Exploration of teachers’ teaching of civic engagement in Taiwan

Personal level—teachers’ beliefs and ideologies

Existing research has argued teachers’ beliefs and ideologies influence students’ learning of civic engagement (Chin and Barber, 2010; Knowles, 2018). In particular, teacher belief tends to define what students should be taught about civic engagement; teachers who value civic engagement often create more chances for students to learn, discuss, and explore their own civic engagement (Chin and Barber, 2010). Along the same lines, other studies also illustrated that teachers’ beliefs will likely be associated with their own application of instruction for citizenship education (Knowles, 2018); further, teacher instruction and representation influences students’ overall perceptions connected to their learning. Teachers’ beliefs play a major role in shaping how civic education is represented, and often determine students’ learning of civic engagement. In particular, teachers make decisions about which knowledge, values, and skills are represented to their students, and those chosen values relate to different interpretations of citizenship (Chin and Barber, 2010; Torney-Purta and Barber, 2005).

At the personal level, interpersonal relationships are also associated with students’ civic engagement. In one existing study, Geller et al. (2013) suggests that students’ personally responsible civic behavior is positively associated with perceptions of student-teacher relationships. In particular, students develop their sense of civic engagement based on their own development of authority and autonomy; positive relationships between students and teachers at individual levels could contribute to students’ active civic behaviors (Battistich et al., 2003; Furco, 2002; Scales et al., 2000; Whitlock, 2006). In addition, relationships among peers are also another factor contributing to student civic engagement, including action-taking and public talk. For example, previous studies have argued that relationships among peers could lead to negative or positive consequences for civic engagement and knowledge (Torney-Purta et al., 2001). Torney-Purta (2002) suggests that confidence in the effectiveness of communicating with peers could improve students’ civic engagement. In other words, participation, problem-solving skills, and the critical thinking needed for civic engagement could be developed by interacting with peers.

Environmental factors

Existing research has shown that an open classroom climate has been linked to civic knowledge and commitment to voting (Campbell, 2008; Torney-Purta et al., 2001, 2007). In Torney-Purta’s (2002) study, he illustrated that three elements of schooling are important in civic education: formal curriculum, classroom culture, and school culture. Students learn about civics and action-taking in their social contexts, so the culture of the classroom and school become important influential factors in students’ learning. In particular, students learn how to have discussions and engage in public talk with others in classrooms, the importance of voting and elections, and how to effectively participate in politics through civically-minded classrooms and schools. Further, democratic teaching practices can help contribute to a classroom climate that promotes greater youth civic engagement (Kwame-Ross et al., 2011). In other words, when teachers create an open and safe environment for students’ discussion, students better develop their civic engagement. In addition, some studies also indicate that students can develop their own autonomy through civic engagement opportunities provided in cultural contexts, and open school environments and school climates are favorable factors for developing students’ autonomy (Wang, 2009; Way et al., 2007).

However, in Asia, different national contexts have directed various approaches of teaching civic engagement in social studies classrooms. It is common in many Asian contexts to have centralized and standardized curriculum guidelines. Teachers’ teaching time, space, and curricular-instructional decisions are restricted by the policy rules, textbooks, curriculum guidelines, and pressure of entry tests (Ho, 2010; Misco, 2013). With limited space and a centralized curriculum, it is hard for teachers to develop discussion of certain issues with students, causing them to have fewer opportunities to develop their own civic engagement. In particular, in Taiwan, frequent history curriculum guideline reforms have created many conflicts and debates inside and outside history classrooms. These conflicts and debates are about defining curriculum guideline goals and settling on specific language that reduces the space and time to teach civic engagement.

Teachers as citizens, involved in the public world

For the ‘teacher as stranger’, the teacher, as a citizen, will want to take positions on issues that impact his or her life and community; that is, the teacher also will be a more vital teacher if he or she becomes involved in the public world (Greene, 1973). By the same token, for the ‘teacher as stranger’ involved in the public world and engaged in developing students’ civic engagement, their teaching cannot escape public issues and public discussion, and the role of teacher cannot retreat from being a citizen acting in their social contexts either. As Greene (1973) mentioned, the “teacher as stranger” may even want to play a part in supporting what he or she conceives to be needed reforms. Involved in the public world, the teacher as a stranger inevitably engages in public issues and takes their position on these issues to the classrooms.

