When I read the article about Political Communication – Civic Engagement and Technology, the first thing that struck me was the date the article was published – July 2008. Hence it was researched just before the famous Obama online campaign reached fruition as it discusses earlier US Presidential campaigns. In two years, the article already seemed dated to me, it was a ‘generation’ ago in terms of data and facts that are relevant. Another reminder of how fast the space is changing and how fast we as educators need to evolve and change.
Obama’s famous grassroots campaign managed to mobilise vast numbers of youth that got him to the White House in November that year. ( It is also now rumoured that he needs to continue to use the online space to inspire youth to support him as he battles troubled times – another whole issue that I don’t know enough to blog about here anyway!)
As I researched Obama’s online campaign which I felt had used the new media for civic engagement successfully, I was struck by how well he had made it all work for him, his own interactive website, his campaign on twitter, Facebook and YouTube.
This article summarises his online success with today’s youth, and also mentions university websites that are being used for civic participation and education.
It says:
A lot of young voters much preferred Obama (68 per cent) over John McCain (30 per cent).
Obama captured more than 50 per cent of the vote of 18 to 29 year old in nearly every primary contest to date.
One could say that Obama’s campaign was accurate in focusing on the youth and moved them by showing them that they could be part of the change he advocated for.
I was reminded of a personal experience of Obama’s successful use of web 2.0 technologies. He used YouTube to wish Hindus and Indians a Happy Diwali. It had appealed to me when I saw it shared by my friends on Facebook.
The other issues I struggled with – was the Civic Engagement article seemed to stress ‘teaching’ instead of ‘learning’. As a student of contemporary education theories, I have realised that for education to be relevant, students need to take control of their own learning. This article again was using an earlier paradigm of educational theory i.e teaching v/s learning. The article lists strategies and theories for pedagogy and participation which I felt were irrelevant as students needed to take control and use the web effectively for civic participation.
Having been recently converted and a new believer to social-constructivism theories in education for learning and assessment. I believe students need to take control of their own learning and become ‘active learners’, learning with and from each other in social groups to deepen their understanding by sharing and questioning each other and their teachers. In fact social networks already provide them with a platform for creating groups, identities, getting feedback and support from each other that can effectively lead to civic participation. As we have discussed earlier, students are already living a large part of the lives online and felt it was the first place they would go for civic participation as well. Students can so easily use current online tools and social networks to make a positive change.
In conclusion, I thought this article was well written, however the research focused on sites that were more teacher-led where students needed to be taught. It focussed on ‘active pedagogy’ instead of ‘active learning’ which I felt would be more relevant. I found it incomplete in some ways as they consciously eliminated social networks from the research study, which I believe offer powerful tools for students for civic participation. Hence I felt it was written in a different paradigm that I did not find relevant to my current beliefs about student learning – online and in the classroom, as well as, bigger relevant issues about how we can use the web to inspire students to engage with civic issues to make a change that can affect them – they need to believe they can!
Leading a double life in London 
Very intersting response to the article. I wonder about the meaning of civic participation in youth and weather it means the youth being interested in politics in general or in participating in frameworks that we don’t find acceptable but since they are the only ones available civic participation takes place only within these frameworks.
Hi,
This is a really good post. I looked at the Bachen article, which was interestingly published before the Obama election, and I did think about how his team used technology to reach out to young people.
I agree with you about the focus on ‘teaching’ instead of ‘learning’ and how learning is up to the individual to a certain extent.
I know I’ve mentioned this before but I can’t help thinking about the wider context, that we need to create favourable conditions offline which might motivate young people to act on a topic that interests them. This would entail publicly valuing their input and giving them a respected platform from which to be heard. What about lowering the age of citizenship to 16? so that young teenagers are more likely to be motivated to listen to engaged, inspiring young thinkers, both online and in broadcast media. Perhaps we need to re-examine the traditional social structures that constrain our young people.
Thanks for the feedback. Made me think about youth and their rights and age discrimination. Brought me to the other ages that signify coming of age – legal age of drinking, driving, voting? all 18 in the UK, i believe? However in the US you can drive at 16 but cant drink legally till 21 and can vote at 18 (this was lowered interestingly due to youth activism during the Vietnam war). Not sure what age you are allowed to join the army and go to war in both these countries 16 or younger? That is definitely active civic participation! not something I personally approve of or advocate but sad that you can go to war so young! Will not elaborate on all the implications of legal ages of the other three, when taken in comparison to the age of going to war!