Josephine B. Schmitt
Jasmin Baake
Sandra Kero- Center for Advanced Internet Studies (CAIS) gGmbH, Bochum, Germany
The hope of reaching diverse and large target groups has motivated civic education practitioners to offer their content on social media. The question has therefore long ceased to be whether civic education should take place on the internet, but rather how civic education goals can be implemented digitally to foster civic literacy. At first glance, the possibility of reaching a broad audience in a short time seems tempting. At a second glance, social media reveals several challenges that can impair educational processes. The present paper discusses the following questions: What are the opportunities and pitfalls of civic education in social media? How can we ensure successful civic education in a digitalized world? In our article, we want to provide an interdisciplinary perspective on the topic by drawing among others from the literature in the fields of media psychology, communication studies, and education science. By integrating insights from various disciplines, our paper seeks to enrich the academic dialogue and to promote a nuanced understanding of the evolving dynamics of civic education in the digital realm. With its practical focus, our paper further aims to underscore the applicability of scientific research.
1 Introduction
Social media have fundamentally changed the way we get information and form political opinions. The hope of reaching diverse and large audiences has motivated professional civic education practitioners to create content for these platforms—or to use social media content in educational settings. The question is no longer whether civic education1 should take place on the internet, but rather how civic education goals can be achieved digitally (Jantschek, 2021) to foster political knowledge and positive attitudes towards democracy, political self-efficacy, and the willingness to participate in the political process (Milner, 2010)—in short: civic literacy (Alscher et al., 2022).
At first glance, the opportunity to reach a wide audience in a short time through social media seems tempting. At a second glance, social media reveal several challenges that can impair educational processes. These include structural aspects such as automated algorithms, which can bring educational offerings close to problematic content (Schmitt et al., 2018b; Zieringer and Rieger, 2023) or hinder social learning (Brady et al., 2023), as well as hate speech underneath educational products, that can negatively influence the perception and evaluation of these products by users (Ernst et al., 2017).
Social media blur the lines between political information, entertainment, and social place. This not only opens up a wide range of opportunities for professional civic education practitioners. It also creates new power structures in communication: new ways to articulate information, demands, and opinions and to participate in the public discourse (Jarren, 2021). So, it is not only professionals who are engaged in civic education on social media. It is now open to everyone! This not only dilutes the idea of professional (institutionalized) civic education which so far has been predominant in the German-speaking world (Weißeno, 2005; Heldt and Lange, 2021). It also makes it more difficult to identify reliable actors as well as high-quality products for users. From the user’s perspective, this may have serious consequences for their trust in civic education content in social media but also for learning processes and the acquisition of civic literacy. This raises the following questions: What are the opportunities and pitfalls of civic education in social media? How can we ensure successful civic education in a digitalized world?
This paper aims to address these questions from a German perspective on civic education. We aim to provide an interdisciplinary perspective by drawing on literature from fields such as media psychology, communication studies, and education to enrich the academic dialogue. With its practical focus, the paper can support researchers’ self-reflection about whether their scientific work is primarily conducted as a self-contained endeavor or whether it has genuine practical relevance. Thereby, it contributes to the development of a transfer-oriented mindset within the scientific community. By providing future perspectives for researchers and educational practitioners in the final chapter, we aim to inspire ongoing efforts in this area. This not only promotes a sense of purpose and direction for researchers, but also helps practitioners stay informed about emerging trends and best practices. In addition, we want to encourage collaboration and knowledge sharing between these two critical stakeholders, leading to more effective advancements in the field.
2 What is civic education?
Civic education serves as an integral yet multifaceted aspect of education (Sander, 2002), aiming to foster political participation and informed decision-making for active democratic engagement (Cassel and Lo, 1997; Yoldaş, 2015). The precise definition, including disciplines, methods, and conceptual frameworks, varies and depends on historical, political, and institutional factors within each country (Galston, 1989; Cogan, 1999; Yuen, 2016; Heldt and Lange, 2021). Each perception translates into different values, learning goals, and didactical principles. However, as the IEA report on International Civic and Citizenship Education emphasizes, internationally there is widespread consensus about the learning objectives for civic education (Schulz et al., 2018).
