This article was downloaded by: [McGill University Library]On: 26 October 2014, At: 07:34Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Applied Developmental SciencePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hads20

Schools as Incubators of Democratic Participation:Building Long-Term Political Efficacy with CivicEducationJosh Pasek a , Lauren Feldman a , Daniel Romer a & Kathleen Hall Jamieson aa Annenberg Public Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania ,Published online: 18 Mar 2008.

To cite this article: Josh Pasek , Lauren Feldman , Daniel Romer & Kathleen Hall Jamieson (2008) Schools as Incubators ofDemocratic Participation: Building Long-Term Political Efficacy with Civic Education, Applied Developmental Science, 12:1,26-37, DOI: 10.1080/10888690801910526

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10888690801910526

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Schools as Incubators of Democratic Participation: BuildingLong-Term Political Efficacy with Civic Education

Josh Pasek, Lauren Feldman, Daniel Romer, and Kathleen Hall Jamieson

Annenberg Public Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania

Despite a growing consensus that civic education is an important aspect of politicalsocialization, little research has prospectively examined how gains made during civicscourses are maintained after high school. This study used a quasi-experimental designto examine longer-term effects of the Student Voices program, which was originallyevaluated in Philadelphia public high schools during the 2002–2003 school year. Follow-ing the 2004 presidential election, researchers recontacted students who had participatedin the program for one or two semesters and students who had been in control civicsclassrooms. A structural equation model indicated that students who experienced twosemesters of the program reported greater self-efficacy for political participation andthat this effect carried over to increased political attentiveness as well as to knowledgeof candidate positions. In addition, political attentiveness increased knowledge and vot-ing in the election. However, neither knowledge nor efficacy had direct effects on votingonce attentiveness was controlled. The results suggest that a supplementary civics edu-cation program such as Student Voices can increase subsequent participation in politicsby building long-term gains in political self-efficacy and skills in using the news media tofollow government and political affairs.

THE SCHOOL AS AN INCUBATOR OFDEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION: BUILDINGLONG-TERM POLITICAL EFFICACY WITH

CIVIC EDUCATION

Preparing young people for active engagement in thecivic and political life of their communities and thecountry has been a long-standing goal of public edu-cation (Flanagan & Faison, 2001; Lerner, 2004, p. 147;Tocqueville, 1969, pp. 304–305). Schools have tradition-ally been seen as providing young people, especially sec-ondary school students, with the tools needed to assumethe responsibilities of active citizenship, including theskills required to follow and understand the workingsof government and to make informed choices in elec-tions (Comber, 2005). In recent decades, however, theeffectiveness of civics education has been called into

question by the increasing disengagement from politicsexhibited by successive generations of young people(Galston, 2001, 2004; Langton & Jennings, 1968;Niemi & Chapman, 1998; Niemi & Junn, 1998; Torney-Purta, 1997).

The perhaps most conspicuous sign of disengagementamong young people is their dismal electoral partici-pation over the last three decades. With the exceptionof a spike in 1992, presidential election turnout amongAmericans under the age of 25 declined steadily—andat much steeper rates than for the rest of the popu-lation—between 1972, when 18- to 20-year-olds werefirst granted the right to vote, and 2000 (Levine &Lopez, 2002). Notwithstanding the encouraging surgein youth voting seen during the 2004 election (Lopezet al., 2005), maintaining and strengthening youngpeople’s engagement in politics remains a significantchallenge.

A revitalized civic education program for the schoolshas been proposed as one method for encouraginggreater participation in young people (CIRCLE &Carnegie Corporation of New York, 2003). In addition

Correspondence should be addresed to Daniel Romer, Adolescent

Risk Communication Institute, Annenberg Public Policy Center, 3535

Market St., Suite 550, Philadelphia, PA. E-mail: dromer@asc.

upenn.edu

APPLIED DEVELOPMENT SCIENCE, 12(1), 26–37, 2008

Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1088-8691 print=1532-480X online

DOI: 10.1080/10888690801910526

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

07:

34 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

to the home and family, the classroom can serve as animportant socializing agent by encouraging youngpeople to develop and practice civic skills, offeringopportunities for open discussions about political andsocial issues, and providing training grounds for civicinvolvement (Andolina et al., 2003; Comber, 2005; Gim-bel, Lay, & Schuknecht, 2003). For three decades, how-ever, the scholarly consensus, stimulated by the earlywork of Langton and Jennings (1968), was that civicscourses were ineffective. In 1998, Niemi and Junn beganto chisel away at this consensus by providing compellingevidence for the significant effects of civics course work.While Niemi and Junn’s research precipitated newfoundoptimism for the role classroom civic instruction canplay in fostering political knowledge and engagement,the extent of this impact remains equivocal. Forexample, Greene (2000) provides a reanalysis of Niemiand Junn’s data which demonstrates that the gains fromcivic education exist only for those who are currentlyenrolled in a civics course, thereby casting doubt onwhether the benefits of civic education persist beyondthe immediate classroom experience. Indeed, whilea spate of recent studies has demonstrated the con-tribution school programs can make to students’political knowledge and engagement (Avery et al.,2005; Feldman et al., 2007; Hall & Jones, 1998; Hartry& Porter, 2004; Leming, 1996; McDevitt & Chaffee,2000; NCSL, 2004), most have focused only on civiceducation’s short-term influence.

There has also been considerable interest in the use ofservice learning to stimulate civic engagement in highschool (Niemi et al., 2000; National Commission on CivicRenewal, 1998). These programs involve either voluntaryor required service experiences in the community coupledwith class discussions and curricula surrounding solutionsto social and economic problems. Most of these highschool programs have only been evaluated for concurrentor short-term effects (Billig, 2000; Galston, 2001) andhave focused on outcomes outside the formal realm ofpolitics (e.g., voluntarism and participation in communityorganizations, see Zukin et al., 2006). Furthermore, inone extensive study of high school programs with alonger-term follow-up, Melchior (1998) found that nearlyall of the short-term effects disappeared after one to twoyears of program participation.

Only two studies have examined the long-term effectsof civics curricula specifically designed to encouragepolitical engagement. The Center for Civic Education(2005) compared mailed survey responses from self-identified alumni of the ‘‘We the People’’ curriculumwith data from the National Election Studies. Althoughthe study found that program alumni performed betterthan the general public on a variety of political engage-ment indicators, the absence of a similarly identifiedcontrol group makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions

about causality. An analysis of the Kids Voting USAcurriculum did compare program participants withstudents from control classrooms two years afterimplementation. McDevitt and Kiousis (2004) foundthat gains in the tendency to engage in politicaldiscussion and in knowledge of government weremaintained over time. The study, however, was not con-ducted in the context of a current election and couldthus only measure intention to vote in a future electionrather than actual voting behavior. Furthermore, theknowledge gains that were observed were restricted tocontent learned while students were still in school. Itremains to be seen whether the effects of civic educationcan generalize to learning of new political content,especially after students have left high school.