Teachers take responsibility for decision-making and choosing issues

The teacher as citizen cannot avoid the great social structures beyond the classroom doors; there is always a sense in which teachers must mediate between those structures and the young people they try to liberate with their own reflection and choice (Greene, 1973). In other words, the ‘teacher as stranger’ initiates critical thinking and authentic choosing. As Greene (1973) argued, no matter how committed to self-determination and free choice, the teacher must hold himself or herself accountable to his or her pupils, to their parents, and to the community. This means that teachers must take personal responsibility for their choices made in the classroom, for their accommodations, and for their refusals.

Along the same lines, the ‘teacher as stranger’ is confronted by the choice of teaching or not teaching civic engagement, their rationale for such a choice, the materials for representing them, and the pedagogy for exploring them. The ‘teacher as stranger’ does not only make the decisions of ‘what’, but also ‘why’, ‘how’, and ‘when’.

Civic engagement creates imagination

The ‘teacher as stranger’ is engaged in the public world and therefore must choose a rationale for teaching civic engagement or not. However, beyond decision-making and issue choosing, the ‘teacher as stranger’ represents an option different from that represented by the traditional teachers—by reviewing the issues differently, by keeping themselves and their students wondering what issues are happening in their lives, and by helping students put their thoughts into action, through political talk and discussion.

Therefore, for the ‘teacher as stranger’, teaching civic engagement is a way of ‘releasing the imagination’ (Greene, 1995). To Greene (1995) the imagination is the one thing that permits us to take action. Indeed, civic engagement includes political talk and deliberation among a diverse public in order to produce learning. Such political talk, when approached authentically, can lead to spontaneity and yield space for people to imagine alternatives and to break up certainties in order to create more possibilities and interests (Greene, 2000). In addition, as Freire (1978) said, we must find ways of being in dialogical relation to the texts we read, reflecting and opening to one another upon the texts of our lives. By the same token, civic engagement means that students and teachers reflect, develop critical awareness, deliberate on current issues, then develop political talk and learning.

Setting and case selection

This study was conducted with six high school teachers at two public senior high schools in Taichung, Taiwan. The Middleton Senior High School and the Middleton Girls High School are top ranked schools in Taiwan. The selected participants were qualified teachers who held masters’ degrees in social science fields. In Taiwan, all public senior high school teachers are required to take educational foundation courses, educational methodology courses, and a half-year internship in teacher education (Ministry of Education, 2019). In addition, six teachers at these two schools had diverse backgrounds (Table 1): for example, different family backgrounds, teacher preparation, majors, and interests. The selected teachers were also heavily involved in different kinds of professional development and social activities: for example, history curriculum reform workshops, local teacher community groups, as well as social justice activist organizations. Each of the six teachers have been seen as subject leaders in their field and all have been actively involved in professional development, curriculum reforms, and other administrative tasks. In addition, I selected participants from different teacher preparations, family background, age, and gender in order to collect various data which directly reflected each participants’ personal experiences.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Participants.

Name	Teaching years	Background
Mrs. Fu	29 years	She has a master’s degree and bachelor’s degree in history, has worked for a national university entry exam committee, and graduated from an alternative teacher education program. She describes herself as from a Chinese—not native to the island—family.
Mrs. Chang	30 years	She has a master’s and a bachelor’s degree in history from a normal university, is from a Taiwanese—native to the island—family, and has worked for the national curriculum design project. Mrs. Chang’s background as Taiwanese is important because most people who identify as Taiwanese believe Taiwan is an independent country and have a strong Taiwanese identity.
Mrs. Yu	13 years	She is working on a PhD in history, has master’s and bachelor’s degrees in history, and attended an alternative teacher education program. She has been working as a national history subject professional development team leader in Taichung and has worked for a national university entry exam committee. She is from a Taiwanese—native to the island—family.
Mr. W	27 years	He has a Master’s degree in history from an alternative teacher education program and bachelor’s degree at a normal university, and is from a Chinese—not native to the island—family. Mr. W has been serving as an administrator for the past 3 years.
Mr. Hsu	20 years	He has a double master’s degree in physics and laws in science, a bachelor’s degree in natural science, and graduated from an alternative education program. He has been working for a social justice movement association. 1 And, he is from a Taiwanese—native to the island—family.
Mr. Chen	13 years	He is working on a PhD in psychology, has double master’s degrees and graduated from an alternative teacher education program. He has been working as a national history subject professional development team leader in Taichung. He is from a Taiwanese—native to the island—family.