In Germany, the current notion of civic education is closely linked to the country’s totalitarian experiences in the early days of its democracy. After 1945, the development of democratic values and attitudes was considered essential to the establishment of a stable democratic state. Therefore, the Federal Agency for Homeland Services as an independent authority subordinate to the German Ministry of the Interior was founded. It was renamed the Federal Agency for Civic Education [Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung (bpb)] in 1963. This agency aims to educate the German people on democratic principles, “establish the democratic ideal” [Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung (bpb), 2012], and discourage any attempts to reinstate a totalitarian regime. Therefore, civic education in Germany refers to “all consciously planned and organized, continuous and targeted measures by educational institutions to equip young people and adults with the prerequisites necessary to participate in political and social life” (translated from German, Massing, n.d.). According to the Beutelsbach Consensus [Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung (bpb), 2011] civic education must be guided by three basic principles: (a) the prohibition of indoctrination, (b) the requirement to reflect the diversity of perspectives and interests that a given (political/societal) problem may represent, and (c) to teach people to understand and analyze their political interests, and to influence society in pursuit of those interests.
In comparison to other countries, civic education has a special place in Germany. It is not only an integral part of the curriculum in German schools. The bpb is an independent nationwide institution that promotes civic education for all citizens. It is committed to the Basic Law, human rights, and democratic political culture [Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung (bpb), 2003]. Its principles are non-partisanship and academic balance. Adherence to these aspects is regularly monitored by the Scientific Advisory Board and the Board of Trustees, which consists of representatives of all parties in the German Bundestag [Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung (bpb), 2001]. This allows for a certain degree of independence in the design of educational programs and materials. Its work includes extracurricular political education in both analog and digital spaces such as social media, as well as civic education in schools.
The traditional idea of civic education in Germany is strongly institutionalized and characterized by high standards and expectations of quality as shown above. However, the emergence of a digital landscape, particularly the widespread adoption of as social media as central information source (Newman et al., 2022) challenges these established norms and standards. With the accessibility and ease of content production on social media, virtually anyone can engage in providing content that could be perceived as civic education, even if it may not align with the official perspective of bpb or similar institutions. This diversity increases the variety of potential communicators and formats of civic education content enormously—but also impairs content quality. Moreover, the normative ideal of civic education, advocating value-free, unbiased, and objective content [Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung (bpb), 2011; Bundesministerium des Innern und für Heimat, n.d.], is inferior to emotionalizing and polarizing content in terms of social media dissemination and user acceptance (Stieglitz and Dang-Xuan, 2013; Bossetta and Schmøkel, 2023). These aspects pose various challenges to the formation of civic literacy.
3 What is civic literacy?
Civic literacy is the main goal of civic education. A basic understanding of civic literacy includes (1) skills and willingness to communicate and cooperate with other people as well as (2) knowledge and skills to make informed decisions about relevant aspects of peoples’ social environment (Van Helvoort, 2019). Alscher et al. (2022) provide a more detailed definition of civic literacy as an interplay of (a) political knowledge about structures, processes, content, and values, (b) political attitudes regarding democracy and pluralistic society, (c) motivation including political interest and internal political efficacy, and (d) the willingness to participate politically and in civil society activities. Various authors use the term political literacy. While this term entails a rather narrow understanding of politics—focusing on knowledge of party differences or basic political concepts (Cassel and Lo, 1997; Alscher et al., 2022)—civic literacy goes beyond the strictly political realm and includes a more holistic perspective. This means that social contexts are taken into account whose primary purpose is not political, but in which the political only emerges situationally (e.g., peer group, school).
Structured pedagogical settings and teaching professionals have been considered to be especially important in the formation of civic literacy (Dassonneville et al., 2012; Castillo et al., 2015; Heldt and Lange, 2021). However, many conventional educational practices are criticized for emphasizing limited versions of civic literacy. These practices seem to undermine the experiences of marginalized people, perpetuate inequality, and suppress the creativity necessary to foster transformative and progressive developments (Garcia and Mirra, 2021). In contrast, as “new literacy practices” (Garcia and Mirra, 2021) social media provide an informal learning space for fostering civic literacy (on the differences between formal and informal education see, e.g., Eshach, 2007; Rohlfs, 2011).
4 Social media as informal learning space
Young people value social media platforms for informal, self-directed learning outside of formalized educational settings (e.g., schools; Rat für Kulturelle Bildung, 2019)—which is a big advantage for the acquisition of civic literacy. Self-directed learning is characterized by the ability of learners to describe their needs and goals without the help of others, define the resources (e.g., support, materials) needed to achieve them, develop, and implement learning strategies based on those resources, and finally evaluate them in terms of learning success (Hiemstra, 1994; Garrison, 1997). Control over the motivation, need, timing, methods, and success of learning lies entirely with the learners (e.g., Wang and Chen, 2020; Zhu et al., 2020). Simultaneously, self-directed learning allows for the selection of content according to people’s needs and interests in terms of content and style. These are high demands on learners, which can have a positive impact on their sense of self-efficacy and learning outcomes (Toh and Kirschner, 2020; Lasfeto and Ulfa, 2023). For civic education practitioners, this means creating content that is truly relevant to their target audiences to ensure successful learning.
