The Transforming Citizen: A Conceptual Framework for Civic Education in Challenging Times

Abstract

This article presents The E3 Conceptual Framework for Civic Education as an approach for critical engagement with citizenship in a democratic society during challenging times. It consists of three phases that can be deployed to facilitate critical civic education: Exposure, Emergence, and Embodiment. The E3 Conceptual Framework for Civic Education offers guidance to those scholars and practitioners committed to envisioning higher education as transformative and emancipatory. This article also shares a vignette in which The E3 Conceptual Framework for Civic Education was used to design, teach, and evaluate an undergraduate sociology course. It is my hope that the reader will transfer the knowledge in this article to their own context as they transform themselves in order to transform society.

Full text

The Transforming Citizen: A Conceptual
Framework for Civic Education in Challenging
Times
JACOB KELLEY
Auburn University
Abstract: This article presents The E3 Conceptual Framework for
Civic Education as an approach for critical engagement with
citizenship in a democratic society during challenging times. It
consists of three phases that can be deployed to facilitate critical
civic education: Exposure, Emergence, and Embodiment. The E3
Conceptual Framework for Civic Education offers guidance to
those scholars and practitioners committed to envisioning higher
education as transformative and emancipatory. This article also
shares a vignette in which The E3 Conceptual Framework for Civic
Education was used to design, teach, and evaluate an
undergraduate sociology course. It is my hope that the reader will
transfer the knowledge in this article to their own context as they
transform themselves in order to transform society.
Résumé: Cet article présente le cadre conceptuel E3 pour
l’éducation civique en tant qu’approche pour un engagement
critique envers la citoyenneté dans une société démocratique en
ces temps difficiles. Il se compose de trois phases qui peuvent être
déployées pour faciliter l’éducation civique critique: exposition,
émergence et incarnation. Le cadre conceptuel E3 pour l’éducation
civique offre des conseils aux praticiens et aux universitaires
engagés à envisager l’enseignement supérieur comme
transformateur et émancipateur. Cet article met également en
lumière une vignette dans laquelle le cadre conceptuel E3 pour
l’éducation civique a été utilisé pour concevoir, enseigner et
évaluer un cours de sociologie de premier cycle. J’espère que le
lecteur transférera les connaissances de cet article dans son propre
contexte à mesure qu’il se transforme afin de changer la société.
Journal of Educational Thought
Vol. 54, No. 1, 2021, 63 - 76.
Courtesy Copy – Journal of Educational Thought, all rights reserved
https://werklund.ucalgary.ca/journal-educational-thought

64 J. KELLEY
The current landscape of society is characterized by political
uneasiness, economic uncertainty, and social unrest (Finnegan,
2019; Keet, 2018). The relationship between institutions and
individuals is seemingly fragile, as a sense of distrust becomes more
prevalent. The ebb and flow of the economy brings with it immense
stress for those struggling to make ends meet. The presence of social
inequalities leads to much needed resistance from people who are
ready to no longer occupy the margins. All of these challenges must
also be examined in respect to changing ecological circumstances,
including a pandemic. Thus, it is crucial for us to reconsider our
place in society as it continues to shift around us. Civic education,
then, is one possibility for us to deploy as we attempt to traverse
these unknown and uncomfortable waters (Carcasson & Sprain,
2012). There exist many conceptualizations of citizenship within the
research on and practice of civic education (Banks, 2017; Hanson &
Howe, 2011; Sabzalian, 2019; Westheimer & Kahne, 2004; Wheeler-
Bell, 2012). While they may vary in scale and scope, each shares the
core idea that civic education is fundamental for a democracy to
flourish in challenging times (Hoskins, 2013).
The purpose of this article is to join the scholars and
practitioners, both past and present, who reimagine and
reinvigorate civic education by offering a conceptual framework that
has the potential to inform our understanding and practice of
citizenship in a democratic society from a critical perspective
(Wheeler-Bell, 2012). The E3 Conceptual Framework for Civic
Education positions a person as a citizen when they actively,
critically, and reflectively engage in civic life (Adler & Goggin, 2005;
Levine, 2006). It consists of three phases that suggest a pathway for
developing and implementing critical civic education in higher
education institutions. The first phase, Exposure, refers to the
initial interaction between the student and critical citizenship. The
second phase, Emergence, occurs when the student develops the
capacity for and interest in critical citizenship. The third phase,
Embodiment, describes a state of being and doing in which critical
citizenship is part of daily life for the student. The E3 Conceptual
Framework for Civic Education suggests that people must
transform themselves in order to transform society (Finnegan, 2019;
Mezirow, 1989), but it should be acknowledged that this is a process
of lifelong learning for each one of us (Clancy, 2019).
This article is organized into five interconnected parts. The first
part offers background that situates The E3 Conceptual Framework
for Civic Education in its social realities. In other words, it reveals

