Supporting Civic Reasoning,Discourse,and Problem Solving That Is Political Without Being Partisan

The Civic Education Landscape and Debate

Civic education involves the development of knowledge, skills, and dispositions to prepare students as efficacious civic actors and problem solvers. Civic learning takes places in a variety of settings, including within schools, families, and communities. As formal curricula, civic education is more often taught within particular subjects (e.g., civics, government, or social studies), and it sometimes involves reflective service learning and leadership development opportunities (Andrews et al., 2010; Carretero et al., 2016; Gould, 2011; Torney-Purta & Amadeo, 2013).

After years of curricular neglect due in part to an emphasis on standardized testing in other subject areas, there has been renewed interest in civic education by researchers, educators, and policymakers. Still, there remains great variation in how civic education is taught. Although most states require at least one course in civics or government, often limited to the teaching of the structures and functions of government and responsibilities of citizenship, less than half of states mandate or allow credit for service learning, and even fewer require media literacy. There is also disparate attention to civics assessments across states, with roughly a third basing their assessments on the immigration naturalization test (CivXNow, 2023) and only a small number of states requiring students to complete a more comprehensive capstone project, such as studying about and taking informed action on a social or community issue (Darling-Hammond & McGuire, 2023).

As evidence that civic education in the United States needs improvement, the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) civics assessment in 2022 showed that less than a quarter of eighth-grade students meet proficiency, a stagnant figure that has not much changed since 1998, and for the first time, there was a significant drop in average civics scores in 2022, likely due to COVID-19-related educational disruptions. Gaps on the NAEP civics assessment also exist between Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous students and their Asian and White peers and by socioeconomic status (NAEP, 2023). These score gaps mirror opportunity gaps in access to high-quality civic education, including access to supportive classroom climates, inquiry-oriented instruction, and civic leadership experiences (Abu El-Haj, 2007; Callahan & Muller, 2013; Kahne & Middaugh, 2008; Levine & Kawashima-Ginsberg, 2017; Levinson, 2012; MacFarland & Starmanns, 2009; Torney-Purta et.al., 2007). Over time, these inequalities have both resulted from and reinforce intergenerational civic/political disparities in U.S. society (Foster-Bey, 2008; Kahne & Middaugh, 2008; Schlozman et al., 2012; Verba et al., 1995, 2003). Evidence suggests that civics education learning opportunities may have improved for Black and Hispanic students in recent years, who report higher levels of access to civic content and instructional activities than White students on the 2018 NAEP civics assessment (Savage & Ikoma, 2023). However, average civic score gaps remain favoring Asian and White students (NAEP, 2023).

A working consensus has developed over the past few decades over what constitutes promising practices in civic education based on the collaborative work of a small group of civic education researchers and practitioners working in different disciplines and engaging different methods (Torney-Purta et al., 2010). These include (a) knowledge of the ideals, principles, structures, and functions of U.S. government; (b) student-driven volunteer and service learning experiences linked to the curriculum; (c) democratic participation opportunities in school governance and other extracurricular activities; (d) opportunities to deliberate on social issues in identity-safe classrooms; (e) information literacy strategies; and (f) participation in actual or simulated democratic decision-making (Gould, 2011; Levine & Kawashima-Ginsberg, 2015, 2017). Banks (2008) also called attention to understanding how the rights and responsibilities of citizenship operate in a global society, including navigating the tensions of nationalism, transnationalism, and globalization.

To build on this foundation, this review makes the case that the research foundation in SoLD provides additional empirical and theoretical support to further validate and advance these promising practices and to further integrate civic education in analogous practices in multiple subject matter domains such as mathematics. Recent advances from SoLD also support an integrated and holistic approach to civic learning that engages students with core disciplinary and identity-affirming pedagogical practices that are relevant and meaningful to their lives, result in having a deeper conceptual understanding of civic and societal issues, and develop their abilities to reason, discourse, and make democratic decisions with others who may not share the same priorities and perspectives. We also argue that to more fully prepare students to meet the challenges of civic and public life, civic education should move beyond just knowing the rights and duties of citizenship, and it should more centrally involve the development of skills in civic reasoning, discourse, and problem solving across subject matters and grades. This is underscored in Dewey’s (1927) call for the “the improvement of the methods and conditions of debate, discussion, and persuasion. That is the problem of the public” (p. 208).

However, this more holistic and comprehensive type of civic education has yet to be fully realized. Curricular neglect, the teaching of hegemonic narratives, and the alienation of students who struggle to have voice in the classroom have led to generations of students ill prepared to meet the challenges of public life. Increasing polarization and legislative fights over whether and how to engage students in critical discourse have also compounded these educational concerns. There is also divergence in how civics education is practiced across the country, and certain elements of a more comprehensive view of civic education are now facing backlash. Moreover, new issues are emerging, such as student difficulties in distinguishing fact from online misinformation, indicating the need for improved digital literacy skills and training in identifying algorithmic manipulation (Kahne & Bowyer, 2017; McGrew et al., 2018).

Although the contested nature of what is taught in schools and the politicization of knowledge is not new (Tyack, 1999), the recent ferocity of partisan rhetoric, the spate of restrictive legislation, and book bans being carried out is creating fear, stress, and uncertainty among teachers and administrators over what and how to teach (Pollock, 2023; Pollock & Rogers, 2022; Woo et al., 2022). Beyond challenging the merits of curriculum and pedagogy, these latest efforts are creating a useful cultural wedge issue for self-interested politicians and pundits, and ever more insidious, they are an effort to weaken the public’s trust in public education for those who want to transform it into a private good (Levine, 2023).