Social media further provide a valuable context for self-directed experiential learning (for more details see Kolb, 2014)—or as John Dewey put it “learning by doing”—meaning that a broad set of ideas about political processes can be directly learned, and reformed in social interactions within social media platforms. Observing and experiencing how other people negotiate political issues and engage politically can aid in understanding how the political system works and how decision-making processes unfold. Moreover, it can show the importance of being knowledgeable about policies and political candidates while at the same time participating in the process. This is particularly valuable as compared to traditional forms of civic education, social media give marginalized groups a voice (e.g., Fudge and Skipworth, 2017; Jaramillo-Dent et al., 2022). Findings from the UK, for example, show that actors with a migration history serve as empowering figures of identification in a media landscape that is still quite white (Sobande, 2017; Sobande et al., 2020). Studies about LGTBQIA+ influencers show similar results (Li, 2022). Nevertheless, experiential learning has also been proven to be especially successful in structured educational settings (see, e.g., Phillips-Wren and Adya, 2020), it is moreover highly dependent on the (social) context (e.g., quality of political discussions).
While the conditions of the learning environment, and the selection of materials can be controlled by teachers in a pedagogically framed setting, these aspects of civic education are usually left to the users in social media or cannot be controlled at all (e.g., the algorithmic interconnectedness, Schmitt et al., 2018b; Zieringer and Rieger, 2023).
4.1 Challenges of self-directed content selection
The diverse social media landscape holds the promise of self-directed “learning pleasure and educational happiness” (translated from German, Burow, 2017), offering new avenues for individual potential. However, a significant challenge for users lies in the competent selection of relevant content. Personal preferences, biases, the desire for confirmation of existing beliefs, and social influence often shape media selection (Sude and Knobloch-Westerwick, 2022). Users may further succumb to clickbait tactics, prioritizing sensationalism, gossip, and short-term engagement over substantive information (Lischka and Garz, 2021). In contrast to professional civic education content, which aims for objectivity, accuracy, reliability, and thorough research, clickbait content tends to attract attention rapidly through sensational or even misleading headlines. This strategy is frequently employed by right-leaning media outlets or extremist actors, lacking ethical commitment to balanced reporting or content creator responsibility (Kaiser and Rauchfleisch, 2020; Rau et al., 2022).
The implications become more pronounced due to the curation algorithms of many platforms, focused on generating high traffic, views, and engagement. Algorithms not only impact information curation but also influence social learning (Bandura, 1986), a crucial aspect of civic education. By determining which political topics or opinions are promoted, how topics are interconnected, and how we perceive friends, social media algorithms shape our worldview and influence individual actions, with or without explicit rewards for certain behaviors. Brady et al. (2023) suggest that algorithms leverage social learning biases, emphasizing prestigious, in-group, moral, and emotional (PRIME) information—and not content that positively impacts civic literacy. Users, in turn, learn to create more of such problematic content, saturating the digital environment, particularly in morality and politics, with PRIME information. This can lead to social misunderstandings, fueling conflict and spreading misinformation rather than fostering cooperation and collective problem-solving.
The vast and complex content of the social web places high demands on learners, including attention, motivation, media literacy and decision-making skills. Lacking appropriate skills can lead to feelings of overload, stress (e.g., Bawden and Robinson, 2009; Schmitt et al., 2018a), learning refusal (Burow, 2017), and emotional exhaustion (e.g., Sheng et al., 2023). Information overload can be a significant stressor in decision-making, alongside time pressure, complexity, and uncertainty (Phillips-Wren and Adya, 2020). The tendency to select attitude-consistent information further underscores the importance of skillful (political) information navigation.
The outlined challenges of social media emphasize the necessity of media-savvy educators to support self-directed, informal learning processes. They play a crucial role in imparting essential media skills for navigating platforms, finding appropriate content, and grasping structural conditions. They can develop tailored learning opportunities to meet individual learner needs, supporting self-directed learning (Burow, 2017). Their responsibilities further extend to providing constructive feedback and fostering content discussions (Waldron, 2013).