1

There were many associations which support The Anti-Black Box Curriculum Movement, for example, Education Future Association. The Anti-Black Box curriculum movement was a Taiwanese student protest, related to the Sunflower Student Movement, against certain proposed senior high school curriculum changes.

Before conducting this study, I explained to all participant teachers that their information would be confidential and anonymous, and before initiating data collection I also provided the participants with consent forms in both Chinese and English and have their confirmation and agreement.

Conducting a case study with multiple resources created a broad base and maintained a strong chain of evidence (Yin, 1994). Here, this study utilized four different strategies of data collection: non-participant observation, narrative interviews, artifacts, and document analysis. The data collection was conducted over four summers, one from May 2013 to July 2013, one from May 2015 to July 2015, one from June to July 2016, and another from May to July, 2018. This timeline allowed me to develop a deep understanding of two specific elements relating to the teachers decision-making around teaching controversial issues and promoting civic engagement. From 2013 to 2016, I focused on teachers’ personal practical knowledge and teachers’ life stories for teaching controversial public issues. However, the study moved toward civic engagement from 2016 to 2018, in which I explored teachers’ teaching and students’ learning of civic engagement in terms of controversial public issues in Taiwan. All sets of data collection were approved by the International Review Board (IRB).

Data analysis

After each round of data collection, I did open coding of interview transcripts and field notes using NVivo software. Iterative coding began the process of developing the concept of teacher as stranger (public citizen)—including personal background, curricular decision making, instructional practice, and it helped me check and expand my understandings with subsequent interviews and observations. Additionally, to analyze the teachers’ civic action taking, I developed a coding structure that fleshed out the curriculum, pedagogy, and assignments. For example, the category ‘curriculum’ included the following codes: ‘reading materials’, ‘classroom resources’, and ‘primary resources—teachers’ reflection journal and students’ work’. The category ‘pedagogy’ included the codes ‘discussion topic’, ‘conflict dialog’, and ‘outside classroom action’. I searched for relationships among these concepts and categories and discovered important patterns.

Limitations

Disadvantages of this method during the interviews include the self-consciousness of participants, thus affecting their willingness to share or discuss issues, the power dynamics between the researcher and participants, and the surrounding environment of the school as a factor affecting their willingness to have in-depth conversation. For example, when discussing their own civic action-taking, participants were careful to describe their engagement in protests, which might have caused some limitations. Based on these limitations, I collected various data to supplement their reticence to discuss their engagement. For example, I collected and analyzed newspaper articles, social media posts, and joined a few protests to support data from participants.

Teachers’ personal background contributes to teachers’ curricular-instructional decision making for developing civic engagement

Six teachers shared their general memories as embodied in their generation and historical events in Taiwan from 1960 to 2000—events that have, in particular ways, informed teachers’ life experiences and self-identities. These six teachers grew up during different generations in Taiwan: Mrs. Chang and Mrs. Fu grew up in 1960–1970, while Mr. W and Mr. Hsu grew up in 1970–1980 and have been through the Abolishment of Martial Law in 1987 ¹ which created a special atmosphere. Finally, Mr. Chen and Mrs. Yu grew up in 1980–1990. When I asked about their life stories, they provided stories related to historical events in Taiwan that have become a part of their childhood memories. For example, Mr. W talked about Taiwanese society during the White Terror, ² from 1949 to 1987 (the period of martial law that lasted for 38 years). He shared,

I grew up in Kaohsiung. The Kaohsiung Incident, also known as the Formosa Incident, and the Meilidao Incident, or the Formosa Magazine Incident, was the result of pro-democracy demonstrations that occurred in Kaohsiung, Taiwan on December 10, 1979. This happened when I was a middle school student. I remember the principal in the middle school seriously warned us not to get involved in the incident. And, during that time, everything we read was examined and checked by teachers. I remember I read the book, The True Story of Ah Q, ³ and I was warned and forbidden from reading this.

