“现在是时候了”: - 麻省理工学院人工智能研究专业

“现在是时候了”:
公民学习促进强有力的民主

西尔维娅·乌尔塔多

培养美国民主公民历来是一个关键目标
高等教育的, 然而今天的大学生接触的事物更多了-
不同的世界观, 有时伴随着人口多样性的增加
由于害怕“另一个”,”以及在不平等加剧的情况下由此产生的政策冲突.
现在是在所有机构内部和跨机构重新开展公民学习的时候了
学科, 并对这项工作采取更关键的方法
帮助学生为多元化和不平等的社会做好准备的教学法. 学院的
集体努力已经引起了重要的社区参与, 当前-
水稻改革, 以及阐明和评估公民学习实践的更好方法-
泰斯. 扩展公民学习以反映我们的教学方式将导致更多的学习-
能够理解差异的受测公民, 冲突作为机会-
学习的一致性, 和具有强大特征的社区建设进程
民主.

在种族不平等引发的巨大内乱时期, 博士. 马丁路-

小金. 指出, “现在是兑现我们的承诺的时候了
民主。”当今不断变化的人口结构, 全球化, 媒体,
和技术使年轻人能够定期接触不同的文化,
社会运动, 以及引发重要问题的相互冲突的世界观
关于我们的民主并挑战他们自己的观点. 现在是时候了
促进公民学习，让所有学生为参与民主做好准备-
陷入“日益有争议和分裂的世界”, 多样性在哪里
至关重要。”1 当今时代在关键政策问题上存在分歧，而且不断上升的
不等式, 然而，它对于教育和
年轻人的参与. 这 2018 中期选举反映出激增
在高中生和大学适龄人口中投票, 和 31
行使投票权的百分比以及青年投票权的显着增加-
自建国以来的政治行动主义 2016 总统选举.2 选民投票率增加
被归因于, 部分地, 最具争议性的总统候选人之一
在我们中. 历史, 没有公共服务记录的人. 而不是放弃

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
d
A
e
d
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
4
8
4
9
4
1
8
3
1
3
5
3
d
A
e
d
_
A
_
0
1
7
6
2
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

出于对民主进程的愤世嫉俗和日益沮丧的理想, 青年
调查显示多样化, 采用集体方法的大学适龄人口
走向积极的改变. 然而, 投票和行动主义并不是唯一的-
需要监控的行为. 参与公民意识需要大学学习的发展-
牙齿的能力和思维习惯，包括知识, 技能, 和价值观
反击错误信息, 协商冲突, 并识别对复数的威胁-
主义民主. 更远, 虽然 87 执行某种类型的志愿活动的百分比-
高中期间的团队工作, 仅有的 19 进入四年制新生的百分比
大学在公民参与行为方面得分很高。3, 公民学习-
不仅仅涉及慈善服务, 并且很多学生还没有
探索课堂上的民主实践是什么样的. 如何以及
我们教给下一代的东西对于建立一个充满希望的愿景至关重要
美国社会更加公平, 可持续的, 和经济状况-
布莱, 并受到强大的民主统治.

本文的目的是阐明包容性大学教学如何
基于公民学习目标可以塑造社区和民主原则-
希望提高学生的公民技能和多元化和变革的性格-
世界. 开始, 我简要概述了公民学习的情况
在高等教育中. 我呼吁关注公民学习的综合方法-
目标是使校园工作保持一致, 即使多样性和文明-
IC参与运动是单独发展的，并且通常存在于
校园内有独立的单位。4 主要民主概念和典型教学法-
与服务学习和群体间对话密切相关，可以整合起来
进入许多课程和教室. 目的是鼓励教师重新-
参与多元化课堂并培养新一代 cit 的责任-
人民愿意为二十一世纪的问题制定创新的解决方案
世纪.

虽然小学和中学教育的目的是提供所有学习机会-
公民教育的影响——定义为公民的权利和义务
以及对政府如何运作的理解——高等教育有他的优势-
历来在教育公民社会领导力方面发挥了特殊作用.
培养公民意识已融入高等教育的目的-
从最早的大学时代到当代的运动
公民参与. 它是素质教育的重要组成部分. 例如,
accreditation agencies include civic engagement and civic discourse in a di-
verse and multicultural society as a core element in evaluating the quality of
education that many campuses promote in institutional mission statements.
Civic learning is also one of the five identified areas in the “Degree Qualifi-
cations Profile” established to promote the quality of associate’s to master’s
degrees, fostering students’ capacity to “engage with, respond to, and reflect

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
d
A
e
d
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
4
8
4
9
4
1
8
3
1
3
5
3
d
A
e
d
_
A
_
0
1
7
6
2
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

148 (4) Fall 2019Sylvia Hurtado

on political, 社会的, environmental and economic challenges at local, 国家-
al and global levels.”5 Still, there is the common notion that civic learning is
optional and that we are reaching only students who arrive with open hearts
and minds about their personal and social responsibilities and choose specif-
ic college courses. We need to extend the reach and occasions for civic learn-
ing in college.

