An exploration of U.S. adults’ information processing skills and political efficacy

Abstract

As recent debates about the role of social media in election outcomes suggest, understanding the association between information processing skills and political efficacy in the U.S. is a significant inquiry for adult and continuing education. Data from the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies were used to explore relationships between U.S. participants’ information processing skills and political efficacy. Given the impact of certain demographic characteristics on political efficacy, the study also analyzed whether the relationship between information processing skills and self-reported political efficacy varied across levels of cultural engagement, formal educational attainment, or immigrant status. The results illustrate that higher levels of literacy, numeracy, and problem solving in technology-rich environments are associated with higher political efficacy for U.S. participants. Our research is framed in both cognitive and critical lenses, and we provide implications for practice in adult and continuing education settings.

Keywords

Political efficacy cultural engagement information processing skills democratic education Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies literacy numeracy problem solving in technology rich environments civic education civic literacy assessment

Political participation is vital to sustaining democracies through informed decision making that protects individual interests (Rousseau, 1968). Political efficacy, or “the feeling that individual political action does have, or can have, an impact upon the political process, i.e. that it is worthwhile to perform one’s civic duties” (Campbell, Gurin, & Miller, 1954, p. 187), is an important predictor of political participation (Finkel, 1985). U.S. scholarship on political behavior is rooted in the “resource model” (Brady, Verba, & Schlozman, 1995) where time, money, and civic skills are essential resources for political participation. Education, including information processing skills and civic knowledge, is one of the key developers of civic skills within the model. The belief that “public schools do not serve a public so much as create a public” (National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS), 2018, para 1) and similarly related democratic ideals espoused by William Smith (1753), Thomas Jefferson (1816), Horace Mann (1870), and John Dewey (1900, 1916) undergird much of U.S. education policy. The main goals of education in civics, according to Kawashima-Ginsberg (2016), are to enable active participation in aspects of civic life, such as volunteering or advocating for a cause, and to help learners develop a sense of civic duty, political efficacy, and participation.

Unfortunately, however, data from national assessments indicate that Americans’ levels of civic literacy are low. Only 23% of eighth-grade students scored at the level of “proficient,” while 80% of seniors from top-ranked colleges and universities scored at or near failing levels on a test of basic civic knowledge (Baumann & Brennan, 2017). This dismal performance reflects U.S. schools’ limited emphasis on civic learning, particularly as social studies and civics education become sidelined in the face of higher stakes accountability measures for mathematics and literacy in K–12 schooling (Baumann & Brennan, 2017; Hansen et al., 2018). In fact, trends in civics scores broadly mirror reading scores (Hansen et al., 2018). In a time of heightened awareness of the importance of political engagement, as well as heightened concern for democratic processes both in the U.S. and internationally, it is worth examining adults’ political efficacy in relation to their cognitive skills.

Students’ opportunities for high-quality civics learning vary greatly across the U.S., according to educational policies, political realities, and fiscal constraints in different states, as well as learners’ socioeconomic status (SES) and ethnicity/race (Baumann & Brennan, 2017). Hansen and colleagues (2018) observed that scoring gaps between demographic groups “remain alarmingly wide” (p. 3), with students from Black and Hispanic backgrounds scoring lower than White counterparts, and English learners, students from low-socioeconomic backgrounds, and those whose parents did not complete college performing consistently lower than their peers (Baumann & Brennan, 2017). Education policies in the U.S. privilege mathematics and literacy as the dominant focus of K–12 schooling, and social studies and civics knowledge are tested far less frequently than mathematics or reading (Baumann & Brennan, 2017; Hansen et al., 2018).

Literacy and numeracy education in the U.S. focuses upon preparedness for “college and career” with little consideration of civic or community purposes, yet functional literacy is “intimately tied to citizenship and community development” (Schneider, 2007, p. 157). Thus, relationships between adults’ information processing skills and their political efficacy deserve scholarly attention. Increased use of digital technologies in literacy and numeracy practices (Bruce & Bishop, 2008; Jacobson, 2012; Thomas, 2008), along with social media and disinformation in recent political activity and campaigns (Charlton, 2018; de Zúñiga, 2012), also illustrates the need to further investigate potential relationships between information problem-solving skills in technology-rich environments (TREs) and political efficacy (Hoffman & Schechter, 2016). Understanding how U.S. adults’ cognitive abilities in literacy, numeracy, and digital problem solving relate to their political efficacy is an important concern of both educational policy and practice.

We therefore used the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) publicly available data set (National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 2014) to explore relationships between information processing skills as assessed by the PIAAC and self-reported political efficacy for U.S. adults. Our analysis was guided by the overarching question, “Are the information processing skills of U.S. adults associated with self-reported political efficacy?” Given the impact of certain demographic variables on political efficacy, we also analyzed whether the relationship between information processing skills and self-reported political efficacy varied across levels of cultural engagement, formal educational attainment, or immigrant status.

Theoretical perspectives

We situate our thinking about adults’ perceptions of political efficacy in relation to their cognitive informational-processing skills within perspectives reflecting both political science and education. Political scientists point to the strong relationship between educational attainment (operationalized as years of schooling), political efficacy, and political engagement (Persson, 2015; Verba, Scholzman, & Brady, 1995). Education clearly enhances information processing skills and knowledge relevant to political participation such as speaking, reading, writing, and critical thinking, and it also directly affects political efficacy and engagement (Persson, 2015). While the relationship between these constructs is largely not in question, scholars debate whether education is a direct cause of political participation (absolute educational model; Mayer, 2011) or if education is a proxy for other factors (Langton & Jennings, 1968) such as SES, preadult socialization including parental education (Gidengil, Tarkiainen, Wass, & Martikainen, 2017; Kam & Palmer, 2008), or social status/connectivity (relative education model; Horowitz, 2015; Nie, Junn, & Stehlik-Barry, 1996).

In contrast, educational theories tend to focus on information processing skill proficiencies and their relationship to social outcomes, as exemplified by the stated purpose of the PIAAC: to focus on “cognitive and workplace skills necessary for successful participation in 21st-century society and the global economy” (Goodman, Finnegan, Mohadjer, Krenzke, & Hogan, 2013, p. 1). Cognitive educational theorists point to the primacy of informational processing skill development (e.g., Dinis da Costa, Rodrigues, Vera-Toscano, & Weber, 2014; Le Compte & de Marrais, 1992), while critical sociocultural theorists emphasize social and political factors shaping educational opportunities and outcomes (e.g., Freire, 1970; Prins & Drayton, 2010) as key to developing political efficacy and engagement.

Cognitive and critical perspectives on education and political participation

From the cognitive perspective (both functional and psychological), increases in information-processing skills, as measured by Messick’s (1994) construct-centered approach, promote human capital (Becker, 1993) which, in turn, spurs growth for economies as well as engagement with social/political systems (Dinis da Costa, Rodrigues, Vera-Toscano, & Weber, 2014). This perspective asserts that increases in knowledge position people “to make well-informed decisions about the future, to assume responsibility for these decisions, and to judge how their personal behavior will affect future generations, helping individuals and society to be more stable and resilient in times of change” (Dinis da Costa, Rodrigues, Vera-Toscano, & Weber, 2014, p. 11).