The current study, then, explores the long-termimpact of a civic education intervention specificallydesigned to increase political involvement, Student Voices,delivered to high school students in the Philadelphiapublic schools during the 2002–2003 school year(http:==student-voices.org=). A previous evaluation ofthis program, conducted soon after its implementation,found that students who had been exposed to increas-ing amounts of the curriculum felt more efficaciousregarding their participation in the political process,and were more interested in, attentive to, and know-ledgeable about politics and current affairs comparedto members of a control group who had only experi-enced regular civics classes (Feldman et al., 2007). Thepresent research follows up with these same studentsfrom one-and-a-half to two years after their participationin the program, so that almost all students (98%) wereno longer in high school, to determine if these initialeffects were maintained over time. Specifically, we evalu-ate the effects of the program on several cognitive,attitudinal, and behavioral outcomes related to the2004 presidential election. Using these outcomes, we testa model of political participation that helps further ourunderstanding of why civic education may be able tofoster engagement in the long term. This model, whichwas used to inform the design of the Student Voicesprogram, focuses on internal political efficacy as itskey explanatory variable.

The Role of Efficacy in Political Engagement

Political efficacy, or ‘‘the feeling that one is capable ofinfluencing the decision-making process’’ (Goel, 1980,p. 127), has long been considered a fundamental polit-ical attitude (e.g., Almond & Verba, 1963; Lerner,2004, p. 126). Indeed, confidence in one’s ability toinfluence the political process is consistently associatedwith actual political participation (Almond & Verba,1963; A. Campbell et al., 1960; A. Campbell et al., 1954;Finkel, 1985, 1987; Niemi et al., 1991; Rosenstone &

BUILDING POLITICAL EFFICACY THROUGH CIVIC EDUCATION 27

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

07:

34 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Hansen, 1993; Verba & Nie, 1972; Verba et al., 1995).This relationship makes intuitive sense: The more peoplebelieve their efforts to influence the government will berewarded with success, the more likely they will be toengage in such efforts. Efficacy, however, is not a unidi-mensional concept and is generally considered to havetwo components, internal and external (Balch, 1974;Converse, 1972). Internal efficacy refers to beliefs aboutone’s own competence to understand and participateeffectively in political life, while external efficacy refersto beliefs about how responsive the government will beto citizens’ needs and demands.

Internal efficacy, in particular, has been identified asan important goal of civic education efforts (Kahne &Westheimer, 2006). For one, a sense of internal efficacyis necessary for young people to feel motivated to par-ticipate in politics, and motivation—‘‘the sine qua nonof participation’’—is disappointingly lacking amongtoday’s youth (Delli Carpini, 2000, p. 348). Moreover,feelings of efficacy are developed early in life and, forpolitical novices, become an important predictor oflikely future engagement (CIRCLE, 2002; Easton &Dennis, 1967; Hess & Torney, 1967; Jennings & Niemi,1981). If young people do not have faith in their abilityto engage effectively with the political system, they are aptto shy away from later opportunities for involvement.

The Student Voices Program

Student Voices encourages political efficacy by combin-ing elements of service learning (engagement with com-munity problems) with a focus on the political system asa problem solving institution (Feldman et al., 2007).Students gain experience in how the political systemworks by focusing on problems in their communityand learning how those problems are influenced byimportant political actors in local and state government.An important feature of the program is the reliance onstudents to discover the problems that need politicalattention in their community. Giving students thisresponsibility increases their sense of ownership of theprogram, a factor that has been shown to enhance inter-nal political efficacy (Morgan & Streb, 2001). At thesame time, teachers serve as guides to help studentsunderstand policy and electoral issues that pertain totheir interests. Because knowledge about the workingsof government is communicated in the context of localcommunity problems, the political arena is made toappear less intimidating and foreign. In turn, as studentssuccessfully learn to understand the political system,their sense of political efficacy is likely to grow(Bandura, 1986).

The program employs a deliberative framework, inwhich active classroom discussion and media use areexpected to foster opinions and attitudes supportive of

political participation (Kim et al., 1999). For example,students learn how to use the news media to acquireinformation about political issues relevant to their ownlives and communities that can then be employed inproductive conversations with their peers. The programalso demonstrates to students how their views can beeffectively communicated to lawmakers. Classroomvisits from elected officials, candidates, policy makers,and journalists allow students to raise their concernsdirectly and hear what can be done to address them.In the school year on which this study was based, thecurriculum focused on the election for governor (Fall,2002), which afforded opportunities to discuss the roleof state government in local affairs. In the secondsemester (Spring, 2003), the curriculum focused on citygovernment with an eye toward the upcoming mayoralprimary.

A classroom environment that supports the opendiscussion of political and social issues has beendemonstrated to enhance the positive effects of civiceducation (Campbell, 2005; Niemi & Junn, 1998;Torney-Purta, 2002). Through their deliberative interac-tions with peers, teachers, and political leaders, studentsare able to glean knowledge about the political process,engage in careful reasoning about policy issues, andpractice skills in debate and argumentation. Moreover,when students perceive that political information isuseful for their interpersonal discussions, they will bemotivated to pay more attention to politics in the media(Atkin, 1972).

Computer terminals are also provided to participat-ing classrooms so that students can engage with localpolicy makers and political campaigns by logging ontothe Student Voices web site. Here, students can readdaily news coverage of their city and state, e-mail candi-dates and public officials, vote in ‘‘click polls’’ on cur-rent issues, and post opinions on a student messageboard. These types of interactive media participationare thought to provide students with a heightened senseof internal efficacy by empowering them to take a moreactive role in the political process (Bucy & Gregson,2001). Likewise, Flanagan and Galley (2001) contendthat the Internet sends young people a message ofinclusion; by communicating to them that they matter,that their voice counts, it fosters a connection to the pol-ity and encourages them to develop a stake in publicaffairs.

An evaluation of the program’s concurrent effects(Feldman et al., 2007) found that it produced immediategains in students’ political interest, internal political effi-cacy, and knowledge of state and local government. Weanticipated, however, that the habits and predispositionsnurtured by the program in the short-term would makestudents more secure in their abilities to affect politicalchange and thus more open to opportunities to be

28 PASEK ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

07:

34 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

engaged over time. As predicted by social cognitivetheory, for example, positive experiences in the contextof Student Voices should help to internalize students’feelings of political efficacy and their involvement withpolitics more generally (Bandura, 1997). This wouldsuggest that students’ efficacy and attentiveness to poli-tics will endure even beyond high school. Political andcivics knowledge acquired during the program will like-wise make students more receptive to future informationcommunicated by the mass media (Price & Zaller, 1993).Thus, young people who participated in Student Voicesshould be better able to learn facts specific to the 2004presidential election, such as candidate issue positions.Finally, the knowledge, attitudes, and skills developedin Student Voices should equip young people with theresources and motivation to participate once theyencounter their initial chance to vote. Thus, we expect thatone-and-a-half to two years after program exposure:

Hypothesis 1: Students who participated in StudentVoices will demonstrate higher levels of (a) internal effi-cacy, (b) political attentiveness, (c) knowledge of candi-date positions, and (d) voting in the 2004 election, relativeto control students.