M uch activity has taken place across the American higher education

landscape in the last thirty years to recenter the role of colleges and
universities in advancing civic learning. Many institutions have
created new roles, 倡议, and centers supporting civic learning as well
as increased their involvement in a broad social movement reflecting an ar-
ray of academic groups and campus consortia concerned with civic learning
and student development, including the initiatives and resources in such or-
ganizations as Campus Compact, Bringing Theory to Practice, and Imagin-
ing America.6 In 2012, the American Association of Colleges & Universities’
(AAC&U) National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engage-
ment released the comprehensive report A Crucible Moment: College Learning &
Democracy’s Future. It was a national call to action for civic learning to acquire
equal footing and integration with educational career and degree-completion
目标. The report helped jump-start and coordinate higher education efforts
in an attempt to reverse a “civic recession” in the country, evidenced by the
relative declines in National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) civ-
ic learning measures for twelfth graders from 1998–2010, and relatively low
voter-participation rates among young adults.7 The report identified the many
ways that higher education institutions have laid pathways to democratic en-
gagement and provided a template that raised the bar for developing the civic-
minded campus, including a focus on the college curriculum as well as the de-
velopment of powerful community partnerships. Momentum surrounding
the report renewed conversation about higher education’s role in cultivating
citizenship and reinvigorated collective campus commitments to developing
节目, serving communities, and reforming curricula.

美国. Department of Education funded and supported the work, 但
deferred to the National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic En-
gagement to arrive independently at its recommendations for higher educa-
的. The Department released its own report intended to be priority-setting
for a national agenda of educational goals for civic learning.8 Although mo-
mentum has evaporated at the federal level with the change in staff and ad-
事奉, collective campus activity has not waned and, in several cases,
efforts have been consolidated. The expansion of the reach of civic learning

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
d
A
e
d
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
4
8
4
9
4
1
8
3
1
3
5
3
d
A
e
d
_
A
_
0
1
7
6
2
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

代达罗斯, 美国艺术学院学报 & SciencesCivic Learning for a Strong Democracy

and a commitment to diversity and democracy is evident in AAC&U’s activ-
实体, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities’ American
Democracy Project, and The Democracy Commitment (TDC), which recent-
ly emerged to foster community-college engagement. Campus Compact has
over one thousand campus members, has merged efforts with TDC, 和骗局-
tinues to encourage campuses to commit to developing civic action plans.9
The ALL IN Campus Democracy Challenge, a consortia of college campuses
that emerged at the time of the Crucible Moment report, focuses on activities to
increase youth involvement during and between elections and joined efforts
with the nonprofit Civic Nation in 2016 to increase democratic engagement
in the electoral process. ALL IN activities may have played a role in increasing
midterm election turnout of the college-age population, as campuses devised
plans and competed for awards to raise the voter participation rates of their
student bodies. These higher education consortia continue to provide portals,
事件, and meetings where change agents share practices and resources to in-
tegrate the educational and civic missions of their institutions.

I nstitution-wide commitment is important, but how does such a commit-

ment reach more students than those already inclined to seek civic learn-
ing activities in college? Educator and activist Parker Palmer has stated
that “students learn not only from what is taught: they also learn from how it
is taught.”10

If students are to be well served and are to serve a democracy well, we need to in-
vite them into a lived engagement with democracy’s core concepts and values.
There are at least two ways to do this: by engaging students in democratic pro-
cesses within the classroom and the school and by involving them in the political
dynamics of the larger community.11

Civic learning requires students to be active participants, as “democra-
cy is not a spectator sport in which citizens can watch the pros at work.”12
Our teaching methods can include aspects of civic learning to give students
an opportunity to learn and practice democratic concepts, engage in dialogue
across difference, and develop projects working alongside diverse communi-
领带. Even in this era of “digital connectedness,” Palmer believes we can en-
gage in teaching to develop students’ 1) understanding that we are all in this
一起; 2) appreciation for the value of “otherness”; 3) ability to hold ten-
sion or conflict in life-giving ways; 4) sense of personal voice and agency; 和
5) capacity to create community. Civic learning can encompass each of these
“five habits of the heart” and takes place in all types of venues, classrooms,
and fields of study.