Persson (2015) illustrates that, from a cognitive perspective, participation in political systems is impacted by the effect of increased cognitive abilities developed in school. Jackson (1995) also notes that education enhances community members’ beliefs around their ability to influence what the government does (external political efficacy) and increases their feelings of personal competence to comprehend and participate in the political system (internal political efficacy). Correspondingly, functionalist and psychological approaches cast education’s impact as providing people with cognitive skills to become more economically productive and, therefore, able to more efficiently perform their roles as citizens (Le Compte & de Marrais, 1992).

Because part of the purpose of education (at least in theory, if not always in practice) involves political engagement and empowerment, critical perspectives on education must be included in our theoretical framing. We align with Quigley’s (2000) assumption “that education is the key to human dignity and the populist democracy of the United States” (p. 212). Adult education, in particular, seeks to empower students, both individually and collectively, by providing and apprenticing the skills necessary to gain greater power within existing economic, social, and political systems (Inglis, 1997; Prins & Drayton, 2010). This ability to enact collective agency (Hewson, 2010), or when people act together to make choices in their best interest, is also a central tenet in one of the seminal pieces of critical emancipatory education: Freire’s (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Freire’s theory of dialogic action suggests that “the struggle for liberation is a common task…emerging from cooperation in a shared effort” (p. 176).

Critical perspectives additionally outline the importance of collective agency over economic drivers (Barker, 2005; Prins & Drayton, 2010). Collective agency is often developed through community engagement or volunteerism (Munoz & Wrigley, 2012; Thomas, 2008). Community and cultural engagement, inclusive of volunteerism—as outlined in the PIAAC’s background question on cultural engagement—is often an instrument for political efficacy, as it allows people to utilize their educational skills and lived experiences to shape organizations that serve their interests (Bishop & Bruce, 2005; Bruce & Bishop, 2008; Knowles, Holton, & Swanson, 2015; Munoz & Wrigley, 2012).

Literature review

To contextualize our analysis of political efficacy with respect to cognitive (information processing) skills proficiencies for U.S. adults, we provide an overview of civics education in the U.S. and its relationship to various outcomes related to political efficacy and participation. We also review the nascent body of research that examines PIAAC data with respect to political efficacy on a comparative, international scale.

Purposes for civics education in the U.S.

The U.S. does not have a unified national curriculum, yet all states include social studies and civics education as an academic requirement (Baumann & Brennan, 2017; Railey & Brennan, 2016). Policies and implementation vary across states; some have highly specified directives, while others offer minimum guidelines with the expectation that local school districts will specify coursework and assessments (Railey & Brennan, 2016). For example, 48 of the 50 states include civics-specific language as a required strand across grade levels, yet only 20 of these states provide actual curriculum frameworks (Railey & Brennan, 2016). As of 2018, 42 states and the District of Columbia required at least one high school course related to civics education (Hansen et al., 2018).

Although consensus exists that civics education should prepare learners for active participation in civic life (Kawashima-Ginsberg, 2016), there is little agreement about how to accomplish this in the U.S.—or what even constitutes a “good citizen” (Westheimer, 2015). Citizenship education in the U.S. can be divided into three typical models, according to Westheimer (2015). Programs oriented toward a “Personally Responsible Citizen” model attempt to build individual personal responsibility “by emphasizing honesty, integrity, self-discipline, and hard work” (p. 38). A personally responsible citizen might contribute to a food bank, for example. The second model, “Participatory Citizen,” defines citizenship as active participation in the “civic affairs and the social life of the community at local, state, and national levels” (p. 40). A participatory citizen might help to organize a food drive. Finally, the “Social Justice-Oriented Citizen” model prioritizes independent and critical thinking, emphasizes the complexity of social issues, and seeks to improve society (Westheimer, 2015). Social justice-oriented citizens might explore the concept of food insecurity and act to solve its underlying causes.

The wide variation in models and approaches also reflects disagreements about the content and instruction of civics education. For example, 30 states have passed the Civics Education Initiative, which requires that high school students pass a civics exam based on questions from the U.S. Citizenship test as a condition of their graduation (Spataro, 2019). Reflecting the consensus of many scholars, however, Kawashima-Ginsberg (2016) argued that such efforts promote memorization of facts at the expense of development of crucial civic skills such as deliberation and collaboration.

Although there is no national curriculum framework, there are some commonalities across approaches. Both the Effective Civic Learning framework (Hansen et al., 2018) and the Education Commission of the States (Baumann & Brennan, 2017) argued that key components of civics education include knowledge, various skills, and dispositions. Approximately half of the states have adopted the College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards (NCSS, 2013), which provides an inquiry-based approach to developing appropriate state standards. This framework includes subsections for civics, economics, geography, and history, with a suggested K–12 pathway for developing proficiencies in essential skills and concepts (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Sample K–12 pathways for civics education from the C3 framework.

By end of Grade 2	By end of Grade 5	By end of Grade 8	By end of Grade 12
D2.Civ.2.K-2. Explain how all people, not just official leaders, play important roles in a community.	D2.Civ.2.35. Explain how a democracy relies on people’s responsible participation, and draw implications for how individuals should participate.	D2.Civ.2.68. Explain specific roles played by citizens (such as voters, jurors, taxpayers, members of the armed forces, petitioners, pro	D2.Civ.2.9-12. Analyze the role of citizens in the U.S. political system, with attention to various theories of democracy, changes in Americans’ participation over time, and alternative models from other countries, past and present.
D2.Civ.8.K-2. Describe democratic principles such as equality, fairness, and respect for legitimate authority and rules.	D2.Civ.8.35. Identify core civic virtues and democratic principles that guide government, society, and communities.	D2.Civ.8.68. Analyze ideas and principles contained in the founding documents of the United States, and explain how they influence the social and political system.	D2.Civ.8.9-12. Evaluate social and political systems in different contexts, times, and places, that promote civic virtues and enact democratic principles.
D2.Civ.14.K-2. Describe how people have tried to improve their communities over time.	D2.Civ.14.3-5. Illustrate historical and contemporary means of changing society.	D2.Civ.14.6-8. Compare historical and contemporary means of changing societies, and promoting the common good.	D2.Civ.14.9-12. Analyze historical, contemporary, and emerging means of changing societies, promoting the common good, and protecting rights.

