learning.

Interaction Involvement

Initially, communication scholars have examined engagement and involvement as an indicator of communication competence. Cegala (1981) defines interaction involvement as the “extent to which an individual partakes in a social environment” (p. 112). The tenets of interaction involvement are consistent with student engagement research in that active participation is viewed as a prerequisite for positive outcomes in communication interactions. As Cegala (1981) explains, individuals who are highly involved in interactions “relate inner feelings, thoughts, and experiences with objects and circumstances of the immediate social environment” (p. 113). On the other hand, those who are less involved “direct their conscious attention primarily to the world of inner, private experience and, as a consequence, participate less completely with the happenings of the immediate social environment” (Cegala, 1981, p. 113). The implications of interaction involvement for the classroom are significant. Classroom strategies requiring active student participation are likely to stimulate higher levels of attention to important course concepts and positively influence student motivation, affect for the material, and cognitive learning (Barkley, 2010).

Involvement Theory

In a line of research closely related to student engagement, scholars have examined student involvement. According to Astin (1984, 1999), involvement is a complex concept that includes the “amount of physical and psychological energy that the student devotes to the academic experience” (p. 518). Astin outlines the following five postulates of involvement theory:

Involvement theory clearly rejects many assumptions of older process-product lines of research that positioned students as passive receivers of information. For Astin, involvement mediates the relationship between the educational practices students are exposed to and their development.

Involvement theory predicts that highly involved students (e.g., those who spend time and energy studying, participate actively in class and in student organizations, and communicate frequently with faculty and other students) should significantly outperform under-involved students (e.g., those who neglect studying, spend little time on campus, and communicate infrequently with faculty and other students) on a variety of cognitive, affective, and behavioral outcome measures. Indeed, research in this area demonstrates that involvement is positively associated with student learning, critical thinking development, satisfaction, and persistence (Astin, 1993; Berger & Milem, 1999; Gellin, 2003; Kuh et al., 2008; Tinto, 1993).

Involvement theory provides several practical applications for educators. For Astin (1984, 1999), the theory offers a better approach to teaching and learning than pedagogical content knowledge approaches because it “encourages educators to focus less on what they do and more on what the student does: how motivated the student is and how much time and energy the student devotes to the learning process” (p. 522). Rather than viewing students as passive receivers of knowledge, involvement theory views students as active agents in the learning process.

Seven Principles of Good Practice in Undergraduate Education

Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education extend Astin’s (1984/1999) work on student involvement. According to Chickering and Gamson, effective undergraduate education:

Chickering and Gamson claim that these seven principles can be used by students and faculty to improve undergraduate education by taking advantage of six important “forces” in higher education including activity, cooperation, diversity, expectations, interaction, and responsibility. These principles clearly overlap with involvement theory, as students must be actively engaged participants in the learning process, and the amount of time and energy they invest predicts learning outcomes. In short, “learning is not a spectator sport” (Chickering & Gamson, 1987, p. 5).

This approach also privileges the role of communication in learning. Chickering and Gamson (1987) state that students “do not learn much just by sitting in classes listening to teachers, memorizing pre-packaged assignments, and spitting out answers. They must talk about what they are learning, write about it, relate it to past experiences, apply it to their daily lives” (p. 5). Students who actively participate in discussions about course content build critical thinking skills by working with new knowledge and relating it to previous experiences. Communication allows students to question, examine, and create meaning through immediate interaction with others. O’Keefe (1986) contends that “oral communication improves not only students’ facility with language but their facility in maneuvering ideas as well. Speech allows ideas to be picked up and examined, set on shelves in categories, and eventually added to other categories, ideas, or words” (p. 6). As we will demonstrate later, communication also plays a vital role in achieving the student learning outcomes targeted by the pedagogies of civic education. With an understanding of the theories, principles, and research that inform pedagogies of engagement, we now explore innovative approaches for educating citizens.

Educating Citizens

Before discussing specific civic education pedagogies, it is important to note that they all share the objective of preparing students for meaningful participation in their communities as engaged citizens. Indeed, a growing number of campuses across the United States are implementing community- and service-based learning objectives into the curriculum and co-curriculum (Butin, 2010; Musil, 2015; Salt-marsh, 2005; Smith, Nowacek, & Bernstein, 2010; Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). Beyond the United States, McIlrath and MacLabhrainn (2007) observe that for most national and private institutions of higher education around the world the “notion of the university fulfilling some, often identified, civic purpose is long established” (p. xxiv). Scholars have identified these types of educational initiatives and innovative pedagogies as critical in the development of responsible and participatory citizens (Jacoby, 2009). However, one of the most significant challenges to these efforts is defining citizenship. Indeed, proponents of civic education have observed that no consensus exists among scholars regarding the definitions for concepts like citizenship, civic engagement, and service learning (Jacoby, 2009). Most dictionary definitions of citizenship address issues including the legal status of residents within a country, social conduct, patriotism, nationalism, and community membership. To make matters more complicated, confusion about the definition of citizenship is not limited to the scholarly community. For example, in a series of focus groups with American high school students, Kahne, Middaugh, and Chi (2003) found that students’ definitions of citizenship vary widely from strict rule following to those who actively stand up for what they believe. Such discrepancies can make it difficult to find common ground for a productive discussion about citizenship.

Westheimer and Kahne (2004) shed light on this conversation by outlining three types of citizenship: personally responsible, participatory, and justice-oriented. The personally responsible citizen is honest and law-abiding. This type of citizen does what is expected of them and responds to community issues that require action. The participatory citizen assumes leadership roles in the community. This type of citizen delegates responses to community issues and actively participates in government and community organizations. Finally, the justice-oriented citizen questions and challenges existing rules and regulations when they do not produce results. Justice-oriented citizens investigate root causes to community issues and focus on changing government and community organizations that are not effective. Table 1, based on the research of Westheimer and Kahne (2004), outlines the three types of citizens.

