Vol.:(0123456789) TEACHING AND LEARNING: SYMPOSIUM
Collaborative learning in politics: creating spaces for political socialization in the classroom
Gloria Martínez‑Cousinou1 · Alberto Álvarez‑Sotomayor2 · Beatriz Tomé‑Alonso1
Published online: 30 July 2020
© European Consortium for Political Research 2020
Abstract
This paper analyses changes in attitudes towards politics among the students of a Bachelor of Communication degree program in Spain after applying an educational innovation project including a formal civic education, an open classroom climate and collaborative learning strategies in politics. The effects of the project on the knowledge and interest towards politics of the participants were measured through a mixed methodology. First, a survey was administered both before and after the pro- ject was implemented. Second, focus groups were also conducted in both referred moments. The results show an increase in both understanding and having an inter- est in politics among students. In the context of low levels of formal instruction on politics during secondary school, such as in the Spanish case, these findings show that political disaffection among youth relates to a serious lack of knowledge about politics.
Keywords Collaborative learning · Political socialization · Political engagement · Teaching
This article is based in a paper prepared for the Panel “Evidence-Based Teaching in Political Science” at the ECPR General Conference (22–25 August 2018, Hamburg).
* Gloria Martínez-Cousinou gmartinez@uloyola.es
Alberto Álvarez-Sotomayor aasotomayor@uco.es
Beatriz Tomé-Alonso btome@uloyola.es
1 Department of International Studies, Universidad Loyola Andalucía, Avda. de las Universidades s/n, 41704 Dos Hermanas, Seville, Spain
2 Department of Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Córdoba, C/San Alberto Magno, s/n, 14071 Córdoba, Spain
Introduction
Concerns about low levels of political involvement as an enduring feature of Western democracies have resulted in a renewed interest in engaging young peo- ple in politics. Since 1997, there has been an important commitment within the European Union to promote active citizenship by recommending that member states include civic education in schools’ curricula (García-Albacete 2013). From an academic perspective, the lack of political interest and engagement among youth has led to a revival of political socialization studies aimed at analysing the roots of political interest and participation in politics (Koskimaa and Rapeli 2015: 142).
This work is aimed at exposing and measuring the impact of a project of edu- cational innovation designed to improve college students’ understanding of and interest in politics in the context of poor civic education during high school. The project combines three types of citizen education (Quintelier 2013b: 142–144): a formal civic education, an open classroom climate and active learning strategies.
Through the analysis of the data that inform the project, conclusions are drawn about the impact of the project in increasing the understanding of and interest in politics among students. Additionally, empirical insights are also provided con- cerning the following two dimensions addressed by previous literature: (1) the link between political interest and political participation in college education and (2) the role played by universities as agents of political socialization.
In this article, we first briefly review the literature focused on the school acting as an agent of political socialization before we present our educational innovation project. Following the methodology that we used to evaluate the project, we pre- sent the main findings and conclude with some observations regarding the impact of the project itself.
Political socialization in the classroom
Political socialization describes the process by which citizens crystallize political identities, values and behaviour that remain relatively persistent throughout their lives (Neundorf and Smets 2017). Among the different potential socializers, fam- ily, school and peers are considered the key agents responsible for transmitting political attitudes (Dostie-Goulet 2009; Koskimaa and Rapeli 2015; Shani 2009).
Although the impact of school on the development of political interest in young people has been shown to be less important than the impact of peers (Quintelier 2013a) and, particularly, family (Koskimaa and Rapeli 2015; Kim and Lim 2019), its role as an agent of political socialization should not be overlooked (Verba et al. 1995).
Defined as the “degree to which politics arouses a citizen’s curiosity” (Van Deth 1990: 278), political interest is regarded as a prerequisite for the political involvement of young people (Galston 2001; García-Albacete 2011). There is a
plethora of studies on the effects of civic education at school on young people’s political engagement, especially regarding the US context (Feldman et al. 2007) and, more recently, the European context (Manning and Edwards 2014; Stadel- mann-Steffen and Sulzer 2018).