Mr. W’s discussion of his childhood memory suggests that this memory influenced his understanding of historical events. He was later able to encourage students to engage in public issues and develop political conversations with each other.

With regard to stories shared by participants in the study, childhood memories occurring during certain events were rooted in a general memory for teachers who grew up in the same generation. For example, Mr. W and Mr. Hsu both grew up in the period of the end of Martial Law, between 1980 and 1990, and they shared the same general memory of historical events in Taiwan, which potentially influenced their representation of certain historical events and their curricular-instructional decisions about developing students’ civic engagement (e.g. White Terror in Taiwan).

As might be expected, it is not only during K-12 schooling that teachers form their memories—that is, the way in which their personal and social narratives interact, overlap, and connect. This memory-building also happened during university. These narratives compel awareness of historical events and social issues and they have led teachers to put awareness into civic action, both in and outside of the classroom. For example, when I asked questions related to the participants’ life experiences, Mr. Hsu shared,

When I was a college student, I took some graduate school courses, for example, ‘Taiwanese Modern History’. We read the book, New China. One of my classmates, Mr. Liau, went to Japan and talked about some of these new ideas of China from that time. But when he went back, he was arrested by our government. This gave me a shock. One of the professors, Dr. Da-Wei Fu, started to protest and asked for Mr. Liau’s release. That ended in Mr. Liau being released after Dr. Fu’s protest. Another example is the 1990 Wild Lily Student Movement (野百合學運). . .Maybe [because] I witnessed some successful examples, I believe that if we do something, we can make some changes.

Mr. Hsu’s life experiences, especially related to changes of social and cultural context, became a cornerstone for his critical awareness and action with regard to controversial public issues.

More importantly, though, Mr. Hsu’s life experiences have influenced his daily life, and further, his professional identity and practice. For example, Mr. Hsu’s Facebook posts illustrate that his life experiences have deeply developed his critical awareness of social issues and his level of civic engagement. Mr. Hsu’s students, with his encouragement, have participated in many different civic and student movements over the years. In addition, his Facebook photos show that his students have made commitments to civic engagement and civic movements with Mr. Hsu himself. For example, some of his students participated in the 2015 History Curriculum Guidelines Reform ⁴ and the 2014 Sunflower Student Movement ⁵ in Taiwan.

In addition, Mrs. Chang and Mr. Chen shared similar experiences growing up, in that they both were from laboring families without social and cultural capital, yet grew up among highly educated and wealthy families during their schooling. Mr. Chen and Mrs. Chang’s narratives both highlighted their sense that they have received unfair treatment in schools and have been oppressed under the hierarchy of teacher power during their schooling years. These lived injustices and unfair experiences seem to be reasons why they felt isolated for a long time. Subsequently, they wanted to become teachers who seek justice and fairness for all students, inside and outside of classrooms. For example, Mr. Chen told me,

I remember my first semester, I hosted a documentary film conference. I got harsh feedback from others. There is always a line, and I had to learn how to deal with this line while not crossing it. I also needed to learn how to be flexible to deal with this line. This is a ‘sub-culture’ in our education. For example, I displayed films about the issues of gay marriage, 廢死刑 (蘇建和命案, 他有來一中), labor strikes. Parents thought these were controversial issues, and they didn’t want me to teach this or display the films to their kids. In addition, I invited one of my gay friends to come talk about sexuality issues in film, but some kids didnt’t want to participate in this, and this activity caused some arguments here.

Even though Mr. Chen received some harsh feedback, he continues to challenge some injustices and dehumanization issues in his classroom. Later in his interview, he admitted his family background and life experiences have contributed to his teaching and choice for issues represented in his classroom.

Teachers’ developing students’ civic engagement: From critical awareness to public talk

Regarding the centralized curriculum reforms, standardized curriculum guidelines, and current situation in Taiwan, there is limited space and time for teachers to teach civic engagement. However, many teachers in this study have illustrated that possibilities created inside and outside classrooms can develop students’ civic engagement. For example, Mr. W talked about civic engagement and student movements, but used the history of the 1960s student movement in the U.S. to elaborate upon the meaning of civic engagement and student movements. He later made the connection between student movements in the U.S. and civic action on the streets in Taiwan, which safely brought up possibilities for students’ learning about their own national context.