Table 1: Three Types of Citizens

Personally Responsible	Participatory	Justice-Oriented
Law-abiding	Active in community organizations	Challenges the status quo
Works and pays taxes	Knows how government works	Seeks out and addresses injustice
Volunteers	Knows strategies for getting things done	Knows how to use social movements to accomplish goals

Innovative Civic Education Pedagogies

As previously noted, there is a growing global trend of educating students for citizenship. In fact, innovative civic education programs can be found around the world in countries like Brazil (Schugurensky & Madjid, 2008), Canada (Hughes & Sears, 2008), China (Lee & Chi-hang, 2008), Czech Republic (Klicperová-Baker, 2008), Isreal (Ichilov, 2008), Pakistan (Dean, 2008), Palestine (Moughrabi, 2008), and the United Kingdom (Kerr, Smith, & Twine, 2008). However, Colby et al. (2007) note that in the last 40 years, several higher education institutions, especially in the United States, have lost sight of civic education and turned their attention in the direction of preparing students for their chosen careers. More recently, numerous scholars, institutions, and organizations have sought to reclaim the civic mission for higher education launching initiatives such as the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) and the American Democracy Project (ADP). The ADP launched in 2003 with the goal of educating college students for responsible citizenship. Initiatives like the ADP and others have spawned a civic education renewal resulting in a plethora of new, innovative pedagogies (Jacoby, 2009). As previously noted, civic education initiatives are not limited to the United States.

Although this civic renewal has resulted in campuses across the globe integrating purposeful civic education into their curriculum, mission statements, and tenure and promotion documents, it remains a contested area (Woolard, 2015). Specifically, scholars have struggled immensely with how to name and describe civic education pedagogy. In fact, a number of labels have been used to describe this work including service learning, civic engagement, political engagement, and social justice, to name just a few. Jacoby (2009) uses the term civic engagement when discussing scholarship in this area but acknowledges that “there is widespread recognition that defining civic engagement presents formidable challenges. In fact, there are probably as many definitions of civic engagement as there are scholars and practitioners who are concerned with it” (p. 5). The confusion about how to define and operationalize civic education is problematic on several levels. As Salt-marsh (2005) explains, “The lack of clarity fuels a latent confusion about how to operationalize a civic engagement agenda on campus. In particular, with the ascendancy of civic engagement, there has been a diminished focus on the relationship between civic engagement and improved student civic learning” (p. 52).

In an effort to categorize innovative civic education pedagogies, Woolard (2015) employed framing theory to explore the discourse of key proponents in multiple “camps” of civic education. The underlying ideological and philosophical assumptions of civic education stem from John Dewey’s writings on experience, democracy, and education, which Woolard (2015) describes as pragmatic liberalism. Although there is ideological constancy in civic education, there are fundamental differences between civic education perspectives. Specifically, Woolard identified the following seven signature frames for civic education: service learning, civic engagement, political engagement, democratic engagement, critical engagement, social justice, and an antifoundational engagement frame. An overview of these pedagogies can be found in Table 2.

Table 2: Civic Education Pedagogies

Pedagogy	Description	For More Information
Service Learning	A pedagogy that merges tradi- tional learning experiences with outside service projects designed to create civic connections between youth and their communities.	Butin, 2010; Furco, 2003; Jacoby, 1996
Civic Engagement	Multiple pedagogies designed to promote young people’s civic skills and responsibility.	Colby et al., 2007; Jacoby, 2009
Political Engagement	Multiple pedagogies designed to promote young people’s political development and participation in electoral politics.	Colby et al., 2007; Goldfinger & Presley, 2010
Democratic Engagement	Shares multiple pedagogies with civic engagement, but designed to create more reciprocal rela- tionships between institutions and community members.	Saltmarsh & Hartley, 2011b; Saltmarsh, Hartley, & Clayton, 2009
Critical Engagement	A philosophy of education that is designed to civically empower individuals and resist neoliberal notions of citizenship.	Giroux & Giroux, 2004; Green, 1985
Social Justice	A pedagogy designed to address social and economic inequality.	Bell, 1997; Westheimer & Kahne, 2004
Antifoundational Engagement	A pedagogy designed to foster young people’s critical thinking and knowledge, but not their moral and civic development.	Fish, 2003, 2008

Service learning

Service learning refers to the merging of traditional classroom experiences with community service projects. This is not to be confused with strict volunteerism or community service, which may not advance a specific learning outcome or relate to a specific course. Service learning is a “form of experiential education in which students engage in activities that address human and community needs together with structured opportunities intentionally designed to promote student learning and development” (Jacoby, 1996, p. 5). Woolard (2015) further notes that service learning is a difficult concept “to narrow to a single definition because it is a combination of program type, pedagogical approach, and idiosyncratic sites of learning” (p. 19). Furco (2003) argues that one of the greatest challenges associated with service learning is the lack of a universal understanding of the concept. Gilbert, Johnson, and Plaut (2009) acknowledge that in recent years scholars and teachers have approached service learning as a “field, a pedagogical method, and a movement. These conceptual models suggest somewhat different priorities for scholars, practitioners, and advocates of service-learning” (p. 34). As a philosophy of education, “service-learning is thus a philosophy of reciprocal learning, a dynamic and interactive approach which suggests mutuality in learning between the student and the community with whom he or she is actively engaged” (Kendall, 1990, p. 21).