At the heart of current controversies is the debate about the nature of civic education, its content, format, purpose, and the pedagogical approaches that are employed. One end of the debate is anchored by those who espouse a “traditional” civics approach, with all students being inculcated with the philosophical ideals embodied in our nation’s founding documents and versed in the mechanisms and apparatus of constitutional government (Levine, 2023). Other scholars emphasize that a traditional civics approach is ill suited to the diversity and cultural histories of our current population of students and that what is needed is a reframed civics that leverages students’ identities and lived experiences centered on issues of social justice (Mirra & Garcia, 2017). In counterpoint, advocates of a more traditional approach fear that such an identity-infused civics undermines the potential of having a unified nation characterized by a shared sense of history and values, although whose histories and values are represented remains a fault line in the current environment (Levine, 2023).

Further roiling this debate is the existence of a vigorous and coordinated partisan campaign against the teaching of certain aspects of civic learning involving critical reasoning and student identities (Pollock & Rogers, 2022). Inquiry-oriented approaches to the study of social problems and reflective service learning (“action civics”) are coming under fire from far-right conservative groups who believe such practices socialize young people to progressive causes (Randall, 2017). Teaching about historical truths regarding oppression and discussions around students’ identities, including race, gender, and sexual orientation, are also being conflated with “critical race theory (CRT)” in schools. These have resulted in proposed and enacted restrictions on learning related to topics of student group identities and critical inquiry in states and localities nationwide. Although Florida’s Stop W.O.K.E. Act and Parental Rights in Education bill may be the most well known, to date, 44 states have attempted to restrict teaching of issues related to race or sex, with 18 states passing legislation or enacting measures through other means (Schwartz, 2023). In addition, there is an increasingly well-organized effort to ban reflective service learning (e.g., action civics, youth participatory action research) and other elements of “transformative” SEL developed by groups such as CASEL (Sailer, 2022).

These partisan efforts are having a noticeable and deleterious effect on our schools, with teachers and administrators distressed and demoralized. New data from the RAND’s nationally representative annual teacher and principal surveys reveals that 48% of principals and 40% of teachers have reported stressful conditions due to these controversies (Woo et al., 2022). This stress adds to what was already a lack of consensus on how to handle controversial topics and sensitive social issues in classrooms, with teachers and administrators historically ill prepared or protected to do so (Hess & McAvoy, 2015; Levinson & Fay, 2019; Zimmerman & Robertson, 2017).

It should also be recognized that any approach to framing issues related to civic education, including this chapter, is necessarily value laden. That said, the authors take the stance, consistent with the NAEd volume, Educating for Civic Reasoning and Discourse (Lee, White, & Dong, 2021), that knowledge about the rights and duties of citizens—the traditional definition of civics—is important to teach, but it is not enough. We believe that students should develop the full range of knowledge, skills, and dispositions that enable them to more fully participate in democratic decision-making and problem solving. A central question at the heart of the definition of civic reasoning and discourse concerns:

“What should we do?” and the “we” includes anyone in a group or community, regardless of their citizenship status. To engage in civic reasoning, one needs to think through a public issue using rigorous inquiry skills and methods to weigh different points of view and examine available evidence. Civic discourse concerns how to communicate with one another around the challenges of public issues to enhance both individual and group understanding. It also involves enabling effective decision making aimed at finding consensus, compromise, or in some cases, confronting social injustices through dissent. (Lee, White, & Dong, 2021, p. 1) ³

Despite recent educational controversies and a history of insufficient attention paid to civic education, there is also reason for hope. There is renewed interest in civic education, as evidenced by reforms in states such as Illinois and Massachusetts and recently formed bipartisan coalitions that are advocating for federal legislation, improved state standards, adoption of practices by districts, and increased funding for research and professional development to advance a more holistic, inquiry-oriented, and student-centered type of civic learning (Berkman, 2020; CivXnow, 2023; Educating for American Democracy, 2021). Recent restrictive efforts regarding issues of identity may also not represent the will of a majority of parents, who in a recent national survey rated the importance of having an open and affirming classroom climate for discussion as extremely or very important (Berner et al., 2023). There is also reason for hope coming from young people themselves, who have increased their electoral participation in recent elections and demonstrated increased interest and involvement in issues affecting their future such as climate change, racial justice, and school violence (CIRCLE, 2023; Thomas et al., 2021).

Principles from the Science of Learning and Development that Support Effective Civic Reasoning and Discourse

This next section examines how research from SoLD, when synthesized with research from civic education and disciplinary domains such as mathematics education, undergirds and validates an identity-affirming, inquiry-oriented approach to civics learning. We draw on recent advances in the cultural, social, and biological foundations of learning to argue that identity-affirming pedagogies and inquiry-oriented, project-based learning approaches are central to the cultivation of civic reasoning, discourse, and problem solving skills, and these capacities progressively develop from a very young age and continue throughout the life course. In contrast to a history of disjointed practices and curricular neglect, this review illustrates the potential for civic learning to be distributed across subject areas and settings and to be cultivated in learning climates where students feel safe, empowered, and motivated to investigate meaningful social issues that are important to their lives (Cantor et al., 2019; Lee, Nasir et al., 2021; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, & Medicine [NASEM], 2018; National Research Council [NRC], 2000, 2012).

