Educating Early Adolescents for a Sustainable Future With Digital Civic Learning: Moral Self-Concept as a Developmental Catalyst Linking Civic Competencies and Civic Purpose.

Introduction

Education for sustainable development (ESD) has been broadly defined as the process of equipping learners with the knowledge, competencies, values, and attitudes necessary to address complex and interdependent sustainability challenges (UNESCO2020). Although traditionally framed as a curricular and pedagogical reform, we argue that ESD must also be understood from a developmental perspective. Early adolescence marks an important developmental period for several critical competencies, including those related to citizenship and social participation for cognitive, socio‐emotional, and moral growth (Dahl et al.2018). Key characteristics of ESD include future‐oriented reasoning, critical reflection, and collective action (Redman and Wiek2021). These characteristics align with developmental shifts occurring between the ages of 9 and 12, such as the growth of future oriented thinking and self‐representation (Nurmi1987), social awareness (Damon and Hart1982), critical argumentative thinking (Lin et al.,2019,2022), prosocial moral reasoning (Spinrad and Eisenberg2014), social perspective taking, and collective efficacy (Lu et al.2023). Importantly, this is also a time when early adolescents begin integrating abstract moral values into their self‐concept, forming the foundation for long‐term identity development (Hardy and Carlo2011). The purpose of this study is to identify factors that contribute to early adolescents’ sustainable civic development under a developmentally appropriate curriculum called digital civic learning (DCL).

Specifically, we first examine how fourth‐ and fifth‐grade US students’ civic knowledge, skills, and dispositions emerge as they engage in productive and meaningful classroom discourse in DCL—including individual reflective essays, self‐recorded videos, and online discussions. We further explore how these competencies inform students’ moral self‐concept and civic purpose, defined as the intent to improve society through civic actions. By employing a novel assessment approach that captures students’ real‐life civic competencies within their learning environments, the study offers an authentic portrayal of early adolescents’ civic development and highlights the catalyzing role of moral self‐concept in shaping civic purpose.

Literature Review

The Importance of Early Adolescents’ Civic Purpose in Sustainable Development

Acquisition of civic competencies is essential in preparing for a sustainable future; however, research increasingly suggests that such skills alone are not sufficient for fostering long‐term engagement in socio‐political contexts (e.g., Manganelli et al.2014). Young people may know what to do to make productive change, and even how to do it, but whether they choose to act often depends on deeper motivational and identity‐related factors (Blasi1983; Thomaes et al.2023). Civic purpose refers to a sustained intention to contribute to the common good, involving three distinct aspects: civic intention, motivation, and actions (Malin et al.2015). Individuals who are civically purposeful perceive civic participation as personally meaningful and important (civic intention dimension), particularly based on prosocial, self‐transcendent, and community‐based reasoning (civic motivation dimension), followed by corresponding relevant engagement in civic behaviors (civic action dimension). Therefore, civic purpose is a multidimensional developmental construct that reflects individuals’ progression toward mature citizenry. These pillars of civic purpose are aligned with the aims and goals of sustainable development, which seek to ensure dignified lives for all people—both now and in the future—while maintaining the sustainability of environmental, economic, and social systems (see United Nations2015; United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs [UNDESA]2025).

In order for adolescents to engage in sustainable behaviors, research suggests that they should construe societal good and sustainable development as aligned with their values and personal motives (Thomaes et al.2023), which is captured in both theintentionandmotivationdimensions of civic purpose. When adolescents personally evaluate civic behaviors as not only societally but also personally meaningful, and when such perception is motivated by their desires to contribute to broader communities, they can readily engage in civically desirable actions for a sustained period. This is supported by research demonstrating that the integrated development of the three dimensions of civic purpose leads adolescents to maintain civic engagement during emerging adulthood, despite the general decline in civic behaviors after high school (Malin et al.2017). Self‐transcendent civic motivation predicts stable, sustained participation in civic activities (Malin et al.2015) and the alignment of personal values and targeted behaviors may prompt adolescents to engage in socially desirable behaviors (Yeager et al.2018). Taken together, to induce sustained civic endeavors and engagement in young generations, it is necessary for adolescents to understand and approach societal, civic, environmental issues as societally and personally meaningful to their lives, which is well reflected in the construct of civic purpose.

Early adolescence is an auspicious developmental period for nurturing civic purpose, as early adolescents are developing more mature reasoning about the broader consequences of their actions (Casey et al.2008), while also developing moral emotions such as guilt and empathy (Schalkwijk et al.2016). Furthermore, early adolescents’ cognitive flexibility (Buttelmann and Karbach2017), social perspective taking (Kim et al.2024), and sense of justice (Bondü and Kleinfeldt2021) are advancing, with a more complex, nuanced moral self increasingly shaped by social contexts (Sengsavang and Krettenauer2015). With these developmental changes, early adolescents become increasingly capable of recursive and multicausal reasoning, enabling them to grasp feedback loops, unintended consequences, and systemic relationships (Davis and Sumara2006; Piaget1970). Though less frequently studied in children and early adolescents, evidence suggests early adolescence is a fertile time for initial existential questioning and the integration of values into the self‐concept, especially when scaffolded by culturally sensitive educational contexts (Damon2009; King and Boyatzis2004). Such developmental momentum in early adolescence is often neglected due to systematic constraints and adults’ skepticism about young students’ capacities to make productive change (Lundy2007).

With that, well‐designed ESD needs to move beyond just teaching “about” sustainability. Meaningful educational processes should actively support the internalization of sustainability values into the self—helping students see themselves not only as learners, but also as responsible stewards and contributors to an interconnected world. It is essential to design and formulate learning environments that move beyond teaching “what” and “how” to also shaping “who,” supporting early adolescents in seeing themselves as agents of sustainability.

Digital Civic Learning as a Developmentally Aligned Pathway to Sustainability‐Oriented Civic Purpose

DCL as Education for Sustainable Development

Digital civic learning (DCL) is an instructional approach designed to foster civic competencies, moral self‐concept, and a sustainability‐oriented civic purpose in early adolescents through immersive, discourse‐rich learning experiences. The DCL curriculum was iteratively developed over 2 years, based on student and teacher feedback. It integrates two instructional features: collaborative social reasoning (Lin et al.2022; adapted from collaborative reasoning, Anderson et al.2001) and immersive learning (Kuznetcova et al.2025). Grounded in educational and developmental theories (Anderman et al.2024; Glassman2001; Vygotsky1987) and guided by psychological principles such as agency, We‐ness, and empathy (Kim et al.2025), this approach engages early adolescents in respectful, collaborative reasoning about socially and morally complex issues and places them in immersive scenarios that foster historical understanding and collective problem‐solving. DCL reading materials were selected so that they are aligned with early adolescents’ cognitive development (Piaget1962), and linguistic/vocabulary skills (Hsieh et al.2021; Lin e al.2015). Using heterogenous grouping, students experience diverse perspectives in group settings that promote their social perspective taking and enrich their social experiences (Kim et al.2020;2024). DCL additionally utilizes interactive low‐tech curricular materials that do not place technical burdens on students or teachers (Kuznetcova et al.2025), while engaging students into personally relevant activities (Anderman et al.2024) and argumentation (Park et al.2025) through online platforms (Cha et al.2025). Implemented through four units, DCL presents learners with civic oriented problems that mirror real world challenges, such as land rights, housing justice, environmental degradation, and profit maximization, tapping into three pillars of sustainability: economic (profit), social (people), and environmental (planet) (United Nations2015). The problems are intentionally designed to evoke moral tension, invite multiple perspectives, and promote systems thinking—central goals of education for sustainable development (ESD).

Each DCL unit unfolds in three interconnected phases that resonate with core ESD pedagogical principles—critical inquiry, participatory learning, and values reflection (see Parry and Metzger2023). Specifically, During DCL, students learn social issues for sustainability not only by exploring the historical and social backgrounds of a problem, but also by participating in developing solutions based on increased understanding of the issue. While participating in small‐group projects in face‐to‐face and asynchronous online formats (e.g., self‐recording video essays, Web 2.0 technologies, online discussion boards), students adopt stakeholder roles—such as affected families, community members, or government representatives—as they search for workable solutions to ill‐structured problems at hand (e.g., What would Ms. Haaland1tell other government leaders and why?). These simulations require collaborative reasoning and ethical deliberation in response to problems that reflect the complexities and uncertainties of sustainability dilemmas, challenging students to reconcile competing interests and consider long‐term consequences.

Through Collaborative Social Reasoning (CSR) processes, students are given the space to co‐construct arguments, test the validity of their assumptions, and engage with multiple perspectives (Kim et al.2024; Kraatz et al. 2020; Lin et al.2019;2022; Nagpal et al.2025; Wen et al. 2023). This dialogic process models participatory democracy and enhances students’ critical inquiry, both of which are central to ESD's aim of preparing individuals for responsible civic and environmental decision‐making. By becoming a participant in the decision‐making process of a virtual community with varied stakeholders, students are asked to consider multiple perspectives as lived experiences, joining in the “vivencia” of their adopted community (Glassman and Erdem2014, 213). Such experiences of psychological engagement support the development of empathy and moral reflection, which are critical for the values‐based orientation of ESD, by effectively helping students internalize the values of morality (e.g., honesty, sympathy) and perceive societal concerns as important at both personal and social levels. Recurring discussion and essay prompts embedded in the curriculum further encourage students to reflect on what matters to them personally as they critically interrogate their own value systems.