For example, when I asked questions related to his practice, he responded,

[When I teach the 1960s], I show students the documentary film The Sixties. By talking about this, I connected to the 2014 Sunflower Student Movement in Taiwan. During the economic agreement with the PRC in 2014, I was a teacher, but also an administrator. I used a film about the 1960’s to talk about the responsibility of protest leaders. I asked students what their arguments and statements were for protesting the economic agreement. I asked them to think about what their responsibility is. In the film, there are some student movements and protests, and leaders have reflected on their own actions and responsibilities.

In Mr. W’s examples, he drew connections between cultural movements of different nations to open space to discuss protest and civic engagement. These connections provide some distance for students from their own contexts, which may allow them to see these issues afresh.

During the interviews, Mr. W shared how he made this comparison intentionally because he liked to remind students of the consequences and responsibilities when advocating for a movement. These two historical events happened in different time periods and in different social and national contexts, but were both led by students (at least in part) and spread throughout the whole country. By using other historical events as a comparison, he crystallized opportunities for students’ learning by bringing together current issues and past historical events in two different contexts—which he felt allowed students to be less emotionally involved regarding their own personal backgrounds or emotions. This also allowed him to claim to be teaching one topic—the 1960s—while in reality teaching another: a current Taiwanese social movement.

Participants understood the complexities of teaching current conflicts, and some of them made an effort to engage in difficult knowledge through explicit encouragement of civic engagement beyond the bounds of the classroom space on the students’ own time. For instance, Mr. Hsu mentioned the importance of civic engagement, which had become a primary factor both in his own life and as he formulated his own representation of the curriculum content to his students. Mr. Hsu mentioned,

In the past, textbooks were always related to patriotism. I always tell students that historians think about the past, see things happening now, and solve problems. Developing historical consciousness is important. I encourage students to rethink, develop awareness, and reflect. I think we are not only making choices. Sometimes, we can even make some changes and put ideas into action. For example, my students started to engage in protests around the 2015 History Curriculum Guidelines Reform. Before I and students joined the protest, I talked about the history curriculum reform in Taiwan in past decades and the history curriculum reform in the U.K. in this decade. I asked students to think about the meaning and purposes of reforms in these two different national contexts. Then, we talked about the main concerns of history curriculum reform in 2015 in Taiwan. . . . . . . What I have done is what I believe. I agree with Bacon: knowledge is power. I ask my students to think and apply knowledge into some action, including caring about others and influencing them.

Mr. Hsu implied that critical awareness is important, and this learning cannot happen inside classrooms only; students must feel empowered by knowledge and put their ideas into action. Reflecting on the nature of complex historical and social contexts in Taiwan, Mr. Hsu made curricular-instructional choices for having discussions and public talk of difficult knowledge. Therefore, when he teaches current conflicts in his classroom, he asks both himself and his students to implement thought into action, to make a commitment to civic engagement.

In another example, Mrs. Yu encouraged students’ civic engagement by starting an independent oral history project. She shared with me this assignment when I brought up questions related to civic engagement teaching. She said,

I advised my students in their independent research. They explored many topics. One of them is the Democracy at Taichung Senior High School project, [which explores] the connection between democracy and the school. My students interviewed many alumni who are in universities now. Recently, one of my students planned to have a conversation with the leader of the Ministry of Education this week because of the 2015 History Curriculum Guidelines Reform. My student is one of the leaders of the student representatives, and he wrote a letter and advocated for his arguments.

In this project, Mrs. Yu’s students have opportunities for democratic political engagement as they investigate the truths beyond the textbooks, connecting to their local community and the public world.

Personal and environmental factors not only impact students’ learning but teachers’ teaching

Existing research indicates that teachers’ beliefs and ideologies influence students’ learning of civic engagement (Chin and Barber, 2010; Knowles, 2018) and that teachers’ beliefs will likely be associated with their own application of instruction for citizenship education (Knowles, 2018). In this study, the findings have illustrated teachers’ personal backgrounds have contributed to their decisions to take action when developing students’ civic engagement. For example, Mrs. Chang and Mr. Chen have encouraged students to engage with issues of social justice in their community; in effect, some of their students have joined community service and activist work when they went to universities. Personal background does influence teachers’ decision making for advocating students’ civic engagement.