The research base in what has become known as SoLD has developed over the past several decades as the integration of research in the learning sciences, related initiatives in disciplinary-based education research, biological sciences, and human development. Together, these strands provide a strong foundation for civics learning with the aim that students will develop a tool kit of deep conceptual knowledge and robust sets of civic reasoning and discourse skills for flexible application in democratic decision-making and social problem solving (NRC, 2012).

The interdisciplinary field of the “learning sciences” is traceable to the cognitive revolution that took place in psychology in the 1950s (Baars, 1986; Gardner, 1985; Miller, 2003; White et al., 2008). As a transition away from behaviorism, developments in cognitive science provided an increasingly nuanced understanding of the mental structures, brain processes, and mindsets related to learning and conceptual development, and eventually, its scope broadened to include sociocultural and emotional influences on learning. Shifts in psychology also led to having a more complex understanding of the dynamic interactions of biology and environment in theories of learning and human development, ushering in a period of collaborations between researchers in psychology and education, with early federally supported conferences on applied educational topics such as training research (Office of Naval Research) and cognition and instruction (Glaser, 1965; Klahr, 1976). (For a more detailed review of these historical developments, see White et al., 2008.) As the field progressed, the NRC (2000) published the highly influential How People Learn, discipline-based education reports in subject matter disciplines, including mathematics, history, and science (but notably did not take up the subject of civics) (NRC, 2005), and a more culturally centered update, How People Learn 2 (NASEM, 2018).

As an extension of work in the learning sciences into the subject matter disciplines, the NRC Mathematics Learning Study Committee further elucidated concepts and skills in mathematics based on students’ culturally embedded prior knowledge and experiences (NRC, 2001). In mathematics, for example, success in problem solving depends not only on knowledge of content and strategies but also on metacognitive actions and students’ belief systems (both about themselves and about mathematics). Research on the origins of these beliefs implicated issues of identity, classroom practices, and broader societal contexts (Schoenfeld, 1985, 1992)—the pursuit of such ideas led to what has been called “the sociopolitical turn” in mathematics education (Gutiérrez, 2013).

Finally, the field of “learning sciences” crystalized in the 1990s with the development of a professional association and journals, which continue to build communities of researchers and advance a body of work in the learning sciences devoted to “empirical investigation of learning as it exists in real-world settings” (International Society of the Learning Sciences, n.d.).

Important insights for civic education can be drawn from the learning sciences regarding the “traditional knowledge” versus “other skills and dispositions” debate in how to teach civics. The learning sciences promote a “both/and” approach—the development of deep conceptual maps of knowledge as well as problem solving, reasoning, and discourse skills that can be flexibly applied by learners themselves in addressing relevant and meaningful problems in the public domain. Metacognitive skills also allow students to promote, reflect on, and adjust their own learning in the process of becoming self-directed learners. Students acquire and apply a range of intellectual tools and strategies learned across subject matter domains to frame and ask meaningful questions and apply skills to address complex social problems (Lee, Nasir et al., 2021; NASEM, 2018; NRC, 2000, 2012).

More recent collaborations of researchers have focused on integrating this body of work in the learning sciences with research and scholarship in human development. The resulting, more integrated field of “the science of learning and development” (SoLD) recognizes that students’ learning and development is shaped by a “convergence of individual, biological, contextual, cultural, and historical factors” (Osher et al., 2017, p. 1). A metaphor for this view of learning is that of a “constructive web” (Fischer & Bidell, 2006), which incorporates a constellation of individual and contextual learning and development factors that are holistic and dynamically interactive and that are deeply situated in cultural and institutional environments (Cantor et al., 2019). This integrated perspective emphasizes the cultivation of the whole child in context and recognizes that development unfolds along diverse individualized pathways (Cantor et al., 2019, 2021; Lerner et al., 2015). The incorporation of a human development lens also includes research and scholarship in moral reasoning and ethical development, an essential component to democratic decision-making and social problem solving.

The centrality of context to learning and development can be usefully illustrated by an ecological systems model (adapted from Bronfenbrenner, 1979) highlighting the interactive and embedded nature of microsystem and macrosystem forces that influence the construction of learners’ identities, relationships, and outcomes (Osher, Cantor et al., 2020; Spencer et al., 1997). In the civic education literature, this framework has been further extended as the developmental niche model, in which civic learning is influenced by the micro-level settings within which students learn and interact daily and by the beliefs and expectations of parents, teachers, and peers in these settings. At a macro level, cultural beliefs of one’s affiliated communities and overarching historical and systemic forces such as poverty and racism also exert influence through opportunity to learn gaps and other pernicious inequalities (Super & Harkness, 1986; Torney-Purta & Amadeo, 2011; Torney-Purta & Barber, 2011). In addition, cognitive scripts and stereotypes, such as those involving gender relations, race/ethnicity, or cultural norms (e.g., “individualism” in liberal democracies), also shape “social behaviors and practices that are deemed legitimate, even ‘thinkable’” (Schofer & Fourcade-Gourinchas, 2001, p. 810). Finally, these embedded contexts for learning and development can also be viewed as a network of risks and counteracting assets and protective factors, the positive net balance of which can promote resiliency in youth (Spencer, 2007).