One of the most important aspects of DCL, when considering ESD in the 21st century, is its digital‐based, collaborative curriculum, which fosters a sense of shared and collective responsibility both online and offline. Such DCL designs that incorporate use of digital tools and collaborative participation in digital learning space naturally provide students with opportunities to grow with digital citizenship. Digital citizenship in the increasingly networked online space creates a means for sustainable and sharable identity among individuals (Castell1996). Every point in a vast interconnected electronic network has the potential to act as both consumer and producer of new information in ways that can alter online discourse, especially concerning problem‐solving (Selwyn2009). DCL strategically responds to the penetration and pervasiveness of Internet technologies into everyday activities in the 21st century. Specifically, students are positioned as agentic consumers and producers of civic discourse, tapping into the required abilities of digital citizenship, recognizing and taking responsibility for emerging non‐hierarchical, non‐linear information ecologies in the information networks (Choi et al.2017).

Moral Self‐Concept Linking Civic Competencies and Civic Purpose During DCL

Civic Competencies

Civic competencies, a set of abilities essential for active citizenship (Hoskins et al.2015), are defined and conceptualized in diverse ways (Sherrod2015; Torney‐Purta et al.2015). Nonetheless, there is agreement among researchers that civic competencies are multidimensional, encompassing skills, knowledge, attitudes, and dispositions (e.g., Metzger et al.2018; Wray‐Lake et al.2017). This study specifically refers to the National American Educational Progress framework (NAEP 2018, as cited in Lee et al.2021;[National Center for Education Statistics n.d](#ref-National Center for Education Statistics n.d).) that broadly approaches civic competencies as three dimensions: civic knowledge, skills, and dispositions. Accordingly, we operationalize the concept of civic competencies as a set of abilities that citizens can demonstrate and perform, including their knowledge, skills, and dispositions in authentic contexts. We approach civic competencies specifically “in context,” suggesting a need to capture individuals’ performance not as a self‐reported evaluations or performance as a form of tests, but rather as competencies demonstrated in authentic settings, either individually or collectively.

Civic knowledge (e.g., knowing current events, government systems) and skills (e.g., writing an opinion letter) predict one's future intention for civic actions (Cohen and Chaffee2013), suggesting such skill sets serve as meaningful antecedents for one's citizen life. Civic skills, such as describing, identifying, and elaborating on ideas (Zorwick and Wade2016), co‐constructing knowledge with others (Akar2016), as well as listening to others (Kirlin2003), are essential capacities for competent citizenry (Rutten and Soetaert2013).

Some scholars claim that competencies alone are not sufficient for sustaining long‐term civic engagement in future activities (outside the formal classroom) (Ballard and Ozer2016; Rimanoczy and Llamazares2021). To move from skills to enduring purpose, learners need to experience integration of those competencies into their “self‐driven” activities—a process grounded in identity development and moral motivation. The ESD literature describes the process as “being” as opposed to “doing,” “thinking,” or “knowing.” (see Cripps and Smith2024; Fairfield2018). With that, we posit that moral self‐concept, a psychological construct representing one's perceived importance of moral values to the self, may act as a mechanism translating one's civic competencies into civic purpose. Students who develop competencies during the DCL may only translate these into action if they also see such engagement as part of “who they are.” In this view, moral self‐concept acts as a developmental bridge between what students can do (competencies) and what they choose to do in pursuit of sustainability (purpose).

Moral Self‐Concept

Morality is a complex psychological construct that can be defined in various ways, involving multilayered, multifaceted influences on its development. Aside from individuals’ morally relevant tendencies (e.g., Eisenberg et al.1998), social contexts and environmental influences such as socialization with peers, access to media, involvement in community activities, cultural norms, and prompted reasoning on moral dilemmas all contribute to adolescents’ moral development (e.g., Hart and Carlo2005; Shweder et al.1987; Thompson1971). In line with this, we position morality as individuals’ desirable virtues that are central in human flourishing toward creating the best possible world (see William1995), yet its development is largely shaped by contextual, sociocultural, and environmental factors (Hart and Carlo2005), rather than advancing effortlessly as one's cognitive capacity grows.

We also adopt the definition of moral self‐concept as the extent to which individuals internalize and identify with their purported moral “values” (e.g., justice, honesty, compassion) (Gibbs2019; Patrick et al.2018). Not everyone who understands what should be done or what constitutes best practices for society necessarily act in accordance with these beliefs. This gap is often ascribed to the degree to which moral values are central to one's identity. When such values are perceived as core to the self, individuals are more likely to engage as responsible citizens concerned with the well‐being of others and the sustainability of society. For instance, a classic study by Hart and Fegley (1995) found that care exemplar adolescents, nominated by community members, did not necessarily demonstrate higher moral reasoning than the comparison group. Rather, they identified themselves using more moral, positive, and caring descriptors than others, suggesting that higher centrality of moral values in oneself (i.e., moral self‐concept) leads to higher commitment as citizens (i.e., civic purpose) during adolescence. A study by Porter (2013) on older adolescents also showed that adolescents’ moral self‐concept, when controlling for political self‐concept, explains unique variance in civic involvement: higher moral self‐concept predicts higher civic commitment. Thus, many scholars argue that moral self‐concept functions as a motivational driver for moral behavior (Krettenauer and Hertz2015). Given that many forms of civic engagement are viewed as inherently prosocial and moral in nature, moral self‐concept may serve as a significant predictor of the development of civic purpose (Metzger et al.2018).

ESD frameworks emphasize cognitive and social‐emotional competencies as critical for informed and responsible action (UNESCO2020; Redman and Wiek2021). However, without a sense of personal relevance or moral investment steering students’ activities, even well‐developed skills may not easily translate into sustained civic or sustainability behaviors (Hardy and Carlo2011; Malin et al.2017). This disconnect underscores the critical role of moral self‐concept—a bridge between one's civic and moral motivations and their corresponding actions (Blasi1983; Colby and Damon1992).

Civic Purpose

We posit that civic purpose, one's future oriented and prosocial intention to contribute to the common good by participating in civic activities, is a primary outcome of DCL. Within the framework of ESD, civic purpose moves beyond technical “how to” knowledge to address the “why” of engagement, framing students as social agents committed to societal well‐being.

Previous findings highlight the importance of valid social inputs, optimal surroundings, and well‐designed educational programs in fostering civic purpose in adolescents. For instance, Burrow (2015) asserted that not every adolescent is surrounded by meaningful opportunities for civic engagement that could lead to the development of civic purpose; hence it becomes important to create partnerships with social figures or organizations to promote civic purpose, which can speak to the crucial role of teachers as facilitators in classrooms. Han et al. (2019) also found that adolescents’ moral identity significantly predicted formation and maintenance of political purpose, a more specific and narrowed form of civic purpose bounded in por litical activities. Though their sample was high schoolers, the finding still suggests a possible role of moral self in informing civic purpose development in early adolescents. Quinn and Bauml (2018), investigated how 6th – 9th grade adolescents’ insights they gained during a five‐day civics camp relate to their civic profiles, suggesting linkages between educational experiences and civic purpose. Bauml et al. (2023) later identified three core components of a civic learning approach that effectively foster civic purpose: developmentally appropriate activities, adult guides, and action‐oriented civic curricula.

The Current Study

The current study investigated the relationships among three constructs central to developmentally informed ESD: civic competencies, moral self‐concept, and civic purpose in DCL context. Our aim was to empirically examine whether and how moral self‐concept mediates the association between early adolescents’ civic competencies and their civic purpose for a sustainable future. The DCL curriculum contains four 10‐day units, namely Geography, Citizenship, History, and Economics. For this study, data were collected over two units: Unit 3 (History) and Unit 4 (Economics). Units 1 (Geography) and 2 (Citizenship) were not included in this study because they represented a transition phase during which students and teachers were still adjusting or adapting to the new curriculum. It was not until Unit 3 that classroom interactions and behaviors fully adhered to DCL norms, remaining stable through Unit 4. Two research questions were examined: (1) Do students who show higher levels of civic competencies during their participation in Digital Civic Learning demonstrate greater civic purpose? (2) Does students’ moral self‐concept mediate the association between their civic competencies (knowledge, skills, and dispositions, respectively) and civic purpose?

Method

Study Context

Sample

Participants were 149 4th (50.3%) and 5th (49.7%) graders (Mage= 9.92,SD= 0.71) and eight teachers (four in the 4th grade, four in the 5th grade) from six schools in the two districts in the Midwestern areas of United States. Students and parents were informed about the study objectives and procedures. Those students who assented to participate and whose parents also permitted participation served as participants. All procedures and assessments had been approved by the Institutional Review Board. In this sample, 61.3% were White, 16.7% Black, 5.6% Hispanic, 12.7% Asian, and 3.7% multi‐racial and others. About 47.6% of students were female, and 9.3% students were English learners. According to district‐data, about 14.1% of students received free and reduced lunch.

Teacher Workshop

Teachers participated in a 4‐week online professional development workshop to prepare for the implementation of the Digital Civic Learning (DCL) curriculum in their social studies classrooms. The workshop introduced teachers to the study's goals and timeline, the key principles of DCL activities and instructional approaches, the assessment plan, and an overview of the curriculum. Emphasis was placed on instructional strategies that promote productive dialogue, collaboration, and culturally responsive practices when addressing complex social issues relevant to students’ lived experiences. The workshop included weekly online or in‐person meetings and ongoing dialogue through a dedicated social media platform. Upon completion, teachers were asked to rate the usefulness of the workshop. The average rating was 4.48 out of 5 (SD= 0.53), indicating that participants found the workshop helpful in preparing for DCL implementation.