However, in Taiwan, another factor of general memory has seriously impacted each generation of people and students to make civic engagement. For example, Mrs. Chang and Mrs. Fu grew up in 1960–1970, while Mr. W and Mr. Hsu grew up in 1970–1980, meaning that they all have been through the Abolishment of Martial Law in 1987. Mr. W and Mr. Hsu constantly shared how their general memories of this time have impacted their teaching and civic engagement in later years. However, their experiences can be compared to other participants, like Mr. Chen and Mrs. Yu, who grew up in 1980–1990 in a relatively free society; their general memories help them to reflect their own experiences as public citizens and then move forward to enacting citizenship in this much more open society. In sum, six of them all mentioned their general memory of their own generation and expressed how that memory contributes to their view of public issues and engagement in their civic duty. General memory is not a personal factor but is also not an environmental factor as Western literature typically defines it. It still has a serious impact on teachers and students’ civic engagement in Taiwan, and has for many decades.

Lastly, most existing research has shown that an open classroom climate can be linked to civic knowledge and commitment to voting (Campbell, 2008; Torney-Purta et al., 2001, 2007). In this study, the findings also indicate that teachers can create many places to develop students’ civic engagement; space does not need to be limited to the classroom, class hours, or with the teacher as instructor. Instead, social media (Facebook), after school programs like book clubs, as well as community projects can also serve as spaces to develop students’ civic engagement.

Teachers as public citizens engage in political talk

When Greene (1973) argued for the teacher to become a stranger, she argued at least in one sense, that teachers should make decisions as public citizens. In this study, I have explored the boundaries that teachers face as they become influenced more by their position as citizens rather than simply as teachers for developing students’ civic engagement. As Greene (1973) illustrated, the teacher as a citizen will want to take positions on issues that impact his or her life and community. In this study, we saw Mr. W and Mr. Hsu both reflected on their general memories, family background, and life experiences, and then made curricular-instructional decisions for develop students’ civic engagement. For example, Mr. Wu and Mr. Hsu grew up in 1970–1980, and have been through the Abolishment of Martial Law in 1987, which contributes to their decisions to take action beyond classrooms settings when engaging in current events and conflicts in Taiwan. Mrs. Chang and Mr. Chen have similar life experiences—both are from families of lower social economic status and experienced unfair treatment from public teachers—which led them to pay attention to students’ voices and life experiences that were not valued and written in the national curriculum. Family background and general memory are main factors that direct these teachers’ critical awareness of current conflicts and contribute to their curricular-instructional decisions for taking action and advocating civic engagement.

Additionally, when Greene (2000) argued for the teacher to become a stranger, she argued the teacher will be a more vital teacher if he or she becomes involved in the public world and has political talk inside and outside of classrooms. Along the same lines, Freire argued we must find ways of being in dialogical relation to the texts we read, reflecting and opening to one another upon the texts of our lives (Freire, 1978). By the same token, civic engagement means that students and teachers themselves need to reflect, to read the meanings of each other’s lives, and to discover alternatives and develop public and political talk in which imagination is released for more robust deliberation and discussion. Mr. W., Mr. Chen, and Mrs. Yu encourage their students to put their knowledge into action and not be limited by constraints such as limited classroom space, structured time periods, and centralized curriculum standards. Mr. Hsu and Mr. W compared the students’ movements in different national contexts to create space for students’ critical thinking and action-taking, and it was successful; some of their students committed to the students’ movement in Taiwan in 2016 and later years. In addition, Mr. Chen and Mr. Hsu frequently have discussions with their students that help to develop students’ critical awareness and political talk; some of their students began to engage in civic movements when they moved to colleges. Mrs. Yu developed an independent project that provided students with opportunities to advocate for their own arguments, have meetings with the leader of the Ministry of Education in Taiwan, then share their own voices through political talks with administrators. These strategies allowed students to interact with people outside of schools, to value people’s stories, and to reflect on themselves, care for others, solve social issues, and become public citizens in a democratic society involved in the public world. Most importantly, the findings also reflect that these possibilities have been ignored in Taiwanese schooling; civic engagement and citizenship have not been emphasized by the national curriculum and other teachers.