4.2 Impact of content and platform characteristics
Research has found positive effects of social media on all facets of civic literacy defined by Alscher et al. (2022): knowledge, attitudes, motivations, and civic engagement (Schmitt, 2016; Oeldorf-Hirsch, 2018; Gagrčin et al., 2022; Gil de Zúñiga et al., 2022; Lee and Xenos, 2022). However, Vraga et al. (2016) showed that political content receives significantly less attention than social content or news. The attention paid to political information on social media has consequences, as inattentive users are more likely to spread disinformation (Pennycook et al., 2021; Pennycook and Rand, 2021). Conversely, those who pay more attention to political information show a weaker relationship between cynicism and political apathy (Yamamoto et al., 2017) and acquire more political knowledge (Eveland, 2004; Eveland and Schmitt, 2015).
It has further been shown, that the style of a media product is important for directing attention: multimodal content (e.g., consisting of images and text) increases attention (Vraga et al., 2016). However, psychological approaches to information processing such as the Limited Capacity Model of Mediated Message Processing (Lang, 2000), the Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller, 2011), and the Capacity Model of Comprehension of Educational Content on Television (Fisch, 2000) assume increased demands on the cognitive reception and processing capacities of users through multimodal content. In contrast to reading texts, multimodal content requires more cognitive resources in the working memory for information processing. However, the more mental effort is invested by the recipient, the deeper the understanding of the content (Salomon, 1983)—resulting, for instance, in higher knowledge acquisition.
Regarding the reception of audiovisual content, for example on YouTube or TikTok, both visual and auditory information must be processed. In the case of educational content users often must process the narrative and educational content and their relationship to each other. The success of information processing depends on user characteristics (e.g., prior knowledge, interest), characteristics of the media product (e.g., complexity of the presentation, temporal organization of the content) and the usage situation (Fisch, 2000).
However, as social media content is embedded in the larger context of a platform, the structural conditions on the platform pose additional challenges for information processing as they increase the complexity of the information (e.g., further links, recommendations, and comments). Unfortunately, providers of educational content on social media have little control over these aspects. Attention can only be directed to a certain extent by selected visual and auditory triggers in a product (Schmidt-Borcherding, 2021).
5 Future perspectives
It becomes clear, that Germany’s traditional approach to civic education, characterized by principles such as non-partisanship and academic balance, faces a significant challenge with the increasing digitalization of the public and political sphere. The informal learning space offered by social media is promising, but it is also fraught with difficulties related to the self-directed selection of content and the potential effects of content and platform characteristics. An overarching challenge is the selection and production of trustworthy and valuable content for civic education, highlighting the need for knowledge about potential creators and quality criteria. So, how can we ensure successful civic education in a digitalized world?
It would be helpful to develop a mapping of key actors. This could be used to inform about the differences between actors, the nature of their institutional involvement, their expertise, and the potential quality of their social media content. Additionally, there is a need to develop and evaluate specific criteria for the quality of social media content in civic education that meaningfully complement the principles of the Beutelsbach Consensus [Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung (bpb), 2011].
Providing a comprehensive framework for the evaluation of actors and content in social media would also address the call for more systematic evaluation of effectiveness and more evidence-based development of social media content aimed at promoting civic literacy, bridging the gap between academic research and practical implementation. In this context, we want to emphasize the need for inter- and transdisciplinary approaches in future research. The value of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research cannot be overstated when exploring the intricate dynamics of complex phenomena such as user behavior in social media and platform characteristic. Drawing from diverse disciplines allows researchers to employ a range of methods and perspectives to comprehensively examine the multifaceted relationships within social media platforms. This allows for a more holistic understanding of the factors that influence user engagement, network structures, and the impact of digital content on civic literacy. By bridging disciplinary boundaries, not only within but also across the sciences, researchers can shed light on nuanced patterns, contribute to a richer, more nuanced understanding of the complexities inherent in the digital landscape and can foster the relevance of scientific findings for society (Crow, 2010).
We further want to highlight de claim: civic education with digital media, not solely in digital media (Ernst and Schmitt, 2020). Social media should be viewed as an informal learning practice alongside more formalized approaches, emphasizing the need for conceptual and structural innovation in civic education. Adequate resources, including community management, financial support, and training for educators, are deemed essential for adapting to the current and future media usage habits of diverse target groups in the digital space and to ensure successful learning.