The Importance of Having an Open and Affirming Classroom Climate

An open classroom climate is essential to facilitate a culture of belonging across the rich and growing diversity of students in U.S. classrooms. By far, and for more than 50 years, the United States has been home to the largest number of immigrants worldwide (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2021), a trend resulting in less than half (49.9%) of U.S. students under the age 15 now representing White, non-Hispanic children (Frey, 2019). An open classroom climate for discussion is one that engages the full diversity of America’s schools and one in which students “feel emotionally safe and valued (by adults or by each other), and where they are supported to engage in authentic and meaningful ways” (Barber et al., 2021, p. 279). Open and affirming climates, when paired with inquiry-oriented instruction, provide opportunities to engage students in collective sensemaking activities in ways that leverage their unique cultural experiences and identities. It is also important to have a shared vision and ethos that affirms student identities and cultures as part of a school’s mission statement, which can also be relied on by educators to push back against negative criticisms that might arise, such as parent complaints about identity-oriented discussions at school (Barber et al., 2021; Campbell, 2006; Conklin et al., 2021).

Barber et al. (2021) and Conklin et al. (2021) provided excellent summaries of research, including models and protocols, for how teachers can create and sustain affirming and engaging learning climates for student inquiry and discussion. Although a full accounting of these practices is beyond the scope of this chapter, key elements of an open classroom climate often include (a) the establishment of trust and positive working relationships through relationship-building activities and collaborative projects; (b) carefully planned and structured student discussions and inquiry-oriented investigations of public issues that are meaningful to students’ lives, involve complexity and trade-offs, and do not have a single right answer or solution; and (c) establishment of protocols for healthy group discussion. In addition, students can be involved in co-constructing and maintaining norms for healthy civic discourse and debate, including developing expectations and protocols for active listening, perspective-taking, use of evidence, and engaging in respectful dialogue with those with whom they may disagree. Moreover, involving students in this manner develops metacognitive abilities in self-reflection and self-regulation as they engage in reciprocal dialogue and together, monitor and uphold healthy norms for discussion. Finally, teachers can help students understand that not everyone’s lived experiences are reflected in the civics curriculum, and they can engage students in critical analyses and other sensemaking activities to envision what a more equitable world would look like (Winn, 2023).

A substantial body of evidence indicates several positive outcomes that are associated with having safe and affirming learning climates. Across schools and within classrooms, it is important for the establishment and maintenance of relational trust (Bryk & Schneider, 2002). And although classroom climate is more generally associated with positive academic and behavioral outcomes in students (Hamre & Pianta, 2005), there is also extensive research showing positive civic outcomes as well. Open and affirming climates are associated with civic knowledge, expected likelihood of informed voting, and appreciation of having conflicting political views (Campbell, 2008), and these climates are also found to be associated with collective school efficacy and volunteering in the community (Godfrey & Grayman, 2014). In a review of studies using IEA civic education data sets, Knowles et al. (2018) found that having an open classroom climate for discussion is positively associated in 38 separate studies with a range of civic outcomes representing civic knowledge, future anticipated civic engagement, and positive attitudes toward the rights for other social groups.

Unfortunately, despite having evidentiary support, open classroom climates are hardly the standard (Berner et al., 2023; Hess & McAvoy, 2015). Kahne and Middaugh (2008) also found that African American students experienced less supportive classroom climates for discussion of civic issues than White students in a large-scale study of high school seniors in California. Although, another more recent national study by Berner et al. (2023) found the opposite, with Black students reporting higher prevalence of open climates than their White peers. These different findings suggest that much more needs to be known about contextual variation in the classroom experience.

Students can also experience the civics curriculum in terms of congruence or disjuncture between the learned ideals and their own life experiences, which can influence attitudes toward civic engagement (Rubin, 2007). Especially for schools serving marginalized students, there is a need to proactively assess climate quality and to create interpersonal, instructional, and institutional affirmation and trust given legacies of inequity (Gray et al., 2018). Without this attention, the disjuncture between the curriculum and the lived experiences of students risks civic alienation (Banks, 2008, 2017).

As an end to this section on classroom climate and as a bridge to the next sections on the importance of inquiry-oriented instruction and having a cross-curricular approach to civic learning, we provide an illustration of the teaching for robust understanding (TRU) framework. A discussion of how TRU coherently addresses issues of identity and classroom climate is described next. We further examine TRU in relation to subject-matter-related civic reasoning and discourse in the fourth and final section of this chapter.

The Teaching for Robust Understanding (TRU) Framework

Extensive research indicates that students are likely to emerge from their classrooms as flexible and knowledgeable thinkers and problem solvers, with a sense of agency and positive identities regarding themselves as thinkers and learners, to the degree that the learning environment does the following:

Provides opportunities for rich engagement with big ideas, offering opportunities for students to engage meaningfully with important disciplinary content and practices.

Supports students to work within their zone of proximal development. Learning is active, and students should be engaged in sensemaking as a fundamental part of the learning process. They should be engaged in meaningful and productive struggle, working on tasks that are challenging and engaging but within reach.

Engages every student meaningfully with the core ideas and applications of disciplinary knowledge, including explanation. Activities should be structured so that every student has meaningful opportunities to engage with the central ideas being addressed.

Provides engagement opportunities that relate to students’ lives and that support them in contributing to and refining discussions, and thus contributing to the development of positive identities as thinkers and learners. Participation should support key practices—sensemaking, reasoning, getting ideas on the table, critiquing, building on others’ ideas, and having one’s own ideas built on and critiqued.

Is adaptive and responsive so that it builds on what the students bring to instruction.