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
d
A
e
d
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
4
8
4
9
4
1
8
3
1
3
5
3
d
A
e
d
_
A
_
0
1
7
6
2
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

148 (4) Fall 2019Sylvia Hurtado

While a national standards framework exists for K–12 education to guide
teaching and desired outcomes in civics education, no comparable standards
for civic learning outcomes exist across all types of higher education insti-
tutions.13 Campuses establish their own faculty-driven standards that are
adopted in consensual agreement. 然而, a civic engagement working
group of educators and nonprofit staff, coordinated by the AAC&U, 发达
an integrated framework called the Civic Learning Spiral that captures multi-
ple dimensions of civic learning in college. The framework was introduced as
a way to consolidate the three contemporary reform movements of diversity,
global learning, and civic engagement in higher education; identify multi-
普莱, interrelated dimensions of students’ capacity for engaged citizenship;
and give guidance on achieving personal and social responsibility as one of
the AAC&U’s Essential Learning Outcomes adopted by many institutions and
campus systems.14 The framework identifies multiple areas of civic learning
that can be incorporated more broadly in college courses, general education
要求, and campus programs.

At the Spiral’s core lies the notion of interwoven learning across six dimen-
sions or “braids”: 自己, communities and cultures, 知识, 技能, 价值观,
and public action. Classroom and cocurricular activities can be directed to-
ward outcomes in each of these dimensions. Increasing an understanding of
self in civic learning involves developing one’s own identity, 嗓音, reflective
实践, and sense of purpose. Communities and cultures outcomes include the
development of empathy and appreciation for diverse individuals and com-
社区, the capacity to transcend one’s own embedded worldviews, 和
recognition of inequalities that impact underserved communities. 知识
outcomes involve understanding knowledge as socially constructed; 信息-
tion literacy in this era of “alternative facts” and misinformation, 包括
the capacity to understand scientific evidence and critically evaluate sourc-
es of authority; and deep knowledge of key democratic principles, 流程,
and debates that inform one’s major or area of study. Skills include conflict res-
olution, 审议, and community-building, as well as the ability to work
collaboratively and communicate with diverse groups. Values outcomes in-
clude ethical and moral reasoning and democratic aspirations such as equali-
蒂, liberty, 正义, and interest in sustaining the arts and sciences for the pub-
lic good. 最后, public action outcomes include students’ participation in dem-
ocratic processes and structures, multiple forms of action and risk-taking
to promote social progress, and ally behaviors such as working alongside com-
munities in need to solve important problems.

These dimensions of development are resonant with Palmer’s notions of
habits of the heart for democracy and are interdependent, but not organized

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
d
A
e
d
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
4
8
4
9
4
1
8
3
1
3
5
3
d
A
e
d
_
A
_
0
1
7
6
2
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

代达罗斯, 美国艺术学院学报 & SciencesCivic Learning for a Strong Democracy

in a stage-like developmental sequence. 例如, a greater understand-
ing of self is often achieved in contact with people from different social iden-
tity communities and cultures, skills in deliberation and community-building
are key to leading democratic governance structures in diverse communities,
and self-confidence in one’s voice is critical to participating in various forms
of public action to effect change. 因此, each turn of the spiral represents the
synthesis and integration of inextricably linked facets of civic learning. Rep-
etition of learning across these braids promotes a “routine of integration that
can lead to a lifelong disposition of open inquiry, dialogue across differenc-
英语, and practice in public activism.”15 The spiral depicts a framework for civic
learning that is fluid and continuous and that can be applied to assess curric-
ular and cocurricular program goals throughout a student’s career. 测绘
survey measures across these different civic learning dimensions for college
学生, we have observed strong associations between diversity experienc-
英语, habits of mind for lifelong learning, and civic learning outcomes in lon-
gitudinal assessments.16 Thus, institutions can articulate civic learning out-
来了, invest in intentional practices, and begin to assess elements of each of
these dimensions using student portfolios, course rubrics, surveys, and evalu-
ation of programs or initiatives.