Characteristics impacting political efficacy

Unfortunately, not all U.S. citizens or citizen groups are equally empowered to participate in the democratic enterprise. Education in the U.S. can be a “double-edged sword for democracy, simultaneously promoting and stratifying political capacities” by intersecting with SES and other experiences to promote the greatest enrichment in political efficacy for those who are already politically and socially advantaged (Beaumont, 2011, p. 216). Westheimer (2015) similarly referred to a “civic opportunity gap,” or “unequal distribution of opportunities to practice democratic engagement” (p. 14), which occurs as a result of significant differences across and within states, depending upon the models and policies that shape civics education (Westheimer, 2015).

Further, higher levels of formal educational attainment have consistently been associated with higher levels of political efficacy and corresponding political participation for adults (Helliwell & Putnam, 2007; Persson, 2015; Pollock, 1983; Newell, 2014). Socioeconomic status, age, gender, immigration status, and ethnicity also can impact political efficacy. Political efficacy is linked to social class: adults who are marginalized due to their income and employment status perceive less control over the decisions that affect them and are far less politically involved (Abramson, 1983; Laurison, 2016). Menard and Slater (2012) found that while older U.S. adults had higher percentages of voting, civic memberships, and social trust, younger adults had higher percentages of online civic participation. Similarly, Hirshorn and Settersten’s (2013) review of current age group and cohort participation critiqued the current emphasis on youth and old-age participation patterns. They argued for reviewing age/cohort data on political participation from a dynamic life course perspective, where changes in participation trajectories may be viewed across the life span and by discrete individuals or groups.

In terms of gender, U.S. women are more likely than men to engage in nonpolitical volunteering, community service, and local civic organizations as forms of civic participation (Hooghe, & Stolle, 2004; Schlozman, Burns, & Verba, 1994; Stromquist, 2008). Women also have voted more often and at higher rates than men since the 1980s (Schlozman, Burns, & Verba, 1994). However, women are less engaged than males in political activities that have the largest policy impacts such as involvement with political parties, contacting elected officials, and/or publicly expressing political opinions (Schlozman, Burns, & Verba, 1994). Few gender differences are present in online political behavior, except those that are most visible; women may avoid online political behaviors they believe could offend others (Bode, 2017).

A person’s immigrant status, specifically whether they are a natural-born U.S. citizen, naturalized citizen, or noncitizen resident (Munoz & Wrigley, 2012; Ramirez & Felix, 2011) also largely affects their perceived political efficacy and participation. Additionally, a U.S. adult’s ethnicity (Shaw, DeSipio, Pinderhughes, & Travis, 2018) can significantly impact their political efficacy and participation.

Finally, Hoffman and Schechter (2016) examined adults’ perceptions of their technological efficacy and online political behaviors and found that technological efficacy predicted online political expression (Hoffman & Schechter, 2016). However, participants’ skill use was identified using self-reported construct as opposed to the PIAAC’s task-based skill assessment of problem solving in TREs.

PIAAC and political efficacy

Previous adult literacy assessments, including the International Adult Literacy Survey (IALS, 1994, 1998) and the Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey (Desjardins et al., 2005), did not include information on participants’ political efficacy. Since the PIAAC’s administration in 2013, more quantitative studies have examined the intersection of assessed informational-processing skill proficiencies of adults with political efficacy (Dinis da Costa, Rodrigues, Vera-Toscano, & Weber, 2014; Grotlüschen et al., 2016; Stromquist, 2008). In 2012, for example, the OECD first used the PIAAC to identify the contributions of proficiencies to social practices, including political efficacy. They found “that adults with lower levels of skills are more likely to report feeling a low level of political efficacy” for the 24 countries and regions associated with the OECD 2012 Survey of Adult Skills (p. 240). Additionally, Dinis da Costa, Rodrigues, Vera-Toscano, and Weber (2014) explored the relationship between political efficacy and adults’ information-processing skills in European Union (EU) countries that participated in the PIAAC. They found a positive relationship between literacy and political efficacy, along with a smaller but positive relationship between numeracy and problem solving in technology-rich environments (PS-TRE). Grotlüschen, Mallows, Reder, and Sabatini (2016) similarly examined political efficacy’s relationship to literacy, numeracy, and PS-TRE for low literate populations in the 24 countries and regions associated with the OECD 2012 Survey of Adult Skills. Interestingly, they found that neither literacy nor numeracy information skill proficiency was significantly associated with political efficacy; however, political efficacy was positively associated with both educational attainment and employment status for low-skill populations. Additionally, they noted that the “effects of age, gender and immigrant status on political efficacy vary over the different practices models” (p. 54).

These studies have offered an important international comparative examination of proficiencies with respect to political efficacy. However, no study has focused exclusively on the U.S. sample. Considering almost 40% of eligible U.S. voters do not vote (McDonald, 2017) despite a policy emphasis on democratic and civic education in the U.S. educational system, more research is necessary to understand how literacy, numeracy, and technological information-processing skills relate to political efficacy and civic participation for adults in the U.S. context.

Methodology

Data source

The OECD conducted the PIAAC to assess adults’ skills and competencies across over 24 countries at the time of this study. In order to answer our research question, we completed a secondary analysis of the PIAAC data from the U.S. Public Use File (NCES, 2014). Our PIAAC data source is comprised of two parts: (1) the 2012 United States’ assessment of the Survey of Adult Skills and (2) the Background Questionnaire (BQ) (OECD, 2012, 2013b). The Survey of Adult Skills assesses information-processing skills in the domains of literacy, numeracy, and PS-TRE to describe proficiency levels. PIAAC is cross-sectional in nature so it can compare skill proficiencies of adults who are in different generations of life, and who were raised and educated with various values and educational systems. The BQ identifies demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, which are relevant to the adult competency distributions (IEA-ETS Research Institute, 2015).

PIAAC randomly sampled the U.S. adult population. A total of 7732 adults’ ages 16–65 years old living in the U.S. completed the PIAAC Survey and Questionnaire. After data screening and deletion of incomplete cases (n = 462 or about 6% of the total sample), our final analytic sample size was 7270. Due to screening for computer use in the PIAAC PS-TREs assessment, the sample size for the analysis with PS-TRE was 6154. Most participants had at least a high school diploma (87%), were employed (67.8%), and were living with a spouse or partner (65%). About half of the sample was female, about 60% had two children or fewer, and about 13% were foreign-born. Most respondents’ parents had also obtained a high school diploma or better.

Dependent variable

For the purposes of this paper, we are focusing on external political efficacy as measured by the PIAAC. Political efficacy was measured based on the response to the BQ item “People like me don’t have any say about what the government does.” Participants had five outcome choices: (1) strongly agree, (2) agree, (3) neither agree nor disagree, (4) disagree, (5) strongly disagree. Therefore, strongly disagree is the highest self-reported level of political efficacy because of the negatively worded question. To aid in more meaningful classification of the bipolar Likert-like scale of the outcome choices, we dichotomized the existing outcome choices to “Yes” and “No” in response to the statement “people like me have a say in what the government does.” Those who self-reported a level 4 (disagree) or 5 (strongly disagree) response to the original question were classified as “Yes.” Those who self-reported a level 1 (strongly agree), 2 (agree), or 3 (neither agree nor disagree) response to the original question were classified as “No.” We felt this dichotomized response offers a clearer interpretation of the findings.