The TRU framework applies to all content areas, and attending to these five aspects of learning environments can improve students’ capacities for civic reasoning and problem solving. Respectful fact-based engagement with big ideas lies at the core of civic discourse—experiencing it across the board in schooling helps to develop and reinforce appropriate habits of mind (Schoenfeld, 2013, 2104; TRU website, https://truframework.org/). The domain-general representation of TRU is given in Figure 1. In analogous versions for specific disciplines such as mathematics, the first column contains desiderata for learning in that discipline.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1

The Teaching for Robust Understanding (TRU) Framework: The Five Dimensions of Powerful Classrooms

Consonance with key ideas in SoLD should be apparent. At the broadest level, for example, the SoLD literature focuses on the importance of SEL and the social and emotional conditions of learning that support it (Osher et al., 2021). Consider Figure 2, which illustrates social emotional conditions for engagement, well-being, and performance. All the conditions highlighted in Figure 2 are essential in classrooms—perhaps especially in mathematics classrooms.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2

Social Emotional Conditions for Engagement, Well-Being, and Performance

Safety is a precursor for meaningful exchange in learning. Dimension 4 of TRU highlights the need for students to participate fully in conversations—in explaining, conjecturing, and proving, for example. Students who do not feel emotionally and intellectually safe in class will not risk venturing ideas (Osher & Kendziora, 2010). They will then be deprived of opportunities to learn and experiences that might ⁴ contribute to the development of their learning and civic identities.

Challenge is an essential component of learning, particularly when it is of the right type and is met with support when needed. Dimension 1 of TRU concerns the need for the content studied to be rich, engaging, and meaningful in context. If the content is reduced to fact-based rote learning, little will be learned. At the same time, little will be learned if the challenge is too great or the context does not support sensemaking. The challenges students encounter must be within reach, meaningful, and supported by structures (including formative assessment—TRU Dimension 5) that make the content accessible. Please note that TRU describes teachers’ decision-making in the moment. As circumstances change, decisions about what is relevant and appropriate vis-à-vis evolving student understandings also change.

Contrary to the perception that learning certain disciplinary material, particularly mathematics, is an individual endeavor, connections and support are essential to learning. The ability to use other people as sounding boards contributes to individual understanding and to the understandings of the people we collaborate with. Even in extreme cases, collaboration does take place: Although Andrew Wiles is known for having isolated himself for 7 years to pursue the proof of Fermat’s last theorem, Wiles did run his ideas by a trusted colleague.

Finally, it is worth repeating that learning is not simply about content but also about the human dimensions supporting engagement with content. We note, for example, that four of the five dimensions of TRU focus on the student’s experience with the content, and TRU foregrounds the importance of having an open and affirming classroom climate (Barber et al., 2021). Social and emotional competence is also essential both in instruction and as something for students to learn. All the attributes listed in the social emotional competence quadrant of Figure 2 contribute to the well-being of students in and out of the classroom and contribute to the other quadrants displayed (Osher, Pittman, et al., 2020). We also note that materials that relate to students’ lives in meaningful ways are more likely to stimulate engagement with the material and to support application of those ideas outside the classroom (see e.g., Gutstein, 2006).

As indicated previously, findings in the SoLD literature undergird the core elements of the TRU framework. That raises the question of what additional value there is to have a domain-specific pedagogical framework such as TRU. We summarize the differences briefly.

First, frameworks devoted to having classroom impact are much more focused than a broadly encompassing framework such as SoLD. This focusing provides support for enhancing teaching in particular content areas. Thus, impact can be gained by focusing on what takes place in classrooms. Moreover, a focus on the particulars of mathematics calls for addressing different pedagogical choices than, say, a focus on the particulars of English language arts.

Second, as a distillation of the entire literature on “what counts” in teaching, TRU is comprehensive in that regard—if something matters, the framework addresses it. Usability is crucial for a practical framework, the reason that TRU is distilled down to a small number of dimensions. Too large a list is impossible to keep in mind (Miller, 1956).

Third, this kind of theoretical formulation of what counts in teaching can be tested empirically. Indeed, to the degree that classrooms score well on measures of the five dimensions, students in those classrooms perform well on tests of mathematical thinking and problem solving (Schoenfeld, 2013, 2014). Thus, TRU can be seen as a compact and empirically validated description of what matters in classrooms, organized to support teacher professional development.

In sum, a broad theoretical framework such as SoLD provides an empirical underpinning (and points to both profitable directions and pitfalls) for any work grounded in learning and development. That includes, for example, arenas such as parenting and teaching. But with broad generality comes a lack of applicability in detail. For applicability, the specifics of more domain-focused frameworks such as TRU are necessary. (An imperfect analogy is that understanding chemistry, physics, and the basic properties of foods provides the principles that underlie cooking in all cuisines [see e.g., McGee, 2004]—but having such knowledge does not prepare one for cooking any particular cuisine.)

Untapped Potential Exists for a Cross-Curricular Approach to Civics Learning and Social Problem Solving: Advances in Mathematics Education Can Serve as an Example

The last section of this chapter illustrates an innovative cross-curricular approach to civic reasoning and problem solving with a particular focus on mathematics education.