Procedure

Each unit consisted of 10 school days’ lessons, and on average, it took about 2–3 weeks for each teacher to complete one unit, mainly because some teachers spent more time debriefing the lesson purpose, allowed additional time for collaborative discussion among students, and oftentimes, there were days with no DCL lessons due to the school events or weather. Throughout the DCL, students were immersed into cultural and historical contexts to learn about civic topics and indirectly experience situations of others through whole‐group and small group‐based audio listening, video watching, and activities (e.g., a time warp, identity tree, and group shopping). Lessons started with the review of the previous day's highlights to help students experience sequential, connected, and coherent learning throughout the curriculum. Students spent 2 days (Day 3, 9) discussing suggested prompts (e.g.,“What advice would you give to the people in charge of deciding whether a pipeline should be built? Why do you think this advice would be helpful?”) in both small and whole group settings, involving face‐to‐face and online discussions. Discussion prompts were derived from assigned readings, videos they watched, and class activities. Students were asked to express their thoughts and feelings in the form of self‐recorded videos, reflective essays, and interactive online discussion threads embedded in the Learning Management System (LMS).

Self‐reported survey assessments (moral self‐concept, civic purpose) were administered twice before Unit 3 and after Unit 4. Qualitative data were collected while students participated in the DCL curriculum, using multiple sources representing student participation, namely group discussion threads, self‐recorded videos, and individual essays submitted on Day 9 of Unit 3 and 4. Civic competency indices were calculated based on the qualitative data derived from such simulated public deliberation, community storytelling, and ethical dilemma discussions related to environmental and social justice (see Section null below).

Using regression analyses, we examined whether civic competencies predicted civic purpose. Using a mediation analysis, we tested whether civic competencies (i.e., knowledge, skills, dispositions) predicted civic purpose and whether this relationship is mediated by moral self‐concept.

Measures

Moral Self‐Concept

Moral self‐concept was assessed using the Moral Self‐Relevance Measure (MSR; Patrick and Gibbs2012). Participants were presented with eight moral attributes (e.g.,considerate,honest) and eight non‐moral attributes (e.g.,funny,outgoing). To enhance clarity, each item was accompanied by two synonyms (e.g., “How important is it to you that you are generous or giving?”). Participants rated the importance of each trait on a 5‐point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not important) to 4 (extremely important). Non‐moral items were included to obscure the primary focus of the measure. The MSR has demonstrated strong internal consistency for the moral subscale (α= 0.83–0.90; Patrick and Gibbs2012,2016; Patrick et al.2018). In the current study, internal consistency for the moral subscale was satisfactory at both before Unit3 and after Unit4 (T1:α= 0.813; T2:α= 0.852).

Civic Purpose

Civic purpose was assessed with three subscales (intention, motivation, action), informed by Malin et al. (2017). Thecivic intentionsubscale assessed the extent to which students perceived civic activities as important and meaningful in their lives, using an adapted version of Malin et al.’s (2017) scale. This subscale has demonstrated good reliability (α= 0.77–0.81; Malin et al.2015,2017). Students rated the importance and meaningfulness of five civic activities (e.g., “making a difference through volunteering”) on a 5‐point Likert scale ranging fromnot at all meaningfultoextremely meaningful. Minor wording adjustments were made for developmental appropriateness while preserving original meanings (e.g., “being involved in politics” was rephrased as “participating in political activities like voting, campaigns, or protests”) (see full items in Kim,2023). Internal consistency in the current study was acceptable (T1:α= 0.768; T2:α= 0.807).

Thecivic motivationsubscale assessed students’ underlying reasons for civic participation, based on Malin et al. (2017), which was developed from themes identified in Ballard's (2015) qualitative research. The original 12‐item scale included both self‐oriented (e.g., “to meet school's requirement”) and beyond‐the‐self (e.g., “to give back what I have been given”) motivations. In this study, rather than using a ranking method, items were presented on a 5‐point Likert scale to generate average scores. To reduce participant fatigue, the scale was shortened to eight items—four for each motivation type. Only the beyond‐the‐self subscale was used, aligning with the conceptual focus on civic purpose. Internal consistency wasα= 0.676 (T1) andα= 0.753 (T2).

Thecivic actionsubscale captured students’ engagement in civic behaviors using a modified version of the Youth Inventory of Involvement measure (Pancer et al.2007), previously validated by Malin et al. (2015) to include three reliable factors: political/leadership activities, expressive activities, and community service (α= 0.70–0.83). The original 15‐item scale was shortened to six items, with simplified wording appropriate for fourth and fifth graders (Kim,2023). For instance, “giving money to a cause” was revised as “donating money or other things (e.g., food, clothes) to people who are in need.” Items were rated on a 5‐point Likert scale. Internal consistency for this subscale wasα= 0.716 (T1) andα= 0.675 (T2).

The overall internal consistency of civic purpose, combining three subscales, was satisfactory (α= 0.808 for T1,α= 0.851 for T2).

Civic Competencies (Knowledge, Skills, Dispositions) in Digital Learning

Students’civic knowledge, skills, and dispositionsarising from immersive learning and civic reasoning during the DCL curriculum were assessed using three primary sources of data collected via students’ participation in multimodal activities: (1) weekly online discussion board posts submitted at the end of each unit; (2) individual online argumentative essays submitted at the end of each unit; and (3) video reflections recorded at the end of each unit using a self‐recording software, Flip. These data sources were selected because they provide valid insights into students’ civic understanding and development as summative assessments for each unit. Civic competencies, as assessed in this study, represent students’ engagement and expression in various communicative forms (e.g., written forms, verbal forms) “in” digital spaces and “using” digital tools (e.g., online learning platforms, digital software).

To analyze these data, we developed a civic competencies coding scheme based on the Civics Assessment Framework suggested by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP 2018, as cited in Lee et al.2021). This framework was chosen for its comprehensive coverage of essential civic competencies identified in the civic development literature, including civic knowledge, values, and skills (Galston2007; Hamilton and Kaufman2022; Metzger et al.2018). It encompasses both cognitive and affective dimensions of civic reasoning, aligning with the goals of DCL to foster holistic civic development. To further develop a coding scheme tailored to capture students’ emerging civic competencies, while following the NAEP civics framework (i.e., a deductive approach), the primary coder used 25% of student‐generated responses to discussion/essay prompts (discussion board posts, self‐recording video essays, individual reflective essays) from Units 1 and 2 (pilot data not used for the study) to identify context‐specific civic competencies that were relevant to the characteristics of DCL (i.e., an inductive approach). Using both deductive and inductive approaches, the primary and secondary coders then conducted content analysis (Kondracki et al.2002) to additionally identify themes and iteratively develop and finzlie the coding scheme, drawing on discourse data from Units 3 and 4 (data used for the study).

The qualitative data (video essays, discussion board posts, reflective essays) were segmented into sentences as the unit of analysis. Each sentence was coded with respect to three dimensions of civic competencies (civic knowledge, skills, dispositions.) For example, if a sentence involved civic knowledge, a specific subcode of civic knowledge was assigned, such as “civil society.” The same sentence was simultaneously coded for civic skills (e.g., elaborating) and dispositions (e.g., prosocial). If a sentence did not involve any respective civic competencies, it was coded as NA (nonapplicable). It was possible that a sentence demonstrated one dimension of civic competencies but not the others. The number of sentences with an assigned subcode was calculated for each dimension for each student, respecting their levels of civic knowledge, skills, and dispositions. It was also possible that a sentence involved more than one codable subcode in one dimension. For instance, a sentence “I like the idea but I also would like to know more” could be coded as either “praising” or “asking for clarification” for civic skills dimension. The coder(s) evaluated which aspect was closer to the main purpose of the comment made by the interlocutor, especially when considering how the sentence connected to previous and later comments for contextual validity. In this example, given that the positive comment was made to clarify the student's further request, the coder(s) assigned “asking for clarification” rather than “praise.” Hence, all sentences were assigned only one sub‐code under each dimension of civic competencies. Decisions about the most dominant subcode for sentences that potentially involved more than one codable subcode had minimal influence on the study's findings, because the subsequent analysesfocused mainly on the number of sentence units coded as valid civic competencies (i.e., sentences not coded as NA), which did not require differentiation among subcodes.

To assess inter‐rater reliability, the primary coder coded the full dataset, while a second coder independently coded 20% of each data source (i.e., 20% of Flip responses for Units 3 and 4, 20% of online discussion board posts, and 20% of individual written essays). Inter‐coder reliability was evaluated using Cohen's Kappa and demonstrated satisfactory agreement across all civic domains: civic knowledge (κ= 0.826), skills (κ= 0.873), and dispositions (κ= 0.996). Students’ levels of civic knowledge, skills, and dispositions were then determined by counting the number of applicable subcodes that appeared in their responses, based on the finalized codes established by the primary coder.

Civic Knowledge

Civic knowledgedimension concerns “what” students “know” about the social world, including structures, systems, histories, and the interrelations among them. The definitions and examples are drawn from students’ participation in DCL activities (see Table1). In this study, civic knowledge specifically encompassed content knowledge related to the history of Native Americans and economic knowledge associated with food insecurity—reflecting the thematic focus of the two curricular units on History and Economics. The civic knowledge dimension yielded six different subcodes: political and government system, civil society, social and historical events, social issues, economics, and international affairs. The sentences without civic knowledge were assigned NA.