A second hypothesis concerns the effects of theamount of exposure to school-based civics education.Students who participated in the Philadelphia StudentVoices program during the 2002–2003 school year com-pleted either one or two semesters of the program(Feldman et al., 2007). Evaluation results demonstratedthat two semesters of program exposure produced stron-ger immediate effects on political outcomes than merelyparticipating for one semester. Other recent research oneffects of civics classes also confirms the exposurehypothesis (Gimbel, Lay, & Schuknecht, 2003). Hence,we expected that two semesters of prior participationwould translate into greater long-term effects than asingle semester.

Hypothesis 2: Long-term effects of Student Voices will berelated to the number of semesters that students experi-enced in the program.

Modeling the Effects of Civic Education

Political socialization has been defined as the ‘‘develop-mental process by which adolescents acquire cognitions,attitudes, and behaviors relating to their politicalenvironment’’ (Atkin & Gantz, 1978, p. 184). Most stu-dies of civic education argue for the importance of class-room experiences in adolescent political socialization bydemonstrating the direct impact of a specific curriculumon discrete outcomes. Very few, however, have tried tounravel the complexities of this process by identifying

the mechanisms via which effective civic education isexpected to influence political engagement, particularlyin the long-term. One exception to this is McDevittand Kiousis (2004), who proposed and tested a modelof deliberative democracy to explain the effect of theKids Voting program on voting intentions. They foundthat the curriculum stimulated enduring patterns ofnews media use and discussion, which in turn promotedopinions and orientations consistent with conventionaltypes of political participation, such as voting.

Because efficacy is such an important motivationalvariable, however, and tends to precede media use andother forms of political communication in its develop-ment (Tan, 1981), we propose an augmentation ofMcDevitt and Kiousis’s model that includes internalefficacy as the key link between program exposure andoutcomes like campaign news attention, candidate issueknowledge, and ultimately, voting. For many formerStudent Voices participants, the 2004 presidential elec-tion represented their first opportunity to register andvote. Whether or not these young people respond to thisopportunity by attending to, learning about, and parti-cipating in the election should be influenced by their per-ceptions of their own ability to understand the issues, toarrive at an informed decision, and to contribute to theoutcome—in other words, their sense of internal effi-cacy. In this view, the efficacy that is internalizedthrough participation in the Student Voices programwill provide a foundation for subsequent politicalinvolvement.

Indeed, previous research in political socializationhas found a link between internal efficacy and attentionto or involvement with politics (Austin & Nelson, 1993;Pinkelton & Austin, 1998, 2001). Delli Carpini andKeeter (1996) demonstrated that internal efficacy moti-vates the acquisition of political knowledge, and thisconnection has been supported in research with adoles-cents as well (Austin & Nelson, 1993). Among college-agestudents, efficacy has likewise been shown to overcomeapathy toward voting and politics (Pinkelton & Austin,2004). Guided by this empirical evidence, we thereforeexpected that Student Voices would have an indirecteffect on participants’ long-term political attentiveness,knowledge, and voting behavior that operates throughinternal efficacy.

Hypothesis 3: Internal efficacy will be positively associa-ted with (a) political attentiveness, (b) knowledge of can-didate positions, and (c) voting in the 2004 presidentialelection.

Efficacy may not only influence voting directlybut also indirectly via political attentiveness and knowl-edge. The news media provide young adults with a sig-nificant source of candidate information and political

BUILDING POLITICAL EFFICACY THROUGH CIVIC EDUCATION 29

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

07:

34 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

knowledge. Chaffee and Schleuder (1986), for example,used panel data to show that news attention is relatedto increases in adolescent political knowledge over thecourse of an election campaign. Earlier studies, alsousing panel data, demonstrated a causal effect of priornews use on young people’s subsequent knowledgeabout election campaigns and current events (Atkin &Gantz, 1978; Chaffee, 1977; Chaffee et al., 1970;Hawkins et al., 1975). Somewhat more recently, Eveland,McLeod, and Horowitz (1998) provide correlationalevidence for an association between high school students’campaign media attention and political knowledge.

In turn, the more informed citizens are, the betterable they are to participate in politics, thus contributingto an empirical connection between political knowledgeand voting (Delli Carpini & Keeter, 1996). A path link-ing news attention to voting via knowledge has likewisebeen supported in the literature (McLeod et al., 1999).Attention to politics in the news has also been foundto exert direct influences on electoral engagement(Eveland & Scheufele, 2000; McLeod et al., 1996;McLeod et al., 1999; Nisbet & Scheufele, 2004; Pinkel-ton & Austin, 2001). Even among teenagers, newspaperreading has been linked to anticipated political partici-pation (Garramone & Atkin, 1986). Based on thisevidence, we expected the following:

Hypothesis 4: Political attentiveness will be positivelyassociated with (a) knowledge of candidate positionsand (b) voting.Hypothesis 5: Knowledge of candidate positions will bepositively associated with voting.

METHODS

Students in 26 public high schools throughoutPhiladelphia participated in the Student Voices curricu-lum during the 2002–2003 school year. Each participat-ing classroom used the program for ten class sessionseach semester. The initial evaluation of the program(Feldman et al., 2007) used a quasi-experimental design,in which assignment to treatment and control conditionswas not randomized but determined either via self-selection or by administrator selection (Shadish et al.,2002). Program teachers were recruited from withinthe social studies department of each high school. Inevery school, efforts were then made to identify teacherswho taught courses and grade levels comparable tothose in the treatment condition. Rather than deliveringthe Student Voices curriculum, these teachers simply fol-lowed their regular civics curriculum, thus providing acontrol condition. Each school was assigned one controlclassroom but could contain two or more test classes.This created an approximate 7 to 3 ratio of treatmentto control students (N ¼ 1782). However, all students

who participated in the study took at least two semestersof civic education, a requirement in Philadelphia schools.

In November 2004, a telephone survey was conductedby International Communications Research to followup with students who had participated in test and con-trol classrooms during the original program evaluation.Of the 487 students from the 2002–2003 school year whowere recontacted, 360 spent at least one semester in aStudent Voices test classroom and 186 spent both seme-sters in a test classroom. The remaining 127 studentswere not in a Student Voices classroom at any point;however, they were tested in grade- and content-matched control classes as part of the initial evaluationand thus would have experienced some form of civiceducation for at least two semesters. Interviewers forthe survey were not aware of respondents’ program con-dition and introduced the study as a follow-up ofstudents who had been in a school that implementedthe Student Voices program. Students chosen for thefollow-up study were selected and contacted using infor-mation they provided during the initial program evalu-ation, suggesting that they would be 18 or older by the2004 election. Interviewers were able to reach both testand control students from 24 of the 26 schools partici-pating in the original evaluation (two schools wereexcluded because both test and control students werenot reached in them). The response rate for the surveyusing a professional standard (American Associationfor Public Opinion Research [AAPOR] formula 3,2007) was 76.8%.