Independent variables

Our main independent variables were the participants’ information-processing skill assessment results (estimated scores from 1 to 500) in literacy, numeracy, and PS-TRE. The three discrete information-processing skill sets are viewed as necessary, transferable, and learnable; however, they also highly correlated (OECD, 2013a). In PIAAC, the three information-processing skill measures were provided in a set of 10 plausible values or statistically estimated values. Analysis of plausible values requires specialized software and use of appropriate survey weights (described below). As a result of our review of factors impacting political efficacy, we also closely examined three factors including what the PIAAC identifies as cultural engagement (i.e., volunteer participation self-assessed 1–5: never–everyday), nativity (U.S. born vs. immigrant), and educational attainment (college or higher vs. less than college).

Covariates

We also included a series of demographic and socioeconomic variables in our models to understand their impact on U.S. adults’ political efficacy. These include participants’ age group (10-year band), gender (women vs. men), number of household members, mother’s and father’s educational attainment (college or higher vs. less than college), whether the participants were living with spouse or partner (yes vs. no), income categories (0–6: no income to highest quintile distributions), number of children, and race/ethnicity (expressed as a dichotomous variable for each of White, Black, Hispanic, and other race) (e.g., Hofstetter, Sticht, & Hofstetter, 1999; Munoz & Wrigley, 2012). In PIAAC, participants who were unemployed or out of the labor force did not provide an answer to the income question; they were classified into the lowest income group in this study.

Data analysis

Weighted descriptive summaries were generated and bivariate tests (weighted t-tests or chi-square tests) by the political efficacy (yes vs. no to the influence on government) were conducted. We used weighted binary logistic regression to model political efficacy as a function of the three information-processing skills (literacy, numeracy, and PS-TRE), cultural engagement, nativity, educational attainment, and covariates. First, an unconditional model for each of literacy, numeracy, and PS-TRE was constructed to establish the baseline association. Then, we added the independent and covariates to the fully conditional models. All analyses were conducted using a macro program generated in the IDB analyzer application (International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), 2017) and SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., 2014). The sampling weights and 80 replicate weights were incorporated into all analyses.

On a related note, interactions between information-processing skills, cultural engagement, nativity, and educational attainment were evaluated in our preliminary analysis, but none was statistically significant, given the combination of main and interaction effect. Therefore, interaction terms were not included in the final models. Finally, we conducted sensitivity analysis using unconditional and alternative models as well as checked the assumptions including multicollinearity by calculating the variation inflation factor. Based on these additional computations, we concluded that the findings from our final models are robust, and there is no indication of assumption violations.

Results

To answer our research question, Are information processing skills of U.S. adults associated with self-reported political efficacy? we analyzed nationally representative data from the PIAAC. Table 2 presents descriptive statistics for all variables of interest. Approximately 41% of respondents in the sample self-reported that they felt they had a say in what the government does or had influence on the government, and these respondents had significantly greater information processing scores for literacy, numeracy, and PS-TRE (281, 266, 279, p < 0.05, respectively). In contrast, approximately 59% of respondents in the sample reported that they did not feel they had influence on the government; these respondents had lower information processing scores for literacy, numeracy, and PS-TRE (264, 250, 269, respectively).

Table 2.

Weighted descriptive summary by political efficacy.

	Political efficacy Yes to the influence on government^a (n = 3021)	Political efficacy No to the influence on government^a (n = 4249)
	M (SE) or %	M (SE) or %
Literacy	281.706 (1.249)*	264.257 (1.105)
Numeracy	266.445 (1.533)*	250.290 (1.289)
PS-TRE^b	279.231 (1.499)*	268.833 (1.429)
Levels of civic engagement	^*
Never	37.743%	48.871%
Less than once a month	37.866%	25.013%
Less than once a week but at least once a month	17.653%	13.036%
At least once a week but not every day	14.381%	10.572%
Every day	2.448%	2.508%
Gender	^*
Female	54.400%	48.600%
Male	45.600%	51.400%
Educational attainment	^*
College or higher	45.100%	29.700%
High school or less	54.900%	70.300%
Number living in household	3.142 (0.036)	3.264 (0.032)
Nativity	^*
United States born	87.500%	83.900%
Foreign born	12.500%	16.100%
Age	^*
16–24	15.634%	20.484%
25–34	18.820%	21.491%
35–44	19.600%	19.536%
45–54	23.243%	20.079%
55–65	22.706%	18.409%
Mother’s educational attainment	^*
College or higher	29.800%	24.400%
High school or less	70.200%	75.600%
Father’s educational attainment	^*
College or higher	32.400%	26.200%
High school or less	67.600%	73.800%
Home status
Living with a spouse or partner	60.400%	58.000%
Not living with a spouse or partner	39.600%	42.000%
Income (modified quintile)^c
Less than 10	32.028%	35.032%
10 to less than 25	11.695%	14.188%
25 to less than 50	12.580%	14.010%
50 to less than 75	12.200%	14.035%
75 to less than 90	15.197%	11.833%
90 or more	16.300%	10.901%
Number of children	1.549 (0.033)	1.520 (0.027)
Ethnicity	^*
White	65.000%	65.100%
Black	14.100%	11.600%
Hispanic	13.900%	15.500%
Other race	7.000%	7.800%

SE = standard error; PS-TRE: problem solving in technology-rich environments.

^aOriginal categories of strongly disagree and disagree were classified as “yes”; neutral, agree, and strongly agree were classified as “no” to the perceived influence on government (political efficacy).

^bThe final sample size for the PS-TRE was 6154 due to the screening process.

^cGiven all Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) participants who were unemployed or out of labor force had no income information, they were classified into the lowest category.

*p < 0.05 (yes vs. no to the political efficacy).

Generally, those in the sample with greater self-reported political efficacy were more likely to report higher levels of cultural engagement (volunteerism) than those with lower political efficacy. Additionally, those who self-reported greater political efficacy were more likely to be women, highly educated, born in the U.S., older, and have parents with greater educational attainment. Finally, there was a bivariate association between political efficacy and race/ethnicity in our data set Our follow-up analysis, alternative models with and without one or more of the covariates, showed that Blacks were more likely to have greater political efficacy than other racial/ethnic groups.

Table 3 shows the results from the unconditional binary logistic regression focusing on information-processing skills. All information-processing skills—literacy, numeracy, and PS-TRE—were significantly were significantly associated with political efficacy. Specifically, greater information-processing skills were linked to greater political efficacy without accounting for other variables within the model.

Table 3.

Estimated odds ratios from the unconditional binary logistic regressions on political efficacy.

	Model 1a		Model 2a		Model 3a
	OR	SE	OR	SE	OR	SE
Literacy	1.007*	0.001	-------	-------	-------	-------
Numeracy	-------	-------	1.005*	0.001	-------	-------
PS-TRE	-------		-------	-------	1.006*	0.001

OR: odds ratio; SE: standard error; PS-TRE: problem solving in technology-rich environment.

*p < 0.05.

Dependent variable: yes vs. no to the perceived influence on government (political efficacy).

Table 4 shows the results from the conditional binary logistic regressions across literacy (Model 1b), numeracy (Model 2b), and PS-TRE (Model 3b). Again, all information-processing skills were significant predictors of political efficacy, even after accounting for all covariates in the models. For our sample, a one-unit increase in each of information-processing skills was associated with 1.006–1.007 higher odds of reporting greater political efficacy.

Table 4.

Estimated odds ratios from the conditional binary logistic regressions on political efficacy.

	Model 1b		Model 2b		Model 3b
	OR	SE	OR	SE	OR	SE
Information-processing skills
Literacy	1.007*	0.001	–	–	–	–
Numeracy	–	–	1.006*	0.001	–	–
PS-TRE	–	–	–	–	1.007*	0.001

Civic engagement	1.108*	0.032	1.108*	0.032	1.108*	0.034
Women (vs. men)	1.251*	0.068	1.344*	0.071	1.198*	0.065
College or higher education(vs. less than college)	1.369*	0.092	1.417*	0.099	1.385*	0.096
Number of household members	1.037	0.024	1.038	0.024	1.028	0.025
U.S. born (vs. foreign born)	1.288*	0.118	1.419*	0.127	1.185	0.123
Age group (10-year band)	1.248*	0.035	1.229*	0.033	1.297*	0.044
MotherCollege or higher(vs. less than college)	1.148^*	0.079	1.153^*	0.080	1.235^*	0.093
FatherCollege or higher(vs. less than college)	1.093	0.094	1.118	0.096	1.090	0.095
Living with spouse or partner	0.937	0.068	0.926	0.066	0.949	0.068
Income group	1.014	0.017	1.018	0.017	1.018	0.020
Number of children	0.965	0.029	0.965	0.029	0.979	0.029
Black (vs. White)	1.937*	0.194	2.004*	0.213	2.075^*	0.246
Hispanic (vs. White)	1.810*	0.197	1.749*	0.197	1.777^*	0.235
Other (vs. White)	1.107	0.140	1.098	0.141	1.023	0.138

OR: odds ratio; SE: standard error; PS-TRE: problem solving in technology-rich environment.

Dependent variable: yes vs. no to the perceived influence on government (political efficacy).

*p < 0.05; the sampling weights and replicate weights were applied.

Cultural engagement was also significantly associated with political efficacy in the fully conditional models. Those who self-reported greater cultural engagement (volunteerism) had about 11% higher odds of reporting greater political efficacy across all three models (literacy, numeracy, and PS-TRE). Moreover, those in the sample who were born in the U.S. had significantly greater political efficacy than those who were born in foreign countries after accounting for literacy, numeracy, and other covariates. However, nativity was no longer a significant predictor of political efficacy in the PS-TRE model with covariates. Furthermore, educational attainment was significantly associated with political efficacy across all three models. Those with college or higher education had about 1.4 greater odds of reporting greater political efficacy compared to those with high school or less education.

Some covariates had a significant impact on the model. Women, older adults, and respondents whose mother had college or higher education were more likely to report greater political efficacy than their counterparts, respectively. Black people were more likely to report greater political efficacy than Whites. This finding is consistent with the bivariate analysis. At the same time, the finding that Hispanics have greater political efficacy than Whites requires caution, as it is inconsistent with the bivariate analysis. This may be due to the suppression effect of information-processing skills. For example, among respondents with lower information processing skills, White respondents seemed to have lower political efficacy compared to Hispanic respondents. That is to say, without accounting for information processing skills, we did not observe statistically significant differences in political efficacy between White and Hispanic respondents. We suspected possible statistical artifact, or the unintended consequences of measurement error, for the finding on Hispanic respondents and conducted a series of follow-up analyses including creating alternative models with and without one or more of the covariates. However, there was no evidence of model complication.

Discussion

In his Spirit of Laws (1748 [2001]), Charles de Montesquieu argued that the laws of education ought to be in relation to the principles of government. Montesquieu’s political treatise and corresponding arguments had enormous influence on the public education policies and positions of the U.S. system. Yet, how often do we, as researchers, attempt to review how effective our educational policies are at achieving their democratic priorities—an informed and active citizenry capable of sustaining a democracy?

The purpose of this paper was to explore relationships between assessed information processing skills of U.S. adults and their self-reported political efficacy. Our main finding indicated that there is a statistically significant association between political efficacy and information-processing skills for U.S. adults. Similarly to the OECD (2013a) international study, we found that across all information processing skills as measured by the PIAAC (literacy, numeracy, and PS-TRE), participants with higher average scores believed they had more say in their government. In other words, higher skilled individuals have higher levels of political efficacy.

This finding paints a problematic picture of the democratic ideals undergirding U.S. educational policy. Specifically, although we found that those with more educational skill are more likely to believe that their engagement in democratic processes matters, there are a larger percentage of U.S. adults with lower skills, 61%, who do not feel that their engagement and participation counts. If U.S. public schools were designed to “create a public” (NCSS, 2018, para 1) by guiding learners in developing a sense of civic duty, political efficacy, and participation, there are many adults for whom the U.S. education system is ineffective at achieving this democratic priority.

Description of skills

The PIAAC’s average scores are broken into achievement levels with corresponding score ranges and task descriptions. Perhaps most interestingly, the difference in scores across skills of those with high and low political efficacy was greatest for the literacy domain of the assessment. In fact, the average score of those who reported that they felt they had an impact on government was an entire achievement level higher than those who felt they had little to no impact. The average literacy score (264) of those with lower self-reported levels of political efficacy falls at a Level 2. According to the OECD (2013b), those with Level 2 proficiency in literacy are able to perform tasks that require skills such as information matching, paraphrasing, or making low-level inferences in simple or short texts.

In contrast, the average literacy score (281) of those with higher self-reported levels of political efficacy falls at a Level 3. Those with Level 3 proficiency are able to perform literacy tasks that require skills such as interpretation, evaluation, or varying levels of inference using dense or lengthy texts (OECD, 2013b). Particularly, OECD mentions that at Level 3 proficiency, participants are more adept at “understanding text and rhetorical structures [which] become more central to successfully completing tasks, especially navigating complex digital texts” (OECD, 2013b, p. 40). In summary, those participants who are more able to make meaning (comprehend) across multiple text types with a critical understanding of author’s purpose are more likely to report higher levels of political efficacy.