Table: Knowledge dimension of civic competencies coding scheme (Kim2023).

These codes under civic knowledge are not only civically relevant but also deeply connected to key issues of sustainable development goals (SDG), such as reducing inequality (SDG 10), ensuring food security (SDG 2), and promoting inclusive societies (SDG 16). Understanding the historical marginalization of Indigenous communities and the structural causes of food insecurity helps students recognize how social, economic, and political systems contribute to injustice and unsustainability.

Civic Skills

Civic skillsare understood as “applying civic knowledge to good effect” ([NCES n.d](#ref-NCES n.d).). Civic skills are typically categorized into two broad domains:intellectual skillsandparticipatory skills. According to the NAEP framework,intellectual skillsinclude the ability to (a) identify and describe civic concepts, (b) explain and analyze ideas, and (c) evaluate, adopt, and defend positions—skills that reflect cognitive engagement and reasoning. In contrast,participatory skillspertain to interpersonal and social competencies, such as (a) interacting (e.g., cooperating with others), (b) monitoring (e.g., tracking civic or political developments), and (c) influencing (e.g., voting in a student organization). In this study, we focused on students’intellectual skillsand theinteractingcomponent ofparticipatory skills, as these are most observable within a classroom setting (see Table2). Civic skills dimension yielded a total of 10 subcodes aside from NA (nonapplicable): explaining/elaborating, positioning, justifying, hypothetical reasoning, causal reasoning, referencing, praising, expanding, asking for clarification, and simple dis/agreement.

Table: Skills dimension of civic competencies coding scheme (Kim2023).

Civic skillsalign closely with the competencies emphasized in ESD and Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 4.7, which highlight the importance of equipping learners with the ability to think critically, engage in dialogue, collaborate across differences, and take informed action toward sustainable futures. Intellectual and participatory civic skills enable young people to understand and address complex, interconnected global challenges such as climate justice and inequality, not merely as issues of knowledge, but as collective responsibilities. In this way, civic skills support the development of active, informed, and responsible citizens who can contribute to building a sustainable society.

Civic Dispositions

Civic dispositionsrefer to the tendencies or orientations—such as critical consciousness, empathy, respect, and responsibility—that are fundamental to sustaining societal values and promoting the common good. The newly developed civic competencies coding scheme identified seven dispositions (see Table3): empathy (empathetic), perspective taking (considerate), self‐transcendence (prosocial), social capital (open‐minded), respect for human dignity (respectful), critical consciousness (critical), and responsibility (responsible). Civic disposition codes were used to identify the underlying orientations that motivated and shaped students’ reasoning and discourse during their participation in DCL. These civic dispositions are also central to the goals of sustainable development, as outlined in SDG 4.7, which calls for education that promotes the knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes needed to live sustainably, promote human rights, gender equality, and a culture of peace and non‐violence. Dispositions such as empathy and critical consciousness empower students to recognize injustice, engage with diverse perspectives, and act in ways that support inclusive and sustainable communities. Thus, civic dispositions not only contribute to democratic engagement but also serve as affective and ethical foundations for advancing the values and practices of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) and fostering a more just, equitable, and sustainable future.

Table: Dispositions dimension of civic competencies coding scheme (Kim2023).

Results

Descriptive Analysis

The means and standard deviations of focal variables are presented in Tables4and5, and self‐reported focal variables are presented in Table4. The variables fell under acceptable skewness (<|2|) and kurtosis (<|7|) ranges (Bryne2010; Hair et al.2010) and were normally distributed. Descriptive statistics for civic competencies derived from the civic competencies coding scheme are presented in Table5.

Table: Descriptive statistics of self‐report measures

Table: Descriptive statistics of civic competencies

Table6shows each civic competency subcode's means and standard deviations. A student, on average, generated 29.97 sentences in total across three modalities: individual essays, Flip (self‐recording), and online discussion boards over two units. Each sentence was coded for three dimensions of civic competencies: knowledge, skills, and dispositions. Students generated more NA (Not Applicable) codes for knowledge (M= 21.82,SD= 15.14) and dispositions (M= 24.43,SD= 18.28) than for skills (M= 3.71,SD= 5.36).; 87.62% of sentences received valid civic skills whereas only 18.49%–27.19% of sentences involved valid subcodes in civic dispositions and knowledge, respectively. Social issues (M= 2.31,SD= 2.66) and economy (M= 2.32,SD= 3.18) were the most dominant codes for civic knowledge. For civic skills, elaboration skill was most dominant (M= 8.50,SD= 7.96), followed by positioning (M= 5.87,SD= 4.63) and justification (M= 5.16,SD= 3.74). For civic disposition, social perspective taking (M= 2.24,SD= 2.49) stood out.

Table: Means and standard deviations of subcodes of civic competencies.

Missing data analysis was conducted to identify patterns of missing. Little's MCAR test using SPSS software indicated that the focal variables and covariates used in the analyses were missing completely at random (p= 0.443). Therefore, analyses based on the listwise methods for research question 1 did not bias the results. Analyses using Mplus were conducted using full information maximum likelihood (FIML) strategy for research question 2. The correlations between the aforementioned variables are presented in Table7. Students’ moral self‐concept at pre‐test and post‐test were moderately correlated (r= 0.442) and this pattern of correlation was similar for civic purpose (r= 0.442–0.547). The correlations among three indices of civic competencies, knowledge, skills, and dispositions were moderate to high (r= 0.590–0.801). These civic competencies were significantly correlated with students’ moral self‐concept at both time points (r= 0.190–0.239)

Table: Correlations among moral self‐concept, civic purpose, and civic competencies.

Research Question 1: The Predictability of Civic Competencies on Civic Purpose

Regression analyses were used to address research question 1. Three models were run, each including civic knowledge, civic skills, and civic dispositions as a predictor with a set of covariates: gender, race, district, grade, and family resource (Table8). In all cases, female students showed lower civic purpose than male students (β= −0.254,SE= 0.112,p< 0.05 for civic knowledge,β= –0.262,SE= 0.113,p< 0.05 for civic skills, andβ= –0.259,SE= 0.114,p< 0.05 for civic disposition). Students’ civic purpose at T1 significantly predicted civic purpose at T2 in all models (β= 0.551,SE= 0.099,p< 0.001 for civic knowledge model,β= 0.548,SE= 0.099,p< 0.001 for civic skills model, andβ= 0.546,SE= 0.099,p< 0.001 for civic disposition model). However, none of the civic knowledge, skills, and dispositions predicted civic purpose at T2 after controlling for civic purpose at T1 and covariates.

Table: (RQ1) Predictability of civic competencies on civic purpose.

Research Question 2: The Mediating Role of Moral Self‐Concept Between Civic Competencies and Civic Purpose

We explored the mediation effect of moral self‐concept at T2 in the association between students’ civic competencies (knowledge, skills, and dispositions) and civic purpose at T2. Student demographic backgrounds and civic purpose at T1 were controlled and a bootstrapping test was employed, using 500 samples (Table9).

Table: (Research Question2) The Mediating role of moral self‐concept between civic competencies and civic purpose.

Although the result from research question 1 showed that civic competencies did not predict civic purpose, examining a mediation effect while the direct effect is nonsignificant remains a logical approach since the existence of significant association between X and Y is not a precondition in testing a mediation effect (Hayes2017). Even though mediation analyses would not guarantee causal inferences (Vo et al.2020), the time points of measures, where civic competencies (X) were captured during students’ participation in DCL prior to the assessment of moral self‐concept (M) and civic purpose (Y), enabled us to interpret that students’ civic competencies serve as a precursor in informing moral self‐concept, which in turn mediates the relation between civic competencies and civic purpose (see Gunzler et al.2013).

Mediation analyses using Mplus showed acceptable model fits: civic knowledge (CFI = 1.000, TLI = 1.000, RMSEA = 0.000, SRMR = 0.040), civic skills (CFI = 1.000, TLI = 1.000, RMSEA = 0.000, SRMR = 0.042), and civic dispositions (CFI = 0.962, TLI = 0.905, RMSEA = 0.079, SRMR = 0.056). The results are presented in Table9based on the standardized coefficients. There was a significant mediation effect of moral self‐concept (T2) in the relation between civic knowledge and civic purpose (T2) (β= 0.045,SE= 0.017,p< 0.01, 95% bootstrap CI [0.010, 0.076]) as well as civic skills and civic purpose (T2) (β= 0.024,SE= 0.008,p< 0.01, 95% bootstrap CI [0.007, 0.040]). However, this trend was marginally significant in the association between civic dispositions and civic purpose (β= 0.053,SE= 0.030,p< 0.10, 95% bootstrap CI [–0.007, 0.109]).

Discussion

This study contributes to emerging scholarship at the intersection of civic education and sustainability by highlighting moral self‐concept as a critical developmental construct that links civic competencies to a deeper, more enduring sense of civic purpose. While civic competencies provide the requisite knowledge and skills for civic engagement (Ballard and Ozer2016), our findings suggest they are not sufficient to sustain a long‐term orientation toward social and ecological well‐being, a key aim of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) as articulated in SDG 4.7. Instead, it is the internalization of civic and moral values—reflected in early adolescents’ developing moral self‐concept—that transforms competencies into meaningful, sustained engagement.