The follow-up study was approved by the Insti-tutional Review Board of the University of Pennsylvania.However, since students had not previously consentedto allow their survey evaluations to be used in sub-sequent research, no data from the initial 2002–2003evaluation could be directly linked to individual stu-dents in the follow-up study. As will be describedbelow, several items measured during the pretest waveof data collection were used to control initial differ-ences between conditions, but these were aggregatedby school and program condition.

Outcome Measures

To measure political efficacy, respondents were asked toregister their agreement with two statements: ‘‘Nationalpolitics and government seem so complicated that Ican’t understand what is going on’’ and ‘‘I don’t haveany say about what the government does.’’ Responseswere given on a 4-point scale ranging from ‘‘stronglyagree’’ to ‘‘strongly disagree.’’ These items are consistentwith those used in previous studies to measure internalefficacy (e.g., Craig et al., 1990; Pinkelton & Austin,2001, 2004). In addition, research in large samplesindicates that these items represent stable individual

30 PASEK ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

07:

34 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

differences that are correlated with political outcomes ina theoretically expected fashion (Kenski & Jomini,2004). The two items were significantly correlated(r ¼ .24, p < .001).

Political attentiveness was assessed with two ques-tions: ‘‘How frequently would you say you follow poli-tics and government affairs?’’ and ‘‘How often do youfollow politics in the news?’’ For each of these items,responses were given on a 4-point scale, ranging from‘‘never’’ to ‘‘every day.’’ Both items were stronglyrelated (r ¼ .52, p < .001).

To assess knowledge, we presented respondents withfour statements of candidate positions on issues in the2004 election and asked them to identify which candi-date (i.e., George W. Bush, John Kerry, both, orneither) supported the position. Correct responses werescored as 1, incorrect or ‘‘don’t know’’ responses werescored as 0. Scores were then summed to form a knowl-edge index (a ¼ .41).

The final outcome variable was a measure of students’tendency to vote in the 2004 election. Students whoreported voting were given a score of ‘‘2.’’ Among stu-dents who did not vote, those who responded that theyhad planned on voting were given a score of ‘‘1’’ andthose who expressed no intention to vote received a ‘‘0.’’

Participation in Student Voices

Students participated in zero, one, or two semestersof Student Voices. Exposure to the curriculum was

evaluated by comparing those participating in the pro-gram for any amount of time with those experiencingno exposure (Hypothesis 1); those experiencing twosemesters with those experiencing only one; and alsousing a linear measure of semesters of exposure(Hypothesis 2). An analysis using each of these contraststested whether the linear model adequately capturedprogram effects. As shown below, we used the linearmeasure in modeling program effects.

Demographic and Background Variables

Demographic profiles of the follow-up and originalevaluation samples, presented in Table 1, indicate thatwe were successful in reaching a follow-up sample thatwas comparable in gender (v2(5) ¼ 2.9, p ¼ .71) andrace=ethnicity (v2(11) ¼ 15.2, p ¼ .18) to the originalstudy sample. For both the initial and follow-up studies,the sample was just over half female, just under halfblack, around 10% Hispanic, and 10% Asian. The sam-ple composition closely resembles census demographicsfor Philadelphia in that age group (U.S. Census Bureau,2000).

Within the follow-up sample, small differences acrossexposure conditions in gender, race=ethnicity, andage were held constant with demographic controls, asthese variables have historically correlated withpolitical knowledge and civic engagement (Delli Carpini& Keeter, 1996; NASS, 1999; Niemi & Junn, 1998).

TABLE 1

Demographic Characteristics of Follow-up and Original Samples by Number of Semesters of Program Participation

Follow-up by Semesters (%) Original Full-Year by Semesters (%)

Demographics None One Two None One� Two

Female 56 58 53 56 55 55

Race

Black (nonHispanic) 53 55 32 42 54 34

Asian=Pacific Islander 8 9 13 10 9 17

Hispanic 14 10 7 13 10 10

White=Other=No Answer 25 26 48 36 27 40

Age (3 Categories)

Under 18 years old – – – 72 35 28

18 years old 39 37 20 23 52 58

19 years old 47 53 66 4 14 12

Over 19 years old 14 10 14 1 0 3

Still in School 69 72 81 100 100 100

High School 6 4 0 100 100 100

College Freshman 37 25 20 – – –

College Sophomore 25 42 60 – – –

College Junior 1 1 1 – – –

Not in School 31 28 19 0 0 0

Working Full-Time 10 8 10 – – –

Working Part-Time 13 11 3 – – –

Unemployed 7 9 5 – – –

�Fall semester students were used for the one semester demographics.

BUILDING POLITICAL EFFICACY THROUGH CIVIC EDUCATION 31

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

07:

34 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Specifically, dummy variables for female, Blacknon-Hispanic, Asian=Pacific islander, Hispanic, andother race were included in the analysis as well as athree-point age measure (‘18,’ ‘19,’ and ‘Over 19’). Inaddition, current student status was included as a con-trol variable. Pasek et al. (2006) and others (e.g.,Jennings & Stoker, 2004) have found current studentstatus to be highly correlated with political and civicoutcomes. Hence, dummy variables were created forthose who were current students, either in college or stillin high school.

Four variables measured during the original evalu-ation were used to control for differences in socio-economic status and baseline levels of efficacy,attentiveness, and knowledge. In the current analysis,each of these variables was aggregated by schoolattended and by semesters of program exposure. Tomeasure socioeconomic status, students were askedabout the highest level of education their mothers hadachieved on a five point ordinal scale from ‘‘less than8th grade’’ to ‘‘post-collegiate.’’ Measures used to assessefficacy, attentiveness, and knowledge in the 2002–2003study correspond closely, though not exactly, to the out-come measures used in the current evaluation. Baselineefficacy, for instance, was assessed by asking respon-dents whether they thought politics and governmentwere ‘‘too complicated for [them] to understand’’ andwhether they felt that ‘‘people like [them] had no say

in government.’’ Attentiveness was comprised of self-reported frequency of how often respondents ‘‘followgovernment and public affairs’’ and ‘‘pay attention tonewspaper stories about the upcoming election.’’Knowledge measures used in the 2002–2003 study askedstudents to identify political figures of relevance toupcoming elections (statewide in the fall of 2002 andPhiladelphia in the spring of 2003) and the term limitsand veto power of those levels of government. Pretestscores could not be linked with follow-up scores at theindividual level because students had not consented tothe use of the data for this purpose. However, IRBapproval was obtained to use pretest data aggregatedat the classroom level to assess differences between con-ditions at the beginning of the program. Students weregiven the average score for students in their schoolexperiencing the same level of program exposure andreached in the follow-up study. The use of these aggre-gate control measures not only allowed us to accountfor baseline differences in our outcome measures butalso to provide a control for any differences betweenthe 24 schools where the program was delivered.

