Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 237 (2017) 90 – 95

7th International Conference on Intercultural Education “Education, Health and ICT for a
Transcultural World”, EDUHEM 2016, 15-17 June 2016, Almeria, Spain

Learning to teach citizenship competencies through a school-

university collaborative action research project
David Contreras a* & David Aceitunob
a
Escuela de Pedagogía, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso, Avenida Brasil 2950, Valparaíso, Chile
b
Instituto de Historia, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso, Avenida Brasil 2950 Valparaíso, Chile

Abstract

Several studies reveal that citizenship competencies are underdeveloped in many western countries and in Latin American countries
in particular. The current paper describes an innovation, the use of “reflection circles” and authentic experiences teaching 8th
graders, in an elective teacher education course on citizenship education. Twenty preservice teachers, alongside two university
faculty and a school teacher, moved away from traditional notions of citizenship as knowledge of legal institutions to notions of
citizenship as engagement with relevant social problems. Analysis of reflective logs show improvements to the university-based
course and prospective teachers’ repertoire to teach citizenship competencies to their students.
2016The
© 2017 TheAuthors.
Authors. Published
Published by by Elsevier
Elsevier Ltd.Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of EDUHEM 2016.
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of EDUHEM 2016.
Keywords: citizenship education; initial teacher education; school classrooms; school-university collaboration; secondary history teaching.

1. Introduction

Curricular changes in primary and secondary education in Chile have reincorporated, in a structural way,
Citizenship Education to the school curriculum (Ministerio de Educación, 2009, 2010, 2013). Citizenship
competencies are now infused across the curriculum, with a special emphasis in the History, Geography, and Social
Science curriculum. The recent enactment of a new law, the Citizenship Education 2016 Plan, consolidates policies at
all educational levels. This has led to proposing a curriculum that encompasses content, expected outcomes, and

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +56 32 227 4341

E-mail address: david.contreras@pucv.cl

1877-0428 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of EDUHEM 2016.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2017.02.035
 David Contreras and David Aceituno / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 237 (2017) 90 – 95 91

examples of learning and evaluation activities for the development of citizenship competencies within the national
curricular framework.
Pagés and Sant (2012) synthesized different approaches to citizenship education by considering two major
perspectives, the critical and the functionalist structural—both of which agree in mentioning that there is scarcity of
works related to research inside the classroom and, in particular, regarding forms of school participation in relation to
teaching strategies. In Chile, in recent years, there has been interesting work (manuals from the Ministry of Education
and professional development, among others) and important research on citizenship education (Cox, 2012; Muñoz.
2009; Redón, 2010).
The modification of the social, environmental, and political relations caused by the globalization and technology
revolution present new demands to citizens (Espínola et al., 2005). There are countless institutions at an international
level that present Citizenship Education as critical for the solution of global challenges, such as poverty, inequality,
racism, discrimination, and access to justice, migration, etc.). If we add the active aspects of cyber participation in the
2.0 web, the need for a global citizen requires a new education.
The Latin American report prepared by the International Evaluation of the ICCS (Schulz, Fraillon, Ainley, Losito,
& Kerr 2008) clearly characterizes three contextual factors that have a significant impact on the results of citizenship
education in students: family, school, and community. In relation to school (principals and teachers), it should be noted
that for the Chilean case, Schulz et al. described three major characteristics in detail. First, they underlined the
difference in results between private and public schools, a differentiation that is based on the socioeconomic
composition of each type of school. Second, the report emphasized the fact that principals feel they have little
responsibility for including citizenship in curricular design, restricting its incorporation as a cross-curricular task.
However, principals do not consider citizenship competencies as valid outcomes of extra-curricular activities. Lastly,
one of the stronger conclusions is related to actions that students mention through which they participate within the
school: Chilean students state that, in a way similar to other Latin American countries, they are able to vote for their
representatives. They have scarce participation in the making decisions regarding how the school is managed, minimal
participation in the student council, and low motivation to run for students’ offices. Those findings have led a number
of educators in search for explanations for the lack of student’ engagement in school processes that teach participation
in a democratic society.
Finally, we must mention that two Latin American studies based on the 1999 international citizenship evaluation
that showed methodological and contextual national shortcomings with respect to citizenship education (Amadeo &
Cepeda, 2008; Torney-Purta & Amadeo, 2004). Chile was one of the cases that stood out because of evidence of
deficiencies in teachers’ preparation to address these competencies. Reimers (2008) reached a similar conclusion when
mentioning deficiencies in pedagogical practices and the lack of evidence about the results of citizenship education.
As Cox (2010) indicated on this matter, the classroom is truly a “black box.”
In most countries, the concept of citizenship is no longer built solely on political or institutional perspectives, but
it also entails that individuals take active and participative possession of cultural and social assets. In this sense, we
conceive an individual a competent citizen when her or she is capable of knowing, doing, and having a given attitude
in the political, social, and economic realms (Selwyn, 2004).
For Cox, Jaramillo, and Reimers (2005), the transition in Latin America from civic education to citizenship
education extends the concept in three areas: a) thematic (because the knowledge base is increased from the political
institutions to current problems, such as income distribution, human rights, equality, environment, science, and
technology); b) quantitative (because it increases the presence of citizenship education in the school curriculum from
the beginning of the educational process until it is completed and the contents of citizenship are distributed throughout
the different subjects); and c) formative (because it proposes knowledge and objectives that are translated into skills
and attitudes). All of the above supposes, according to the authors, that the change of paradigm that is involved in
Citizenship Education includes the enrichment of practices, methods, and means to educate for citizenship.
The same authors have established five basic pillars for an effective citizenship education: a) social and political
agreement, b) national curriculum, c) favorable public opinion, d) alignment of resources and evaluations provided by
the Ministry of Education, and one of the most important e) teachers. They write, “Without an adequate preparation
and support strategy for teachers, the new definitions will not reach the classroom” (Cox et al., 2005. p. 42). This
includes both initial teacher education and professional development of practicing teachers. The implementation of a
92 David Contreras and David Aceituno / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 237 (2017) 90 – 95