Service learning may or may not relate directly to civic education. Butin (2010) suggests that there are four perspectives of service learning: technical, cultural, political, and antifoundational. The technical perspective on service learning focuses on learning outcomes, program structure, and program administration. Technical perspectives are apolitical and do not inherently connect to civic education. The cultural perspective assumes that service learning is a vehicle to civic renewal through building connections between students and local communities. The political perspective views service learning as a method to achieve social justice by addressing power (im)balances and silenced perspectives in society. Finally, the anti-foundational perspective views service learning as “a way to disrupt students’ cultural preconceptions and binaries, rather than to achieve a specific learning objective or outcome” (Woolard, 2015, p. 20). When service learning programs operate from the antifoundational perspective, students may be exposed to issues and problems in their communities but may not be encouraged to engage in further civic or political action.

Service learning has an important role to play in civic education; however, there are limitations to service learning pedagogy. As Butin (2010) explains, advocates argue “service-learning should become an overarching framework for higher education” (p. 27). Butin (2010) explains this is “nothing less than a grand narrative for higher-education as service-learning, for it thinks about service-learning as a politic to transform higher education and society” (p. 27). This grand narrative presumes that service learning is a “universal, coherent, cohesive, amelioratory, andliberatory practice;” however, the service learning pedagogy developed to date lacks this clarity and theoretical sophistication (Butin, 2010, p. 27).

Ideologically, service learning is a liberal pedagogy, yet it has been promoted as a politically “neutral” pedagogy drawing conservative criticism. Service learning is politically charged with “seemingly neutral principles [that are used] strategically to promote one’s specific ideological agenda, irrespective of political orientation” (Butin, 2010, p. 36).

From a practical perspective, service learning necessitates partnerships with local community entities that require significant planning to ensure that learning outcomes are achieved and the needs of community partners are met. As Butin (2010) argues, most faculty follow normative, classroom-based models of teaching and learning, which may not be compatible with the demands of service learning pedagogy.

Taken together, there is a “limit to the use of service-learning across numerous disciplines and amongst faculty in higher education” (Butin, 2010, p. 31). Although service learning programs have been embraced by many institutions as civic education, scholars (both within and outside of service learning) recognize the limits of service learning as the standard bearer for civic education (Butin, 2010; Hollander, 2010; Saltmarsh & Hartley, 2011a; Saltmarsh, Hartley, & Clayton, 2009).

Civic engagement

Service learning marks the beginning of the modern civic education movement, but civic engagement is by far the most commonly used term, mainly because it is used to describe multiple civic education pedagogies. The term civic engagement was coined to differentiate between service learning and more traditional, classroom-based civic education (Woolard, 2015). When service learning is approached from a cultural and political perspective, practitioners consider it to fall under the umbrella of civic engagement; however, as Jacoby (2009) and Saltmarsh and Hartley (2011b) have noted, the term civic engagement is often misappropriated within the field, particularly in service learning, leading to latent confusion as to what civic engagement means. To clarify, we adopt the following definition of civic engagement proposed by Jacoby (2009):

Acting upon a heightened sense of responsibility to one’s communities. This includes a wide range of activities, including developing civic sensitivity, participation in building civil society, and benefiting the common good. Civic engagement encompasses the notions of global citizenship and interdependence. Through civic engagement, individuals – as citizens of their communities, their nations, and the world – are empowered as agents of positive social change for a more democratic world. (p. 9)

As Saltmarsh and Hartley (2011a) note, “Mere activity in a community does not constitute civic engagement” (p. 17). Instead, civic engagement is about “enhancing a public culture of democracy on and off campus and alleviating public problems through democratic means” (Saltmarsh & Harley, 2011a, p. 17).

Civic engagement pedagogy is designed to teach students civic values, skills, and motivation (Woolard, 2015). Building on the research regarding the pedagogies of engagement mentioned earlier, Colby et al. (2007) suggest instructors should teach political knowledge, democratic participation skills, and political motivation. This can be achieved through discussion and deliberation, research and action projects, speakers and mentors, as well as student placements, internships, and service learning experiences (Colby et al., 2007). According to McCartney, Rios, Bennion, and Simpson (2013), “There is no one best way to implement civic engagement pedagogy. Instead, … educators need a wide range of options and tools to fit diverse teaching styles, course subjects, intellectual interests, students, and institutions” (p. 101).

Political engagement

Political engagement is closely related to civic engagement, and many view it as a subset of civic engagement. Political engagement includes direct participation in electoral politics, such as “voting, participating in campaigns or political parties, contacting elected officials, running for office, and the like” (Colby et al., 2007, p. 29). Beyond electoral politics, instructors who employ the pedagogy of political engagement encourage student participation in formal and informal political discourse and public culture. Colby et al. (2007) note that civic and political engagement are interrelated; however, civic engagement is typically apolitical. One can be civically engaged by working with community organizations or by doing volunteer work, yet refrain from participating in electoral politics or pursuing changes in public policy. Faculty who integrate civic and political engagement into their classrooms often seek to develop the same types civic knowledge, motivation, and skills in their students; however, the pedagogy of political engagement is unique in its focus on the need to facilitate direct student political participation. Colby et al. (2007) explain the imperative for educating for political engagement in the following terms:

Preparation for informed citizenship should include some understanding of political institutions, processes, and issues, and it should include long-term interests, habits, and commitments that support at least a basic level of knowledge and engagement. It should also include the abilities to acquire and evaluate political information, to formulate and express opinions about important political issues, including those who have quite different views. Although these capacities can all be developed through informal as well as formal means, it would be hard to argue that people who lack them are well educated. (p. 277)

The signature pedagogies for political engagement include discussion and deliberation; political research and action projects; speakers and mentors; placements, internships, and service learning; and structured reflection (Colby et al., 2007).