THE TRANSFORMING CITIZEN 65
and critiques the social inequalities that push so many within a
democratic society to the margins. The second part explores other
conceptualizations of civic education as described in the literature.
This review is meant to demonstrate how The E3 Conceptual
Framework for Civic Education moves the discussion of civic
education forward. The third part presents the theoretical
underpinnings that inform how and why The E3 Conceptual
Framework for Civic Education functions. It makes the
connection(s) between democratic education, transformative
learning, and critical pedagogy as a nexus for social change. The
fourth part outlines each phase of The E3 Conceptual Framework
for Civic Education for implementation in higher education
institutions. It is important to note, however, that the phases are
often iterative in nature. The fifth part presents a vignette of The
E3 Conceptual Framework for Civic Education in action. Although
this article is more abstract in nature, The E3 Conceptual
Framework for Civic Education has value for scholars and
practitioners beyond the pages of the manuscript itself. This article,
in its entirety, serves as a call to action for us all to accept and adopt
a framing of civic education that is transformative and
emancipatory in challenging times.
Background
Before a discussion of The E3 Conceptual Framework for Civic
Education can occur, we must first have an understanding of the
social realities in which it is situated. In other words, we must
recognize the institutions and inequalities that shape daily life in
order to discern the rationale for a conceptual framework for civic
education from a critical perspective. This means deploying the
sociological imagination as a way for us to step outside of our
individual realities to see the social realities. Mills (1959) describes
the sociological imagination as “the vivid awareness of the
relationship between personal experience and the wider society” (p.
6). For example, a person who is using their sociological imagination
would see that poverty is largely a result of societal barriers that
limit access to resources and opportunities for individuals. He
explained,
The first fruit of this imagination—and the first lesson of
the social science that embodies it—is the idea that the
individual can understand his own experience and gauge
his own fate only by locating himself within his period,

66 J. KELLEY
that he can know his own chances in life only by becoming
aware of those of all individuals in his circumstances.
(Mills, 1959, p. 5)
The sociological imagination, then, equips us to better uncover the
forces at play in institutions that produce and perpetuate
inequalities in society (Doob, 2019; Hurst et al., 2020). These
institutions––including family, education, healthcare, and media––
play a key role in the socialization of individuals (Ore, 2018).
By revealing the inequalities that permeate institutions, we
become empowered to critique and transform them as an enactment
of citizenship. Such inequalities often manifest through a process
called social stratification, which sorts and ranks individuals into
groups based on socially constructed categories (Marger, 2014). For
example, race and racism have a complicated history within
institutions of the United States that is characterized by exclusion
and exploitation of racialized communities. It is only through a
deployment of the sociological imagination that such inequalities
become clear as embedded in the fabric of a society built on
hegemonic, patriarchal, and neoliberal structures (Giroux &
Robbins, 2015). The conceptual framework offered in this article,
thus, is formed on the assumption that society is inherently unjust.
Civic education––a curricular exploration of society and the
individual’s role in it–– offers the opportunity to redress those
structural woes through the development of a sociological
imagination (Mills, 1959) and a critical consciousness (Freire, 1972).
Higher education institutions are socially situated in such a way to
intentionally contribute to this empowerment of students as they
gain an understanding of the world around them and their
positionalities in the world. In fact, it is arguable that such a notion
captures the very mission of universities and colleges (Gourley,
2012). Students must become equipped to tackle wicked problems
(Rittel & Webber, 1973) in order to shape a better future for those
on the margins. Civic education, then, enables students to become
transforming citizens as they learn to see beyond individual
realities (Kelley et al., 2021), to disrupt oppressive structures and
practices (Giroux, 2014), and to promote democratic thinking
(Helwig & Yang, 2016).