I ntentional, engaging pedagogy for coursework and campus programming

is the primary way to develop the different dimensions of civic learning
in college students. Research syntheses have identified at least three ped-
agogies that promote civic learning through meaningful engagement: 国际米兰-
group dialogue, service learning, and collective civic problem-solving.17 Stu-
dents often describe service learning and intergroup dialogue as their most
“eye-opening” experiences during college, as they begin to see the world dif-
ferently with greater involvement and develop empathy for others in commu-
nities that may be quite different than their own. Students from underserved
communities are attracted to these pedagogies because they offer a sense of
purpose and an academic pathway to maintain a connection with and advance
their own communities. Collective civic problem-solving permits students to
learn by working on authentic problem-based projects along with peers, fac-
ulty, and community partners; in focusing on the purpose and process, “stu-
dents learn about democracy by acting democratically.”18

These pedagogies share several features. 第一的, the experiential learning
process encourages students to test their assumptions, revise their thinking,
and begin to feel personally and socially responsible. Paolo Freire, an advo-
cate of critical pedagogy, has stated that as students “are increasingly posed
with problems relating to themselves in the world and with the world, [他们]

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
d
A
e
d
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
4
8
4
9
4
1
8
3
1
3
5
3
d
A
e
d
_
A
_
0
1
7
6
2
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

148 (4) Fall 2019Sylvia Hurtado

will feel increasingly challenged and obliged to respond to that challenge.”19
New challenges evoke new understandings and “gradually the students come
to regard themselves as committed.”20 A second pedagogical feature is that
learning is enhanced by guided self-reflection. Most college students have lit-
tle time to reflect on their experiences, whereas service learning and inter-
group dialogue require student journals that ask students to reflect on their
learning and individual transformation throughout the course experience.
Both Freire and educational theorist David Kolb agree on the importance
of self-reflection: for Freire, it is vital for the development of a critical con-
sciousness, and for Kolb, it is essential for abstract conceptualization in devel-
oping new knowledge.21 Moments of disequilibrium are recorded in student
journals as learning instances in which their experiences contradict previous
知识, bias, or beliefs. Instructors follow student reflections to provide
additional content or process activities to help them achieve new understand-
英格斯. A third common feature is that these pedagogies provide students with
supported pathways to cross boundaries and step outside of their “comfort
zone” to engage with “others” that differ by social identity, 文化, power/
social status, 教育, and worldview. 例如, California State Univer-
城市, Monterey Bay, requires all students to take two service-learning courses
that teach “critical civic literacy,” one in the lower division to build awareness
and another in their major. Both courses emphasize the effects of power rela-
tions and social group identities on opportunities and participation in public
life and stress the examination of root causes of systemic social problems in
diverse communities. They define civic literacy as the “knowledge, 技能, 和
attitudes that students need to work effectively in a diverse society to create
more just and equitable workplaces, 社区, and social institutions.”22
While not all service-learning courses take a critical civic literacy approach,
Monterey Bay is integrating service learning in ways that address inequality
as part of civic learning and using many of the principles of identity-based
教育.

Intergroup dialogue is unique in that it extends beyond raising awareness
about social identity groups in the context of inequality by addressing key
conflicts and building alliances. Its techniques and principles can be applied to
many other types of courses and it is attentive to group dynamics, 改善
students’ skills for a deliberative democracy. The intergroup dialogue model,
developed as an initiative between academic and student affairs units at the
密歇根大学, has been replicated on many campuses and rigorous-
ly assessed.23 There are several important premises that support the design
of a sustained dialogue lasting from ten to fourteen weeks, or a course term.
第一的, most of the social identity groups that enroll in dialogue have a long

100

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
d
A
e
d
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
4
8
4
9
4
1
8
3
1
3
5
3
d
A
e
d
_
A
_
0
1
7
6
2
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