redefined notion of citizenship education rests on teachers, inservice and preservice, learning required knowledge,
skills, and dispositions.
Addressing the call for generating an effective classroom citizenship education, the current study aimed at testing
an innovation—reflection circles—coupled with a practicum experience to strengthen (at the preservice level) the
preparation of elementary and secondary History, Geography, and Social Science Education prospective teachers.
Using an action research model, this course was designed collaboratively among university-based and school-based
teacher educators.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

The participants in this research study included a) two University researchers: one from the School of Education
and one from the History Institute; b) a university lecturer from the History Institute; c) a history teacher from the
school system; and d) 10 elementary education and 10 secondary History, Geography, and Social Sciences preservice
teachers enrolled in 2015 in a Citizenship Education elective.

2.2. Intervention

Teaching is a complex process, requiring the coexistence of continuous reflection, research, and practice.
Considering that formative action is a communication process, we approached the research from a dialogic perspective,
in which conversation in reflection circles became a strategic space for inquiry, research, and argumentation (Arias,
2012). These reflection circles, based on the peace circle proposal of Pranis, Stuart, and Wedge (2003), are
characterized by incorporating the values of participants of the circle in the discussion, proposing spaces in which the
conversation invites openness and initiates a qualitative process of collaborative learning, in which dialogue gives
each member a right to speak. Students and a facilitator integrate the circles; in this case, university faculty members
designed an appropriate environment for conversation and are in charge of planning, systematizing, and evaluating the
complete process. Research has shown that this is a good strategy to develop professional communities; it allows for
the development of the abilities to question ineffective teaching practices, to examine new teaching and learning
concepts, to find new ways to generate and respond to differences and conflict, and to support the professional growth
of each member (Zachariah, 2006).
The methodological proposal considers four reflection circles that will lead to answering the research questions.
The first circle, diagnosis and problematization, is designed to plan the process as a whole, to define the scope of the
project, and to form the work teams, defining the responsibilities of each team member. Afterwards, participants read
a set of articles seeking to collectively identify the methodological and conceptual problems in citizenship education
in Chile, as well as in the school system. Finally, the group reflects on the process developed in this first circle, placing
beliefs and reflections about citizenship and learning at the center of dialogue.
In the second circle, learning and education community, participants work collaboratively to develop new
methodologies and learning resources for citizenship education. The new citizenship competencies of students in the
classroom are assessed, and the whole group reflects on the results obtained from this assessment. These results are
taken into account to orient the next circle.
The third circle, application, involves problematizing the focus of the citizenship education courses that prospective
teachers are taking. Simultaneously, prospective teachers apply the learning resources in an 8th grade classroom, under
the guidance of the participating schoolteacher. Once the application is completed, the group reflects on the teaching
experience and performs methodological and conceptual adjustments to the teaching process.
The fourth circle, application and final reflection, involves a second classroom application, using the adjusted
learning resources. The effects on learning of both university and school students is documented and later analyzed by
the whole group. The learning community reflects on the design, application, and results, with an emphasis on
conceptual change regarding citizenship, methodologies, and the professional reflection that classroom work involves.
The group also analyzed and reflected on ways to improve the citizenship education course in which they are enrolled.
 David Contreras and David Aceituno / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 237 (2017) 90 – 95 93