DCL provided a rich learning and social context where students can demonstrate their civic competencies by generating and articulating civic knowledge and showing intellectual and social skills motivated by different civic dispositions. Based on the descriptive findings, it is noteworthy that the social perspective taking disposition appeared most frequently in students’ video essays, discussion posts, and reflective essays. One possible explanation is that participants in this study, ranging from 8 to 11 years old, were in the active developmental period experiencing decentralization, where they gradually shift away from egocentrism by expanding their understanding of others’ perspectives (Hoffman2008; Spinrad and Eisenberg2014).

Another noteworthy descriptive finding is that students demonstrated a relatively wider range in their civic skills than in their civic knowledge or dispositions. This can be partially explained by the study context, where positive social norms of group discussions actively encourage students to participate in dialogue. Because simple expressions, such as dis/agreeing to others’ ideas respectfully or praising groupmates’ contributions, were coded as valid civic skills, students could readily demonstrate these skills as part of adhering to positive social norms. This likely contributed to higher means and a wider range for skills compared to knowledge or dispositions. With that, civic skills that stood out compared to knowledge or dispositions in this study may be interpreted with the sociocultural perspective that participation by itself serves as a process of appropriation (Rogoff1995; Vygotsky1978).

Surprisingly, none of the civic knowledge, skills, or dispositions demonstrated by students during the DCL significantly predicted civic purpose at post‐test, once background characteristics, moral self‐concept, and baseline civic purpose were accounted for. While this finding challenges dominant assumptions in civic education scholarship, which often emphasize civic competencies as foundational for youth civic development (e.g., Diković and Zečević2020; Ten Dam et al.2011), it also suggests these competencies may still contribute to mature citizenry indirectly through a fostered moral self‐concept.

Our findings on the mediating role of moral self‐concept further suggest that the development of a moral self is foundational to cultivating civic purpose in early adolescents. Early adolescents with a strong moral self‐concept are more likely to experience empathy, intrinsic motivation, and a sense of accountability (e.g., Castro‐Sánchez et al.2019)—all essential for engaging with complex sustainability issues such as inequality, environmental justice, and community resilience (SDG 16). Developmentally, there has been mixed findings and arguments about whether moral self‐concept in early adolescence is reliable or not (see Kingsford et al.2018), and whether the integration of morality into oneself is available to this age or not (see Krettenauer and Hertz2015). However, the findings speak to the plausibility of the self‐congruence principle (Blasi1983), working similarly in young students as young as early adolescents; high moral self‐concept, assessed as the centrality and perceived importance of moral values such as being just, helpful, and sympathetic, serves as a bridge connecting their competencies (e.g., civic knowledge) and commitment (e.g., civic purpose). Even if our findings can only speak to the implications specifically for early adolescents, previous empirical studies on adolescents in general seem to support such an approach of cultivating moral self‐concept as a way to nurture mature citizens for sustainable development; adolescents who perceive themselves as moral are more likely to participate in civic activities such as volunteering in both middle adolescence (Mage= 15.5; Hart and Fegley1995) and late adolescence (Mage= 17.4; Porter2013), although findings are not always consistent (e.g., Pratt et al.2003).

It is also possible that students’ engagement in the socially‐ and morally‐complex, open‐ended group projects in DCL required them to reflect on and examine their own value systems. This process encourages them to examine their own belief systems, thereby cultivating relevant moral values (García‐Moriyón et al.2020). For instance, student‐generated responses on the discussion board, self‐recording software, and online individual essays reflected such mechanisms. Students’ remarks represented the emerging moral values such as being “considerate” (e.g.,“Imagine signing something that is an agreement that should not be broken.”), “sympathetic” (“I feel bad for the Sioux.”), “fair/just” (e.g.,“It was unfair for the people who liked standing rock because they did not agree with the pipeline going through standing rock.”), and “responsible”(“I will give Cheryl beans because it will help the environment too”), to name a few. Thus, DCL seems to have provided valid learning contexts where students, as communicative beings (Shor and Freire1987), co‐create knowledge through repeated and well‐designed reflections, while engaging with the world and recreating their understanding of society, dialectically (Robert1998). In line with this, DCL's curricular features with situated conversations involving value judgments might have expanded and promoted “self‐transcendence,” leading to civic purpose; discussion prompts challenge students to think about societal issues, responsibilities in different roles and contexts, basically asking them to reason beyond personal concerns. This process helps students recognize person‐community relations and one's roles in the social world (see Houser2007), tapping into the notion of praxis, that is, reflection and action upon the world (Freire1970).

Taken together, the findings underscore the need to move beyond technical or procedural civic education. Preparing youth for sustainability challenges requires engaging the moral, emotional, and existential dimensions of development as an integrated whole. Cultivating moral self‐concept during early adolescence may be a developmentally strategic and equity‐driven approach to fostering purposeful, sustainability‐minded citizens.

Significance and Contribution

This study contributes to developmental science by clarifying the mechanisms through which civic development unfolds within the framework of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), particularly through the pedagogical model of Digital Civic Learning (DCL). The findings highlight the central role of moral self‐concept in bridging civic competencies and civic purpose, especially during early adolescence—a developmental window characterized by heightened self‐reflection and identity formation. This underscores the importance of educational interventions that attend not only to what children learn about, but also to who they are becoming as ethical, responsible, and future‐oriented individuals.

Specifically, this study extends the existing knowledge on civic competencies and sustainability education by providing detailed snapshots of how early adolescents actually participate, engage in, and demonstrate their competencies in their daily learning environments within sustainability education settings, particularly using digital tools and in digital spaces. In order to realistically capture these civic competencies in a digital learning setting, we employed a performance‐based assessment approach to reveal students’ civic knowledge, skills, and dispositions as demonstrated through their online discussions, individual writing, and self‐recorded videos over the DCL curriculum, tapping into digital citizenship. Echoing other researchers that digital citizenship must be understood as wider than traditional forms of civic engagement and action (Choi et al.2017; Kahne et al.2013), civic competencies, demonstrated in class with a digital civic curriculum, competently formulates digital community among students (Hollandsworth et al.2011). As much as classroom‐based, character education‐aligned digital citizenship learning for K‐12 education is needed, the study advances the knowledge of sustainability education and civic competencies by revealing where students in this age group stand in terms of their civic knowledge, skills, and dispositions, while further providing empirical support on the role of moral self‐concept as a developmental asset linking such civic competencies and civic purpose in early adolescence.

These forms of student‐generated data, embedded within the flow of authentic learning experiences, offer distinct advantages from an ESD perspective because civic participation within the classroom can mirror civic life in broader social contexts—providing a living laboratory for cultivating the competencies that underpin sustainable and participatory societies (Kirlin2003). Though such an approach of authentic, organic performance‐based assessments reveals how students’ civic competencies would unfold in real‐life settings, it is inherently influenced by a range of individual and contextual variables: academic motivation (e.g., willingness to engage in discourse), peer dynamics (e.g., feelings of safety in expressing views), content comprehension, and technological self‐efficacy. Rather than viewing these as confounding variables, ESD frames them as integral to the development of civic agency. Thus, the measures we developed with the new coding scheme may not fully isolate individuals’ personal and surrounding factors, they offer greater ecological validity than decontextualized, self‐reported perceptions. From an ESD lens, civic competencies—such as critical thinking, collaboration, intercultural understanding, and ethical reflection—are not fixed attributes but context‐sensitive capabilities that evolve through participation in meaningful, dialogic, and socially embedded learning. Our exploratory approach—using authentic learning performances to assess civic competencies—provides an important contribution to the field, offering new insights into the complex developmental pathways that underlie sustainability‐oriented citizenship.

Study Limitation and Future Research

Because the study framed civic purpose as a developmentally desirable outcome in early adolescence, civic purpose was assessed only once after the DCL curriculum, without follow‐up measurements. This design limits the ability to determine whether students’ civic purpose is sustained over time. Conceptually, civically purposeful youth would maintain both their desire and engagement in civic activities over time, yet little is known about whether, and for how long, civic purpose changes or is maintained in response to educational inputs such as curricula. Future research should therefore incorporate follow‐up assessments to clarify the developmental course and stability of civic purpose in early adolescents.

Additionally, since moral self‐concept, positioned as a mediator, was measured concurrently with civic purpose, the findings cannot provide evidence for causal inference, which would require civic purpose to be assessed at a later time point. Therefore, the interpretation of moral self‐concept as mediating the relationship between civic competencies and civic purpose should be situated within existing theoretical frameworks, such as moral identity theory and the self‐congruence principle.

Another promising direction for future research would be to apply a microgenetic approach that examines the processual development of civic competencies over time. This would allow researchers to zoom in and trace how students construct, revise, and internalize civic ideas and values—yielding deeper insights into the developmental trajectories of civic competencies and related learning outcomes.

Conclusion

Aligned with the aims of ESD and the targets of SDG 4.7,Quality Education, the results emphasize the value of holistic educational approaches that integrate cognitive, emotional, and moral dimensions of learning. The DCL curriculum exemplifies how embedding complex, real‐world civic dilemmas into students’ learning—through both digital and in‐person modalities—can provide rich opportunities for critical thinking, moral reflection, and the construction of civic purpose.