代达罗斯, 美国艺术学院学报 & SciencesCivic Learning for a Strong Democracy

history of conflict, and the pedagogy operates on the premise that emergent
conflict “should not be avoided, denied, or excessively managed.”24 When fa-
cilitated well, conflict is an opportunity to learn. 第二, groups or course sec-
tions are intentionally structured to create equal status in terms of representa-
的, oftentimes bringing together specific groups in which dialogue is needed
to increase understanding. Using trained peer facilitators, the implementa-
tion of this model at the University of California, 天使们, has brought
together men and women from different race/ethnicities, documented and
undocumented students, students from different social class groups, LGBTQ
and heterosexual students, as well as different religious groups for dialogue
on key issues that shape their experiences. 第三, much like a “flipped class-
room,” students are provided foundational content for shared understanding
that they read outside of class, and most class time is devoted instead to ac-
tive learning exercises designed to facilitate dialogue and illustrate key con-
油炸. The sustained dialogue includes four stages that focus on building
1) relationships and community, using inclusive group dynamic techniques;
2) students’ awareness about multiple social identities and group-based in-
平等, including systemic forms of privilege and oppression; 3) students’
capacity to discuss controversial topics and anticipate conflict; 和 4) allianc-
es and agency to engage in action with others in one’s community.25 It is im-
portant to note that “hot topics” are not discussed until the group has gone
through the initial stages of dialogue together, built some familiarity and
社区, and adopted a constructive process for dialogue. The last stage
involves an action project or plan to carry out together on campus or in their
社区. Students gain confidence in intergroup relations skills and feel
empowered to play a role in resolving intergroup problems in their campus
or communities. 在某些情况下, service-learning courses have also integrat-
ed intergroup dialogue pedagogy to improve students’ capacities to address
tensions associated with understanding others’ social identities and pow-
er dynamics that affect diverse communities where students are engaged in
服务.

Service learning and collective civic problem-solving also have the unique
pedagogical feature of not only teaching students’ civic responsibility, 但是也
seeking to strengthen communities through engagement and development of
powerful partnerships. Relationships established with community organiza-
tions or partners require trust, reciprocity in the relationship, mutually ben-
eficial goals, and responsibilities that are often articulated in a memorandum
of understanding with campus participants.26 Many programs have moved
from a deficit view or charitable approach to their practice in favor of advanc-
ing interdependence for the welfare and shared future of their community.

101

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
d
A
e
d
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
4
8
4
9
4
1
8
3
1
3
5
3
d
A
e
d
_
A
_
0
1
7
6
2
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

148 (4) Fall 2019Sylvia Hurtado

那是, rather than reinforce privilege, they are working toward helping stu-
dents see that the problems communities face are “not just their problems”
and create the sense that “we are all in it together.” Education scholar Robert
Rhoads proposed that participation in this form of critical community service
“provides a means to foster a sense of connectedness and offers an opportuni-
ty for students to understand themselves and to develop caring selves. . . . Car-
ing selves are critical to the process of democracy and the struggle to build a
more just and equitable society.”27 Thus, 在高等教育中, critical commu-
nity service “should be seen as a key educational vehicle for fostering an ethic
of care and a commitment to democratic citizenship.”28 Consistent effort to
sustain community relationships is also central to this pedagogy and, in many
案例, instructors are assisted with public service or partnership units on cam-
pus who help to seed and maintain these relationships over time.

It is important to note that these pedagogies are not limited to the social
sciences or humanities. There is value in having young scientists anticipate
and learn to develop public trust, to engage with and understand diverse com-
munities who can benefit from responsive innovations in science. 一些
campuses have developed signature STEM initiatives that train aspiring scien-
tists to develop these sensitivities and solve real-world problems in local com-
munities and across the globe. 例如, University of Alaska-Fairbanks
adopted a One Health initiative that focuses on advancing research on the
interrelationship between the health of humans, 环境, and ani-
mals that is consistent with indigenous worldviews and suited for the many
rural communities that have a close relationship with the natural environ-
ment in the state. Faculty and students are engaged in culturally responsive
relationships with rural communities to study and solve health problems,
which not only required the development of community relations and un-
derstanding of local needs, but also an integrated approach to science train-
ing and the development of an interdisciplinary curriculum. Students are
engaged in experiential learning and reflection in critical research projects
that are vital to the health of communities that rely on a subsistence lifestyle.
Community partners also participate in data collection and practical uses of
research that empower them to improve their quality of life. On a global lev-
el, students at Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) participate in a series
of interactive projects as part of their general education curriculum, to solve
real-world science problems in communities locally and around the world.
Beginning with the class of 2022, all first-year students will receive a scholar-
ship to complete a project at one of WPI’s fifty-plus project centers located in
thirty-one countries. As WPI states on its website, “the best way for students
to understand and appreciate societal issues is to experience them firsthand.”