In conclusion, we advocate for a holistic approach to civic education in the digital age that recognizes the intertwined challenges and opportunities of social media, while emphasizing the need for continuous innovation and adaptation to effectively engage learners in the digital realm.
Author contributions
JS: Conceptualization, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. JB: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. SK: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Footnotes
1. ^We understand the English term “citizenship education” and civic education synonymously.
References
Alscher, P., Ludewig, U., and McElvany, N. (2022). Civic Literacy – zur Theorie und Messbarkeit eines Kompetenzmodells für die schulische politische Bildung. Z. Für. Erzieh. 25, 1221–1241. doi: 10.1007/s11618-022-01085-0
Bandura, A. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, US: Prentice-Hall, Inc; (1986). xiii, 617 p. (Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory).
Bawden, D., and Robinson, L. (2009). The dark side of information: overload, anxiety and other paradoxes and pathologies. J. Inf. Sci. 35, 180–191. doi: 10.1177/0165551508095781
Bossetta, M., and Schmøkel, R. (2023). Cross-platform emotions and audience engagement in social media political campaigning: comparing candidates’ Facebook and Instagram images in the 2020 US election. Polit. Commun. 40, 48–68. doi: 10.1080/10584609.2022.2128949
Brady, W. J., Jackson, J. C., Lindström, B., and Crockett, M. J. (2023). Algorithm-mediated social learning in online social networks. Trends Cogn. Sci. 27, 947–960. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2023.06.008
Bundesministerium des Innern und für Heimat. Bundesministerium des Innern und für Heimat. o.D. (cited 2023 Mar 3]. Politische Bildung. Available at: https://www.bmi.bund.de/DE/themen/heimat-integration/gesellschaftlicher-zusammenhalt/politische-bildung/politische-bildung-artikel.html;jsessionid=39E65779F782F3A1696B48D79C73DCA3.2_cid332?nn=9394762
Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung (bpb). (2001) (cited 2024 Jan 19). Erlass über die Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung (BpB). Available at: https://www.bpb.de/die-bpb/ueber-uns/auftrag/51244/erlass-ueber-die-bundeszentrale-fuer-politische-bildung-bpb/
Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung (bpb) (2003) [cited 2024 Jan 19]. Leitbild der Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung. Available at: https://www.bpb.de/die-bpb/ueber-uns/auftrag/51248/leitbild-der-bundeszentrale-fuer-politische-bildung/
Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung (bpb). (2011) [cited 2023 Mar 3]. Beutelsbacher Konsens. Available at: https://www.bpb.de/die-bpb/ueber-uns/auftrag/51310/beutelsbacher-konsens/
Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung (bpb). (2012) [cited 2023 Dec 8]. Foundation and development 1952–1961. Available at: https://www.bpb.de/die-bpb/ueber-uns/federal-agency-for-civic-education/148017/foundation-and-development-1952-1961/
Burow, O. A. (2017). Neues Lernen? Lernlust und Bildungsglück im digitalen Zeitalter. Televizion, 4–8.
Cassel, C. A., and Lo, C. C. (1997). Theories of political literacy. Polit. Behav. 19, 317–335. doi: 10.1023/A:1024895721905
Castillo, J. C., Miranda, D., Bonhomme, M., Cox, C., and Bascopé, M. (2015). Mitigating the political participation gap from the school: the roles of civic knowledge and classroom climate. J. Youth Stud. 18, 16–35. doi: 10.1080/13676261.2014.933199
Cogan, J. J. (1999). Civic education in the United States: a brief history. Int. J. Soc. Educ. 14, 52–64.
Crow, M. M. (2010). Organizing teaching and research to address the grand challenges of sustainable development. Bioscience 60, 488–489. doi: 10.1525/bio.2010.60.7.2
Dassonneville, R., Quintelier, E., Hooghe, M., and Claes, E. (2012). The relation between civic education and political attitudes and behavior: a two-year panel study among Belgian late adolescents. Appl. Dev. Sci. 16, 140–150. doi: 10.1080/10888691.2012.695265
Ernst, J., and Schmitt, J. B. (2020). Politische Bildung für Jugendliche in oder mit digitalen Medien? Medienpädagogische Reflexionen der Strukturbedingungen von YouTube. Medien Z Für Theor Prax Medien. 38, 21–42. doi: 10.21240/mpaed/38/2020.10.02.X
Ernst, J., Schmitt, J. B., Rieger, D., Beier, A. K., Vorderer, P., Bente, G., et al. (2017). Hate beneath the counter speech? A qualitative content analysis of user comments on YouTube related to counter speech videos. J. Deradical. 10, 1–49.