Educators who align their instruction with ESD principles—by incorporating critical inquiry into sustainability challenges, promoting inclusive and participatory dialogue, and connecting civic content to students’ lived experiences—can support students in developing not only the capabilities but also the intrinsic motivation to act on behalf of the common good. Such approaches advance the goals of ESD by preparing students to engage with complexity, recognize interconnectedness, and contribute meaningfully to building a more positive and sustainable future.

Educators need to actively employ participatory, technology‐based immersive, experiential learning models such as DCL in their classrooms. The emphasis that such curricula place on ethically charged dilemmas, values‐based reflection, and multi‐stakeholder perspectives align directly with the aims of ESD, which promotes not only cognitive skills but also the emotional and ethical dimensions of sustainable development.

Ethics Statement

All procedures performed in the study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

1. Akar, B. 2016. “Dialogic Pedagogies in Educational Settings for Active Citizenship, Social Cohesion and Peacebuilding in Lebanon. ”Education, Citizenship and Social Justice11, no. 1: 44–62.
2. Anderman, E. M. , Y. Sheng, andW. Cha. 2024. “Why Do I Have to Learn This?”Phi Delta Kappan105, no. 5: 8–12.
3. Anderson, R. C. , K. Nguyen‐Jahiel, B. McNurlen, et al. 2001. “The Snowball Phenomenon: Spread of Ways of Talking and Ways of Thinking Across Groups of Children. ”Cognition and Instruction19, no. 1: 1–46.
4. Aquino, K. , andA. ReedII. 2002. “The Self‐Importance of Moral Identity. ”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology83, no. 6: 1423. doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.83.6.1423
5. Ballard, P. J. , H. Malin, T. J. Porter, A. Colby, andW. Damon. 2015. “Motivations for Civic Participation Among Diverse Youth: More Similarities Than Differences. ”Research in Human Development12, no. 1‐2: 63–83.
6. Ballard, P. J. , andE. Ozer. 2016. “The Implications of Youthactivism for Health and Well‐being. ” InContemporary Youth Activism: Advancingsocial Justice in the United States, edited byJ. O. ConnerandS. M. Rosen. Praeger.
7. Bandura, A. 2001. “Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective. ”Annual Review of Psychology52, no. 1: 1–26. . doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
8. Banks, J. A. 2008. “Diversity, Group Identity, and Citizenship Education in a Global Age. ”Educational Researcher37, no. 3: 129–139. . doi.org/10.3102/0013189x08317501
9. Barriga, A. Q. , E. M. Morrison, A. K. Liau, andJ. C. Gibbs. 2001. “Moral Cognition: Explaining the Gender Difference in Antisocial Behavior. ”Merrill‐Palmer Quarterly47, no. 4: 532–562.
10. Bauml, M. , B. P. Quinn, B. Blevins, K. R. Magill, andK. LeCompte. 2023. ““I Really Want to Do Something”: How Civic Education Activities Promote Thinking Toward Civic Purpose Among Early Adolescents. ”Journal of Adolescent Research38, no. 1: 110–142.
11. Benson, P. L. , P. C. Scales, andE. C. Roehlkepartain. 2011. “Spiritual Development in Childhood and Adolescence: Toward a Field of Inquiry. ”Applied Developmental Science15, no. 3: 109–117. . doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2011.587196
12. Blasi, A. 1983. “Moral Cognition and Moral Action: A Theoretical Perspective. ”Developmental Review3, no. 2: 178–210.
13. Bondü, R. , andM. Kleinfeldt. 2021. “Justice Sensitivity in Middle Childhood: A Replication and Extension of Findings. ”Frontiers in Psychology11: 610414. doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.610414
14. Bryne, B. M. 2010. Structural Equation Modeling With AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. 2nd ed. Routledge.
15. Bucea‐Manea‐Țoniș, R. , D. G. Păun, O. M. Martins, A. J. Santos, andL. Urdeș. 2024. “Education for Sustainable Development: What Matters?”Sustainability16, no. 21: 9493.
16. Burrow, A. L. 2015. “Illuminating Pathways to Civic Purpose. ”Human Development58, no. 2: 131–136.
17. Buttelmann, F. , andJ. Karbach. 2017. “Development and Plasticity of Cognitive Flexibility in Early and Middle Childhood. ”Frontiers in Psychology8: 258078. doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01040
18. Casey, B. J. , S. Getz, andA. Galvan. 2008. “The Adolescent Brain. ”Developmental Review28, no. 1: 62–77. doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2007.08.003
19. Castells, M. 1996. The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. Vol. 1, S81. Blackwell Publishers.
20. Castro‐Sánchez, M. , F. Zurita‐Ortega, G. R. R. Ruiz, andR. Chacón‐Cuberos. 2019. “Explanatory Model of Violent Behaviours, Self‐Concept and Empathy in Schoolchildren. Structural Equations Analysis. ”PLoS ONE14, no. 8: e0217899. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217899
21. Cha, W. , M. Hong, M. Glassman, E. M. Anderman, andT. J. Lin. 2025. “The Roles of Technology Efficacy and Networking Agency in Elementary Students' Engagement in Online and Face‐to‐Face Technology‐Mediated Learning. ”British Journal of Educational Technology56, no. 6: 2623–2646.
22. Choi, M. , M. Glassman, andD. Cristol. 2017. “What It Means to be a Citizen in the Internet Age: Development of a Reliable and Valid Digital Citizenship Scale. ”Computers & Education107: 100–112.
23. Claro, P. B. , andN. R. Esteves. 2021. “Teaching Sustainability‐Oriented Capabilities Using Active Learning Approach. ”International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education22, no. 6: 1246–1265.
24. Cohen, A. K. , andB. W. Chaffee. 2013. “The Relationship Between Adolescents' Civic Knowledge, Civic Attitude, and Civic Behavior and Their Self‐Reported Future Likelihood of Voting. ”Education, Citizenship and Social Justice8, no. 1: 43–57. doi.org/10.1177/1746197912456339
25. Colby, A. , andW. Damon. 1992. Some Do Care: Contemporary Lives of Moral Commitment. Free Press.
26. Cripps, K. , andS. Smith. 2024. “Embedding a Sustainability Mindset in Responsible Management Education. ”International Journal of Organizational Analysis32, no. 8: 1522–1538.
27. Cristóvão, A. M. , S. Valente, H. Rebelo, andA. F. Ruivo. 2023. “Emotional Education for Sustainable Development: A Curriculum Analysis of Teacher Training in Portugal and Spain. ”Frontiers in Education8: Article1165319.
28. Dahl, R. E. , N. B. Allen, L. Wilbrecht, andA. B. Suleiman. 2018. “Importance of Investing in Adolescence From a Developmental Science Perspective. ”Nature554, no. 7693: 441–450. doi.org/10.1038/nature25770
29. Damon, W. 2009. The Path to Purpose: How Young People Find Their Calling in Life. Free Press.
30. Damon, W. , andD. Hart. 1982. “The Development of Self‐Understanding From Infancy Through Adolescence. ”Child Development53: 841–864. . doi.org/10.2307/1129122
31. Davis, B. , andD. Sumara. 2006. Complexity and Education: Inquiries Into Learning, Teaching, and Research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
32. Denham, S. A. 2006. “Social‐Emotional Competence as Support for School Readiness: What Is It and How Do We Assess It?”Early Education and Development17, no. 1: 57–89. . doi.org/10.1207/s15566935eed1701_4
33. Dewey, J. 1916. “Nationalizing Education. ”Journal of Education84, no. 16: 425–428.
34. Diković, M. , andM. Zečević. 2020. “Children and Youthʼs Acqusition of the Civic Competence: A Comparative Analysis of the Republic of Croatia and England. ”Economic Research‐Ekonomska istraživanja33, no. 1: 1222–1239.
35. Dzhengiz, T. , andE. Niesten. 2020. “Competences for Environmental Sustainability: A Systematic Review on the Impact of Absorptive Capacity and Capabilities. ”Journal of Business Ethics162, no. 4: 881–906.
36. Eisenberg, N. , R. A. Fabes, S. A. Shepard, B. C. Murphy, S. Jones, andI. K. Guthrie. 1998. “Contemporaneous and Longitudinal Prediction of Children's Sympathy From Dispositional Regulation and Emotionality. ”Developmental Psychology34, no. 5: 910. doi.org/10.1037//0012-1649.34.5.910
37. Eisenberg, N. , R. A. Fabes, andT. L. Spinrad. 2006. “Prosocial Development. ” InHandbook of Child Psychology: Social, Emotional, and Personality Development, edited byN. Eisenberg, 6th ed. , Vol. 3, 646–718. Wiley.
38. Fairfield, K. D. 2018. “Educating for a Sustainability Mindset. ”Journal of Management for Global Sustainability6, no. 1: 21–44.
39. Freire, P. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Continuum.
40. Galston, W. A. 2007. “Civic Knowledge, Civic Education, and Civic Engagement: A Summary of Recent Research. ”International Journal of Public Administration30, no. 6‐7: 623–642.
41. García‐Moriyón, F. , J. González‐Lamas, J. Botella, et al. 2020. “Research in Moral Education: The Contribution of P4C to the Moral Growth of Students. ”Education Sciences10, no. 4: 119.