THE TRANSFORMING CITIZEN 67
Review of Literature
Many scholars and practitioners have offered conceptualizations of
citizenship for our consideration (Banks, 2017; Hanson & Howe,
2011; Johnson & Morris, 2010; Swalwell & Payne, 2019;
Westheimer & Kahne, 2004; Wheeler-Bell, 2012). While each one
might vary from the next, it is evident that they all share a core
idea. Civic education is fundamental for a democracy to flourish in
challenging times (Hoskins, 2013). Westheimer and Kahne (2004)
suggest that there are three types of citizens needed to support a
democracy. The personably responsible citizen acts thoughtfully
and mindfully within their community. The participatory citizen
engages in civic activities at the local, state, and national levels. The
justice-orientated citizen recognizes and redresses inequalities that
plague a society. Of course, it is not enough to be responsible within
your community as a means for promoting democracy. Westheimer
and Kahne argue, “Developing commitments for civic participation
and social justice as well as fostering the capacities to fulfill those
commitments will support the development of a more democratic
society” (p. 245). Civic education, then, is how we can move people
toward the capacity for transforming society through citizenship.
Banks (2017) also provides a citizenship configuration
comprised of four types. Failed citizenship occurs when a nation-
state does not recognize an individual who then develops
ambivalent feelings toward the nation-state. Recognized citizenship
occurs when a nation-state acknowledges and affirms an individual
by providing full rights for participation. Participatory citizenship
occurs when an individual acts on the right for participation
provided by the nation-state. Transformative citizenship occurs
when an individual acts on values, such as human rights, to enact
social change. Higher education institutions can “help reduce failed
citizenship and enable students to acquire structural inclusion,
political efficacy, and civic action skills by implementing
transformative citizenship education” (Banks, 2017, p. 7).
Pedagogical strategies for implementation in civic education might
include culturally sustaining pedagogies, ethnic studies curriculum,
and service learning.
It is crucial to understand not only how citizenship is defined
but also how civic education might function. Wheeler-Bell (2012)
suggests a critical approach to civic education that is meant to
prepare students to transform society. By developing a “spirit of
activism,” students become conscious of inequalities in society and
are able to engage in social movements. Wheeler-Bell points out, “.

68 J. KELLEY
. . the educational experience needed to radically change society is
much different than one needed to reproduce, or slightly alter, the
current society” (p. 6). Johnson and Morris (2010) outline a
framework for critical civic education that pairs four elements from
critical pedagogy (politics, social, self, and praxis) with four
competencies for citizenship (knowledge, skills, values, and
dispositions). Their framework “can be used as a pictorial
representation to contrast the existence of, opportunities for, and
absence of elements of critical citizenship within the various levels
of a curriculum and its materials (p. 91). Johnson and Morris point
out, however, that the framework is a malleable work in progress.
Moreover, Swalwell and Payne (2019) contend that critical civic
education has the potential to equip students “to form and voice
opinions, solve problems, recognize diversity and inequality, and
consider the impact of their decisions on others” (p. 131). This
pedagogical perspective demonstrates that action is at the heart of
critical civic education. It is not enough for students to simply
understand society through a critical lens; they must also act to
transform society as more just for all. Swalwell and Payne warn us
that enactments of citizenship may have power and privilege woven
into them. They state,
[W]e must also consider how the various identities of our
students provide differing histories, politics, and ideas
about how to engage civically. Given that the varied
traditions of deliberation and civic engagement are all
classed, raced, and gendered, among others, educators
must be wary of presenting any civic engagement as
natural, neutral, or apolitical. (p. 129)
For example, we witnessed systematic voter suppression among
racialized communities in the United States during the 2020
presidential election. Voting is seen as the bedrock of a democratic
society, but we cannot assume that racialized communities are
always able to deploy those strategies for citizenship when
structural forces act against them.
Unfortunately, each of these conceptualizations is situated in
and informed by nation-states that are hegemonic, patriarchal, and
colonial. There are scholars and practitioners, however, who have
problematized the reliance on such conceptualizations that tend to
exclude some perspectives and privilege other perspectives
(Sabzalian, 2019). It is worth noting that such discussions of