Unlike previous studies that have supported the idea that civic education would influence most students with advantageous conditions, recent literature points to civic education at school as a potential equalizer of political interest between stu- dents with different family backgrounds in terms of political socialization (Stadel- mann-Steffen and Sulzer 2018). Particularly, school is expected to play a significant role in raising political interest among those students who do not acquire such inter- est at home (García-Albacete 2013: 93; Neundorf et al. 2013).
As systematized by Quintelier (2013b: 142–144), there are three types of citi- zen education that are capable of influencing the political involvement of young people. First, formal civic education, which is aimed at the direct transmission of political knowledge (institutions, processes, critical thinking, etc.), has widely been considered the best means of promoting both political interest (Schmid 2003) and active citizenship (Galston 2001; Persson 2014). Second, the so-called open class- room climate, which refers to the interaction between teachers and students, is aimed at encouraging students to develop and express their own ideas in class (Campbell 2006; Quintelier 2013b) and is positively associated with an increased sense of political and civic engagement (Castillo et al. 2015). Third, the use of active learn- ing strategies is aimed at encouraging students to participate actively in democratic procedures by acquiring political skills and attitudes about political processes.
Research on the effect of these three types of citizen education on political inter- est, trust and participation concludes that while formal civic education and active learning strategies are effective in shaping political attitudes and behaviours, an open classroom climate positively affects political trust (Claes and Hooghe 2017;
Dassonneville et al. 2012). For that reason, the literature proposes that the various types of practices exposed should be combined into an eclectic model, as each con- tributes to different relevant political attitudes and behaviours (Claes and Hooghe 2017; Dassonneville et al. 2012). However, more research is needed to evaluate the impact of specific learning activities that may particularly contribute to the develop- ment of young people’s civic skills by creating spaces for political socialization.
This is connected with other empirical results that point to adolescence as a key period concerning the development of political interest (Jennings et al. 2009; Koski- maa and Rapeli 2015; Shani 2009) and the consolidation of political points of view (Eckstein et al. 2012). In this vein, some studies have concluded that college educa- tion plays a special role in enhancing political participation over time, especially when students are exposed to informal political discussions in class (Klofstad 2015).
Consequently, one could expect that classroom-based political education at the uni- versity level could also play a relevant role as an agent of political socialization, par- ticularly in contexts where civic education at school is not compulsory.
Against this, the purpose of this research is twofold. First, this research presents and evaluates a specific project of civic education combining the aforementioned three types of learning strategies (Quintelier 2013b) to measure the impact of the project in terms of knowledge about and interest in politics. Second, this research
suggests insights for the literature on political socialization since the project is implemented at the university level in the context of non-compulsory civic educa- tion at secondary school. This might contribute to a greater understanding of the role played by universities as agents of political socialization.
Collaborative learning for political socialization: the project
The project of educational innovation entitled “Bringing Politics to the Classroom”
was implemented among students of the Bachelor of Communication degree pro- gram at the University Loyola (Spain) during the 2017–2018 academic year. Its aim was to increase the political understanding and interest of students enrolled in two courses of this BA program: the first-year political science course (students ages eighteen and twenty) and the second-year journalistic genres course (students ages nineteen and twenty-one).1 Although both courses were enrolled in the project, for practical reasons, the evaluation of the impact is limited to those students complet- ing the political science course. This focus will allow for a deeper analysis of how the project itself affects a group of students who have received a limited formal civic education before college. Along with their secondary education, the students involved in this project were subject to two different national laws that conceived the subject of civic education very differently, namely LOE 2006 and LOMCE 2013, with the latter considering civic education not to be a compulsory subject. As a result, most of the students who were aged eighteen or nineteen when the project was implemented had received a very limited formal education in politics during high school.
The project itself comprises a set of collaborative learning activities, which implies that students interact in small groups and collaborate to construct their own knowledge, while the professor has a less active role than in his/her conventional status (Wolfe 2012). This collaborative learning method is complemented by two other empirically validated strategies for influencing the political attitudes of stu- dents (Quintelier 2013b): lecturing about civic education and an open classroom climate.