Eshach, H. (2007). Bridging in-school and out-of-school learning: formal, non-formal, and informal education. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 16, 171–190. doi: 10.1007/s10956-006-9027-1
Eveland, W. P. (2004). The effect of political discussion in producing informed citizens: the roles of information, motivation, and elaboration. Polit. Commun. 21, 177–193. doi: 10.1080/10584600490443877
Eveland, W. P., and Schmitt, J. B. (2015). Communication content and knowledge content matters: integrating manipulation and observation in studying news and discussion learning effects. J. Commun. 65, 170–191. doi: 10.1111/jcom.12138
Fisch, S. M. (2000). A capacity model of Children’s comprehension of educational content on television. Media Psychol. 2, 63–91. doi: 10.1207/S1532785XMEP0201_4
Fudge, D., and Skipworth, S. A. (2017). Kids in the capitol: improving civic literacy through experiential learning. Learn Res. Pract. 3, 163–167. doi: 10.1080/23735082.2017.1349169
Gagrčin, E., Porten-Cheé, P., Leißner, L., Emmer, M., and Jørring, L. (2022). What makes a good citizen online? The emergence of discursive citizenship norms in social media environments. Soc. Media Soc. 8:205630512210842. doi: 10.1177/20563051221084297
Galston, W. (1989). Civic education in the liberal state. Liberalism and the Moral Life. Ed. Nancy L. Rosenblum in (Harvard University Press) 89–101. doi: 10.4159/harvard.9780674864443.c7
Garcia, A., and Mirra, N. (2021). Writing toward justice: youth speculative civic literacies in online policy discourse. Urban Educ. 56, 640–669. doi: 10.1177/0042085920953881
Garrison, D. R. (1997). Self-directed learning: toward a comprehensive model. Adult Educ. Q. 48, 18–33. doi: 10.1177/074171369704800103
Gil de Zúñiga, H., González-González, P., and Goyanes, M. (2022). Pathways to political persuasion: linking online, social media, and fake news with political attitude change through political discussion. Am. Behav. Sci. :000276422211182. doi: 10.1177/00027642221118272
Heldt, I., and Lange, D. bpb.de. (2021) [cited 2023 Jun 1]. Citizenship education in Germany. Available at: https://www.bpb.de/die-bpb/partner/nece/328561/citizenship-education-in-germany/
Hiemstra, R. Self-directed learning. IACE hall fame repos [internet]. (1994); Available at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_IACE-browseall/503
Jantschek, O. Wochenschau Verlag. (2021) [cited 2023 Feb 26]. Schub ohne Richtung? Available at: https://www.journal-pb.de/blog/Schub-ohne-Richtung
Jaramillo-Dent, D., Contreras-Pulido, P., and Pérez-Rodríguez, A. (2022). Immigrant influencers on TikTok: diverse microcelebrity profiles and algorithmic (in)visibility. Media Commun. 10, 208–221. doi: 10.17645/mac.v10i1.4743
Jarren, O. (2021). “Öffentlichkeitswandel durch Social Media – Auswirkungen der Plattformisierung auf die gesellschaftliche Vermittlungsstruktur” in Digitaler Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit: Historische Verortung, Modelle und Konsequenzen. eds. M. Eisenegger, M. Prinzing, P. Ettinger, and R. Blum (Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien), 41–63. Mediensymposium
Kaiser, J., and Rauchfleisch, A. (2020). Birds of a feather get recommended together: algorithmic Homophily in YouTube’s channel recommendations in the United States and Germany. Soc. Media Soc. 6:205630512096991. doi: 10.1177/2056305120969914
Kolb, D. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development [internet]. 2nd Edition New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc; (2014) [cited 2023 Dec 8]. Available at: https://www.pearson.de/experiential-learning-experience-as-the-source-of-learning-and-development-9780133892505
Lang, A. (2000). The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. J. Commun. 50, 46–70. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02833.x
Lasfeto, D. B., and Ulfa, S. (2023). Modeling of online learning strategies based on fuzzy expert systems and self-directed learning readiness: the effect on learning outcomes. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 60, 2081–2104. doi: 10.1177/07356331221094249
Lee, S., and Xenos, M. (2022). Incidental news exposure via social media and political participation: evidence of reciprocal effects. New Media Soc. 24, 178–201. doi: 10.1177/1461444820962121
Li, M. (2022). Influence for social good: exploring the roles of influencer identity and comment section in Instagram-based LGBTQ-centric corporate social responsibility advertising. Int. J. Advert. 41, 462–499. doi: 10.1080/02650487.2021.1884399
Lischka, J. A., and Garz, M. (2021). Clickbait news and algorithmic curation: a game theory framework of the relation between journalism, users, and platforms. New Media Soc. 25, 2073–2094. doi: 10.1177/14614448211027174
Massing, P. bpb.de. o.D. [cited 2023 Mar 3]. Politische Bildung. Available at: https://www.bpb.de/kurz-knapp/lexika/handwoerterbuch-politisches-system/202092/politische-bildung/
Milner, H. (2010). “The informed democratic participation of young citizens: the challenge to civic education” in Demokratiedidaktik: impulse für die Politische Bildung. eds. D. Lange and G. Himmelmann (Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften), 321–329.
Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Robertson, C. T., Eddy, K., and Nielsen, R. K. (2022). Reuters institute digital news report, vol. 2022, 164. Available at: https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/digital-news-report/2023
Oeldorf-Hirsch, A. (2018). The role of engagement in learning from active and incidental news exposure on social media. Mass Commun. Soc. 21, 225–247. doi: 10.1080/15205436.2017.1384022
Pennycook, G., Epstein, Z., Mosleh, M., Arechar, A. A., Eckles, D., and Rand, D. G. (2021). Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online. Nature 592, 590–595. doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03344-2
Pennycook, G., and Rand, D. G. (2021). The psychology of fake news. Trends Cogn. Sci. 25, 388–402. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2021.02.007
Phillips-Wren, G., and Adya, M. (2020). Decision making under stress: the role of information overload, time pressure, complexity, and uncertainty. J. Decis. Syst. 29, 213–225. doi: 10.1080/12460125.2020.1768680
Rat für Kulturelle Bildung. Stiftung Mercator. (2019) [cited 2023 Jan 5]. JUGEND/YOUTUBE / KULTURELLE BILDUNG. HORIZONT. Available at: https://www.stiftung-mercator.de/de/publikationen/jugend-youtube-kulturelle-bildung-horizont-2019/
Rau, J., Kero, S., Hofmann, V., Dinar, C., and Heldt, A. P. Rechtsextreme Online-Kommunikation in Krisenzeiten: Herausforderungen und Interventionsmöglichkeiten aus Sicht der Rechtsextremismus- und Platform-Governance-Forschung. Arbeitspapiere Hans-Bredow-Inst. (2022) [cited 2023 Jun 21]; Available at: https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/78072
Rohlfs, C. (2011). “Ein neuer Bildungsbegriff? Zur Unterscheidung formaler, non-formaler und informeller Bildung: Konturen des aktuellen Bildungsdiskurses” in Bildungseinstellungen: Schule und formale Bildung aus der Perspektive von Schülerinnen und Schülern [Internet]. ed. C. Rohlfs (Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften)
Salomon, G. (1983). The differential investment of mental effort in learning from different sources. Educ. Psychol. 18, 42–50. doi: 10.1080/00461528309529260
Sander, W. (2002). “Von der Volksbelehrung zur modernen Profession” in Politische Bildung und Globalisierung. eds. C. Butterwegge and G. Hentges (Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften), 11–24.
Schmidt-Borcherding, F. (2021). “Zur Lernpsychologie von Erklärvideos: Theoretische Grundlagen” in Lehren und Lernen mit Tutorials und Erklärvideos (Weinheim: Beltz Verlag), 63–70.
Schmitt, J. B. (2016). Media self-efficacy and internal political efficacy as processes underlying young adults’ political participation. SCM Stud. Commun. Media 5, 197–222. doi: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-2-197
Schmitt, J. B., Debbelt, C. A., and Schneider, F. M. (2018a). Too much information? Predictors of information overload in the context of online news exposure. Inf. Commun. Soc. 21, 1151–1167. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2017.1305427
Schmitt, J. B., Rieger, D., Rutkowski, O., and Ernst, J. (2018b). Counter-messages as prevention or promotion of extremism?! The potential role of YouTube recommendation algorithms. J. Commun. 68, 780–808. doi: 10.1093/joc/jqy029
Schulz, W., Ainley, J., Fraillon, J., Losito, B., Agrusti, G., and Friedman, T. (2018). “National contexts for civic and citizenship education” in Becoming citizens in a changing world: IEA international civic and citizenship education study 2016 international report [internet]. eds. W. Schulz, J. Ainley, J. Fraillon, B. Losito, G. Agrusti, and T. Friedman (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 21–39.