Democratic engagement

The pedagogy of democratic engagement is derived from the civic engagement movement, but its proponents are widely critical of the ways in which civic engagement has been implemented in higher education. Saltmarsh and Hartley (2011a) argue that current civic engagement pedagogy is “largely devoid of both long-term democracy-building values and higher education’s contribution to the public culture of democracy” (p. 23). In other words, civic engagement practitioners have, perhaps unwittingly, privileged the university as the sole knowledge-producing entity and community entities as passive receivers, possessing little expert knowledge of their own. Civic engagement advocates, it is argued, embrace the philosophy that universities are uniquely qualified to provide services to their communities and fail to engage community partners in mutually beneficial and reciprocal ways. Civic engagement “efforts are often pursued as ends in themselves, and engagement becomes reduced to a public relations function of making known what the campus is doing in and/ or for the community and providing opportunities for students to have experiences in the community” (Saltmarsh & Hartley, 2011a, p. 18). As Saltmarsh and Hartley (2011a) further explain, “what has emerged on many campuses are remarkably apolitical ‘civic’ engagement efforts” (p. 19).

In order to overcome the limits of current civic engagement initiatives, advocates of the pedagogy of democratic engagement argue that educators must co-create a different type of education experience with their students. In other words, the pedagogy of civic engagement must be democratized. Hartley and Saltmarsh (2011) ask educators to consider the following:

We must scrutinize our pedagogical approaches – do they reflect democratic ideals? Lecturing has its place, but a curriculum dominated by it is unlikely to build competency in deliberation and civic discourse. To what extent do current courses allow students to develop their own opinions about various issues and then learn and practice the precepts of public deliberation to refine them? How much agency do students experience in the context of service-learning or problem-based learning courses? Is service-learning an add-on or an integral element of the course? By the end of the semester, do students have a better understanding of the sociopolitical factors that cause a situation than they do at the beginning? Are students offered the opportunity to see the results of their efforts (perhaps as only a part of a series of classes that will grapple with a particular issue)? (pp. 293–294)

Hartley and Saltmarsh conclude that what is needed is not more initiatives and programs. Instead, they call on educators, students, and community members to work together to reimagine the entire academic enterprise. Although this approach has not yet been widely adopted or assessed, Saltmarsh and Hartley (2011b) provide a detailed framework for further developing pedagogies of democratic engagement.

Critical engagement

This approach to civic education critically examines the relationship between education and democracy and draws heavily from critical and ideological theory. Critical engagement is often cited as the theoretical perspective that spurred the modern civic engagement movement, rather than a specific program or pedagogy (Woolard, 2015). Critical engagement offers two overlapping perspectives on civic education: democratic empowerment and threating neoliberalism.

Democratic empowerment situates education as a method to empower students to speak and act against systems of oppression. Greene (1985) argues that education can constitute an act of violence for many in that it prevents them from considering their own lives and privileges “objective” knowledge over their lived experience. According to Greene (1985), democratic empowerment

is a situation that permits dialogue among persons with regard for one another in their diversity, persons empowered to speak in their own voices, to speak for themselves. … If we are to reawaken concern for democracy as possibility, we can no longer simply refer back to an enlightenment ideal or even to the paradigms of experimental intelligence so long associated with democratic thought. … Efforts must be undertaken, especially by educators, to bring into being some new in-between that can … “relate and bind” people together in novel ways. (p. 8)

Proponents of threating neoliberalism argue that the neoliberal economic model has reduced education to nothing more than skills training for the economy which undermines civic education. Harvey (2005) explains that

Neoliberalism is in the first instance a theory of political economic practices that proposes that human well-being can best be advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an institutional framework characterized by strong private property rights, free markets, and free trade. (p. 3)

Apple (2004) and Giroux (2009) argue that neoliberalism has changed the culture of education that ignores democratic purpose and practice. Rather than viewing citizenship as a collaborative and social activity, “citizenship is portrayed as an utterly solitary affair whose aim is to produce competitive, self-interested individuals vying for their own material and ideological gain” (Giroux & Giroux, 2004, p. 252). Giroux and Giroux discuss the role of academic faculty as the cause of civic and political disengagement, while simultaneously arguing that it is up to faculty to resist neoliberalism and take back higher education. As previously noted, critical engagement is used as an ideological justification for service learning, civic or political engagement, or social justice rather than a civic education pedagogy.

Social justice

Those who advocate for social justice view education as a way to address social and economic inequality in society. Westheimer and Kahne (2008) state that “education for social justice is simply to say that one supports the idea of preparing students to use the knowledge and analytic skills they develop in school to identify ways in which society and societal institutions can treat people more fairly and more humanely” (p. vii). Bell (1997) argues that the “process for attaining the goal of social justice … should also be democratic and participatory, inclusive and affirming of human agency and human capacities for working collaboratively to create change” (pp. 5–6).

Butin (2010) claims that those who advocate for social justice assume that there is one “correct” interpretation of justice; however, what is just depends upon the perspective one takes. Woolard (2015) identifies six basic perspectives of justice: distributive, competitive, recognitive, capabilities, and critical. Distributive views of social justice are based upon two principles “(1) liberty or individual freedom and (2) equal distribution of material and social goods” (Chambers & Gopaul, 2010, p. 59). The competitive perspective focuses upon the “fairness of competition for social goods – it is not the equalization of possessions, but rather the fairness of the market” (Woolard, 2015, p. 27). The recognitive perspective focuses on liberty and individual freedom and its relationship to the greater social structure. The capabilities perspective is concerned with an individual’s ability to have a fulfilling life within the “spheres of the economic, personal, social, and environmental” (Chambers & Gopaul, 2010, p. 60). The critical perspective of justice draws from Marxist and neo-Marxist theory and provides “a comprehensive analysis of the ways in which education, rather than serving as an approach to help achieve greater equality, serves to reinforce inequality by reproducing a class-divided society” (Lisman, 1998, p. 77).

Those who advocate for social justice tend to be open to different civic education strategies. For example, Bell (1997) highlights the role that traditional lecture and class structures can play in social justice. Butin (2008) and Westheimer and Kahne (2008) advocate for service learning as a means of promoting social justice (Butin, 2010 describes this as “justice-learning”). Most civic education pedagogies can be adapted to achieve social justice educational outcomes.

Antifoundational engagement

The previously mentioned approaches to civic education obviously advocate for some form or civic education; however, proponents of the antifoundational approach argue that students’ moral and civic development should not be a concern for higher education. Fish (2003) claims that civic education is simply unworkable because “there are just too many intervening variables, too many uncontrolled factors that mediate the relationship between what goes on in a classroom or even in a succession of classrooms and the shape of what is finally a life” (para. 19). Rather than being concerned with what students do beyond the classroom, Fish (2008)argues for a narrow, politically neutral approach to education that focuses upon exposing students to new domains of knowledge and different perspectives, while teaching students critical and analytical skills. In other words, students’ moral and civic development should not be a concern of those in higher education. The job of a college instructor is to “academicize” topics by detaching them “from the context of its real world urgency, where there is a vote to be taken or an agenda to be embraced, and insert it into a context of academic urgency, where there is an account to be offered or an analysis to be performed” (Fish, 2008, p. 27).

Implications for Developing Innovative Civic Education Pedagogies

Several implications for the development of civic education pedagogy are evident from our review of the literature. Initially, our review indicates that service learning is by far the most popular approach to civic education; however, service learning advocates have more work to do to solidify this approach in higher education. One significant concern arises from a lack of conceptual clarity. Butin (2010) persuasively argues that there are problems with “traditional articulations of how to understand service-learning: the problematics of a latent teleology and unsupportable ethical foundationalism” (p. 6). This problem is not unique to service learning. As Jacoby (2009) notes, there are as many definitions of civic engagement pedagogy as there are practitioners of civic engagement pedagogy. Scholars like Saltmarsh and Hartley (2011b) seek to address these problems by offering a comprehensive framework for the pedagogy of democratic engagement based on the following six propositions:

According to Saltmarsh and Hartley (2011b), this unifying approach should “reveal new possibilities and new synergies” and allow future civic education advocates to “look back at some future point in time and see that the civic engagement movement was not stalled but merely poised to reshape American higher education and our society” (p. 299).

Service learning, civic engagement, and political engagement are often operationalized based on a unidirectional flow of knowledge production (Saltmarsh & Hartley, 2011b). According to this view, higher education practitioners, acting as experts, send students out into the community to identify and solve problems. Democratic engagement is based upon reciprocity and co-creation of knowledge. From this perspective, community members and organizations and those affiliated with institutions of higher education have shared authority for knowledge production. In addition, students, faculty, and members of the community work collaboratively to address community problems. There is some evidence to suggest that those in higher education are moving to accept this approach. For example, the Carnegie Community Engagement Classification recognizes civic education programs that are designed to promote mutually beneficial and reciprocal relationships with the community (Saltmarsh & Hartley, 2011b). Ideologically and pedagogically, service learning, civic engagement, political engagement, critical engagement, and social justice are compatible with democratic engagement, but reciprocity and cocreation of knowledge are often not clearly articulated or promoted as necessary requisites (Woolard, 2015).

The tenets of critical engagement are often invoked to justify civic engagement initiatives. Similarly, democratic empowerment has been used as a justification for civic education, rather than in programmatic or pedagogical development. Advocates of the threating neoliberalism perspective tend to focus upon the role faculty and institutions play in promoting neoliberalism rather than the development of civic education pedagogy. Taken as a whole, the critical engagement frame functions more ideologically, but positions civic engagement as an alternative to traditional, neoliberal practices by their advocates (Woolard, 2015).

The democratic engagement and critical engagement perspectives highlight the need to reconsider the role academic culture and neoliberalism play in civic education. Kliewer (2013) argues that civic engagement proponents have yet to meaningfully consider the implications of neoliberalism for civic education pedagogy. Kliewer concludes that this oversight could ultimately undermine civic education. Boyte and Fretz (2011), Kliewer (2013), Giroux (2009), and Giroux and Giroux (2004) are situated in different ideological domains in the civic education movement, yet all of them address the need for a significant cultural change in higher education.

As should be apparent, proponents of the various pedagogies of civic education, with the notable exception of Fish (2008), promote active student learning and engagement. However, as Kuh et al. (2007) note, meaningful student engagement also requires a substantial institutional commitment. At the institutional level, higher education administrators should support a variety of diverse civic education opportunities that promote service, civic responsibility, and political participation. Civic education requires a long-term strategy. A single course or program is not likely to produce the kind of citizens these pedagogies seek to cultivate (Colby et al., 2007; The National Task Force, 2012). Moreover, administrators should be mindful that faculty who integrate service learning into their course often focus on activities like volunteerism and may overlook, or intentionally avoid, political topics and action. On the other hand, faculty who focus exclusively on civic and political engagement may do disservice to the importance of service activities. As Musil (2009) argues, higher education should equip students with a wide variety of competencies that allow them to function along a continuum of civic action ranging from volunteerism to direct political action. Finally, programs that begin with the first-year experience and general education as the foundation to civic education can effectively prime students to take advantage of later civic or political engagement learning experiences (Hunt, 2010; Hunter & Moody, 2009; Spiezio, 2009).