Impact of other variables

Although information-processing skill levels clearly influence feelings of political efficacy, other variables also had significant impact on our models and therefore warrant further discussion. Previous research established a clear relationship between cultural engagement (volunteerism) and political efficacy (Bishop & Bruce, 2005, Bruce & Bishop, 2008; Munoz & Wrigley, 2012). We also found that participants with greater political efficacy show greater cultural engagement (volunteerism) in the models. Similar to Newell’s (2014) study, our findings also emphasize the impact of educational attainment, particularly at levels involving some college or higher, on adults’ political efficacy above and beyond their assessed information-processing skills. Our findings emphasizing nativity’s impact on political engagement correspond to the work of Munoz and Wrigley (2012), Ramirez and Felix (2011), and Waldinger and Duquette-Rury (2016).

Higher literacy and numeracy skills were more protective of self-reported political efficacy for people who were born in the U.S. than for those who were born in a foreign country. As Waldinger and Duquette-Rury (2016) observed, policies and practices deliberately disenfranchise and exclude immigrants from the polity, with little to no option for formal political participation. Given this context, education’s impact on political engagement is significantly constrained for foreign-born participants.

Income remained predictive of political efficacy (Laurison, 2016) as those with higher incomes believed they had a greater input into government affairs. Similar to the work of Menard and Slater (2012), age was significantly related to participants’ self-reported political efficacy on the PIAAC, even after accounting for educational skill level. Specifically, older adults believed they had more say in what the government does regardless of educational skill level. Women also self-reported much higher rates of political efficacy irrespective of information-processing skill. This finding also reinforces the work of Hooghe and Stolle (2004) who note women’s higher rates of political and cultural engagement when compared to men.

Finally, our analysis found a significant relationship between some ethnicities and political efficacy even after accounting for information processing skills. Particularly, we found that Black people had higher self-reported levels of political efficacy than Whites in our sample. However, just as Shaw, DeSipio, Pinderhughes, and Travis (2018) and Nunnally (2012) caution, we want to highlight that when discussing ethnicity and political efficacy, the context of the particular point in time, or the sociopolitical moment, matters. Typically, U.S. minority groups self-report distrust in government fairly consistently, an attribute many political scientists and historians ascribe to decades of intentional and ongoing disenfranchisement and voter suppression (Shaw, DeSipio, Pinderhughes, & Travis, 2018). However, Walton, Smith, and Wallace (2017) note that, for the Black community, the perceived responsiveness of the federal government to their needs and interests, particularly protecting their civil rights, impacts their political trust and political engagement. Importantly, the PIAAC survey data used in this analysis were collected at the end of the first term of the U.S.’s first elected Black president, Barack Obama. The year following this survey, President Obama was reelected as President, receiving 93% of Black votes (Shaw, DeSipio, Pinderhughes, & Travis, 2018). Similar to previous research, our finding that Black people have higher political efficacy than Whites in our sample may be an outcome based on context versus a finding indicative of a static difference in the U.S. population across ethnicities.

Framing the results within cognitive and critical lenses

When viewed through the cognitive lens, grounded in the human capital tradition (Becker, 1993), our results highlight the importance of educational skill development across the domains of literacy, numeracy, and PS-TRE as an additional mechanism empowering U.S. adults to engage in the political arena. Since those with higher information processing skills also reported higher political efficacy, ongoing political and fiscal support for adult and continuing educational programs as an avenue for increasing political efficacy and engagement is warranted. Furthermore, the significance of educational attainment on political efficacy point to the need for policies that foster an increase in an increase in adults’ access to tertiary educational opportunities.

However, when approaching these results from a critical lens, we note that conflating even a marginal increase in educational skill and increased self-reported political efficacy is overly simplistic and individualistic as indicated by the substantial impact of control variables on the model. Educational programs focused on skill without grounding in a critical, sociopolitical context (i.e., those that focus on college and career, but ignore community and citizenship) may not foster a marked increase in political efficacy for disenfranchised groups. Instead, uncritical skill-driven instruction can possibly serve to reproduce stratifying social systems, as evidenced by the impacts of income, gender, and immigrant status on political efficacy. Similarly, Centellas and Rosenblatt’s (2018) research also suggested that not all adult educational experiences actually improve political efficacy. In fact, they found that some opportunities for civic education may have the opposite effect for marginalized adult populations and, as a result, increase the racial political efficacy gap (Centellas & Rosenblatt, 2018).

Implications for practice

Building upon United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO, 2016) call for educators, library and information specialists, media specialists, and publishers to teach, encourage, and promote media and information literacy for all populations, we argue that educational curricula for K–12 and adult and continuing education settings should incorporate a more explicit focus on participatory, critical, and social justice-oriented perspectives (Westheimer, 2015), particularly for marginalized and historically disadvantaged groups.

Despite disagreements about the nature and content of civics education in U.S. public schools, one important implication from our findings is for both K–12 and adult civics education to focus less on memorization of civics-related facts and focus more on civic skills such as critical analysis of multiple text types, deliberation, and collaboration (Kawashima-Ginsberg, 2016). The goal is for learners—regardless of age or level—to civically engage, or practice agency, in authentic settings, including online and face-to-face environments. While the C3 Framework was designed for K–12 settings, adult and community-based educators can nevertheless use this framework to plan real-life, tangible opportunities that encourage learners to engage in their communities and develop important civic skills and dispositions. Such educational opportunities might involve, for example, (1) a guided analysis of and participation in a digital conversation stemming from a local community concern like #BlackLivesMatter or #gogreen or (2) opportunities to participate in or provide direct or indirect service to local community advocacy groups of interest to learners. Experiential civic educational opportunities are not only ripe for reinforcing academic skills in education settings, but also “respect the view of the world held by the people” (Freire, 1970, p. 95), and, therefore, could serve to expand or reinforce political efficacy through issues important to learners and their local communities.

Given the shifting media climate, including the online proliferation of fake news and disinformation (UNESCO, 2016), an explicit focus on critical media and information literacy within education programming across settings is vital to enabling citizens “to take part in political and social life in a democratic society” (p. 4). Focusing on critical media and information literacy offers the added benefit of developing both civic and cognitive literacy skills simultaneously, which may be particularly helpful for educators who feel pressing needs to prepare students for high-stakes testing. For example, educators in K–12, Adult Basic Education (ABE), General Equivalency Diploma (GED), and continuing education settings could design inquiry or service-learning projects related to critical community needs, while simultaneously engaging learners in critical comparisons of reporting about that issue across newspapers, television, and social media (Garcia, Seglem, & Share, 2013).

Limitations

Our study had several limitations. Since we accessed a public data source, we had no influence upon the data collected. For example, the PIAAC does not include religious variables, yet we know religious affiliation, church attendance, and religiosity are important drivers of political efficacy (Driskell, Lyon, & Embry, 2008). Further, all items on the BQ were self-reported and subject to participants’ self-assessment and honesty. Perhaps most importantly, the political self-efficacy variable only assessed respondents’ perceived influence on the political process (external political efficacy) and did not assess internal political efficacy at all—despite the understanding that both impact participation in civic life (Pollock, 1983). Further, what the survey identified as cultural engagement did not capture the full range of cultural engagement activities in which U.S. adults are involved. For example, the cultural engagement question asks participants to rate how often in the last 12 months they performed voluntary work for a nonprofit organization. The assessment does not ask about other forms of cultural engagement such as creating or participating in affinity or advocacy groups, writing letters to an editor, posting comments on online political articles/discussion boards, or participating in a public protest. Further, we are not able to determine how any of the variables in the PIAAC impact political efficacy since the data does not allow us to determine causality.