2.3. Data sources and analysis

After each reflection cycle, participants wrote in a journal their what they had learned from the session. The sessions
were audio-recorded and transcribed for analysis. When the participants worked in the school, two teacher education
candidates took ethnographic notes of the interactions observed among students and between the students and the
teacher candidate leading the learning activities.
The first stage of analysis involved reading the journals, transcriptions of each class session and the ethnographic
notes. Next, the researchers, to identify recurring themes, read the textual corpus, identifying segments that addressed
the research questions. For the current paper this involved coding (a) comments about the course content and
methodology, (b) participants’ understanding of citizenship education, and (c) comments referencing participants’
experiences in the school. As a third step, we triangulated data by comparing and contrasting the ethnographic notes
with the journal entries. This process used the analytical procedures proposed by Bizquerra (2004) and Morán (2000).

2.4. Guiding research questions

x What are preservice teachers’ suggestions to improve the Citizenship Education course offered by the
University?
x What meanings do preservice give to citizenship education after the course?
x What does the classroom teacher and the school think about university-school collaboration around initial
teacher education?

3. Results

3.1. Focus of the citizenship education course offered by the university

The project allowed all participants to learn and reflect on new paradigms of Citizenship Education. The course
moved from a legal-historic institutional standpoint to a perspective on citizenship competencies that involve social,
cultural, economic, and institutional aspects of society. Preservice teachers developed knowledge to analyze and apply
learning resources for citizenship education, which enhanced their professional work in school classrooms. The
university course changed from a theoretical discussion on institutional citizenship to a citizenship competencies
perspective. It addressed, with a holistic focus, problems for citizenship learning at the school. In the words of a
preservice teacher:
The teacher has allowed us to include the new topics of Citizenship Education in the course and, above all,
to use class strategies such as debates and the use of problems that are relevant for Chilean citizens today,
such as the transition from dictatorship to democracy. (Preservice teacher 1. 2nd reflection circle).

3.2. Preservice teachers’ understandings of citizenship education

In the reflection circles, preservice teachers noted that, at the beginning of the semester, the course Citizenship
Education was focused on content development without attention to how this content would later be taught to students
in the schools. Although there were opportunities to debate citizenship education problems, these were rather closed
to criticism and reflection. Finally, they mentioned that there was a strong normative component, so they, as future
teachers, received a traditional education (teaching of laws and the Political Constitution). The course had not
incorporated practical democratic experiences, which should be most relevant for the 21st century citizens.
As the semester progressed, preservice teachers perceived a gradual change in the course in at least three aspects.
First, they became engaged in a professional and reflective learning community. Getting involved, through the research
project, with real school learning problems regarding citizenship, enabled them to reflect on the professional challenges
faced by classroom teachers. For example, a preservice teacher wrote:
We already knew that the course was very traditional… and that is how the first sessions of the course went,
but as the project progressed the instructor expanded the topics and incorporated debate and criticism as
94 David Contreras and David Aceituno / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 237 (2017) 90 – 95

participation strategies in the course, showing us methods for when we work at a school. (Preservice teacher
4. 2nd reflection circle)