As faculty work to integrate civic pedagogy into the classroom, they should consider that these pedagogies require an open classroom where students feel comfortable expressing their opinions on often controversial topics (Campbell, 2008). Instructors should engage controversial and political topics in an open and nonpartisan fashion (Colby et al., 2007). Faculty should focus on facilitating students’ critical skills and allow them to develop their own opinions (Hess, 2009; Hess & Avery, 2008). There is substantial evidence that these pedagogies can be employed successfully to promote students’ knowledge, skills, and motivation without changing students’ political ideology or party affiliation (Colby et al., 2007).

Faculty should also recognize the important role that communication plays in educating students for citizenship. First, faculty should appreciate that communication skills are the vehicle by which students “do” civic and political engagement. According to Hillygus (2005), the best predictor of future political engagement is training in communication. Her research suggests that “an educational system geared toward developing verbal and civic skills can encourage future participation in American democracy” (p. 41). Palczewski et al. (2012) affirm the critical role of communication in preparing students for citizenship, arguing that true civic “engagement occurs when human communication generates new areas for discussion, when people are willing to accept the risk of being wrong (and accept correction of their views), when people affirm a commitment to engage one another in discourse, and when creative forms of communication create social connections among individuals” (p. 14). Hikins and Cherwitz (2010) also argue that the discipline of communication should play a significant role in promoting civic education. Finally, Hunt et al. (2009) note that given their pedagogical content knowledge and the skills taught in the discipline (e.g., information literacy, argumentation and rhetoric, and small group communication), communication faculty are “uniquely qualified and distinctively competent to help students develop communication and political competence” (p. 23).

Finally, our review also demonstrates that the discourse of civic education is often siloed and detached from other perspectives. Across perspectives, disciplines, institutions, and programs, good civic work is being done. This work deserves to be identified, celebrated, and critiqued; however, the current fragmentation of civic education prevents clear articulation at every level of civic education, making it difficult to secure student, faculty, and administrative support (Saltmarsh &Hartley, 2011a). The core values of civic education are important, and higher education is ideally suited for the task of educating citizens if advocates can effectively articulate a clear vision for civic education.

References

Apple, M. W. (2004). Ideology and curriculum. New York, NY: Routledge Falmer.

Anaya, G. (1996). College experiences and student learning: The influence of active learning, college environments, and cocurricular activities. Journal of College Student Development, 37, 611–622.

Astin, A. W. (1985). Involvement: The cornerstone of excellence. Change, 17, 35–39. doi:10.1080/00091383.1985.9940532

Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 40, 518–529. (Reprinted from Astin, A. (1984). Student involvement: A development theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297–308).

Barkley, E. F. (2010). Student engagement techniques: A handbook for college faculty. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bauerlein, M. (2008). The dumbest generation: How the digital age stupefies young Americans and jeopardizes our future (or, don’t trust anyone under 30). New York, NY: Penguin.

Bawa, A. C., & Munk, R. (2012). Foreward: Globalizing civic engagement. In L. McIlrath, A. Lyons, & R. Munk (Eds.), Higher education and civic engagement: Comparative perspectives (pp. xi–xix). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Beaumont, E., Colby, A., Ehrlich, T., & Torney-Purta, J. (2006). Promoting political competence and engagement in college students: An empirical study. Journal of Political Science Education, 2, 249–270.

Bell, L. A. (1997). Theoretical foundations of social justice education. In M. Adams, L. A. Bell, & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice: A sourcebook (pp. 3–15). New York, NY: Routledge.

Berger, J., & Milem, J. (1999). The role of student involvement and perceptions of integration in a causal model of student persistence. Research in Higher Education, 40, 641–664.

Bloom, B. S. E., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, A. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York, NY: David McKay.

Boyte, H. C., & Fretz, E. (2011). Civic professionalism. In J. A. Saltmarsh & M. Hartley (Eds.), “To serve a larger purpose”: Engagement for democracy and the transformation of higher education (pp. 82–101). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Braxton, J. M., Milem, J. F., & Sullivan, A. S. (2000). The influence of active learning on the college student departure process: Toward a revision of Tinto’s theory. Journal of Higher Education, 71, 569–590. doi:10.2307/2649260

Butin, D. W. (2008). Service-learning and social justice education: Strengthening justice-oriented community based models of teaching and learning. New York, NY: Routledge.

Butin, D. W. (2010). Service-learning in theory and practice: The future of community engagement in higher education. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillian.

Campbell, D. E. (2008). Voice in the classroom: How an open classroom climate fosters political engagement among adolescents. Political Behavior, 30, 437–454. doi:10.1007/s11109-008-9063-z

Carr, D. (2008). Rights, duties and responsibilities. In J. Arthur, I. Davies, & C. Hahn (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of education for citizenship and democracy (pp. 20–28). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

Cegala, D.J. (1981). Interaction involvement: A cognitive dimension of communicative competence. Communication Education, 30, 109–121. doi:10.1080/03634528109378460

Chambers, T., & Gopaul, B. (2010). Toward a social justice-centered engaged scholarship: A public and a private good. In H. E. Fitzgerald, C. Burack, & S. D. Seifer (Eds.), Handbook of engaged scholarship: Contemporary landscapes, future directions (Vol. 1, pp. 55–70). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, G. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practices in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39, 3–7.

Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationships among teacher immediacy behaviors, student motivation, and learning. Communication Education, 39, 323–340. doi:10.1080/03634529009378813

Colby, A., Beamont, E., Ehrlich, T., & Corngold, J. (2007). Educating for democracy: Preparing undergraduates for responsible political engagement. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Colby, A., Beaumont, E., Ehrlich, T., & Stephens, J. (2003). Educating citizens: Preparing America’s undergraduates for lives of moral and civic responsibility. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Crick, B. (2008). Democracy. In J. Arthur, I. Davies, & C. Hahn (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of education for citizenship and democracy (pp. 13–19). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

Dean, B. L. (2008). The challenging face of citizenship education in Pakistan. In J. Arthur, I. Davies, & C. Hahn (Eds.), The Sage handbook of education for citizenship and democracy (pp. 227–238). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Edgerton, R. (1997). Higher education white paper. Unpublished paper for the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Fassinger, P. A. (2000). How classes influence students’ participation in college classrooms. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 35, 38–47.

Fink, L. D. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Fish, S. (2003, May 16). Aim low. Chronicle of Higher Education, 49, Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Aim-Low/45210

Fish, S. (2008). Save the world on your own time. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Furco, A. (2003). Issues of definition and program diversity in the study of service-learning. In S. Billig & A. S. Waterman (Eds.), Studying service-learning: Innovations in education research methodology (pp. 13–33). Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Galston, W. A. (2003). Civic education and political participation. Phi Delta Kappan, 85, 29–33. doi:10.1017/s1049096504004202

Gellin, A. (2003). The effect of undergraduate student involvement on critical thinking: A metaanalysis of the literature 1991–2000. Journal of College Student Development, 44, 746–762. doi:10.1353/csd.2003.0066

Gilbert, M. K., Johnson, M., & Plaut, J. (2009). Cultivating interdependent partnerships for community change and civic education. In J. R. Strait & M. Lima (Eds.), The future of servicelearning: New solutions for sustaining and improving practice (pp. 33–51). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Giroux, H. A. (2009). Higher education and the promise of democracy. In G. A. Olson & J. W. Presley (Eds.), The future of higher education: Perspectives from America’s academic leaders (pp. 53–62). Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.

Giroux, H. A., & Giroux, S. S. (2004). Take back higher education: Race, youth, and the crisis of democracy in the post-civil rights era. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Goldfinger, J., & Presley, J. W. (Eds.). (2010). Educating students for political engagement: A guide to implementation and assessment for colleges and universities. New York, NY: American Association of State Colleges and Universities.

Greene, M. (1985). The role of education in democracy. Educational Horizons, 64, 3–9.

Harper, S. R., & Quaye, S. J. (2007). Student organizations as venues for Black identity expression and development among African American male student leaders. Journal of College Student Development, 48, 133–159. doi:10.1353/csd.2007.0012

Harper, S. R., & Quaye, S. J. (2009). Beyond sameness, with engagement and outcomes for all: An introduction. In S. R. Haper & S. J. Quaye (Eds.), Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations (pp. 1– 15). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

Harrow, A. (1972). A taxonomy of the psychomotor domain: A guide for developing behavioral objectives. New York, NY: David McKay.

Hartley, M., & Saltmarsh, J. A. (2011). Conclusion: Creating the democratically engaged university – possibilities for constructive action. In J. A. Saltmarsh & M. Hartley (Eds.), To serve a larger purpose: Engagement for democracy and the transformation of higher education (pp. 290–299). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Hess, D. E. (2009). Controversy in the classroom: The democratic power of discussion. London, England: Routledge.

Hess, D. E., & Avery, P. G. (2008). Discussion of controversial issues as a form and goal of democratic education. In J. Arthur, I. Davies, & C. Hahn (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of education for citizenship and democracy (pp. 506–518). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

Hikins, J. W., & Cherwitz, R. A. (2010). The engaged university: Where rhetorical theory matters. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38, 115–126. doi:10.1080/00909881003639551

Hillygus, D. S. (2005). The missing link: Exploring the relationship between higher education and political engagement. Political Behavior, 27, 25–47. doi:10.1007/s11109-005-3075-8

Hollander, E. (2010). Forward. In D. W. Butin (Ed.), Service-learning in theory and practice: The future of community engagement in higher education (pp. vii–xii). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Howard, J. R., Short, L. B., & Clark, S. M. (1996). Students’ participation in the mixed-age college classroom. Teaching Sociology, 24, 8–24. doi:10.2307/1318894

Hughes, A. S., & Sears, A. (2008). The struggle for citizenship education in Canada: The centre cannot hold. In J. Arthur, I. Davies, & C. Hahn (Eds.), The Sage handbook of education for citizenship and democracy (pp. 124–138). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Hunt, S. K. (2010). Curricular activities for political engagement. In J. Goldfinger & J. W. Presley (Eds.), Educating students for political engagement: A guide to implementation and assessment for colleges and universities (pp. 46–62). Washington, DC: American Association of State Colleges and Universities.

Hunt, S. K., Simonds, C. J., & Simonds, B. K. (2009). Uniquely qualified, distinctively competent: Delivering 21st century skills in the basic course. Basic Communication Course Annual, 21, 1–29.

Hunter, M., & Moody, B. L. (2009). Civic engagement in the first college year. In B. Jacoby (Ed.), Civic engagement in higher education: Concepts and practices. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Ichilov, O. (2008). Citizenship education in Israel: A contested terrain. In J. Arthur, I. Davies, & C. Hahn (Eds.), The Sage handbook of education for citizenship and democracy (pp. 189– 204). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

Jacoby, B. (1996). Service-learning in higher education: Concepts and practices. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Jacoby, B. (2009). Civic engagement in higher education: Concepts and practices. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kahne, J., Middaugh, E., & Chi, B. (2003, August). Democratic education: The untapped potential of high school government courses. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA.

Kendall, J. C. (1990). Combining service and learning: An introduction, combining service and learning: A resource book for community and public service (pp. 1–33). Raleigh, NC: National Society for Internships and Experiential Education.