Suggestions for future research

Given our findings, one suggestion for future research using the PIAAC data set would be to examine political efficacy and information processing skill levels for specifically targeted subgroups within the U.S. population (nativity, educational attainment, SES, gender, older or younger adults, racial groups, etc.). Considering the shifting media climate in the U.S. and ongoing debates about the influence of media on election outcomes, the PIAAC data set could be used to understand more about how the U.S. participants’ self-reported political information-seeking behaviors and their information-processing skills in everyday life are related to their political efficacy. Additionally, qualitative studies that deeply explore participants’ perspectives on political efficacy should be updated to account for both the current sociopolitical context and other important variables identified in our model.

In conclusion, our analysis of U.S. data from the PIAAC data set reveals there is an association between adults’ information-processing skills and their political efficacy. It is our goal to highlight the need for civic literacy education across the life span, in a variety of educational settings. An effective lifelong civics curriculum should de-emphasize memorization of facts and focus on meaningful critical civic skills that make a positive difference in the political efficacy and participation of all people regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, or formal educational attainment.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

This paper was previously presented at the 2016 American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC on April 09.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Abramson

P. R.

(1983). Political attitudes in America: Formation and change. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.

Barker

(2005). Cultural studies: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Baumann

Brennan

(2017). State civic education policy: Framework and gap analysis tool. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. Retrieved from https://www.ecs.org/wp-content/uploads/State-Civics-Education-Policy-Framework-and-gap-analysis-tool.pdf

Beaumont

(2011). Promoting political agency, addressing political inequality: A multilevel model of internal political efficacy. The Journal of Politics, 73(1), 216–231. doi:10.1017/S0022381610000976

Becker

G. S.

(1993). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Bishop

A. P.

Bruce

B. C.

(2005). Community informatics: Integrating action, research, and learning. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 36(6), 699–742. Retrieved from https://www.asis.org/Bulletin/Aug-05/bishopbruce.html

Bode

(2017). Closing the gap: Gender parity in political engagement on social media. Information, Communication, and Society, 20(4), 587–603.

Brady

Verba

Schlozman

K. L.

(1995). Beyond SES: A resource model of political participation. American Political Science Review, 89(2), 271–294.

Bruce

B. C.

Bishop

A. P.

(2008). New literacies and community inquiry. In Coiro

Knobel

Lankshear

Leu

D. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 699–742). New York, NY: Routledge.

10.

Campbell

Gurin

Miller

(1954). The voter decides. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson, and Co.

11.

Centellas

Rosenblatt

(2018). Do introductory political science courses contribute to a racial “political efficacy gap”? Findings from a panel survey of a flagship university. PS: Political Science & Politics, 51, 641–647. doi:10.1017/S1049096518000380

12.

Charlton

(2018). US official: Russia using social media to divide Americans. The Associated Press. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/2e11aadd40a349cdb020cb6fe25c1e30

13.

Desjardins, R., Murray, TS, Rubenson, K., Werquin, P., Recotillet, I., Dong, L., et al. (2005). Learning a Living: First Results of the Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7nx5k5r9

14.

Dewey

(1900). School and society (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

15.

Dewey

(1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York, NY: Macmillan.

16.

de Zúñiga, H. G, Jung N., Valenzuela S. (2012). Social media use for news and individuals' social capital, civic engagement and political participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(3), 319--336.

17.

Dinis da Costa

Rodrigues

Vera-Toscano

Weber

(2014). Education, adult skills and social outcomes: Empirical evidence from the Survey on Adult Skills (PIAAC 2013). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

18.

Driskell, R., Embry, E., & Lyon, L. (2008). Faith and politics: The influence of religious beliefs on political participation. Social Science Quarterly, 89(2), 294–314.

19.

Finkel

(1985). Reciprocal effects of participation and political efficacy: A panel analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 29(4), 891–913. doi:10.2307/2111186

20.

Freire

(1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Seabury Press.

21.

Garcia

Seglem

(2013). Transforming teaching and learning through critical medial literacy pedagogy. LEARNing Landscapes, 6(2), 109–124.

22.

Gidengil

Tarkiainen

Wass

Martikainen

(2017). Turnout and education: Is education proxying for pre-adult experiences within the family? Political Science Research and Methods, 7(2), 349–365. doi:10.1017/psrm.2017.32

23.

Goodman

Finnegan

Mohadjer

Krenzke

Hogan

(2013). Literacy, numeracy, and problem solving in technology-rich environments among U.S. adults: Results from the program for the international assessment of adult competencies 2012: First look (NCES 2014-008). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch

24.

GrotlüSchen

Mallows

Reder

Sabatini

(2016). Adults with low proficiency in literacy or numeracy. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 131. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/5jm0v44bnmnx-en

25.

Hansen

Levesque

Valant

Quintero

(2018). The 2018 Brown Center Report on American education: How well are American students learning? Washington, DC: Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution.

26.

Helliwell

J. F.

Putnam

R. D.

(2007). Education and social capital. Eastern Economic Journal, 33(1), 1–19.

27.

Hewson

(2010). Agency. In Mills

Durepos

Wiebe

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of case study research (pp. 13–17). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

28.

Hirshorn

B. A.

Settersten

R. A.

(2013). Civic involvement across the life course: Moving beyond age-based assumptions. Advances in Life Course Research, 18(3), 199–121.

29.

Hoffman

L. H.

Schechter

A. L.

(2016). Technical skills required: How technological efficacy influences online political behavior. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 60(3), 484–502.

30.

Hofstetter

C. R.

Sticht

T. G.

Hofstetter

C. H.

(1999). Knowledge, literacy, and power. Communication Research, 26(1), 58–80.

31.

Hooghe

Stolle

(2004). Good girls go to the polling booth, bad boys go everywhere. Women & Politics, 26, 1–23. doi:10.1300/J014v26n03_01

32.

Horowitz

(2015). Doing less with more: Cohorts, education, and civic participation in America. Social Forces, 94(2), 747–774.

33.

IEA-ETS Research Institute. (2015). The Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) [Power point slides]. Retrieved from http://piaacgateway.com

34.

Inglis

(1997). Empowerment and emancipation. Adult Education Quarterly, 48(1), 3–17.

35.

International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. (2017). Help manual for the IEA IDB analyzer (Version 4.0). Hamburg, Germany. Retrieved fromwww.iea.nl/data.html

36.