42. Gibbs, J. C. 2019. Moral Development and Reality: Beyond the Theories of Kohlberg, Hoffman, and Haidt. Oxford University Press.
43. Glassman, M. 2001. “Dewey and Vygotsky: Society, Experience, and Inquiry in Educational Practice. ”Educational Researcher30, no. 4: 3–14.
44. Glassman, M. , andG. Erdem. 2014. “Participatory Action Research and Its Meanings: Vivencia, Praxis, Conscientization. ”Adult Education Quarterly64, no. 3: 206–221.
45. Gunzler, D. , T. Chen, P. Wu, andH. Zhang. 2013. “Introduction to Mediation Analysis With Structural Equation Modeling. ”Shanghai Archives of Psychiatry25, no. 6: 390. doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-0829.2013.06.009
46. Hair, J. F. , W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, andR. E. Anderson. 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective. 7th ed. Pearson.
47. Hamilton, L. S. , andJ. H. Kaufman. 2022. “Indicators of Equitable Civic Learning in US Public Schools. ”Educational Assessment27, no. 2: 187–196.
48. Han, H. , I. Liauw, andA. F. Kuntz. 2019. “Moral Identity Predicts the Development of Presence of Meaning During Emerging Adulthood. ”Emerging Adulthood7, no. 3: 230–237.
49. Hardy, S. A. , andG. Carlo. 2011. “Moral Identity: What Is It, How Does It Develop, and Is It Linked to Moral Action?”Child Development Perspectives5, no. 3: 212–218.
50. Hart, D. , andG. Carlo. 2005. “Moral Development in Adolescence. ”Journal of Research on Adolescence15, no. 3: 223–233.
51. Hart, D. , andS. Fegley. 1995. “Prosocial Behavior and Caring in Adolescence: Relations to Self‐Understanding and Social Judgment. ”Child Development66, no. 5: 1346–1359.
52. Haski‐Leventhal, D. , M. Pournader, andA. McKinnon. 2022. The Sustainability Mindset Principles: A Guide to Developing a Mindset for a Better World. Palgrave Macmillan. . doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87624-1
53. Hayes, A. F. 2017. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression‐Based Approach. 2nd ed. Guilford Press.
54. Hoffman, M. L. 2008. “Empathy and Prosocial Behavior. ” InHandbook of Emotions, edited byM. Lewise, J. Haviland‐Johnes, andL. F. Barrett, 440–455. Guildford Press.
55. Hollandsworth, R. , L. Dowdy, andJ. Donovan. 2011. “Digital Citizenship in K–12: It Takes a Village. ”TechTrends55, no. 4: 37–47. . doi.org/10.1007/s11528-011-0510-z
56. Hoskins, B. , M. Saisana, andC. M. Villalba. 2015. “Civic Competence of Youth in Europe: Measuring Cross National Variation Through the Creation of a Composite Indicator. ”Social Indicators Research123, no. 2: 431–457. doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0746-z
57. Houser, N. O. 2007. “Problem Posing in Teacher Education: A Freirian Approach. ”Action in Teacher Education29, no. 3: 43–49.
58. Hsieh, M. Y. , T. J. Lin, R. Sallade, S. Y. Ha, E. Kraatz, andS. Shin. 2021. “A Collaborative Small‐Group Discussion Approach to Improving Fifth Graders' Use of Academic, Relational, Social, and Emotional Vocabulary. ”International Journal of Educational Research106: 101744.
59. Kahne, J. , N. J. Lee, andJ. T. Feezell. 2013. “The Civic and Political Significance of Online Participatory Cultures Among Youth Transitioning to Adulthood. ”Journal of Information Technology & Politics10, no. 1: 1–20.
60. Kim, S. , T. J. Lin, J. Chen, J. Logan, K. M. Purtell, andL. M. Justice. 2020. “Influence of Teachers' grouping Strategies on Children's Peer Social Experiences in Early Elementary Classrooms. ”Frontiers in Psychology11: 587170. doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.587170
61. Kim, S. B. 2023. Enriching civic learning experiences in elementary social studies classrooms to prepare students for purposeful citizenship[Doctoral dissertation]. The Ohio State University. Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (2864853496).
62. Kim, S. , T. J. Lin, M. Glassman, et al. 2024. “Linking Knowledge Justification With Peers to the Learning of Social Perspective Taking. ”Journal of Moral Education53, no. 2: 321–341.
63. Kim, S. , Y. Sheng, W. Cha, T. J. Lin, andM. Glassman. 2025. “Using Immersive Civic Discussion to Cultivate Civic Purpose in Elementary Schools During Politically Volatile Times. ”Theory Into Practice64, no. 2: 210–222.
64. King, P. E. , andC. J. Boyatzis. 2004. “Exploring Adolescent Spiritual and Religious Development: Current and Future Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives. ”Applied Developmental Science8, no. 1: 2–6. . doi.org/10.1207/S1532480XADS0801_1
65. Kingsford, J. M. , D. J. Hawes, andM. de Rosnay. 2018. “The Moral Self and Moral Identity: Developmental Questions and Conceptual Challenges. ”British Journal of Developmental Psychology36, no. 4: 652–666. doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12260
66. Kirlin, M. 2003. “The Role of Civic Skills in Fostering Civic Engagement. ” CIRCLE Working Paper 06. Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE).
67. Kondracki, N. L. , N. S. Wellman, andD. R. Amundson. 2002. “Content Analysis: Review of Methods and Their Applications in Nutrition Education. ”Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior34, no. 4: 224–230. doi.org/10.1016/s1499-4046(06)60097-3
68. Krettenauer, T. , andS. Hertz. 2015. “What Develops in Moral Identities? A Critical Review. ”Human Development58, no. 3: 137–153.
69. Kuznetcova, I. , S. Tilak, Z. Wen, M. Glassman, E. Anderman, andT. J. Lin. 2025. “Making Immersive Storytelling Accessible: Interactive Low‐Tech Implementation in Elementary School Civic Learning. ”Convergence31, no. 1: 36–68.
70. Lee, C. D. , G. White, andD. Dong. 2021. Educating for Civic Reasoning and Discourse. National Academy of Education.
71. Lin, T. J. , R. C. Anderson, M. Jadallah, et al. 2015. “Social Influences on Children's Development of Relational Thinking During Small‐Group Discussions. ”Contemporary Educational Psychology41: 83–97.
72. Lin, T. ‐J. , S. Y. Ha, Y. Chiu, Y. Hong, Y. ‐R. Hong, andC. ‐C. Tsai. 2019. “Effects of Collaborative Small‐group Discussions on Early Adolescents' social Reasoning. ”Reading & Writing32, no. 9: 2223–2249. . doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09946-7
73. Lin, T. ‐J. , E. Kraatz, S. Y. Ha, et al. 2022. “Shaping Classroom Social Experiences Through Collaborative Small‐group Discussions. ”The British Journal of Educational Psychology92, no. 1: 131–154. . doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12442
74. Livingstone, S. M. , andA. Blum‐Ross. 2020. Parenting for a Digital Future: How Hopes and Fears About Technology Shape Children's Lives. Oxford University Press.
75. Lu, M. S. , A. Martinez, T. ‐Z. Lin, et al. 2023. Constructing Dynamic Dialogic Spaces Through a Technology‐Enhanced Social Studies Curriculum. American Educational Research Association. . doi.org/10.3102/IP.22.1889899
76. Lundy, L. 2007. “Voice'is Not Enough: Conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. ”British Educational Research Journal33, no. 6: 927–942.
77. Malin, H. , P. J. Ballard, andW. Damon. 2015. “Civic Purpose: An Integrated Construct for Understanding Civic Development in Adolescence. ”Human Development58, no. 2: 103–130.
78. Malin, H. , I. Liauw, andW. Damon. 2017. “Purpose and Character Development in Early Adolescence. ”Journal of Youth and Adolescence46, no. 6: 1200–1215. doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0642-3
79. Malti, T. , andT. Krettenauer. 2013. “The Relation of Moral Emotion Attributions to Prosocial and Antisocial Behavior: A Meta‐Analysis. ”Child Development84, no. 2: 397–412. doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01851.x
80. Manganelli, S. , F. Lucidi, andF. Alivernini. 2014. “Adolescents' Expected Civic Participation: The Role of Civic Knowledge and Efficacy Beliefs. ”Journal of Adolescence37, no. 5: 632–641. doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.05.001
81. Metzger, A. , L. M. Alvis, B. Oosterhoff, E. Babskie, A. Syvertsen, andL. Wray‐Lake. 2018. “The Intersection of Emotional and Sociocognitive Competencies With Civic Engagement in Middle Childhood and Adolescence. ”Journal of Youth and Adolescence47, no. 8: 1663–1683. doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0842-5
82. Nagpal, M. , T. J. Lin, E. Kraatz, , S. Kim, S. Y. Ha, andM. Glassman. 2025. “Reciprocal interactionsbetween Teachers' instructional Moves and Students' social Reasoning Duringcollaborative Small Group Discussions. ”Instructional Science1–33.
83. Narvaez, D. , andD. K. Lapsley. 2005. “The Psychological Foundations of Everyday Morality and Moral Expertise. ”Character Psychology and Character Education12, no. 3: 140–165.
84. National Center for Education Statistics. n. d. What Does the NAEP Civics Assessment Measure? National Assessment of Educational Progress. .
85. Nurmi, J. E. 1987. “Age, Sex, Social Class, and Quality of Family Interaction as Determinants of Adolescents' Future Orientation: A Developmental Task Interpretation. ”Adolescence22, no. 88: 977.
86. Pancer, S. M. , M. Pratt, B. Hunsberger, andS. Alisat. 2007. “Community and Political Involvement in Adolescence: What Distinguishes the Activists From the Uninvolved?”Journal of Community Psychology35, no. 6: 741–759.
87. Park, H. , K. Fulton, A. I. Martinez Calvit, et al. 2025. “Cultivating Civic Competencies Through Immersive Inquiry: A Digital‐Age Approach to Fourth Grader's Disciplinary Thinking and Argumentation. ”Journal of Social Studies Research49, no. 2: 136–162.
88. Parker, W. C. , andD. Hess. 2001. “Teaching With and for Discussion. ”Teaching and Teacher Education17, no. 3: 273–289.
89. Parry, S. , andE. Metzger. 2023. “Barriers to Learning for Sustainability: A Teacher Perspective. ”Sustainable Earth Reviews6, no. 1: 2.
90. Patrick, R. B. , A. J. Bodine, J. C. Gibbs, andK. S. Basinger. 2018. “What Accounts for Prosocial Behavior? Roles of Moral Identity, Moral Judgment, and Self‐Efficacy Beliefs. ”Journal of Genetic Psychology179, no. 5: 231–245. doi.org/10.1080/00221325.2018.1491472
91. Patrick, R. B. , andJ. C. Gibbs. 2012. “Inductive Discipline, Parental Expression of Disappointed Expectations, and Moral Identity in Adolescence. ”Journal of Youth and Adolescence41, no. 8: 973–983. doi.org/10.1007/s10964-011-9698-7
92. Patrick, R. B. , andJ. C. Gibbs. 2016. “Maternal Acceptance: Its Contribution to Children's Favorable Perceptions of Discipline and Moral Identity. ”Journal of Genetic Psychology177, no. 3: 73–84. doi.org/10.1080/00221325.2016.1173008
93. Piaget, J. 1962. “The Stages of the Intellectual‐Development of the Child. ”Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic26: 120–128.
94. Piaget, J. 1970. Science of Education and the Psychology of the Child. Viking Press.
95. Porter, T. J. 2013. “Moral and Political Identity and Civic Involvement in Adolescents. ”Journal of Moral Education42, no. 2: 239–255.
96. Pratt, M. W. , B. Hunsberger, S. M. Pancer, andS. Alisat. 2003. “A Longitudinal Analysis of Personal Values Socialization: Correlates of a Moral Self‐Ideal in Late Adolescence. ”Social Development12, no. 4: 563–585.
97. Quinn, B. P. , andM. Bauml. 2018. “Cultivating a Mindset of Civic Engagement Among Young Adolescents. ”The Journal of Social Studies Research42, no. 2: 185–200.
98. Redman, A. , andA. Wiek. 2021. “Competencies for Advancing Transformations Towards Sustainability. ”Frontiers in Education6: 785163.
99. Rimanoczy, I. 2020. The Sustainability Mindset Principles: A Guide to Developing a Mindset for a Better World. Routledge.
100. Rimanoczy, I. , andB. Klingenberg. 2021. “The Sustainability Mindset Indicator: A Personal Development Tool. ”Journal of Management for Global Sustainability9, no. 1: 4.
101. Rimanoczy, I. , andA. M. Llamazares. 2021. “Twelve Principles to Guide a Long‐Overdue Paradigm Shift. ”Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion18, no. 6: 54–76.
102. Roberts, P. 1998. “Knowledge, Dialogue, and Humanization: the Moral Philosophy of Paulo Freire. ”Journal of Educational Thought32, no. 2: 95–117.
103. Rogoff, B. 1993. “Children's Guided Participation and Participatory Appropriation in Social Activity. ” InDevelopment in Context: Acting and Thinking in Specific Environments, edited byR. Wozniak, andK. Fischer, 121–154. Earlbaum.
104. Rogoff, B. 1995. “Observing Sociocultural Activity on Three Planes: Participatory Appropriation, Guided Participation, and apprenticeship. ” InSociocultural Studies of Mind, edited byJ. V. WertschP. del Rio, andA. Alvarez, 139–164. Cambridge University Press.
105. Rutten, K. , andR. Soetaert. 2013. “Rhetoric, Citizenship, and Cultural Literacy. ”CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture15, no. 3: 5.
106. Schalkwijk, F. , G. J. Stams, H. Stegge, J. Dekker, andJ. Peen. 2016. “The Conscience as a Regulatory Function: Empathy, Shame, Pride, Guilt, and Moral Orientation in Delinquent Adolescents. ”International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology60, no. 6: 675–693. doi.org/10.1177/0306624X14561830
107. Selwyn, N. 2009. “The Digital Native—Myth and Reality. ”ASLIB Proceedings61, no. 4: 364–379. . doi.org/10.1108/00012530910973776
108. Sengsavang, S. , andT. Krettenauer. 2015. “Children's Moral Self‐Concept: The Role of Aggression and Parent–Child Relationships. ”Merrill‐Palmer Quarterly61, no. 2: 213–235.
109. Sherrod, L. R. 2015. “Recognizing Civic Engagement as a Critical Domain of Human Development. ”Research in Human Development12: 312–318.
110. Shor, I. , andP. Freire. 1987. “What Is the “Dialogical Method” of Teaching?”Journal of Education169, no. 3: 11–31.
111. Shweder, R. A. , M. Mahapatra, andJ. Miller. 1987. “Culture and Moral development. ” InThe Emergence of Morality in Young Children, edited byJ. KaganandS. Lamb, 1–83. University of Chicago Press.
112. Spinrad, T. L. , andN. Eisenberg. 2014. “Empathy, Prosocial Behavior, and Positive Development in Schools. ” InHandbook of Positive Psychology in Schools, 82–98. Routledge.
113. Spinrad, T. L. , andN. Eisenberg. 2014. “Empathy, Prosocial Behavior, and Positive Development in Schools. ” InHandbook of Positive Psychology in Schools, , edited byR. Gilman, E. S. Huebner, andM. J. Furlong, 119–129. Routledge.
114. Sterling, S. 2001. Sustainable Education: Re‐Visioning Learning and Change. Green Books.
115. Stowe, L. M. , R. Peretz‐Lange, andP. R. Blake. 2022. “Children Consider Procedures, Outcomes, and Emotions When Judging the Fairness of Inequality. ”Frontiers in Psychology13: 815901. doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.815901
116. Ten Dam, G. , F. Geijsel, R. Reumerman, andG. Ledoux. 2011. “Measuring Young People's Citizenship Competences. ”European Journal of Education46, no. 3: 354–372.
117. Thomaes, S. , S. Grapsas, J. van de Wetering, J. Spitzer, andA. Poorthuis. 2023. “Green Teens: Understanding and Promoting Adolescents' Sustainable Engagement. ”One Earth6, no. 4: 352–361.
118. Thompson, E. P. 1971. “The Moral Economy of the English Crowd in the Eighteenth Century. ”Past & Present50, no. 1: 76–136.
119. Torney‐Purta, J. , J. C. Cabrera, K. C. Roohr, O. L. Liu, andJ. A. Rios. 2015. Assessing Civic Competency and Engagement in Higher Education: Research Background, Frameworks, and Directions for Next‐Generation Assessment. ETS Research Report Series, 1–48.
120. UNESCO. 2020. Education for Sustainable Development: A Roadmap. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris, France. .
121. United Nations. 2015. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Available online at: .
122. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistics Division. 2025. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2025. United Nations. .
123. Vo, T. T. , C. Superchi, I. Boutron, andS. Vansteelandt. 2020. “The Conduct and Reporting of Mediation Analysis in Recently Published Randomized Controlled Trials: Results From a Methodological Systematic Review. ”Journal of Clinical Epidemiology117: 78–88. doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.10.001
124. Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in Society: the Development of Higher Psychological Processes. M. Cole, V. John‐Steiner, S. Scribner, andE. Souberman. Harvard University Press.
125. Vygotsky, L. S. 1987. The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky: Vol. I Problems of General Psychology. Edited byR. RieberandA. Carton(N. Minick, Trans. ). Plenum Press. (Original work published 1934).
126. Wen, Z. , T. J. Lin, M. Glassman, et al. 2023. “The Development of Early Adolescents' Social Perspective Taking Through Small‐Group Discussion. ”Journal of Early Adolescence43, no. 9: 1129–1163.
127. Williams, B. 1995. “Ethics. ” InPhilosophy: A Guide Through the Subject, edited byA. C. Grayling, 546–582. Oxford University Press.
128. Wray‐Lake, L. , A. Metzger, andA. K. Syvertsen. 2017. “Testing Multidimensional Models of Youth Civic Engagement: Model Comparisons, Measurement Invariance, and Age Differences. ”Applied Developmental Science21: 266–284.
129. Yeager, D. S. , R. E. Dahl, andC. S. Dweck. 2018. “Why Interventions to Influence Adolescent Behavior Often Fail but Could Succeed. ”Perspectives on Psychological Science13, no. 1: 101–122. doi.org/10.1177/1745691617722620
130. Zohar, D. , andI. Marshall. 2004. Spiritual Capital: Wealth We Can Live by. Berrett‐Koehler.
131. Zorwick, L. W. , andJ. M. Wade. 2016. “Enhancing Civic Education Through the Use of Assigned Advocacy, Argumentation, and Debate Across the Curriculum. ”Communication Education65, no. 4: 434–444.

---

Republished from the open web under CC-BY. Authors: Kim S, Lin TJ, Glassman M, Anderman E. Read the original.