In this project, collaboration between both courses occurred at two different levels. At the intra-classroom level, political science students were organized into groups of four or five members. Each group worked together throughout the semes- ter on two topics of their choice related to the syllabus of the course and had to sub- mit two pairs of tasks (one blog post and another type of deliverable for each topic).
At the inter-classroom level, each student from the first-year political science course collaborated with a student from the journalistic genres course in accom- plishing the tasks for the latter course. Each first-year student then acted as an assis- tant for each second-year student in the process of searching for specific information
1 Both courses are compulsory (6 ECTS each) in the academic curriculum for the communication degree; thus, students taking the second-year course had previously passed the political science course.
about a politically related topic during this peer-to-peer collaboration that remained stable throughout the semester.
The deliverables within the project were all included in a collective blog enti- tled “The political class (classroom)”, which was intended for students at secondary schools in Spain to contribute to their own political socialization. It is for this reason that groups were encouraged to prepare their deliverables using simple and direct language that was capable of generating interest in those potential readers younger than 18 years old, and that covered topics ranging from an explanation of the main sources of political conflict in the world to a description of the various forms of government in democratic systems. Once the tasks were submitted, the instructor and the groups began a two-way learning process with the purpose of improving the form and the content of the posts.
The intra- and inter-classroom collaborative tasks together represented 50% of the total grade for each student. Within this overall percentage, a minimum of 6% was devoted to evaluating the students’ class participation over time within the frame- work of an open classroom climate. The remainder of the final grade (50%) would be earned through a final exam for the sixty-two students enrolled in the course.
Methods
The impact of the project on the first-year students was measured through a mixed methodology. On the quantitative side, an online survey partially based on the IEA Civic Education Study questionnaire for students (Schulz and Sibberns 2004) was administered both before and after the project was implemented (February and May 2018). The online questionnaire was completed by all students who were in the classroom on the first and last days of class, resulting in a total of sixty-five and sixty respondents, respectively.
It should be noted that the survey does not reflect a sample population but rather the entire student population studied. The only students not included in the survey were those who were absent from class when the post-survey was administered.
Therefore, it represents a census of the study population, which invalidates the need to make statistical inferences.
In measuring the students’ understanding of politics, we used both objective and subjective indicators. Objective knowledge about politics was measured by means of ten cognitive items. Six of them concerned general knowledge about politics, while four concerned knowledge about the Spanish political system and current political affairs. These topics were addressed during the semester, mainly through class dis- cussions and lectures. Every item had only one right answer. A variable that ranges from zero to ten with a final score for all the items was computed by adding one point for every right answer. We called this variable the “political knowledge score”.
On the other hand, subjective (self-perceived) knowledge about politics was meas- ured through three Likert items: “When political issues or problems are being dis- cussed, I usually have something to say”; “I know more about politics than most people my age”; and “I am able to understand most political issues easily”. These
three items have been used before as indicators of so-called internal political effi- cacy (Campbell, Gurin and Miller 1954).
To measure interest in politics, two different indicators were analysed. First, such interest has been directly measured through the Likert item “I am interested in pol- itics”. This question can also be considered an indicator of political disaffection.
Second, interest in politics was indirectly measured through students’ political inter- action with agents of political socialization. In so doing, we exploited three Likert items regarding the frequency of talking about politics (with peers, parents or other adult family members and teachers) and five items more regarding the frequency of following political and social issues through different mass media content (TV news, radio news, shows on politics, newspapers and the Internet).
On the qualitative side, four focus groups were conducted at the end of the politi- cal science course (May 2018) to “obtain perceptions” and first-hand information about the impact of the project on students’ interest in political affairs “in a permis- sive, nonthreatening environment” (Krueger and Casey 2015: 6). As focus groups might be internally homogeneous, the selection criteria for forming the groups were the students’ initial predispositions towards the political science course; those expressing an initial lack of interest in the course (FG_1 and FG_2) were separated from those a priori interested in it (FG_3 and FG_4). The four groups consisted of eight to nine students each, including both genders.2
The focus groups were led by a researcher/moderator who noted relevant topics and created a normal conversation in which participants could address the selected topic in depth, share their personal experiences and describe their preferences and opinions (Vaughn et al. 2014). Following the main aim of this paper, the group interviewers focused on key questions regarding political interest/commitment, knowledge about politics, interaction with agents of political socialization and their experiences in the classroom when learning about politics.