THE TRANSFORMING CITIZEN 69
citizenship and civic education offer key insights that advance our
understanding in critical and emancipatory ways. Sabzalian (2019),
for instance, argues that civic education is rooted in the logics of
settler colonialism that seek to erase Indigenous sovereignty
through its focus on legal membership to an often oppressive nation-
state. Of course, this notion of citizenship completely ignores the
nationhood and autonomy of Indigenous peoples. Sabzalian
proposes a framework for civic education in which “its theories and
practices must be placed within the context of ongoing colonization
and Indigenous peoples’ struggles to protect their lands, lifeways,
nations, and sovereignty” (p. 313). To achieve that, the framework
provides six orientations––place, presence, perspectives, political
nationhood, power, and partnerships––that inform teaching and
learning for citizenship through an Indigenous lens.
Theoretical Underpinnings
Democratic Education
The E3 Conceptual Framework for Civic Education is supported and
guided by the notion of democratic education. In his foundational
text Democracy and Education, Dewey (1916) explores the role of
education in a democratic society. He points out that the purpose of
the text is to "state the ideas implied in a democratic society and to
apply these ideas to the problems of the enterprise of education” (p.
3). In other words, education is pivotal to the pursuit of democracy
as students must embrace their role to influence decisions. There
has been much discussion about democratic education by scholars
and practitioners since Dewey, including some critiques about the
actualization of democratic education (Meshulam & Apple, 2018).
Democratic education is important to the conceptual framework
because it highlights the potential of higher education institutions
to foster democratic values and beliefs among students. It is
acknowledged, however, that inequalities can still emerge through
the best of intentions in civic education.
Transformative Learning
The E3 Conceptual Framework for Civic Education is supported and
guided by the idea of transformative learning (Mezirow, 1991).
Adults collect a mosaic of experiences that influence how they see
and interpret the world around them. Often times, they develop
frames of reference that limit or truncate their perspectives
(Mezirow, 1996). Transformative learning, then, is an attempt to

70 J. KELLEY
expand those frames of reference to be “more inclusive,
discriminating, self-reflective, and integrative of experience”
(Mezirow, 1997, p. 5). Transformative learning is central to the
conceptual framework because it asks students to expand and
explicate previous conceptualizations of citizenship by moving
toward a capacity for critical engagement in society. For many
students, this is a paradigm that is unfamiliar and uncomfortable.
As such, transformative learning is necessary for students to gain
both a broader and a deeper understanding of society through civic
education.
Critical Pedagogy
The E3 Conceptual Framework for Civic Education is supported and
guided by the principles of critical pedagogy. As previously
discussed, there are historical forces that produce and perpetuate
inequalities within social institutions (Giroux & Robbins, 2015). It
becomes a democratic imperative for students to learn to reveal and
critique these inequalities. Critical pedagogy is an approach to
teaching and learning that cultivates a critical consciousness among
students to recognize and redress inequalities in society through
praxis (Freire, 1972; Kincheloe, 2008). In other words, critical
pedagogy equips students with a transformed mindset that enables
them to transform society to be more just for all. Giroux (2020)
notes, “Critical pedagogy takes as one of its central projects an
attempt to be discerning and attentive to those places and practices
in which social agency has been denied and produced” (p. 1). Critical
pedagogy is fundamental to the conceptual framework because it
spotlights the importance of education, particularly civic education,
in developing students who are liberated by and for social change
(Clancy, 2019). Simply put, they become transforming citizens.
The E3 Conceptual Framework for
Civic Education
The E3 Conceptual Framework for Civic Education has the
potential to inform our understanding and practice of citizenship in
a democratic society from a critical perspective (Wheeler-Bell,
2012). It builds on previous conceptualizations of citizenship by
positioning a person as a citizen when they actively, critically, and
reflectively engage in civic life (Adler & Goggin, 2005; Levine, 2006).
In other words, citizenship is seen as an emancipatory enactment of

THE TRANSFORMING CITIZEN 71
agency in which an individual challenges and transforms the status
quo in their sphere of influence (Gorski, 2013). Critical civic
education, then, offers a route to transformation for students as
they address wicked problems (Rittel & Webber, 1973) in society
that must also be transformed. Of course, this is a process of lifelong
learning for each one of us (Clancy, 2019). The E3 Conceptual
Framework for Civic Education consists of three phases that
suggest a pathway for developing and implementing critical civic
education: Exposure, Emergence, and Embodiment (see Figure 1).
Figure 1
The E3 Conceptual Framework for Civic Education
Exposure
The first phase of The E3 Conceptual Framework for Civic
Education is Exposure, which refers to the initial interaction
between the student and critical citizenship. This is the pedagogical
spark that sets the entire conceptual framework into motion. The
goal is to capture the student’s attention through relevance of and
connection to civic education. For many students, a critical approach
to citizenship might involve a paradigm shift that makes them
uncomfortable. There might even be some resistance to learning. It
is paramount for faculty and staff to create a learning environment
that is true to the critical mission but is also safe for exploration
during the Exposure phase. How might faculty and staff develop a
community of learners that is open to new perspectives on the world
around them?
Embodiment
Emergence
Exposure