From a learning sciences perspective, disciplinary knowledge and skills provide powerful problem solving tools to address complex real-world problems, with knowledge and skills likely to be retained for later use in democratic decision-making (Darling-Hammond et al., 2020; NRC, 2005). All disciplinary domains “offer deep learning opportunities for students to value complexity, examine multiple points of view, empathize with others, engage in ethical reasoning, and examine the reliability of sources of information” (Lee, White, & Dong, 2021, p. 403). This view is echoed by Levine and Kawashima-Ginsberg (2015), who similarly argued for a cross-curricular approach in their review of deeper learning approaches to civics. As an example, language arts classes can provide students with opportunities to learn advanced comprehension skills, learn how to communicate an argument, and enter new worlds through works of literature. History courses offer opportunities to develop habits of sourcing, examine competing claims, and explore the roots of inequities. Various science courses and citizen science initiatives teach the verifiable properties of the physical world, skills in data collection and hypothesis testing, and an understanding of science as an institution. Finally, in mathematics, students have the potential to learn fundamental knowledge and skills for problem solving, including probabilistic reasoning and statistical inference, interpreting mathematically based representations, and elements of prediction and modeling (Lee, White, & Dong, 2021).

Grounded in insights from SoLD and discipline-based education research, this section interrogates research and theory that illustrates how students’ identities are developed and supported through learning activities that engage them in meaningful content-based discourse practices as they investigate issues in the public domain—an approach that provides opportunities for disciplinary, intellectual, social, and epistemological growth (Schoenfeld, 2013, 2014). Working in tandem with content in other disciplines, issues such as fairness, environmental and social justice, or policies for mitigating the spread of highly infectious diseases, can be explored with mathematics in analytic and data-driven ways. This kind of approach not only extends the use of mathematics beyond its traditional content, but it also helps students learn to use mathematical models and tools to make sense of the world.

Addressing Complex Issues by Thinking Mathematically—Approaching Such Issues as a Form of Problem Solving

In the days following the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, Eduwonk blog author Rotherham (2021) posed the question, “What if it’s math?” Rotherham noted that during the attack, the insurgents seemed to be driven by the segregating legacies of discriminatory practices, demographic shifts, and media algorithms that have siloed and disadvantaged intergroup contact. The rioters also had a distorted sense of the mathematical and statistical probabilities concerning the veracity of election results and the efficacy of health protection measures at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. (Indeed, the riot was later found to be a super-spreader event.) In contrast to the decision-making on display that day, the goal of a comprehensive civic education infused with mathematical problem solving is to prepare students with the capacity for well-reasoned democratic decision-making. In support of this goal, mathematically powerful classrooms can provide students with sense of agency as well as the tools for mathematically, epistemologically, and socially powerful thinking (Schoenfeld, Brown, et al., 2023).

We use the example of “COVID illiteracy” as a springboard for discussing challenges and opportunities regarding civics and mathematics education, as reflected in a recently published problem solving brief (Schoenfeld, Brown, et al., 2023) and the TRU framework discussed previously. Fundamental questions related to reasoning in the public domain include what people take to be relevant information, how much they trust it, and how they reason with it. Core aspects of mathematical and statistical thinking involve asking what is known and with what confidence and reasoning carefully with what is learned. Thus, building mathematical habits of mind—and using them outside the classroom—can be beneficial to civic reasoning.

The idea of working through issues such as a community’s response to a public health emergency is not a hypothetical. As it happens, the second author of this chapter chaired a COVID Advisory Committee for a residential program serving adults with developmental and other disabilities. A question raised included: How does one decide if 6 feet of social distancing is reasonable, given that (a) the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention changed its recommendations although there were no changes in data, so some of their recommendations appeared to be somewhat arbitrary; and (b) while wearing a mask you can still be annoyed by things like cigarette smoke from across the street. If the smoke can get to you at that distance, why cannot COVID particles?

We can review this example with an eye to the dimensions of powerful classrooms discussed in the second section of this chapter and then abstract to mathematics instruction in general. Addressing the COVID social distancing problem called for discipline-specific resources regarding both content and practices (Dimension 1 of the TRU framework). Basically, this is a modeling problem. One needs to know how to model—how to take a situation and mathematize it—including which objects count and how they are related. One also needs to know some core mathematical and scientific properties, for example, the fact that unlike smoke, which is a mist, large COVID particles are subject to gravity and thus travel in parabolic arcs. One must also be able to find relevant information (e.g., particle size) and vet it for accuracy. These are mathematical habits of mind that need to be cultivated in mathematics (and other) classrooms. In addition, the civic and social problem solver needs to be agentive—they need to have the willingness to dig into challenges that extend beyond what they know. That sense of agency is part of their identity, which is shaped and refined over the years in classrooms (Dimension 4 of the TRU framework). The challenge is crafting classrooms that support these kinds of content-rich applications in ways that build strong identities and support students in using their knowledge in civic reasoning and discourse. (For a discussion of this problem and related issues of mathematical/scientific thinking, see Schoenfeld, 2021.)

A major curricular challenge is that mathematics instruction, like civics, is typically inward looking and siloed. Students are taught to apply well-rehearsed procedures to known classes of problems, for example, “work problems” or “age problems” in algebra classes. They learn different techniques in geometry or trigonometry classes, with little or no opportunity for transfer. The presupposition is that once students have become familiar with mathematical tools, they can apply them. However, it takes practice to learn to use mathematical ideas in new contexts, to learn to reason things through, and to develop other powerful mathematical habits of mind. Students who have experienced mathematics in rote and mechanical ways are highly unlikely to use their mathematical knowledge outside of the classroom.