Analysis of the Overall Model

To examine the relationship between program experi-ence and our outcome variables, we used the structuralequation program AMOS (Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999).

TABLE 2

Factor Loadings for Outcome Variables (Standardized) in Measurement Model with Different Representations of Program Exposure

Models Assessing Effects of Program Exposure on Outcome Variables

Factor Loadings Any vs. 0 2 Semesters vs. 1 Linear Exposure

Outcome Variables Coeff. Coeff. Coeff. Coeff.

Internal Political Efficacy 0.174�� 0.200�� 0.242���

National politics and government seem so complicated

that I can’t understand what is going on.10.693���

I don’t have any say about what the government does.1 0.352���

Political Attentiveness 0.133� 0.064 0.147��

How frequently would you say you follow politics and

gov’t affairs?20.774���

How often do you follow politics in the news?2 0.679���

Acquired Knowledge of Candidate Positions 0.113 0.258��� 0.239���

Which candidate wanted to. . .Raise taxes but only for wealthy Americans?3 0.503���

Give Americans the ability to create their own Social

Security accounts?30.410���

Simplify the tax code?3 0.360���

Get more cooperation from other countries to help

resolve the war in Iraq?30.248���

Tendency to Vote 0.024 0.059þ 0.051þ

Did you vote in the November election? Yes (2)

No: If not, did you plan on voting? Yes (1) No (0).

Goodness of fit tests Chi-Square (df) 88.0(77) 89.7(77) 81.1(77)

Sig. 0.185 0.153 0.270

CFI 0.990 0.988 0.994

RMSEA 0.017 0.020 0.014

32 PASEK ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

07:

34 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

This program allows one to perform a maximum likeli-hood analysis on the relationship between a predictor,such as program exposure, and a latent variable, suchas one of our political outcomes. We used AMOS in thisway to determine whether Student Voices participationwas related to each outcome latent variable presentedin Table 2. Missing data were imputed using full infor-mation maximum likelihood estimation as implementedin AMOS. We also used AMOS to estimate the entirestructural equation model (SEM) in Figure 1. The pro-gram not only estimates the path weights in the modelbut also provides goodness of fit measures to assessthe adequacy of the entire model. A v2 test is commonlyused to compare the predicted covariance matrix of theobserved variables with the actual covariance matrix.Nonsignificant values indicate only minor differencesbetween the two matrices and therefore a good fit ofthe model to the data. However, v2 is usually augmentedby other measures that are less sensitive to sample sizeand that therefore represent an index of fit rather thana dichotomous decision rule (Hu & Bentler, 1995).

Two additional fit indices were used to assess theadequacy of the model: the Root Mean Square Errorof Approximation (RMSEA) and the Comparative FitIndex (CFI). The RMSEA is a measure of average fitbased on the square root of the model misfit dividedby the model’s degrees of freedom, where 0 representsperfect fit and positive departures reflect poorer fit.Values less than or equal to .05 are considered accept-able (Kaplan, 2000, p. 113) while values greater than.08 indicate poor fit (Kaplan, 2000, p. 114). In contrast,the CFI is a comparison of two fit functions: one fromthe covariance matrix estimated from the fitted model

and one from a model that assumes no associationbetween the observed variables. Positive departuresfrom zero reflect the relative advantage of the proposedmodel compared with the model of no association.Values greater than .95 are considered acceptable (Hu& Bentler, 1995).

Hypotheses in this article were tested using twoanalyses. First, we tested models in which each outcomewas predicted by different measures of programexposure. This enabled us to identify the linear measureof program exposure as the best way to capture programeffects in the overall model of program effects (Fig. 1).

RESULTS

Table 2 includes maximum likelihood estimates of thefactor loadings for each latent variable in the measure-ment model for our four outcome variables. The highloadings of the indicators and the strong goodness offit (estimated for each test of program exposure) suggestthat our measurement model adequately captured eachof the proposed factors. Table 3 also shows the correla-tions between the factors as estimated by the model.Voting was most highly related to attentiveness to theelection (r ¼ .37, p < .001), and knowledge of candidatepositions was strongly related to internal political effi-cacy (r ¼ .60, p < .001) and political attentiveness(r ¼ .55, p < .001).

Table 2 also shows estimates of the overall effects ofthe program versus the control condition, as well as ofdifferent levels of program exposure, for each outcomeholding constant demographic and baseline controls.These analyses indicate that any exposure to StudentVoices produced improvements in internal political effi-cacy and attentiveness relative to the control condition.Hence, we obtained qualified support for Hypothesis 1that exposure to the program would generate long-termeffects. However, analysis of additional programexposure indicated that two semesters of exposure wasbetter than one for building knowledge in the contextof a new election. Although two semesters of programexposure was also positively related to the propensityto vote, this relationship fell shy of statistical signifi-cance (p ¼ .07). Nevertheless, we found that programexposure was consistently related to long-term increasesin internal efficacy, political attentiveness, and know-ledge of candidate positions (Hypothesis 2). The modelcontaining the linear contrast also produced the mostsatisfactory goodness of fit indices. Hence, we used thelinear contrast to test the effects of program exposurein our hypothesized model of program relationships.

Figure 1 shows the results of the SEM that was testedto determine direct and mediating effects of programparticipation. Both the chi-squared test and other

FIGURE 1 Structural equation model for effects of Student Voices

on long-term outcomes. Model controls for gender, race, age, current

student status, pretest classroom status for maternal education, inter-

nal efficacy, political attentiveness, and knowledge (not pictured).

All coefficients are standardized. The model demonstrated strong

BUILDING POLITICAL EFFICACY THROUGH CIVIC EDUCATION 33

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

07:

34 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

goodness of fit indicators indicate that the model in Fig-ure 1 provides a strong fit to the data, v2 (77) ¼ 84.1,p ¼ .27; CFI ¼ .99, RMSEA ¼ .01. Holding constantdemographic differences, program exposure had a directeffect on efficacy, b ¼ .24, p < .001. Efficacy, in turn,was found to mediate the influence of Student Voiceson political attentiveness and candidate knowledge(Hypothesis 3). Coefficients for the paths running fromefficacy to attentiveness (b ¼ .35, p < .001) and fromefficacy to candidate knowledge (b ¼ .44, p < .01) weresignificant and in the predicted direction. A significant,direct link was also observed between attentiveness andvoting, b ¼ .38, p < .001 (Hypothesis 4). Indeed, attent-iveness is the only variable in the model to have a directeffect on voting. As such, the program’s influence onvoting is also only indirect—that is, mediated by efficacyand its link to attentiveness. According to this model,then, the impact of the Student Voices program onlong-term voting behavior appears to be mediated byefficacy, the effects of which are, in turn, mediated bypolitical attentiveness.