Second, when preservice teachers were introduced to learning resources, class models, and digital resources, they
observed that citizenship learning was not a mere transmission of knowledge of institutional structures and functions
that needed to be memorized. They noticed that learning about citizenship involved the development of several skills
that demanded from them, as future teachers, more complex professional competencies. Third, the collaborative design
of learning resources that included practical and reflective activities for school students gave them an opportunity to
learn about active learning:
Although we had already had school practicums, they had always been History-related, but now that we
worked on citizenship education with specific materials, we see that history can be taught differently.
(Preservice teacher 8. 3rd reflection circle)

3.3. The schoolteacher’s and the school’s participation in the project

The participating classroom teacher who worked in the project, like the preservice teachers, gradually embraced a
new paradigm for citizenship education, as well as new methodologies and learning resources. This led him to reassess
his own beliefs and knowledge in the field. Second, he participated in the role of co-educator to preservice teachers,
offering guidance and supervising their work in the school classroom, affording him a role as a mentor of prospective
teachers. Through his weekly participation in the reflection circles, he modeled for preservice teachers the redefinition
of his beliefs and knowledge starting from an experience of pedagogical inquiry and experimentation.
I have been a cooperating teacher for student teachers before, but I had never inserted myself in a
pedagogical experimentation team in which, in truth, I was also a student. I learnt many things about
citizenship, and I really enjoyed the conversations with my future colleagues… This reflection activity with
them in the circles was something very new to me. (School teacher. 3rd reflection circle)

Finally, other school practitioners valued the work of preservice teachers to the point of generating conditions so
that they could share their work with other teachers and potentially to expand it to other classes in the school. This led
preservice teachers to engage in a task that was not originally defined in the project. They reflected with other
practicing teachers about the design and execution of a classroom innovation, discussing the results with them.
Regarding this aspect a preservice teacher wrote:
Schoolteachers were really cool…. It felt really good to know that the school principal and teachers wanted
to know what we did and if we could transfer what we learned. We almost felt like real teachers. (Preservice
teacher 5. 4th reflection circle).

In summary, the work methodology and the results reveal the possibilities of collaborative university-school work
for fostering innovations in teaching at the university and in schools. This innovation departs from the vertical position
that university instructors may take in relation to the school system when they send prospective teachers to innovate
without getting personally involved in working with the classroom teachers the challenges an innovation creates. The
richness of the student/school teacher/faculty member dialogues created conditions to mobilize the learning of
concepts and strategies (university), the practical execution (school), and its continued evaluation (reflection circles).

4. Discussion and Conclusions

The results lead us to conclude that a modification to teacher education courses with the active participation of
school partners and prospective teachers is possible, even with sensitive and controversial issues, such as citizenship
education. The changes that were proposed by the team of teachers were grounded in the challenges and demands of
schoolwork, thus the modifications made sense to the school practitioners involved in the course redesign. The
possibility of applying this type of work to the teacher education curriculum as a whole is yet to be determined.
 David Contreras and David Aceituno / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 237 (2017) 90 – 95 95

This study also shows the potential of designing methods courses in initial teacher education in collaboration with
school-based practitioners. This collaboration invigorates conceptual and methodological innovations for classroom
teachers, potentially spreading to other teachers. Such collaboration also benefits the university since it places
prospective teachers in authentic situations with classroom students, observing how they learn, and designing learning
resources based on their knowledge of specific students. This experience can encourage teacher preparation programs
to place the professional demands teachers encounter in their daily practices at the center of curriculum development.
The methodology of reflection circles can be used in two ways. First, as an analytical tool, since it is designed to
integrate different sources of information regarding the perception of the different actors participating in the research,
without generating major interference in the activities. In second place, it is a space of collaborative work and
horizontal encounters among prospective teachers, schoolteachers, and faculty members. In the current study, this
methodology has been implemented with a limited number of students, faculty members, and schoolteachers,
considering only one course. Its applicability to other courses in teacher education programs needs further exploration.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the support of the Performance Agreement Project for Strengthening Initial Teacher Education
(Grant MECESUP CD UCV-1203).