102

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
d
A
e
d
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
4
8
4
9
4
1
8
3
1
3
5
3
d
A
e
d
_
A
_
0
1
7
6
2
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

代达罗斯, 美国艺术学院学报 & SciencesCivic Learning for a Strong Democracy

F aculty and instructors have been central to the development and in-

troduction of these pedagogies in the college curriculum. Faculty have
approved campus-wide general education requirements that include
courses addressing service learning and intergroup dialogue. 因此, 一些
institutions are reporting record numbers of courses that integrate classroom
learning with community partnerships that address social and environmental
问题. Faculty have also expanded the scholarship of teaching and application
to better assess civic learning and evaluate their own impact on students and
社区, 分别. Many departments have approved capstone cours-
es that integrate service projects with local communities to meet major require-
评论. Dialogue training has also been integrated into required courses for pre-
paring resident assistants and graduate programs in student affairs. 即使
these multiple opportunities on campus, not all students have had occasion to
participate in these courses. Civic learning is still optional on many campuses.
What can faculty do in classrooms to promote civic learning? Faculty can
provide students with several tools or strategies that are useful in any kind of
classroom or democratic workspace. Taking a page from the pedagogies de-
scribed earlier, students should learn and practice active listening; ask dif-
ferent types of questions to prevent prejudgment; create an awareness about
power dynamics and co-construct inclusive ground rules for engagement that
empowers others to use their voice; separate positions from interests when
encountering opposing views; and explore commonalities and differences as
they deliberate issues or engage in problem-solving. Faculty-designed exer-
cises and activities have been implemented to address each of these delibera-
tive skill areas. These faculty practices and student behaviors are what doing
democracy looks like in the classroom.

The paradigm shift that is required in faculty mindsets involves inviting
students to serve as cofacilitators of learning, empowering them to use their
voice and creativity to reflect their social concerns, and working with differ-
ence in the classroom instead of ignoring it. By far the most difficult strategy
is to value conflict as an opportunity to learn or, as Palmer has put it, 学习
to hold tension creatively to produce citizens “who know how to hold conflict
inwardly in a manner that converts it into creativity, allowing it to pull them
open to new ideas, new courses of action, and each other.”29 Some students,
just like faculty, are averse to any kind of conflict. When anticipating conflict
one day in my class, a Latino student set others at ease by telling them they
cannot plan for conflict or its resolution; in this course, “you learn to trust the
process.” I could not have said it better, and it probably had even more weight
coming from a peer who was a participant in the process. He was talking about
the brave community and the process for open dialogue and respect we built

103

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
d
A
e
d
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
4
8
4
9
4
1
8
3
1
3
5
3
d
A
e
d
_
A
_
0
1
7
6
2
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

148 (4) Fall 2019Sylvia Hurtado

together that would ensure we would arrive at a deeper level of understand-
ing by the end of our session. We learned to use strategies such as active listen-
英, breaking down the conflict to determine the level and type (as not all con-
flict is a crisis), separating positions from interests, asking questions that go a
long way in clarifying or affirming, employing empathy by recognizing mul-
tiple social identities, and acknowledging the privilege and oppression asso-
ciated with these identities. According to political theorist Benjamin Barber,
a “strong democracy transforms conflict. It turns dissensus into an occasion for
mutualism and private interest into an epistemological tool of public think-
ing.”30 As the students provided hope in our capacity to work through con-
冲突, we were modeling a strong democracy in a pluralistic society.

This is not to say that all faculty now have the pedagogical knowledge
and skills to make this shift in teaching, but many have the mindset and val-
ues that support the integration of civic learning activities in the classroom.
例如, while only about 17 percent of undergraduate teaching faculty
at baccalaureate-granting institutions report that they have taught a service-
learning course in the past two years, 93.4 percent agree with the statement
that “colleges have a responsibility to work with their surrounding communi-
ties to address local issues.” Over 84 percent agree that their role is to enhance
students’ knowledge of and appreciation for other racial/ethnic groups, 但
over half think that “faculty are not prepared to deal with conflict over diver-
sity issues in the classroom.”31 This suggests that many more faculty may ap-
preciate opportunities to learn how to engage students in critical communi-
ty service, employ dialogue techniques, and turn classroom conflict into pro-
ductive mutual learning environments. With clear key values, articulation of
civic learning outcomes, and faculty leadership, we have a much better chance
at helping faculty implement more engaging pedagogies to achieve the goal of
extending the reach of civic learning.

I have described a collective impetus to recenter civic learning within and

across all institutions and disciplines, as well as more critical approaches
to this work in terms of pedagogy that prepares students for a diverse and
unequal society. I have described these civic learning developments in higher
education optimistically, yet each day, I sense our democracy becoming more
fragile. Political theorists have suggested dire consequences if we do not de-
velop a strong democracy that is highly inclusive and also extensively open to
public contestation, in which conflict is resolved through deliberation and re-
spect for differences. A competitive political system that is exclusive in par-
ticipation but also open to public contestation is unable to handle particular
forms of conflict that arise.