Exposure to Student Voices did not have a significantdirect effect on candidate knowledge (path ¼ .08, p ¼.23) apart from what was mediated by efficacy. Also,contrary to Hypothesis 5, we found no support for adirect relationship between candidate knowledge andvoting.

We also tested an alternative model (not shown) inwhich political attentiveness influenced efficacy ratherthan the other way around. This model revealed directeffects of program participation on political attentive-ness as well as on internal efficacy and provided anequally good fit to the data. However, this model stillhad a stronger direct relation between programexposure and efficacy. In addition, efficacy continuedto mediate the effect of Student Voices on voting andknowledge. Hence, we retained the model in Figure 1that gave efficacy a more central role in mediatingprogram effects.

DISCUSSION

This study reveals that Student Voices is an effectivesupplemental civic education curriculum with significant

long-term effects. As hypothesized, students who parti-cipated in Student Voices while in high school reportedsignificantly greater political efficacy, higher rates ofpolitical attentiveness, and higher levels of knowledgeregarding candidates in the subsequent presidential elec-tion than students who were not exposed to the curricu-lum. Hence, an important program objective, producingmore motivated and informed voters with betterknowledge about political issues and candidate posi-tions, was realized. Reports of voting in the 2004election also tended to be greater among Student Voicesparticipants, though the overall effect of programexposure was not significant. The program did, how-ever, influence voting indirectly, through its effects onefficacy and attentiveness. These long-term effects ofthe Student Voices curriculum are particularly notablegiven the rather modest allocation of only ten classsessions per semester.

Consistent with the original evaluation of the pro-gram (Feldman et al., 2007), we find that eachadditional semester of program exposure produced sig-nificant increases in our outcome variables. Studentswho participated for one and two semesters were pro-gressively more likely to demonstrate long-term effectsof the program than those with none. Hence, this fol-low-up study shows that the supplemental experienceprovided by the Student Voices program providesadditional effects beyond the standard civics curriculum.Future research should determine whether additionalsemesters of effective civic education will continue toprovide incremental gains.

The effects of Student Voices exposure derive pri-marily from the program’s ability to engender politicalefficacy. Efficacy, in turn, leads to attentiveness and tothe acquisition of political knowledge. Young peoplewho feel efficacious and who frequently pay attentionto politics also report greater voting. The implicationsof these findings for young people’s broader politicalengagement are also suggested by previous studiesthat have found that people high in these attributesparticipate most actively in other political arenas as well(McLeod et al., 1999).

Of particular interest are relationships that were notobserved. For one, candidate knowledge does not seemto directly increase the will to vote once the other

TABLE 3

Correlations Between Factors in Model in Table 2

Factor Internal Efficacy Political Attentiveness Candidate Knowledge

Internal Efficacy

Political Attentiveness 0.363���

Candidate Knowledge 0.598��� 0.546���

Tendency to Vote 0.192�� 0.367��� 0.181��

��p < 0.01; ���p < 0.001.

34 PASEK ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

07:

34 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

variables in the model are held constant. This is, to someextent, unsurprising. The type of knowledge that may bemost likely to influence participation directly is thatwhich contains relevant, mobilizing information, suchas where and when to vote (Delli Carpini & Keeter,1996). Other political knowledge that has also beenfound to predict voting (e.g., regarding how the govern-ment works) was not assessed at follow-up; however,Student Voices participants exhibited gains in thisoutcome shortly after the program (Feldman et al.,2007). The knowledge that was assessed in the follow-up, candidates’ issue positions, on the other hand, maybe more important in helping citizens to make decisionsthat are consistent with their political beliefs and inter-ests. We also see, in this case, that candidate knowledgegoes hand-in-hand with attentiveness to politics, whichis itself important for participation.

We found that political attentiveness fully mediatesthe effects of efficacy on participation. Although theoverall relationship confirms the arguments of Finkel(1985, 1987) and Almond and Verba (1963) that efficacybuilds participation, these results suggest that this effectdepends on active attention to politics. That is, it is onlythrough greater political attentiveness that efficaciousindividuals become more likely to participate in politicsby voting. Educational programs, such as StudentVoices, that can increase efficacy are likely to lead togreater participation by helping young people to learnhow to use the news media for political purposes.Indeed, one of the major activities of the program cen-tered on using the news media to learn about candidates’issue positions.

Although we could not link students immediate out-comes in the program to their responses in this follow-up study, our evaluation of the original program foundclassroom discussion of political issues in combinationwith a class project focused on community needs hadthe most wide-ranging effects. Use of the internet andother news sources was also important for gainingknowledge about political issues and the stands of localpoliticians on these issues. It would be important foradopters of the program to maintain these aspects ofthe curriculum and to use it for at least two semestersto ensure sufficient exposure for long-term effect.Although Student Voices has now been adopted by thePhiladelphia school district as an official part of itscivics curriculum and the program is currently beingused in several other cities, training teachers toimplement all of the components of the program willbe critical to its continued success.

Limitations

Despite the many positive outcomes that were observed,the study had some limitations. Because we did not have

permission to link individual student evaluation resultswith follow-up data, we were not able to identify thespecific curricular components of the program that pro-duced long-term gains. However, it is likely that theactivities that were responsible for short-term improve-ments (Feldman et al., 2007) were responsible for thelong-term gains we observed. These included interactiveWeb site use, class projects focused on issues concerningthe local community, and encouragement of politicaldeliberation in class.

Our design was somewhat limited in that students werenot randomly assigned to program and control con-ditions, nor could we ensure against response bias amongformer program participants in the follow-up sample.However, the long time lag between program partici-pation and data collection for the follow-up study reducesthe likelihood of such bias, and interviewers did not knowthe program condition of the respondents. Furthermore,we controlled for a number of critical background factorsthat might be correlated with political engagement,including baseline differences between program andcontrol conditions, and still found program effects.

It is nevertheless possible that the teachers in pro-gram classes were more enthusiastic about civics edu-cation and that program effects were partly due to thisfactor. Analysis of the concurrent effects of the program(Feldman et al., 2007) indicated that differences betweenprogram and control classes were largely mediated byexposure to programmatic experiences. Hence, it seemsunlikely that the effects of program participation couldbe entirely explained by teacher enthusiasm for civics.Nevertheless, while our controls help to increase confi-dence in inferences about the impact of Student Voices,the study design remains quasi-experimental in nature.Thus, future studies of programs such as Student Voiceswould benefit from random assignment to conditions.