Findings
Understanding of politics
As expected, the data show an increase in students’ understanding of politics after taking the political science course. Regarding objective knowledge about politics, in the presurvey, the mean of the political knowledge score was 3.98 (s.d. = 1.83), while in the post-survey, it was 5.17, which shows a 30% increase (s.d. = 2.42).
In line with this, the students show an increase in their perception of having bet- ter knowledge about politics (“internal political efficacy”). This is observed in all
2 Students’ decisions to participate in the focus groups were made freely; they were previously informed that their participation was independent of their final grade of the course. The information expressed by the students was recorded on the basis of prior and informed consent. To avoid biases and distortions on the information provided by participants, focus groups were conducted by a researcher different to their own instructor.
three items that measure this subjective trait of political understanding. As shown in Table 1, in the post-survey, we find larger proportions of those who agree with the statements that reference (1) having something to say when political issues or prob- lems are being discussed, (2) knowing more about politics than most people of their age and (3) being able to understand most political issues easily. Bigger differences are found in the two latter statements.
These results are consistent with the insights of the qualitative study carried out at the end of the course. In both groups, the analysis shows that both the students who were previously interested in taking the political science course and those who were not previously interested demonstrate a general increase in confidence regard- ing their knowledge about politics. Some students make a direct link between the active learning strategies adopted in the classroom, their (personal and intellectual) involvement in the course and the positive results that were obtained in terms of understanding politics.
Such an increase in confidence regarding their own knowledge about politics seems to have an impact on the consolidation of political points of view and on the crystallization of political identities, especially among those who were previously interested in taking the course (FG_3 and FG_4); one student stated that “Political science helps anyone to know what it means to be a liberal and what it means to be a Marxist. Some of those definitions have helped me a lot regarding my political ori- entation” (male student, age eighteen, FG_3).
Table 1 Student responses to the Likert items regarding their sense of internal political efficacy. Source:
Own elaboration
a In the percentage rows, difference calculated in percentage points When political issues
or problems are being discussed, I usually have something to say
I know more about politics than most people of my age
I am able to understand most political issues easily
Pre- Post- Differencea Pre- Post- Differencea Pre- Post- Differencea Strongly agree
% 12.3 16.7 4.4 9.2 8.3 − 0.9 4.6 6.7 2.1
n 8 10 2 6 5 − 1 3 4 1
Agree
% 33.8 40.0 6.2 16.9 35.0 18.1 32.3 60.0 27.7
n 22 24 2 11 21 10 21 36 15
Disagree
% 23.1 30.0 6.9 35.4 26.7 − 8.7 43.1 23.3 − 19.8
n 15 18 3 23 16 − 7 28 14 − 14
Strongly disagree
% 21.5 8.3 − 13.2 29.2 23.3 − 5.9 12.3 5.0 − 7.3
n 14 5 − 9 19 14 − 5 8 3 − 5
Don’t know
% 9.2 5.0 − 4.2 9.2 6.7 − 2.5 7.7 5.0 − 2.7
n 6 3 − 3 6 4 − 2 5 3 − 2
Another interesting result is that, in their discourse, some students express an awareness of how the increased understanding resulting from the project has con- tributed to enhancing their critical thinking and their ideological tolerance; one stu- dent stated that “I believe that we have learned to discuss together and to respect each other, to better understand other points of view. I think that has been one of the most useful insights of this project” (female student, age twenty, FG_4).
Finally, as they are all aware that they received a poor political instruction in high school (“We had no idea about politics [before this course]”, female student, age eighteen, FG_2), there is a common discourse about the need to address the teaching of politics in secondary education and, later, in university degree programs.
Interest in politics
Interest in politics was directly and indirectly measured through different questions.