In short, the nature and content of the mathematics that students encounter is a fundamental shaper of what students might bring to civic reasoning and discourse. Specifically, there are whole content areas that could underpin civic reasoning—content areas that are well developed mathematically but absent from most curricula. A civic problem solving brief developed by Schoenfeld, Brown et. al (2023) explored such areas as fairness, environmental justice, and social justice. Examples from these areas at the elementary, middle, and secondary levels illustrate the ways in which students can engage with rigorous mathematical content that applies to real-world issues in the public domain and engages in dialogue that explores the strengths and limits of the approaches they have taken. That is precisely the kind of respectful knowledge-driven approach that should inform civic reasoning and discourse. Moreover, the fact that mathematical ideas are being used to model phenomena outside the classroom supports both rich mathematics content learning and the development of powerful mathematical (and problem solving) habits of mind (TRU Dimension 1).

As noted previously, issues of equitable access and of agency and identity are fundamental. Meaningful access means that every student needs to be able to grapple with core content-related issues—to engage in “productive struggle,” an issue of cognitive demand (TRU Dimension 2). That, too, is an issue of curriculum design. Traditionally, math problems are solved in one way, most often using a method taught within the previous 72 hours. The idea of “group worthy” problems (Cohen et al., 1999; Cohen & Lotan 1997, 2014) is to offer students problems that have multiple entry points and multiple solution paths. Above and beyond engaging students with rich mathematical content, discussions of such problems serve two noteworthy goals. First, the fact that such problems have multiple entry points means that more students will be able to engage with the core content (Dimension 3 of TRU). Second, the fact that there are multiple solution paths means that more students can get their own ideas on the table and explain them—potentially contributing to their agency and identity development (TRU Dimension 4). Finally, effective classrooms should also develop a strong participatory mathematical identity with strong conceptual agency, which as Greeno (2006) noted, a “student [is] more likely to participate with strong conceptual agency when he or she has an opportunity to use those concepts and methods in another setting” (p. 539).

Agency is also cultivated when students engage in investigations of topics that are interesting and meaningful to their lives, such as when students explore civic issues that are impactful to their communities (Lee, Nasir et al., 2021; Osher, Pittman et al., 2020). These include social justice issues in which mathematics and statistics are used in ways that both perpetuate and shed light on inequality and serve as a source for data manipulation through the spread of misinformation. Students can also explore the cultural foundations and evolution of mathematics in different parts of the world through a study of ethnomathematics (Ascher, 1991) and the everyday mathematics practices of diverse cultural communities (Saxe, 1988). In this era of increasing voting rights restrictions, the exploration of mathematics’ role as a contributor to and possible remedy for partisan gerrymandering is especially salient (Suri & Saxe, 2019). (For a longer discussion the application of mathematical ideas in real-world contexts, see Burkhardt & Schoenfeld, 2022.)

Another key to developing civic and mathematical agency and sensemaking is engaging in discourse that includes the communication and refinement of understandings in interaction with others. This involves “conceptualizing and representing the relevant phenomena, making clear claims, specifying assumptions, supporting justifications with evidence, and then working through such assumptions, claims, and rationales with others to construct and critique viable arguments” (Schoenfeld, Brown et al., 2023, p. 1). And having students engage in discourse is fundamental to Dimensions 5 and 2 of the TRU framework: formative assessment and cognitive demand. Making student thinking public through discourse gets student thinking out in the open and provides the opportunity to make instructional adjustments in “real time”—the essence of formative assessment. The result, if things go well, is that students are repositioned in ways that support productive struggle. Specifically, instruction will only be powerful if the student is “stretched” to some degree but is still working within their zone of proximal development. If the student is working tasks that are routine or too easy, there is little to be learned; if the task is far beyond their reach, the student will not be able to make meaningful connections.

Although there is an emerging research consensus on effective mathematics practices that involve social problem solving and that promote student agency, inadequacies exist in current practice, and historically, mathematics content has not fully engaged student interests, addressed social issues that are relevant or meaningful to their lives, or engaged the identities of alienated students who often do not see themselves as mathematical learners (Burkhardt & Schoenfeld, 2022; Gutiérrez, 2013; Schoenfeld, 2022). In addition, insufficient attention has been paid to problem-based, inquiry-oriented approaches, with problem sets typically focusing on abstract problems with singular solutions rather than on building connections to underlying issues that enable transfer of conceptual understandings to applied domains such as civics. And although current instruction typically involves the ability to reason abstractly and quantitatively, other recommended Common Core practices that call for constructing and critiquing arguments, modeling, and making strategic use of mathematical tools are underrepresented in classrooms (Common Core, n.d.). Teachers of mathematics also need to be trained in effective classroom discourse practices and to see the relevance of undertaking problem-based, inquiry-oriented work, particularly given scarce blocks of available instructional time. There is, thus, significant work to be done. Reviews of some of these challenges and of potential ways to address them can be found in Schoenfeld (2013, 2014); Schoenfeld, Fink, and Zuñiga-Ruiz (2023); and Schoenfeld, Fink, Sayavedra, et al. (2023).