104

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
d
A
e
d
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
4
8
4
9
4
1
8
3
1
3
5
3
d
A
e
d
_
A
_
0
1
7
6
2
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

代达罗斯, 美国艺术学院学报 & SciencesCivic Learning for a Strong Democracy

Any dispute in which a large section of the population of the country feels that its
way of life or its highest values are severely menaced by another segment of the
population creates a crisis in a competitive [政治的] 系统. . . . The historical
record argues that the system is very likely to dissolve into civil war or to be dis-
placed by [an exclusive] hegemony or both.32

Although this thesis is based on the history of political systems through-
走出世界, it seems to be hauntingly relevant in America today. If the dem-
ocratic purpose of higher education is to protect against the threat of tyran-
这, now is the time for institutions to advance civic learning and safeguard
our democracy.33 The levers appear to be increasing participation of diverse
groups and opportunities for public contestation, with deliberative process-
es in place and individuals capable of productively handling tension in such a
民主. Facilitated by civic learning pedagogies that include diverse com-
munities on- and off-campus, today’s students and their change-agent incli-
nations are our best hope in making real the promises of our democracy.

关于作者

Sylvia Hurtado is Professor of Education at the University of California, Los
安吉利斯. She is the editor of Hispanic-Serving Institutions: Advancing Research and
Transformative Practice (with Anne-Marie Núñez and Emily Calderón Galdeano,
2015) and The Magic Key: The Educational Journey of Mexican Americans from K–12 to
College and Beyond (with Ruth Enid Zambrana, 2015).

尾注

1 Commission on the Future of Undergraduate Education, The Future of Undergraduate
教育, The Future of America (剑桥, 大量的: American Academy of Arts and
科学, 2017).

2 Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE),
“Young People Dramatically Increase Their Turnout to 31%, Shape 2018 Midterm
Elections,“ 十一月 7, 2018, https://civicyouth.org/young-people-dramatically
-increase-their-turnout-31-percent-shape-2018-midterm-elections/.

3 Kevin Eagan, Ellen Bara Stolzenberg, Hilary B. Zimmerman, 等人。, The American Fresh-
男人: National Norms Fall 2016 (天使们: Higher Education Research Institute,
加州大学, 天使们, 2017).

105

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
d
A
e
d
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
4
8
4
9
4
1
8
3
1
3
5
3
d
A
e
d
_
A
_
0
1
7
6
2
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

148 (4) Fall 2019Sylvia Hurtado

4 西尔维娅·乌尔塔多, “ASHE Presidential Address: Linking Diversity with the Educational
and Civic Missions of Higher Education,” Review of Higher Education 30 (2) (2007):
185–196.

5 Degree Qualifications Profile, “Organization of the DQP,” http://degreeprofile.org

/read-the-dqp/organization-of-the-dqp/.

6 See an extensive description of this social movement in Lee Benson, Ira Harkavy,
John Puckett, et al., Knowledge for Social Change: Bacon, 杜威, and the Revolutionary
Transformation of Research Universities in the Twenty-First Century (费城: 温度-
ple University Press, 2018). For initiatives, see Campus Compact, https://袖珍的
.org/who-we-are/; Bringing Theory to Practice, https://www.bttop.org/about;
and Imagining America, https://imaginingamerica.org/about/.

7 See National Center for Education Statistics, The Nation’s Report Card: 公民 2010
(华盛顿, 华盛顿特区: 我们. Department of Education, 2011), https://nces.ed.gov/
nationsreportcard/pubs/main2010/2011466.aspx. NAEP measures civics content
知识. 仅有的 24 percent of high school students scored at the proficient level,
例如. The only anomaly to test declines were increases for Hispanic stu-
dents at all assessed grade levels across this time period. More recent NAEP data on
eighth graders show a flat line from 2010 到 2014, whereas updated data on twelfth
graders were not obtained in 2014 due to NCES resource constraints. Data were as-
参加过 2018 and reported in 2019.

8 我们. 教育部, Advancing Civic Learning and Engagement in Democracy:
A Road Map and Call to Action (华盛顿, 华盛顿特区: 我们. Department of Education,
2012).

9 The “Presidents’ Declaration on the Civic Responsibility of Higher Education” was
first signed in July of 1999 by fifty-one U.S. college and university presidents and
now has 564 signees committing their campuses to a civic action plan.

10 Parker Palmer, Healing the Heart of Democracy: The Courage to Create a Politics Worthy of

人类精神 (旧金山: 乔西·巴斯, 2011), 132.

