To stimulate democratic competences through teaching, it is necessary to have an understanding of actions and behaviors that are considered effective in teaching methods. In this study, we investigated these actions and behaviors, referred to as classroom practices, by interviewing 20 expert teachers of democracy in the Netherlands. We identified six relevant practices: meaningful embedding, providing multiple perspectives, thinking about solutions from divergent perspectives, independent information collection and presentation, taking socio-political action, and critical reflection on subject matter. We show how these practices are associated with democratic competences and provide examples of how the practices are implemented in teaching methods.
DOCUMENT
Effective teaching for democracy requires an understanding of the teaching methods and educational characteristics that are effective in interventions. In order to address this requirement, we conducted a systematic literature review. We used an extensive search syntax and snowballing method that allowed us to find n = 2093 unique publications. After a screening process, we have included 54 interventions in 51 different quantitative effect studies written between 2010 and 2020. We categorized these interventions into five types of teaching methods: instruction, small-group work, assignments, projects, and democratic decision-making. We analyzed what the educational characteristics (i.e., subject matter, classroom interaction, classroom management) of these interventions were and for which democratic competences (i.e., knowledge, attitude, skill, behavior) they were effective. Our results show that teaching methods have differential effects on democratic competences. We also discuss the robustness of these results. Our study shows that there is still much to be gained in terms of research designs, the conceptualization of democratic competences, and the description of teaching methods.
MULTIFILE
What options are open for peoplecitizens, politicians, and other nonscientiststo become actively involved in and anticipate new directions in the life sciences? In addressing this question, this article focuses on the start of the Human Genome Project (1985-1990). By contrasting various models of democracy (liberal, republican, deliberative), I examine the democratic potential the models provide for citizens' involvement in setting priorities and funding patterns related to big science projects. To enhance the democratizing of big science projects and give citizens opportunities to reflect, anticipate, and negotiate on newdirections in science and technology at a global level, liberal democracy with its national scope and representative structure does not suffice. Although republican (communicative) and deliberative (associative) democracy models meet the need for greater citizen involvement, the ways to achieve the ideal at a global level still remain to be developed.
DOCUMENT