Sheng, N., Yang, C., Han, L., and Jou, M. (2023). Too much overload and concerns: antecedents of social media fatigue and the mediating role of emotional exhaustion. Comput. Hum. Behav. 139:107500. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2022.107500
Sude, D., and Knobloch-Westerwick, S. (2022). Selective Exposure and Attention to Attitude-Consistent and Attitude-Discrepant Information. Reviewing the Evidence. in Knowledge Resistance in High-Choice Information Environments in Eds. J. Strömbäck, Å. Wikforss, K. Glüer, T. Lindholm, and H. Oscarsso (London: Routledge), 88–101.
Sobande, F. (2017). Watching me watching you: black women in Britain on YouTube. Eur. J. Cult. Stud. 20, 655–671. doi: 10.1177/1367549417733001
Sobande, F., Fearfull, A., and Brownlie, D. (2020). Resisting media marginalisation: black women’s digital content and collectivity. Consum. Mark. Cult. 23, 413–428. doi: 10.1080/10253866.2019.1571491
Stieglitz, S., and Dang-Xuan, L. (2013). Emotions and information diffusion in social media—sentiment of microblogs and sharing behavior. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 29, 217–248. doi: 10.2753/MIS0742-1222290408
Sweller, J. Chapter two–Cognitive load theory. In: Mestre JP, Ross BH, editors. Psychology of learning and motivation [internet]. Academic Press; (2011) [cited 2023 Jun 16]. p. 37–76. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123876911000028
Toh, W., and Kirschner, D. (2020). Self-directed learning in video games, affordances and pedagogical implications for teaching and learning. Comput. Educ. 154:103912. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103912
Van Helvoort, J. (2019). “Four spaces of civic literacy education: a literature review” in Information literacy in everyday life. eds. S. Kurbanoğlu, S. Špiranec, Y. Ünal, J. Boustany, M. L. Huotari, and E. Grassian, et al. (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 94–102.
Vraga, E. K., Bode, L., and Troller-Renfree, S. (2016). Beyond self-reports: using eye tracking to measure topic and style differences in attention to social media content. Commun. Methods Meas. 10, 149–164. doi: 10.1080/19312458.2016.1150443
Waldron, J. (2013). User-generated content, YouTube and participatory culture on the web: music learning and teaching in two contrasting online communities. Music. Educ. Res. 15, 257–274. doi: 10.1080/14613808.2013.772131
Wang, H. C., and Chen, C. W. Y. (2020). Learning English from YouTubers: English L2 learners’ self-regulated language learning on YouTube. Innov. Lang. Learn. Teach. 14, 333–346. doi: 10.1080/17501229.2019.1607356
Weißeno, G. (2005). Standards für die politische Bildung. Aus Polit Zeitgesch Beil Zur Wochenztg Parlam 12, 32–38.
Yamamoto, M., Kushin, M. J., and Dalisay, F. (2017). Social media and political disengagement among young adults: a moderated mediation model of cynicism, efficacy, and social media use on apathy. Mass Commun. Soc. 20, 149–168. doi: 10.1080/15205436.2016.1224352
Yoldaş, Ö. B. (2015). Civic education and learning democracy: their importance for political participation of young people. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 174, 544–549. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.703
Yuen, T. W. W. (2016). Civic education stuck in a quagmire: a critical review of civic education in Hong Kong? Citizsh. Soc. Econ. Educ. 15, 69–82. doi: 10.1177/2047173416650447
Zhu, M., Bonk, C. J., and Doo, M. Y. (2020). Self-directed learning in MOOCs: exploring the relationships among motivation, self-monitoring, and self-management. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 68, 2073–2093. doi: 10.1007/s11423-020-09747-8
Keywords: civic education, civic literacy, informal learning, social media, digital media, self-directed learning
Citation: Schmitt JB, Baake J and Kero S (2024) What means civic education in a digitalized world? Front. Psychol. 15:1257247. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1257247
Edited by:
Anne Oeldorf-Hirsch, University of Connecticut, United StatesReviewed by:
Mohamed Oubibi, Beijing Normal University, ChinaTeresa K. Naab, University of Mannheim, Germany
Copyright © 2024 Schmitt, Baake and Kero. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Josephine B. Schmitt, Sm9zZXBoaW5lLnNjaG1pdHRAY2Fpcy1yZXNlYXJjaC5kZQ==