The most direct indicator for this variable is the Likert scale for the statement “I am interested in politics”. In the presurvey, 12.3% of the students claim to “strongly disagree”, and 29.2% claim to “disagree” with the statement (Table 2). That is, by focusing only on the answers to this question, it could be said that more than two-fifths (41.5%) of the students report themselves as being disaffected in terms of politics. In the post-survey, the percentages of those who “strongly agree” and
“disagree” decrease to 10% and 6.7%, respectively (for a total of 16.7%, if we sum up both categories), which means that the proportion of those not interested in poli- tics decreases by nearly twenty-five points. From the opposite perspective, it might be said that after the project was concluded, the percentage of students who were interested in politics (both those who strongly agree and agree) increased from 57 to 83%.
Table 2 Student responses to Likert item “I am interested in politics” (%). Source: Own elaboration
a In the percentage rows, difference calculated in percentage points
Pre- Post- Differencea
Strongly agree
% 23.1 20.0 − 3.1
n 15 12 − 3
Agree
% 33.8 63.3 29.5
n 22 38 16
Disagree
% 29.2 6.7 − 22.5
n 19 4 − 15
Strongly disagree
% 12.3 10.0 − 2.3
n 8 6 − 2
Don’t know
% 1.5 0 − 1.5
n 1 0 − 1
In the same sense, while many of the students who were not interested in taking the course explicitly express an increase in their interest in politics after attending the course, this happens to be the case for all the students who participated in the focus groups that consisted of pupils who were previously interested in the course (FG_3 and FG_4). Moreover, these students link this increased level of interest to the increase in their self-perceived understanding of politics; one student stated that
“I had no interest at all [in politics], but I think it was because I didn’t understand anything. That is why I was not curious about it. After the course, I understand the concepts, and I care more about it” (female student, age eighteen, FG_1).
Such an increased interest seems to come not only from the students’ improved understanding of political theories, concepts and dynamics but also from their enlarged awareness of the relevance that politics have for their everyday lives. Even those students who recognize that they have not experienced an increase in their interest in politics after the course (in FG_1 and FG_2) seem to be more aware of the relevance that politics has for their lives; one student stated that “[We learned]
not to demonize politics. [This project] has made us realize how important politics is in our lives” (male student, age eighteen, FG_3).
It is worth pointing out that some previously interested students mention not only an increase in their interest in politics but also an increase in their willingness to engage in the country’s political life by participating either through conventional or unconventional forms of participation; one student stated that “Since you understand more and more, you are also more involved in the political life of your country”
(male student, age eighteen, FG_4).
Students from the non-interested groups do not clearly express such a willing- ness to engage in political life in the future, but some of them express a sense of self-awareness regarding how it is important to vote in elections and that they have to become informed about the different political parties before doing so. One student stated as follows:
Well, it’s a topic that neither interested me before nor continues to interest me because I believe it’s a subject in which I will never take part; obviously, when I have to vote, I will inform myself, and if there is something that I feel ideo- logically supportive of, then I’ll vote for it. […] The easiest thing would be not to vote, but I already have the responsibility to vote […], at least to submit a blank vote (male student, age nineteen, FG_1).
Interest in politics has also been analysed indirectly and quantitatively through students’ political interaction with agents of political socialization (family, peers, teachers and mass media). As shown in Table 3, family is the main agent with which the students discuss politics. When the pre- and post-results are compared, we observe that the frequency of participation in political discussions increases, espe- cially with peers and teachers. Such an increase is consistent with the increase in the sense of internal political efficacy mentioned above since it makes sense that the self-perception of a better understanding of politics leads to an increase in this type of participation.
This growth in the frequency of participation in political discussions is consist- ent with the discourse expressed in the focus groups as well. The project, indeed,
seems to have an impact on the students’ path of political socialization. As the students point out themselves, families are the first actor of political socialization.
However, while the students may not have felt comfortable speaking about politics before the course, after the course, they show an increase in confidence and par- ticipation within their families when talking about politics. In fact, many students from both the interested and non-interested groups report that they talk more at home about politics now than they did before, which is also related to the increase in self-perceived understanding and knowledge. These students also demonstrate some changes in relation to the opinions of their families, from being totally in agreement to being able to disagree on some points.
A similar path is shown in regard to friends. The students from the four groups, especially from the a priori interested groups, show an increase in political interac- tions. Many students explained how they are now “willing to talk about politics”
with friends because they “like the topic” (male student, age eighteen, FG_1).
Likewise, the data suggest that the project might have some type of impact in terms of students’ political interaction with the media, another indicator of interest in politics (see Table 4).
Conclusions
This paper aimed to evaluate the impact of an educational innovation project with the main goal of boosting the understanding of and interest in politics among col- lege students. The project was based on a learning methodology that combines a formal civic (political) education, an open classroom climate and collaborative
Table 3 Student responses to Likert items regarding the frequency of talking about politics with peers, parents or other adult family members, and teachers (%). Source: Own elaboration
a In the percentage rows, difference calculated in percentage points
Peers Parents or other adult family
members Teachers
Pre- Post- Differencea Pre- Post- Differencea Pre- Post- Differencea Never
% 18.5 6.7 − 11.8 4.6 3.3 − 1.3 21.5 13.3 − 8.2
n 12 4 − 8 3 2 − 1 14 8 − 6
Rarely
% 41.5 36.7 − 4.8 24.6 16.7 − 7.9 29.2 23.3 − 5.9
n 27 22 − 5 16 10 − 6 19 14 − 5
Sometimes
% 24.6 38.3 13.7 49.2 53.3 4.1 38.5 36.7 − 1.8
n 16 23 7 32 32 0 25 22 − 3
Often
% 15.4 18.3 2.9 21.5 26.7 5.2 10.8 26.7 15.9
n 10 11 1 14 16 2 7 16 9
Table 4 Student responses to Likert items regarding the frequency of following political and social issues through mass media (%). Source: Own elaboration a In the percentage rows, difference calculated in percentage points Reading news in newspaperWatching TV newsListening to news on the radioWatching or listening to other shows about politicsUsing the Internet to get info on politics or society Pre-Post-DifferenceaPre-Post-DifferenceaPre-Post-DifferenceaPre-Post-DifferenceaPre-Post-Differencea Never %30.826.7− 4.11.56.75.229.226.7− 2.543.143.30.218.58.3− 10.2 n2016− 41431916− 32826− 2125− 7 Less than once/week %32.328.3− 49.23.3− 5.930.820.0− 10.821.526.75.226.116.7− 9.4 n2117− 462− 42012− 8141621710− 7 Once or twice/week %27.726.7− 118.520.01.513.823.39.518.516.7− 1.821.520.0− 1.5 n1816− 21212091451210− 21412− 2 3–4/week %4.613.38.730.833.32.518.516.7− 1.813.85.0− 8.815.426.711.3 n385202001210− 293− 610166 Everyday %4.65.00.440.036.7− 3.37.713.35.63.18.35.218.528.39.8 n3302622− 458325312175
learning strategies. Both quantitative and qualitative data show that understand- ing and interest increased after the project was implemented.
On the one hand, an increase in understanding is observed both in an objective and a subjective dimension. The results from the focus groups point to the latter as having an impact in terms of the confidence of the students in their own knowl- edge. That confidence is perceived by the students as a key element in the process of developing their interest in politics that they have experienced throughout the semester. Thus, the better their understanding about politics is, the greater their increased interest. In the context of the low level of formal instruction on poli- tics provided during secondary school, such as in the Spanish case, this finding shows that political disaffection among youth relates to a serious lack of knowl- edge about politics.
On the other hand, the results show an increase in twenty-six points in the percentage of the students who are interested in politics when comparing the pre- survey and post-survey data. Such an increase in interest is also observed in the higher percentages of those who, at the end of the semester, declared that they discuss politics with others more than before, particularly with peers and teach- ers. As deduced from the qualitative information, this spike in interest emerges in some of the participants from the two focus groups formed by students who were not previously interested in the political science course, while it is the prevailing discourse among those participants included in the a priori interested groups.
In addition, an increased willingness to engage in political life is perceived in the students of the a priori interested groups, either through conventional or unconventional forms of participation. However, while the students from the non- interested groups do not clearly express such a willingness to engage in politi- cal life in the future, some of them express a self-awareness that it is important to vote in elections and that they have to obtain information about the different political parties before doing so. These findings are in line with previous research that highlights the role of interest as a prerequisite for political participation among young people (García-Albacete 2011). What the results of this project add to the previous literature is the finding that the university stage is not too late to generate an interest that leads to political engagement, especially in contexts of low levels of formal education about politics during secondary school. As shown, in this context, a lack of knowledge is a deterrent for young people to be inter- ested in politics (and thus a trigger for political disaffection) and, consequently, a deterrent to political engagement.
Although the evaluation by the students of the project was not measured quan- titatively, the qualitative study shows two interesting results related to these terms.
First, there is a positive reception of the project demonstrated by the students. In particular, it has been highlighted that collaborating in developing blog posts on top- ics related to politics intended for secondary education students is very useful for their own understanding since they have to pay attention to explaining the issues in a simple manner. Second, the students are aware that the course, including the collab- orative activities carried out, affects a change in their attitude towards politics. Fur- thermore, in those students who were a priori interested in the course, an enhanced level of critical thinking and ideological tolerance are perceived.
References
Campbell, D.E. 2006. Why we vote: How schools and communities shape our civic life. Princeton: Prince- ton University Press.
Castillo, J.C., D. Miranda, M. Bonhomme, C. Cox, and M. Bascopec. 2015. Mitigating the Political Par- ticipation Gap from the School: The Roles of Civic Knowledge and Classroom Climate. Journal of Youth Studies 18(1): 16–35.
Claes, E., and M. Hooghe. 2017. The Effect of Political Science Education on Political Trust and Interest:
Results from a 5-year Panel Study. Journal of Political Science Education 13(1): 33–45.
Dassonneville, R., E. Quintelier, M. Hooghe, and E. Claes. 2012. The Relation Between Civic Education and Political Attitudes and Behavior: A Two-Year Panel Study Among Belgian Late Adolescents.
Applied Developmental Science 16(3): 140–150.
Dostie-Goulet, E. 2009. Social Networks and Development of Political Interest. Journal of Youth Studies 12(4): 405–421.
Eckstein, K., P. Noack, and B. Gniewosz. 2012. Attitudes Toward Political Engagement and Willing- ness to Participate in Politics: Trajectories Throughout Adolescence. Journal of Adolescence 35(3):
485–495.
Feldman, L., J. Pasek, D. Romer, and H.J. Kathleen. 2007. Identifying Best Practices in Civic Education:
Lessons from Student Voices Philadelphia. American Journal of Education 114(1): 75–100.
Galston, W.A. 2001. Political Knowledge, Political Engagement, and Civic Education. Annual Review Political Science 4: 217–234.
García-Albacete, G. M. 2011. Continuity or generational change? A longitudinal study of young people political participation in Western Europe. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Mannheim.
García-Albacete, G.M. 2013. Promoting political interest in school: The role of civic education. In Grow- ing into politics contexts and timing of political socialisation, ed. S. Abendschön, 91–114. ECPR:
Colchester.
Jennings, M.K., L. Stoker, and J. Bowers. 2009. Politics Across Generations: Family Transmission Reex- amined. The Journal of Politics 71(3): 782–799.
Kim, H., and E. Lim. 2019. A Cross-National Study of the Influence of Parental Education on Intention to Vote in Early Adolescence: The Roles of Adolescents’ Educational Expectations and Political Socialization at Home. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth 24(1): 85–101.
Klofstad, C.A. 2015. Exposure to Political Discussion in College is Associated with Higher Rates of Political Participation Over Time. Political Communication 32(2): 292–309.
Koskimaa, V., and L. Rapeli. 2015. Political Socialization and Political Interest: The Role of School Reassessed. Journal of Political Science Education 11(2): 141–156.