References

Amadeo J., & Cepeda, A. (2008). Políticas nacionales sobre educación para una ciudadanía democrática en las américas. Programa
Interamericano sobre Educación en Valores y Prácticas Democráticas Departamento de Educación y Cultura. Organización de los Estados
Americanos. Washington.
Arias, M. (2012). Círculo de conversación como estrategia didáctica: Una experiencia para reflexionar y aplicar en educación superior. Revista
Electrónica Educare, 16(2), 9-24.
Bisquerra, R. (2004). Metodología de la investigación educativa, Madrid. La Muralla.
Cox, C. (2010). Informe de Referente Regional 2010. Oportunidades de aprendizaje escolar de la ciudadanía en América Latina: currículos
comprados. Bogotá, Columbia: Editorial Rocca.
Cox, C. (2012). Política y Políticas Educacionales en Chile 1990-2010. Revista Uruguaya de Ciencia Política, 21(1) , 13-42.
Cox, C., Jaramillo, R., & Reimers, F. (2005). Education for citizenship and democracy in the Americas: An agenda for action. Washington DC:
Inter-American Development Bank.
Espínola, V., Osler, A., Starkey, H., Reimers, F., Villegas Reimers, E., Cox, C., & Gómez-Morín, L. (2005). Educación para la ciudadanía y la
democracia para un mundo globalizado: una perspectiva comparativa. Inter-American Development Bank. Available at
https://publications.iadb.org/bitstream/handle/11319/4509/Educación%20para%20la%20Ciudadan%C3%ADa%20y%20la%20Democracia%
20para%20un%20Mundo%20Globalizado%3a%20Una%20Perspectiva%20Comparativa.pdf?sequence=2
Ministerio de Educación (2009). Fundamentos del ajuste curricular en el sector de Historia, Geografía y Ciencias Sociales. Santiago, Chile:
Ministerio de Educación. (2010). Estudio Internacional de Educación Cívica y Formación Ciudadana ICCS 2009. Santiago, Chile.
Ministerio de Educación (2013). Materiales educativos para la formación ciudadana. Available at:
http://www.media.mineduc.cl/index2.php?id_portal=18&id_seccion=5202&id_contenido=31392. Revisado el 13 de mayo de 2016.
Morán, D. (2000). Introduction to phenomenology. New York, NY: Routledge.
Muñoz, C. (2009). El desafío de la formación ciudadana. principios para un modelo de integración curricular en lenguaje y comunicación y
estudio y comprensión de la sociedad para la EGB. Santiago, Chile: Ministerio de Educación.
Pagés, J., & Sant, E. (2012). Los conocimientos históricos y actuales para el aprendizaje de la participación como base de una ciudadanía crítica y
active. En N. de-Alba, F. García-Pérez, A. Santisteban (Eds.), Educar para la participación ciudadana en la enseñanza de las Ciencias Sociales,
vol. 1, (pp. 363-372). Sevilla, España: Dı́ada Editora, S. L.
Pranis, K., Stuart, B., & Wedge, M. (2003). Peacemaking circles: from conflict to community. St. Paul, MN: Living Justice Press.
Redón, S. (2010). La escuela como espacio de ciudadanía. Estudios Pedagógicos, XXXVI(2), 213-239.
Reimers, F. (2008). La educación ciudadana en América Latina en 2007. Available at
http://www.ibe.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/Working_Papers/education_ciudadana_ibewpci_14.pdf
Schulz, W., Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Losito, B., & Kerr, D. (2008). Estudio internacional sobre educación cívica y ciudadana: Marco de la evaluación.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IEA.
Selwyn, N. (2004). Literature review in citizenship, technology and learning, Bristol: Futurelab.
Torney-Purta, J., & Amadeo, J. (2004). Fortalecimiento de la democracia en las Américas a través de la educación cívica: un análisis empírico
que destaca las opiniones de los estudiantes y los maestros. Washington, DC: Organización de Estados Americanos (OEA). Unidad de
Desarrollo Social y de Educación.
Zachariah, M. (2006). Peacemaking circles: Creating professional communities in which teachers make decisions collaboratively. IIRP’s 8th
International Conference on Conferencing, Circles and other Restorative Practices. Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA