CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Theories of citizenship education and development

The cognitive developmental theory was developed by Jean Piaget and further developed by such psychologists as Lawrence Kohlberg, William Damon, Ralph Mosher and William Perry. Piaget posits that the human learner is a stimulus-seeking entity, rather than a creature that learns entirely through conditioning. This structural developmental view suggests that human beings have certain innate capacities which (a) influence the kind of interactive experiences they have and which (b) determine the reciprocal effects of the experiences upon them and their future development. Each person is in effect, a self-organizing being, and “structures” its own development, while at the same time being shaped by previously acquired structures. By structural development, then, is meant an active interplay with the environment. (Ashby, O’Brien, 2005)

Piaget also made observations on intellectual development. He observed the existence of clearly discernible stages or structures of thought. Young people can be identified distinctly by different types of moral reasoning and these characterize different states of moral development. The general argument of the theory is that human beings’ moral development proceeds developmentally in a stepwise sequence through the various stages of moral reasoning. The capacity for higher reasoning resides in an individual in a potential form, and through the individual’s repeated encounters with his or her environment it is developed. Essential, therefore, to this view is an environment that is morally stimulating and challenging. Without the stimulation of an appropriate and challenging environment, the individual stays at his or her current stage and does not develop.

The second view of citizenship education development is derived from the empiricism of John Locke and the behaviourism of John Walson and B.F. Skinner (Pinet, 2006; Freire, 2001). The view tends to look at human nature as a relatively blank slate on which society writes the experience of the individual. Society here should be viewed as multidimensional, composed of the individual’s immediate family, his or her ethnic group and social class, the institutions that are part of his or her life and also the total culture into which he or she is born. These social forces contribute in varying degrees to the individual’s learning, learning about what a person is supposed to do as a member of state or otherwise, or what a person ought to do. The individual is taken through citizenship and other social learning by two methods. The first is direct teaching and the second method is learning through modeling or imitation. Thus, the child sees behaviour and imitates it. In the school environment, therefore, opportunity should be created to nurture the learners towards political literacy, critical thinking, development of certain attitudes and values and active participation.

The third theory that informs citizenship education is psychoanalytic approach. Its founder was Sigmund Freud, the Viennese medical doctor, who worked at charting the unconscious mind. The most prominent current spokesman for this position was Bruno Bettleheim (Boyte, 2004). The psychoanalytic view is based on a view of human nature as driven by irrational impulses which must be controlled. Society’s agents, typically parents must intervene early to introduce restraints and conforming behaviour for both the good at the individual and the society as a whole. As a theory of citizenship education, a great strength of the psychoanalytic view is that it is rooted in a total view of personality. The author relates this distinct culture, political and historical experiences among nations, as well as to differentiate execution of civic curriculum.

There are theories that influence teachers when introducing citizenship education and are largely based on their personal action (Evans, 2006). These theories may be based on their past and present experience. In handling the activities of the classroom, teachers are informed by theories that they have developed on the basis of their experiences as well as their reading and their training.

Of particular interest in the development of theories are the types of knowledge that teachers acquire and use in the classroom. The recognised types of knowledge include:

Common sense knowledge about practice; folk wisdom that is developed on the basis of experience; skill knowledge that is related to specific tasks; contextual knowledge about particular classes and subject fields; professional knowledge about teaching strategies and curriculum; ideas about educational theory; and finally; social and moral theories and philosophical outlooks (Carr & Kemmis, 1983: 44).

Each of these types of knowledge can influence individual teachers’ theories of action in relation to citizenship education.

In coming out with a theory of action based on citizenship education, the practitioner has the potential to reflect critically and reflexively. When operating reflexively, as researchers of their practices, teachers become aware of the effect of power centred forms of inquiry. In this direction, critical issues are highlighted through reflexivity.

The process of reflexivity is an attempt to identify, to do something about knowledge, the limitations of the research: its locations, its subjects, its process, its theoretical context, its data, its analysis and how accounts recognise that the construction takes place in the world and not apart from it (Shacklock & Smyth, 1998: 7).

In this research where it is essential to consider teachers’ perception on citizenship education, the issue of reflexivity is therefore critical. Generally put, it is critical for teachers in their attempt to handle citizenship education issues in the colleges of education in Ghana to integrate all the theories that underpin citizenship education as explained to shape students’ perception.

Places and developmental context in citizen education