We were also not able to measure actual votingbehavior of the students and had to rely on self reports.Moreover, given the intensity of youth mobilizationefforts in the 2004 presidential election, reports of votingwere extremely high irrespective of level of civics training.This may have created a ceiling in those reports andreduced the potential to observe Student Voice’s abilityto motivate young people to turn out at the polls. Never-theless, other differences in efficacy, knowledge, andattentiveness suggest that Student Voices participantswere more prepared to assume their roles as citizensand active participants in the presidential election.

In summary this study is, to our knowledge, only thesecond to prospectively assess the long-term effects of acivics curriculum specifically designed to increase polit-ical participation after high school—and only the firstto do so in an electoral context. The findings indicatethat enhancements to standard civic education can playan important role in long-term political and civic

BUILDING POLITICAL EFFICACY THROUGH CIVIC EDUCATION 35

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

07:

34 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

socialization. In particular, effective civic educationseems to be a useful tool in building political efficacy,a factor that we find is the backbone of both politicalknowledge and engagement. It is especially encouragingthat these effects can be obtained with only two seme-sters of supplementary programming (with only 10 ses-sions per semester). In addition, the program cansucceed in the difficult environment of a large urbanschool system. Future research should determine if theseeffects endure beyond two years after high school.

REFERENCES

Almond, G. A., & Verba, S. (1963). The civic culture. Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press.

American Association for Public Opinion Research. Response rate

calculator. Accessed at http://www.aapor.org/rrc.asp.

Andolina, M. W., Jenkins, K., Zuckin, C., & Keeter, S. C. (2003).

Habits from home, lessons from school: Influences on youth civic

engagement. PS: Political Science and Politics, 36, 275–280.

Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (1999). Amos 4.0 user’s guide. Chicago:

Smallwaters Corporation.

Atkin, C. K. (1972). Anticipated communication and mass media

information-seeking. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 188–199.

Atkin, C. K., & Gantz, W. (1978). Television news and political socia-

lization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 42(2), 183–198.

Austin, E. A., & Nelson, C. L. (1993). Influences of ethnicity, family

communication, and media on adolescents’ socialization to

U.S. politics. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 37,

419–435.

Avery, P. G., Freeman, C., & Greenwalt, K. (2005). Deliberating in a

democracy (Evaluation Report). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.

Balch, G. I. (1974). Multiple indicators in survey research: The concept

‘‘sense of political efficacy.’’ Political Methodology, 1(2), 1–43.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social

cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercize of control. New York:

Freeman.

Billig, S. H. (2000). Research on K-12 school-based service learning:

The evidence builds. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 658–664.

Bucy, E. P., & Gregson, K. S. (2001). Media participation: A legitimizing

mechanism of mass democracy. New Media and Society, 3, 357–380.

Campbell, D. E. (2005). Voice in the classroom: How an open class-

room environment facilitates adolescents’ civic development. CIR-

CLE Working Papers, 28.

Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960).

The American voter. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Campbell, A., Gurin, G., & Miller, W. E. (1954). The voter decides.

Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.

Center for Civic Education. (2005). Voting and political participation of

we the people: The citizen and the constitution alumni in the 2004

election (Report).

Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engage-

ment (CIRCLE). (2002). Short term impacts, long term opportunities:

The political and civic engagement of young adults in America

(Unpublished Report). Washington, DC: CIRCLE.

Chaffee, S. H. (1977). Mass communication and political socialization.

In R. Renshon (Ed.), Handbook of political socialization

(pp. 348–371). New York: Free Press.

Chaffee, S. H., & Schleuder, J. (1986). Measurement and effects of

attention to media news. Human Communication Research, 13,

76–107.

Chaffee, S. H., Ward, L. S., & Tipton, L. P. (1970). Mass communi-

cation and political socialization. Journalism Quarterly, 47,

647–659, 666.

CIRCLE, & Carnegie Corporation of New York. (2003). The civic

mission of schools. New York: CIRCLE.

Comber, M. K. (2005). Civic skills and civic education: An empirical

assessment. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Maryland.

Converse, P. E. (1972). Change in the American electorate. In

A. Campbell & P. E. Converse (Eds.), The human meaning of social

change (pp. 263–338). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Craig, S. C., Niemi, R. G., & Silver, G. E. (1990). Political efficacy and

trust: A report on the NES pilot study items. Political Behavior,

12(3), 289–314.

Delli Carpini, M. X. (2000). Gen.Com: Youth, civic engagement, and

the new information environment. Political Communication, 17,

341–349.

Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about

politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Easton, D., & Dennis, J. (1967). The child’s acquisition of regime

norms: Political efficacy. American Political Science Review, 61(1),

25–38.

Eveland Jr., W. P., McLeod, J. M., & Horowitz, E. M. (1998). Com-

munication and age in childhood political socialization: An interac-

tive model of political development. Journalism and Mass

Communication Quarterly, 75(4), 699–719.

Eveland Jr., W. P., & Scheufele, D. A. (2000). Connecting news media

use with gaps in knowledge and participation. Political Communi-

cation, 17, 215–237.

Feldman, L., Pasek, J., Romer, D., & Jamieson, K. H. (2007). Identify-

ing best practices in civic education: Lessons from student voices

Philadelphia. American Journal of Education, 114, 75–100.

Finkel, S. E. (1985). Reciprocal effects of participation and political

efficacy: A panel analysis. American Journal of Political Science,

29(4), 891–913.

Finkel, S. E. (1987). The effects of participation on political efficacy

and political support: Evidence from a West German panel. Journal

of Politics, 49(2), 441–464.

Flanagan, C. A., & Faison, N. (2001). Youth civic development:

Implications of research for social policy and programs. Social Policy

Report: Giving Child and Youth Development Knowledge Away, 15(1),

1–15.

Flanagan, C. A., & Gallay, L. (October 5, 2001). Nurturing democratic

character in teens: The potential of it. Paper presented at the Teens

and Technology Roundtable.

Galston, W. A. (2001). Political knowledge, political engagement,

and civic education. Annual Review of Political Science, 4(1),

217–234.

Galston, W. A. (2004). Civic education and political participation.

College Park, MD: APSA.

Garramone, G. M., & Atkin, C. K. (1986). Mass communication and

political socialization: Specifying the effects. The Public Opinion

Quarterly, 50(1), 76–86.

Gimbel, J. G., Lay, J. C., & Schuknecht, J. E. (2003). Cultivating

democracy: Civic environments and political socialization in America.

Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Goel, M. L. (1980). Conventional political participation. In D. H.

Smith, & J. Macauley (Eds.), Participation in social and political

activities: A comprehensive analysis of political involvement (pp.

108–132). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Greene, J. P. (2000). Review of R.G. Niemi and J. Junn, Civic

Education. Social Science Quarterly, 81, 696–697.

Hall, J. S., & Jones, P. M. (1998). Elections and civic education: the

case of kids voting USA. National Civic Review, 87(1), 79–84.

