Figured worlds of citizenship: Examining differences made in “making a difference” in an elementary school classroom

Mayes, E., Mitra, D. L., & Serriere, S.C. (2016). Figured worlds of citizenship: Examining differences made in “making a difference” in an elementary school classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 53(3), 605-638.


This article goes deeper than a discussion of civic education in an elementary school classroom; the study reported here addresses deeper issues of what educators see as the central purposes of education, and how what we do in the classroom communicates our purposes to children.

Our beliefs about why we are educating children and what those purposes are will inevitably shape our agendas in the classroom. As this study showed, school children are very aware of the agendas of the adults in school, and probably are aware from an early age. As the researchers here found out, though, the children’s responses to our agendas may not be what we desire, and even sometimes when we think children are responding in ways we want them to, they may not really be responding as we think they are.

This study’s participants were fifth graders who were attending a school which had a strong civic education emphasis. The goal was to build students’ sense of efficacy, specifically their beliefs that they could “make a difference” in the world. These fifth graders were asked to create “zines” that examined current civic issues about which they believed they could make a difference. The researchers looked at how the teacher created “a figured world of civic engagement” (p. 611) in her classroom. They then focused on two of the students, one who was identified by the teacher as high in efficacy and one who was identified as low in efficacy. Interviews were conducted with both the teacher and the students, and field notes from observations as well as artifacts of various kinds (including the students’ zines) were collected and analyzed.

I was especially struck, and sometimes I was disturbed by, the interviews with the “high efficacy” and “low efficacy” students. Clearly, these two girls had figured out some things about the agendas of the adults in their lives, and how to negotiate those (sometimes competing) agendas. Although the teacher believed that the student she had labeled “high efficacy” really “got it” (p. 621) about civic education and making a difference (the child chose an environmental issue, fracking, for her zine), I am not so sure. This child was the daughter of university professors, and told the researchers that she chose this issue because she had heard her parents talking about it. Choosing this issue probably pleased both her parents and her teacher. In fact, the child reported that her teacher said “I love you!” when she announced her topic. That response communicated something powerful (and I also found it inappropriate; will my teacher not “love” me if I don’t choose an issue she finds worthy?).

This child did show high efficacy, in my view, but not necessarily about fracking or the ability to make a difference about that. I might argue that the typical fifth grader really is not able to make a difference (or even able to fully understand the issues surrounding the issue) when it comes to fracking. Even adults may not understand or feel efficacious about environmental issues; these issues are layered and complex (e.g., would the issue be viewed by a different lens in a community where the economy depends on oil production?). This student had high efficacy, but it was efficacy about navigating adult agendas and pleasing adults. This is even easier when home agendas and school agendas match, as was the case for the “high efficacy” child.

By contrast, the “low-efficacy” child was a child not from the school’s dominant cultural background, and she did not express a belief that she could make a difference. Her chosen issue for her zine, climate change, was chosen at the last minute to satisfy the requirement that she commit to a topic. This student saw the zine mainly as a requirement to be completed well and on time to please the teacher, but she expressed doubt that she could really make a difference about climate change. She completed the zine ahead of schedule and competently, and received praise for that. In fact, the rubric for the zine project showed that students were being assessed and graded on completion of the zine but not really on civic action or any sense of commitment to their chosen issues. Students probably picked up on that pretty quickly. We show students what we value, and what is at the top of our agendas, by what we assess and how we assess it. If a student wants to please adults, in school or at home, it is “efficacious” to figure that out.

I wonder what would be a better approach to civic education in elementary schools. I do want children to see themselves as citizens (albeit young ones) with agency and the ability to ask questions about what is going on in their worlds. Maybe focusing more on local issues within their school and community would be a start, though even then it is important to address issues where children realistically can understand and make a difference. Otherwise, students will know whose agendas are really in play, as did these two fifth graders. They may even humor us, as did the “low efficacy” student when she acknowledged that her teacher wanted them to feel like they could make a difference.

We have to be careful. One area needing care is assessment, and the importance of avoiding sending mixed messages through what and how we assess. If we want civic engagement, we have to find a way to assess that. If all we assess is timely task completion, or amount of resources used, or the attractiveness of the product, that is what we will be telling students is important. If we praise certain kinds of behaviors, such as the choice of a topic we think is worthy, or completing work ahead of schedule, then students will see that we value those behaviors. They will comply with our agendas, but will they engage with the issues? Can we really say that a fifth-grader who completes a zine on an issue is civicly engaged?

This article has more to chew on even than this. There is a thoughtful discussion of some of the conflicting purposes in education these days (e.g., how does a focus on “making a difference” square with the push for “college and career readiness”?). The authors reflect on the problems they may have caused by even asking this teacher to identify “low efficacy” and “high efficacy” students. Can we really even assess that? What may have been the effects of “labeling” kids that way? Is it really fair to impose our own agendas about whether a child’s belief about whether or not she can make a difference (and a negative belief may fit the realities as some children perceive them), and use those agendas as standards for deciding if children fit our adult expectations of what they “should” believe?

It will take a while for me to fully mine this article, but anyone interested in civic education needs to take a look at this one.