72 J. KELLEY
Emergence
The second phase of The E3 Conceptual Framework for Civic
Education is Emergence, which occurs when the student develops
the capacity for and interest in critical citizenship. This is the
pedagogical action that keeps the conceptual framework moving.
The goal is to foster motivation that pushes the student to continue
engaging with civic education in active and reflective ways. It is
here that most of the learning occurs in the conceptual framework.
In the Emergence phrase, there might be feelings of burnout toward
critical citizenship. It is crucial that faculty and staff deploy
innovative and transformative pedagogies to keep students going.
What activities and assessments might faculty and staff design to
promote active and reflective engagement with critical citizenship?
Embodiment
The third phase of The E3 Conceptual Framework for Civic
Education is Embodiment, which describes a state of being and
doing in which critical citizenship is part of daily life for the student.
This is the pedagogical outcome in which the conceptual framework
has reached its peak. The student has transformed into a citizen
who is able to recognize and redress inequalities that exist in
society. In other words, they have developed the capacity for
transformation needed to move us toward social justice through
civic education. It is essential for faculty and staff to acknowledge
the successes of the students. The Embodiment phase is not the end
of the journey, though. All of us must be reflexive as we move
through the world, as learning is a lifelong and lifewide process that
offers us endless potentialities. In what way might faculty and staff
foster a culture of lifelong and lifewide learning that transfers to
other contexts?
Vignette
Although this article is more abstract in nature, The E3 Conceptual
Framework for Civic Education has value for scholars and
practitioners beyond the pages of the article itself. As such, I present
a vignette of the conceptual framework in action at a higher
education institution. I was part of a teaching team for an
undergraduate course called Social Problems several years ago.
This course examined major issues in society like poverty and

THE TRANSFORMING CITIZEN 73
racism through multiple sociological perspectives. It sought to equip
students to actively and critically identify, examine, and redress
social problems. Students explored the social construction of social
problems and discovered how they can enact their agency to create
social change. At the core of this course was the sociological
imagination. Interestingly, the course brought together students
from multiple disciplines at different stages of their academic
journeys.
The E3 Conceptual Framework for Civic Education maps
nicely onto the course design for Social Problems. The course opened
with a documentary on poverty in a Guatemalan village. This was
the Exposure phase of The E3 Conceptual Framework for Civic
Education, as it drew the students into a discussion on the societal
forces that too often push people into poverty. Throughout the
course, the students were tasked with developing possible solutions
to social problems. This was the Emergence phase of The E3
Conceptual Framework for Civic Education in which the students
were asked each week to engage actively, critically, and reflectively
with a new social problem. The culminating project for the course
was a digital media campaign that clearly and coherently
communicated a solution to a real-world social problem of their
choice by using an emerging technology. This was the Embodiment
phase of The E3 Conceptual Framework for Civic Education, given
that the students put their ideas into action beyond the classroom.
Conclusion
It is probably safe to say that society is in a chaotic state at the
moment. While that presents challenges to daily life, it also creates
opportunities for transformation and liberation. Civic education
from a critical perspective, in particular, is one possibility for
empowerment that prepares students to enact change in their
spheres of influence. Higher education institutions must rise up to
disrupt patterns of oppression by shifting focus to emancipatory
approaches to teaching and learning. As such, The E3 Conceptual
Framework for Civic Education offers some guidance for scholars
and practitioners to design learning experiences that challenge the
status quo. It is my hope that the reader will transfer the knowledge
in this article to their own context as they also become transforming
citizens.