Jackson

R. A.

(1995). Clarifying the relationship between education and turnout. American Politics Quarterly, 23(3), 279–299.

37.

Jacobson

(2012). Adult basic education in the age of new literacies. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.

38.

Jefferson

(1816). Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, January 6. [Manuscript/Mixed Material] Retrieved from the Library of Congress https://www.loc.gov/item/mtjbib022264/

39.

Kam

C. D.

Palmer

C. L.

(2008). Reconsidering the effects of education on political participation. Journal of Politics, 70(3), 612–631.

40.

Kawashima-Ginsberg

(2016). The future of civic education. National Association of the State Boards of Education. Retrieved from www.nasbe.org/wpcontent/uploads/Future-of-Civic-Education_September-2016-Standard.pdf

41.

Knowles

M. S.

Holton

E. F.

III. Swanson

R. A.

(2015). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human development (8th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

42.

Langton

K. P.

Jennings

M. K.

(1968). Political socialization and the high school civics curriculum in the United States. American Political Science Review, 62(3), 852–867.

43.

Laurison

(2016). Social class and political engagement in the United States. Sociology Compass, 10(8), 684–697.

44.

Le Compte

M. D.

de Marrais

K. B.

(1992). The disempowering of empowerment: Out of the revolution and into the classroom. Educational Foundations, 6(2), 5–31.

45.

Mann

(1870). Oration delivered before the authorities of the City of Boston. American Journal of Education, 19, 837–850.

46.

Mayer

A. K.

(2011). Does education increase political participation? The Journal of Politics, 73(3), 633–645.

47.

McDonald

M. P.

(2017). 2016 November general election turnout rates [United States Elections ProjectWebsite]. Retrieved from http://www.electproject.org/2016g

48.

Menard

L. A.

Slater

R. O.

(2012). Memberships, voting, social trust, and online participation in emerging adulthood. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Paper retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED539617

49.

Messick

(1994). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments. Educational Researcher, 23(2), 13–23.

50.

Montesquieu. (1748 [2001]). The spirit of laws. Kitchener, Ontario: Batoche.

51.

Munoz

Wrigley

H. S.

(2012). The varieties of adult civic engagement in adult learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 135, 81–87.

52.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) 2012 U. S. Public Use File (PUF) [Data file and codebook]. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2014045REV

53.

National Council for the Social Studies. (2013). College, career, and civic life (C3) framework for social studies state standards: Guidance for enhancing the rigor of K-12 civics, economics, geography, and history. Silver Spring, MD: National Council for the Social Studies. Retrieved from https://www.socialstudies.org/sites/default/files/2017/Jun/c3-framework-for-social-studies-rev0617.pdf

54.

National Council for the Social Studies. (2018). Revitalizing civic learning in our schools. Retrieved from https://www.socialstudies.org/positions/revitalizing_civic_learning#fn1

55.

Newell

M. A.

(2014). What’s a degree got to do with it? The civic engagement of associate’s and bachelor’s degree holders. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 18(2), 67–89.

56.

Nie

N. H.

Junn

Stehlik-Barry

(1996). Education and democratic citizenship in America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

57.

Nunnally

S. C.

(2012). Trust in Black America: Race, discrimination, and politics. New York: New York University Press.

58.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2012). Literacy, numeracy, and problem solving in technology-rich environments: Framework for the OECD survey of adult skills. OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/literacy-numeracy-and-problem-solving-in-technology-rich-environments_9789264128859-en

59.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2013a). OECD skills outlook 2013: First results from the survey of adult skills. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/9789264204256-en

60.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2013b). Technical report of the survey of adult skills (PIAAC). Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from www.oecd.org/site/piaac/_Technical%20Report_17OCT13.pdf

61.

Persson

(2015). Education and political participation. British Journal of Political Science, 45(3), 689–703.

62.

Pollock

P. H.

(1983). The participatory consequences of internal and external political efficacy: A research note. Western Political Quarterly, 36(3), 400–409.

63.

Prins

Drayton

(2010). Adult education for the empowerment of individuals and communities. In Kasworm

C. E.

Rose

A. D.

Ross-Gordon

J. M

(Eds.), Handbook of adult and continuing education (2010 ed.) (pp. 209–219). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

64.

Quigley

B. A.

(2000). Adult education and democracy: Reclaiming our voice through social policy. In Wilson

A. L.

Hayes

E. R.

(Eds.), Handbook of adult and continuing education (new ed.) (pp. 208–223). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

65.

Railey

Brennan

(2016). 50-State comparison: Civic education (companion report). Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. Retrieved from https://www.ecs.org/wp-content/uploads/Companion_Report_-_50-State_Comparison_-_Civic_Education.pdf

66.

Ramirez

Felix

(2011). Transnational stakeholders: Latin American migrant transnationalism and civic engagement in the United States. Harvard Journal of Hispanic Policy, 23, 59–82.

67.

Rousseau

(1968). The social contract (M. Cranston, Trans.). New York, NY: Penguin.

68.

SAS Institute Inc. (2014). (Version 9.4) [Computer Software]. Cary, NC: Author.

69.

Schlozman

K. L.

Burns

Verba

(1994). Gender and the pathways to participation: The role of resources. The Journal of Politics, 56, 963–990. doi:10.2307/2132069

70.

Schneider

(2007). The Sea Island citizenship schools: Literacy, community organization, and the civil rights movement. College English, 70(2), 144–167.

71.

Shaw

DeSipio

Pinderhughes

Travis

T. C.

(2018). Uneven roads: An introduction to U.S. racial and ethnic politics. Los Angeles, CA: CQ Press.

72.

Smith

(1753). A general idea of the College of Mirania. New York, NY: J. Parker and W. Weyman.

73.

Spataro

(2019). Civics education fact sheet. Scottsdale, AZ: Joe Foss Institute. Retrieved from http://civicseducationinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2019-CEI-FACT-SHEET.pdf

74.

Stromquist

N. P.

(2008). The political benefits of adult literacy: Presumed and real effects. International Multilingual Research Journal, 2(2), 88–101.

75.

Thomas

(2008). Community, culture, and citizenship in cyberspace. In Coiro

Knobel

Lankshear

Leu

D. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 671–697). New York, NY: Routledge.

76.

UNESCO. (2016). Riga recommendations on media and information literacy in a shifting media and information landscape [Outcome Document]. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/CI/pdf/Events/riga_recommendations_on_media_and_information_literacy.pdf

77.

Verba

Schlozman

K. L.

Brady

H. E.

(1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

78.

Waldinger

Duquette-Rury

(2016). Emigrant politics, immigrant engagement: Homeland ties and immigrant political identity in the United States. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 2(3), 42–59.

79.

Walton

Smith

R. C.

Wallace

S. L.

(2017). American politics and the African American quest for universal freedom. New York, NY: Routledge.

80.

Westheimer

(2015). What kind of citizen?: Educating our children for the common good. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.