Figure 3 illustrates epistemological orientations for civic reasoning and discourse and related mathematical content and skills by education level. This figure is based on epistemological considerations taken into account during the development of a practitioner brief created and vetted by an expert panel organized by the NAEd in collaboration with the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM; Schoenfeld, Brown, et al., 2023). Together with the preceding discussion, this figure points to areas that are ripe for research and development.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3

Development of Epistemological Orientations and Related Mathematical Content and Skills for Effective Problem Solving

Figure 3 is grounded in the understanding that mathematical thinking involves much more than mastering and applying mathematical procedures to mathematically well-defined situations. Rather, how one views contextual situations depends on one’s epistemological stance. Thus, part of learning mathematics necessarily involves developing the habits of mind that support students in problematizing social contexts (e.g., considering issue of fairness and social or environmental inequality), making judgments about which factors in a situation are important to represent mathematically, and then characterizing those variables in mathematical terms.

Conclusion

As characterized in the second section of this chapter, civic education involves the development of knowledge, skills, and dispositions to prepare students as efficacious civic actors and problem solvers, and it encompasses “all the ways in which young people come to think of themselves as citizens of local and cultural communities, the nation, and global society” (Hahn, 2008, p. 263). We have argued that civic education should not be siloed into narrowly defined civics courses; rather, that relevant issues can and should be addressed across the curriculum in fact-based, analytic, and nonpartisan ways. We have made our primary case for inclusion in mathematics, a discipline that is traditionally siloed away from applications and issues of social import. The fact that civic reasoning and discourse can be a meaningful component of mathematics classrooms suggests that the same can be the case for all disciplines (Lee, White, & Dong, 2021).

Education today is at a pivotal moment. The need for civic reasoning and discourse skills has never been greater. Yet powerful social and partisan forces are actively dismantling the ability of schools to truly prepare students to become knowledgeable, skillful, and agentic civic actors. This chapter reviewed and interrogated research evidence on how SoLD can be employed in productive ways to support students’ ability to analyze and reflect on important social issues, using both content and productive habits of mind from multiple disciplines.

This synthesis also provides insight into several areas for further research and development. First, continued research is needed to gain a deeper understanding of the relationship between classroom climate and student identity, particularly given advances in understanding the intertwined nature of cognition, emotions, and social interaction (Barber et al., 2021; Lee et al., 2023). Second, although emerging research in SoLD provides important warrants for the type of identity-affirming and inquiry-oriented approaches described in this review, there is a need for continued research and data on these educational approaches and the development of civic agency and problem solving capacities in students. This includes increased funding and incentives for iterative design-based research (Parker et al., 2018) and for studies of contextual variation. Such studies could examine content richness, challenges in implementation, classroom discourse, leveraging student identity, student/teacher and peer group relationships, and the transfer of knowledge and skills to thinking and acting outside of the classroom. Third, more research is needed on ethical reasoning regarding how students develop dispositions toward civic consciousness and the common good as well as developmentally appropriate ways to engage students in discussion of controversial and complex systemic issues, such as those involving identity and equity.

On the practical side, efforts are needed to address questions such as the optimal ways to embed civic reasoning and discourse learning activities in the curriculum and what resources are needed to support their uptake with minimal support. Improvements in teacher professional development are essential to better prepare all educators (and especially those in subject matter disciplines) to facilitate open classroom climates for discussion and to deliver inquiry-oriented problem solving instruction, particularly for marginalized students who may feel a sense of alienation or vulnerability. Teachers also need professional development in how to discern the difference between what is political and what is partisan in the design of discussions and learning activities.

In addition, there is a need for professionally vetted, open-access, educator resources exemplifying the type of SoLD-validated, problem solving instruction in this review. The Roadmap to Educating for American Democracy (Educating for American Democracy, 2021) and the subject matter civic practitioner briefs developed by NAEd in collaboration with disciplinary teacher associations (e.g., NCTM for mathematics) provide a start to such a repository. In addition, teachers need improved materials on how to structure discussion and inquiry-oriented learning opportunities that leverage students’ unique cultural identities and experiences (Conklin et al., 2021). At a minimum, this should include working through exemplars of practice that show how patterns of engagement used in these materials are consistent with the principles and practices enunciated earlier in this chapter and how they can be applied to lessons across the curriculum.

Moreover, districts, schools, and professional organizations should support the development of professional learning communities of teachers to instill a sense of ownership in these practices and to avoid the problem of reforms being imposed from “above” (Conklin et al., 2021; Schoenfeld, Brown, et al., 2023). Teachers also need organizational support and validation for undertaking this work, particularly in subject matter domains in which these activities are not yet standard practice. Collaborations between research, policy, and practitioner organizations are also needed to advance the vision put forth by Darling-Hammond and McGuire (2023) for a renewed civic mission of schooling that is centrally organized around civic and problem solving outcomes.

Finally, improved data infrastructure is also needed. This could involve the United States rejoining participation in the IEA large-scale Civic and Citizenship Education Study (or benchmark participation by individual states), improving NAEP and other civics assessments to measure a broader range of problem solving skills and learner dispositions, and enhancing the quality of various classroom and school climate measures that are being developed and administered across the United States (Lee, White, & Dong, 2021). Improved use of portfolio assessments and other formative assessments is also needed to capture the diversity and culturally situated nature of students’ civic learning and the potential to accelerate the unique developmental range of individual students (Cantor et al., 2019; Darling-Hammond & McGuire, 2023).

Research from SoLD provides a solid foundation of evidence for the design of identity affirming, culturally embedded, and inquiry-oriented instruction that will embolden students to become agentic civic actors. Notwithstanding the current environment, this approach to learning is powerful and political, but not partisan, and it is profoundly necessary for students to acquire as they become the democratic decision-makers and problem solvers of the future.