Krueger, R.A., and M.A. Casey. 2015. Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Manning, N., and K. Edwards. 2014. Does Civic Education for Young People Increase Political Participa- tion? A Systematic Review. Educational Review 66(1): 22–45.
Neundorf, A., and K. Smets. 2017. Political socialization and the making of citizens. Oxford: Oxford Handbooks Online.
Neundorf, A., K. Smets, and G. Garcia-Albacete. 2013. Homemade Citizens: The Development of Politi- cal Interest During Adolescence and Young Adulthood. Acta Politica 48(1): 92–116.
Persson, M. 2014. Testing the Relationship Between Education and Political Participation Using the 1970 British Cohort Study. Political Behavior 36(4): 877–897.
Quintelier, E. 2013a. Engaging Adolescents in Politics: The Longitudinal Effect of Political Socialization Agents. Youth and Society 47(1): 51–69.
Quintelier, E. 2013b. The Effect of political socialisation agents on political participation between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one. In Growing into politics contexts and timing of political socialisa- tion, ed. S. Abendschön, 139–160. ECPR: Colchester.
Schmid, C. 2003. Fördert der Schulunterricht an Gymnasien das politische Interesse von Jugendlichen?
Zeitschrift für Soziologie der Erziehung und Sozialisation 23(4): 371–384.
Schulz, W., and H. Sibberns. 2004. IEA civic education study technical report. Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA).
Shani, D. 2009. On the origins of political interest. Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University.
Stadelmann-Steffen, I., and L. Sulzer. 2018. Just Another Brick in the Wall? The Relationship Between Classroom-Based Political Education and the Political Interest of Young Adults in Switzerland.
Journal of Youth Studies 21(4): 550–573.
Van Deth, J.W. 1990. Interest in politics. In Continuities in political action: A longitudinal study of politi- cal orientations in three Western democracies, ed. M.K. Jennings and J.W. van Deth, 275–312. Ber- lin and New York: De Gruyter.
Vaughn, S., J.S. Schumm, and J. Sinagub. 2014. Focus group interviews in education and psychology.
Los Angeles: Sage.
Verba, S., K. Lehman Schlozman, and H.E. Brady. 1995. Voice and equality: Civic volunteerism in Amer- ican politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wolfe, A. 2012. Implementing collaborative learning methods in the political science classroom. Journal of Political Science Education 8 (4): 420–432.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Gloria Martínez‑Cousinou holds a Ph.D. in Political Science with European Mention and currently has a post as Assistant Professor at the Department of International Studies at the Universidad Loyola Andalu- cía (Spain). She has been Visiting Fellow at international universities of renowned prestige: the Institute for Social Sciences at the University of Lisbon, the School of Politics at the University of Nottingham, the London School of Economics and Political Science, and the Department of Government at George- town University. Her research interests are focused on governance, institutional design and political cor- ruption, on the one hand, and on political socialization and teaching and learning in higher education, on the other.
Alberto Álvarez‑Sotomayor holds a Ph.D. in Sociology. Currently, he is Assistant Professor at the Depart- ment of Social Sciences and Humanities at the University of Córdoba (Spain). Previously, he worked as a researcher for the Institute for Advanced Social Studies, which belongs to the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC). He has been visiting scholar at the universities of Oxford, Utrecht and Georgetown. His research interests are mainly focused on the area of sociology of education, more specifically, on political socialization, the determinants of educational disadvantages and the educational integration of children of immigrants.
Beatriz Tomé‑Alonso is currently Assistant Professor at the Department of International Studies at the Universidad Loyola Andalucía (Seville, Spain). She obtained her Ph.D. in Political Science/International Relations from the Complutense University of Madrid. Her research and teaching focus lie on the inter- action between domestic and international factors in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) with a special geographic focus on the Maghreb area. She is also interested in developing new strategies for teaching and learning in higher education. She has been Visiting Scholar in leading research centres and universities including Oxford University’s Middle East Centre (MEC, Oxford) and l’École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales (EHEE, Paris). She is also member of the Study Group on Arab and Muslim Societies (GRESAM, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Toledo).