11 同上。, 129–130.
12 同上。, 133.
13 National Council for the Social Studies, 大学, Career & Civic Life: C3 Framework for So-
cial Studies State Standards (银泉, 马里兰州。: National Council for the Social Stud-
是的, 2013).

14 Caryn McTighe Musil, “Educating Students for Personal and Social Responsibility:
The Civic Learning Spiral,” in Civic Engagement in Higher Education: Concepts and Prac-
泰斯, 编辑. Barbara Jacoby (旧金山: 乔西·巴斯, 2009).

15 同上。, 60.
16 西尔维娅·乌尔塔多, Adriana Ruiz, and Hannah Whang, “Advancing and Assessing Civic
学习: New Results from the Diverse Learning Environments Survey,” Diversity
& 民主: Civic Learning for Shared Futures 15 (3) (2012): 10–12.

17 Ashley Finley, Making Progress? What We Know about the Achievement of Liberal Educa-
tion Outcomes (华盛顿, 华盛顿特区: Association of American Colleges and Universi-
领带, 2012); and Ashley Finley, “Civic Learning and Democratic Engagements: A

106

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
d
A
e
d
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
4
8
4
9
4
1
8
3
1
3
5
3
d
A
e
d
_
A
_
0
1
7
6
2
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

代达罗斯, 美国艺术学院学报 & SciencesCivic Learning for a Strong Democracy

Review of the Literature on Civic Engagement in Post-Secondary Education,” pa-
per prepared for the U.S. 教育部, 2011.

18 John Saltmarsh and Matthew Hartley, “To Serve a Larger Purpose”: Engagement for De-
mocracy and the Transformation of Higher Education (费城: Temple University
按, 2011).

19 Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, thirtieth anniversary ed. (纽约: Continu-

um Books, 2005), 81.

20 同上.
21 David Kolb, Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development

(恩格尔伍德悬崖, 新泽西州: Prentice Hall, 1984).

22 Seth Pollack, “(Social) Justice for All (Undergraduate Degree Programs): Institu-
tionalizing Critical Civic Literacy in the Undergraduate Curriculum,” in Civic Teach-
ing and Learning: A Bridge to Civic Life and a Life of Learning, 编辑. Ashley Finley (洗涤-
吨, 华盛顿特区: Bringing Theory to Practice, 2014).

23 Patricia Gurin, Biren A. Nagda, and Ximena Zúñiga, Dialogue across Difference: Prac-
泰斯, 理论, and Research on Intergroup Dialogue (纽约: 拉塞尔·塞奇基金会,
2013).

24 Monita C. 汤普森, Teresa Graham Brett, and Charles Behling, “Educating for
Social Justice: The Program on Intergroup Relations, Conflict, and Community at
the University of Michigan,” in Intergroup Dialogue: Deliberative Democracy in School,
大学, 社区, and Workplace, 编辑. David Schoem and Sylvia Hurtado (Ann Ar-
博尔: University of Michigan Press, 2001).

25 Ximena Zúñiga, Biren A. Nagda, Mark Chesler, and Adena Cytron-Walker, Intergroup
Dialogue in Higher Education: Meaningful Learning about Social Justice (旧金山:
乔西·巴斯, 2007).

26 Douglas Barrera, “Examining Our Interdependence: Community Partners’ Motiva-
tions to Participate in Academic Outreach,” Journal of Higher Education Outreach and
订婚 19 (4) (2015): 85–113.

27 Robert Rhoads, Community Service and Higher Learning: Explorations of the Caring Self

(Albany: SUNY Press, 1997), 95.

28 同上。, 222.
29 帕尔默, Healing the Heart of Democracy, 15.
30 Benjamin R. Barber, Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age (Berkeley and

天使们: University of California Press, 1984), 151.

31 Ellen Barra Stolzenberg, 中号. Kevin Eagan, Hillary B. Zimmerman, 等人。, Undergraduate
Teaching Faculty: The 2016–2017 HERI Faculty Survey (天使们: Higher Education
Research Institute, 加州大学, 天使们, 2019).

32 Robert Dahl quoted in Ricardo Blaug and John Schwarzmantel, 编辑。, 民主: A

Reader (纽约: 哥伦比亚大学出版社, 2000), 201.

33 Amy Gutmann, Democratic Education (普林斯顿大学, 新泽西州: 普林斯顿大学出版社,

1999).

107

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
d
A
e
d
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
4
8
4
9
4
1
8
3
1
3
5
3
d
A
e
d
_
A
_
0
1
7
6
2
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

148 (4) Fall 2019Sylvia Hurtado
下载pdf