Hartry, A., & Porter, K. (2004). We the people curriculum: Results of

the pilot test. Los Angeles: Center for Civic Education (CCE).

36 PASEK ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

07:

34 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Hawkins, R., Pingree, S., & Roberts, D. (1975). Watergate and polit-

ical socialization. American Politics Quarterly, 3, 406–422.

Hess, V. K., & Torney, J. V. (1967). The development of political

attitudes in children. Chicago: Aldine.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle

(Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applica-

tions (pp. 76–99). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Jennings, M. K., & Niemi, R. G. (1981). Generations and politics: A

panel study of young adults and their parents. Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press.

Jennings, M. K., & Stoker, L. (2004). Social trust and civic engagement

across time and generations. Acta Politica, 39, 342–379.

Kahne, J., & Westheimer, J. (2006). The limits of political efficacy:

Educating citizens for a democratic society. PS: Political Science

and Politics, 39(2), 289–296.

Kaplan, D. (2000). Structural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Kenski, K., & Jomini, N. (2004, May). The reciprocal effects of exter-

nal and internal political efficacy: Results from the 2000 U.S. Presi-

dential Election. Paper presented at the World Association for

Public Opinion Research Conference.

Kim, J., Wyatt, R. O., & Katz, E. (1999). News, talk, opinion, partici-

pation: The part played by conversation in deliberative democracy.

Political Communication, 16, 361–385.

Langton, K. P., & Jennings, M. K. (1968). Political socialization and

the high school civics curriculum in the United States. American

Political Science Review, 62(3), 852–867.

Leming, R. S. (1996). We the people. The citizen and the Constitution.

Calabasas, CA: Center for Civic Education.

Lerner, R. M. (2004). Liberty: Thriving and civic engagement among

America’s youth. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Levine, P., & Lopez, M. H. (2002). Youth voter turnout has declined, by

any measure (Fact Sheet). CIRCLE.

Lopez, M. H., Kirby, E., & Sagoff, J. (2005). The youth vote 2004.

College Park, MD: CIRCLE, University of Maryland.

McDevitt, M., & Chaffee, S. H. (2000). Closing gaps in political

communication and knowledge: Effects of a school intervention.

Communication Research, 27(3), 259–292.

McDevitt, M., & Kiousis, S. (2004). Education for deliberative

democracy: The long-term influence of kids voting USA (Circle

Working Paper 22).

McLeod, J. M., Guo, Z., Daily, K., Steele, C. A., Huang, H.,

Horowitz, E. et al. (1996). The impact of traditional and nontradi-

tional media forms in the 1992 presidential election. Journalism

and Mass Communication Quarterly, 73(2), 401–416.

McLeod, J. M., Scheufele, D. A., & Moy, P. (1999). Community,

communication, and participation: The role of mass media and

interpersonal discussion in local political participation. Political

Communication, 16(3), 315–336.

Melchior, A. (1998). National evaluation of Learn and Serve America

School and community-based programs. Final Report. Waltham,

MA: Brandeis University. Available at http://eric.ed.gov/ERIC-

Docs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/16/

05/f8.pdf.

Merrifield, J. (1993). The institutional and political factors that

influence voter turnout. Public Choice, 77, 657–667.

Morgan, W., & Streb, M. (2001). Building citizenship: How student

voice in service learning develops civic values. Social Science

Quarterly, 82, 154–169.

National Association of the Secretaries of State (NASS). (1999). New

millennium survey (Report).

National Commission on Civic Renewal. (1998). A nation of spectators.

Washington, DC: Author.

Niemi, R. G., & Chapman, C. (1998). The civic development of 9th-

through 12th-grade students in the United States: 1996 (Statistical

Analysis Report No. NCES 1999-131). Washington, D.C.: National

Center for Education Statistics.

Niemi, R. G., Craig, S. C., & Mattei, F. (1991). Measuring internal

political efficacy in the 1988 national election study. American Polit-

ical Science Review, 85(4), 1407–1413.

Niemi, R. G., Hepburn, M. A., & Chapman, C. (2000). Community

service by high school students: A cure for civic ills? Political

Behavior, 22(1), 45–69.

Niemi, R. G., & Junn, J. (1998). Civic education: What makes students

learn. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Nisbet, M. C., & Scheufele, D. A. (2004). Political talk as a catalyst for

online citizenship. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly,

81, 877–895.

Pasek, J., Kenski, K., Romer, D., & Jamieson, K. H. (2006). America’s

youth and community engagement: How use of mass media is

related to political knowledge and civic activity among 14 to 22 year

olds. Communication Research, 33(3), 115–135.

Pinkelton, B. E., & Austin, E. A. (1998). Media and participation:

Breaking the spiral of disaffection. In T. J. Johnson, C. E. Hays,

& S. P. Hays (Eds.), Engaging the public: How government and the

media can reinvigorate democracy (pp. 75–86). Lanham, MD:

Rowman & Littlefield.

Pinkelton, B. E., & Austin, E. A. (2001). Individual motivations, per-

cieved media importance, and political disaffection. Political Com-

munication, 18, 321–334.

Pinkelton, B. E., & Austin, E. A. (2004). Media perceptions and public

affairs apathy in the politically inexperienced. Mass Communication

and Society, 7, 319–337.

Price, V., & Zaller, J. (1993). Who gets the news? Alternative measures

of news reception and their implications for research. Public Opinion

Quarterly, 57(2), 133–164.

Rosenstone, S. J., & Hansen, J. M. (1993). Mobilization, participation,

and democracy in America. New York: Macmillan.

Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental

and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference.

Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Tan, A. (1981). Political participation, diffuse support and perceptions

of political efficacy as predictors of mass media use. Communication

Monographs, 48, 133–145.

Tocqueville, A. D. (1838=1969). Democracy in America (G. Lawrence,

Trans.). New York: Harper Collins.

Torney-Purta, J. (1997). Links and missing links between education,

political knowledge, and citizenship. American Journal of Education,

105, 446–457.

Torney-Purta, J. (2002). A school’s role in developing civic engage-

ment: A study of adolescents in twenty-eight countries. Applied

Developmental Science, 6(4), 203–212.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Census 2000, summary file 1 (sf1).

Retrieved January 30, 2006, from http://factfinder.census.gov/

Verba, S., & Nie, N. H. (1972). Participation in America:

Political democracy and social equality. New York: Harper & Rowe.

Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. (1995). Voice and equality:

Civic volunteerism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Zukin, C., Keeter, S., Andolina, M., Jenkins, K., & Delli Carpini, M. X.

(2006). A new engagement? Political participation, civic life, and the

changing American citizen. New York: Oxford University Press.

Received August 29, 2006Final Revision Received July 2, 2007Accepted July 2, 2007

BUILDING POLITICAL EFFICACY THROUGH CIVIC EDUCATION 37

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

07:

34 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014