74 J. KELLEY
References
Adler, R. P., & Goggin, J. (2005). What do we mean by “civic
engagement”? Journal of Transformative Education, 3(3),
236–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344605276792
Banks, J. A. (2017). Failed citizenship and transformative civic
education. Educational Researcher, 46(7), 366–377.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17726741
Carcasson, M., & Sprain, L. (2012). Deliberative democracy and
adult civic education. New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education, 135, 15–23. https://doi.org/10.10
02/ace.20022
Clancy, S. (2019). Being part of the social change: Reclaiming civic
adult education. Soundings: A Journal of Politics and
Culture, 72, 105–116. https://doi.org/10.3898/SOUN.72
.07.2019
Doob, C. B. (2019). Social inequality and social stratification in US
Society (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Finnegan, F. T. (2019). Transformative learning in challenging
times. Journal of Transformative Education, 17(2), 107–111.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344619841124
Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Herder and Herder.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. The Free Press.
Giroux, H. A. (2014). Neoliberalism’s war on higher education.
Haymarket Books.
Giroux, H. A. (2020). On critical pedagogy (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury
Academic.
Giroux, H. A., & Robbins, C. (2015). Giroux reader: Cultural politics
and the promise of democracy. Routledge.
Gorski, P. (2013). Reaching and teaching students in poverty:
Strategies for erasing the opportunity gap. Teachers College
Press.
Gourley, B. M. (2012). Higher education as a force for societal
change in the twenty-first century. In L. McIlrath, A. Lyons,
& R. Munck (Eds.), Higher education and civic engagement:
Comparative perspectives (pp. 31–39). Palgrave Macmillan.
Hanson, J. S., & Howe, K. R. (2011). The potential for deliberative
democratic civic education. Democracy & Education, 19(2),
1–9. https://democracyeducationjournal.org/home/
Helwig, C. C., & Yang, S. (2016). Toward a truly democratic civics
education. In K. Durkin & H. R. Schaffer (Eds.), The Wiley

THE TRANSFORMING CITIZEN 75
handbook of developmental psychology in practice:
Implementation and impact (p. 264–289). Wiley-Blackwell.
Hoskins, B. (2013). What does a democracy need from its citizens?
Identifying the qualities needed for active citizenship and
making the values explicit. In M. Print & D. Lange (Eds.),
Civic education and competences for engaging citizens in
democracies (pp. 23–35). Sense Publishers
Hurst, C. E., Fitz Gibbon, H. M., & Nurse, A. M. (2020). Social
inequality: Forms, causes, and consequences (4th ed.).
Routledge.
Johnson, L., & Morris, P. (2010). Towards a framework for critical
citizenship education. The Curriculum Journal, 21(1), 77–
96. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585170903560444
Keet, A. (2018). Crisis and critique: Critical theories and the
renewal of citizenship, democracy, and human rights
education. In M. Zembylas & A. Keet (Eds.), Critical human
rights, citizenship, and democracy education:
Entanglements and regenerations (pp. 17–33). Bloomsbury
Academic.
Kelley, J., Arce-Trigatti A., & Haynes, A. (2021). Beyond the
individual: Deploying the sociological imagination as a
research method in the neoliberal university. In C. E. Matias
(Ed.), The handbook of critical theoretical research methods
in education (pp. 449–475). Routledge.
Kincheloe, J. L. (2008). Critical pedagogy primer (2nd ed.). Peter
Lang Publishing, Inc.
Levine, P. (2006). Learning and democracy: Civic education. The
Kettering Review, 24(3), 32– 42.
Marger, M. (2014). Social inequality: Patterns and processes (6th
ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Meshulam, A., & Apple, M. W. (2018). The contradictions of a
critically democratic school. In M. W. Apple (Ed.), The
struggle for democracy in education: Lessons from social
realities (pp. 20–40). Routledge.
Mezirow, J. (1989). Transformation theory and social action: A
response to Collard and Law. Adult Education Quarterly,
39(3),169–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/00018481890390030
05
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning.
Jossey Bass.
Mezirow, J. (1996). Contemporary paradigms of learning. Adult
Education Quarterly, 46(3), 158–172. https://doi.Org
/10.1177/074171369604600303

76 J. KELLEY
Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice.
New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education, 74, 5–12.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.7401
Mills, C. W. (1959). The sociological imagination. Oxford University
Press.
Ore, T. E. (2018). The social construction of difference and
inequality: Race, class, gender, and sexuality (7th ed.).
Oxford University Press.
Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of
planning. Policy Sciences, 4(1), 155–169.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01405730
Sabzalian, L. (2019). The tensions between Indigenous sovereignty
and multicultural citizenship education: Toward an
anticolonial approach to civic education. Theory & Research
in Social Education, 47(3), 311–346.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2019.1639572
Swalwell, K., & Payne, K. A. (2019). Critical civic education for
young children. Multicultural Perspectives, 21(2), 127–1322.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15210960.2019.1606641
Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). What kind of citizen? The
politics of educating for democracy. American Educational
Research Journal, 41, 237–269.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312041002237
Wheeler-Bell, Q. (2012). Educating the spirt of activism: A “critical”
civic education. Educational Policy, 28(3), 463–486.
https://doi. org/10.1177/0895904812465113
Author and Affiliation
Jacob Kelley, PhD student
Dep. of Educational Foundations, Leadership, and Technology
Auburn University
Email: jkk0019@auburn.edu