Kember, D., & Gow, L. (1994). Orientations to teaching and their effect on the quality of student learning. Journal of Higher Education, 65, 58–74. doi:10.2307/2943877

Kerr, D., Smith, A., & Twine, C. (2008). Citizenship education in the United Kingdom. In J. Arthur, I. Davies, & C. Hahn (Eds.), The Sage handbook of education for citizenship and democracy (pp. 252–262). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Klicperová-Baker, M. (2008). Education for citizenship and democracy: The case of the Czech Republic. In J. Arthur, I. Davies, & C. Hahn (Eds.), The Sage handbook of education for citizenship and democracy (pp. 158–174). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Kliewer, B. W. (2013). Why the civic engagement movement cannot achieve democratic and justice aims. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 19, 72–79.

Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives II: Affective domain. New York, NY: David McKay.

Kuh, G. D., Cruce, T. M., Shoup, R., & Kinzie, J. (2008). Unmasking the effects of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 79, 540–563. doi:10.1353/jhe.0.0019

Kuh, G. D., Hu, S., & Vesper, N. (2000). They shall be known by what they do: An activities-based typology of college students. Journal of College Student Development, 41, 228–244.

Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2007). Piecing together the student success puzzle: Research, propositions, and recommendations. ASHE Higher Education Report (Vol. 32, No. 5). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kuh, G. D., Palmer, M., & Kish, K. (2003). The value of educationally purposeful out-of-class experiences. In T. L. Skipper & R. Argo (Eds.), Involvement in campus activities and the retention of first-year college students. The first-year experience monograph series (No. 36, pp. 19–34). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.

Lee, W. O., & Chi-hang, H. (2008). Citizenship education in China: Changing concepts, approaches and policies in the changing political, economic and social context. In J. Arthur, I. Davies, & C. Hahn (Eds.), The Sage handbook of education for citizenship and democracy (pp. 139–157). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Lisman, C. D. (1998). Toward a civil society civic literacy and service learning. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

Macedo, S. (2005). Democracy at risk: How political choices undermine citizen participation, and what we can do about it. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

McCartney, A., Rios, M., Bennion, E. A., & Simpson, D. W. (2013). Teaching civic engagement: From student to active citizen. Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.

McIlrath, L., & MacLabhrainn, I. (Eds.). (2007). Higher education and civic engagement: International perspectives. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.

Moughrabi, F. (2008). From subjects to citizens: Citizenship education in Palestine. In J. Arthur, I. Davies, & C. Hahn (Eds.), The Sage handbook of education for citizenship and democracy (pp. 239–251). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Musil, C. M. (2009). Educating students for personal and social responsibility: The civic learning spiral. In B. Jacoby (Ed.), Civic engagement in higher education: Concepts and practices (pp. 49–68). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Musil, C. M. (2015). Civic prompts: Making civic learning routine across the disciplines. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

O’Keefe, V. P. (1986). Affecting critical thinking through speech. Annandale, VA: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 267 476).

Palczewski, C. H., Ice, R., & Fritch, J. (2012). Rhetoric in civic life. State College, PA: Strata.

Pascarella, E. T. (2001). Idenitfying excellence in undergraduate education: Are we even close? Change, 33, 19–23. doi:10.1080/00091380109601796

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Rattenborg, A. N., Simonds, C. J., & Hunt, S. K. (2005). Preparing to participate: An exploration of student engagement through student work and instructor’s observations. Basic Communication Course Annual, 17, 94–133.

Rest, J. R. (1993). Research on moral judgment in college students. In A. Garrod (Ed.), Approaches to moral development (pp. 201–213). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Saltmarsh, J. (2005). The civic promise of service learning. Liberal Education, 91, 50–55.

Saltmarsh, J., & Hartley, M. (2011a). Democratic engagement. In J. Saltmarsh & M. Hartley (Eds.), To serve a larger purpose: Engagement for democracy and the transformation of higher education (pp. 14–26). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Saltmarsh, J. A., & Hartley, M. (2011b). “To serve a larger purpose”: Engagement for democracy and the transformation of higher education. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Saltmarsh, J. A., Hartley, M., & Clayton, P. (2009). Democratic engagement white paper. Boston, MA: New England Resource Center for Higher Education.

Schugurensky, D., & Madjidi, K. (2008). Reinventing Freire: Exceptional cases of citizenship education in Brazil. In J. Arthur, I. Davies, & C. Hahn (Eds.), The Sage handbook of education for citizenship and democracy (pp. 109–123). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Shulman, L. S. (2002). Making differences: A table of learning. Change, 34, 36–44.

Smith, M. B., Nowacek, R. S., & Bernstein, J. L. (Eds.). (2010). Citizenship across the curriculum. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Spiezio, K. E., Baker, K. Q., & Boland, K. (2005). General education and civic engagement: An empirical analysis of pedagogical possibilities. Journal of General Education, 54, 273–292. doi:10.1353/jge.2006.0012

The National Task Force. (2012). A crucible moment: College learning and democracy’s future. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.

Tross, S. A., Harper, J. P., Osher, L. W., & Kneidinger, L. M. (2000). Not just the usual cast of characteristics: Using personality to predict college performance and retention. Journal of College Student Development, 41, 325–336.

Watson, P., Hollister, R. M., Stroud, S. E., & Babcock, E. (2011). The engaged university: International perspectives on civic engagement. New York, NY: Routledge.

Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). What kind of citizen? The politics of education for democracy. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 237–269.

Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2008). Introduction. In D. W. Butin (Ed.), Service-learning and social justice education: Strengthening justice-oriented community based models of teaching and learning (pp. vii–x). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Woolard, C. E. (2015). Engaging engagement: Framing the civic education movement in higher education (Doctoral dissertation). Illinois State University, Normal, IL.