ABSTRACT Since Robert D. Putnam first wrote about the causes behind the regional differences in economic and political development in Italy, the theory of social capital has truly flourished in the fields of social science. This days you constantly hear politicians and scholars stressing the important role of the quality of the social fabric to a society’s wellbeing. There all looking at ways to construct policies and institutions that help the spread of social capital. Yet, the question of what makes and breaks social capital remains in large part unanswered. Putnam became famous by arguing that engagement in civil clubs and unions has a causal tie to social capital. Many scholars has criticized that thesis and instead stressed the role of universal public institutions, economic equality and many other theories. This study focuses on the potential role of deliberative democracy, or more accurately put, deliberative didactics, for the strengthening of pupils social capital. Deliberative democracy is a form of governing that focuses on collective agreement through discussions on equal terms. According to the theory, deliberative discussions forces people to understand and respect each other’s differences, and teaches them to cooperate. This will, they argue, strengthen both the individual and the community’s social capital. This study focuses on what schools can do to stimulate a deliberative atmosphere and how a deliberative atmosphere correlates with the pupils’ social capital. I’ve done this by handing out question sheets to Swedish High school kids. I’ve then used SPSS to do a regression- and factor analysis of their answers. The result shows a correlation at R=0,444 between a student’s appreciation of the deliberative atmosphere at their school and their social capital. Other interesting results was the strong affect that being comfortable in speaking to the class had to kids social capital, to what extent teachers graded the group rather than each kid separately, how the kids trusted each other as well as people in general, and so on.

<p>The aim of this dissertation is to study learning through deliberative dialogue, the social climate of the classroom, and certain aspects of student participation in civic education in upper secondary schools, as well as aspects of deliberative didactics. It takes its theoretical point of departure in John Dewey’s texts on democracy and education. An additional perspective on the social and moral aspects of democratic life is provided by Axel Honneth’s studies on disrespect and a morality of recognition. An empirical study is presented in which students and teachers were interviewed in focus groups about their opinions and experiences, on the basis of the aim of the dissertation and the research questions addressed.</p><p>The analysis reveals a potential to learn civics thorough dialogue and discussion. A dialogue with deliberative qualities is characterized as one with a clearly defined purpose and relevant knowledge content. In the course of such a dialogue, the participants apply and develop certain abilities, some of which are identified in the study. Regarding the social climate in the classroom, especially during learning through dialogue and discussion, several difficulties and problematic situations were mentioned in the focus group interviews. These were problems related to “disturbing silence” and “troubling speech”. Honneth’s theory of moral recognition is in such situations seen as a basis for teachers’ professional reflections and for deliberative dialogues involving teacher and students. Concerning student participation and the civic education classroom as a form of democratic community and a public sphere, both students and teachers interviewed spoke of a balancing act between many different interests, some of which are discussed with a focus on the formation of interests. Other aspects studied are how a sense of community can be created and how the private and individualistic meet the public and common in civic education. It is concluded that the civic education classroom, considered as a public sphere, can be an arena for deliberation and thus develop a sense of community and a deliberative competence for use in a wider citizenship perspective.</p><p>In the final chapter it is concluded that deliberative didactics can be seen as a didactic dimension of reflexive cooperation. It is characterized as a reflexive approach whereby the teacher invites the students to deliberate on issues of subject content, ways of working, the social climate of the classroom, and different aspects of participation and common interests. It is also argued that the practical cooperation – the actions and their consequences – following from intersubjective speech are as important as the dialogue itself.</p><p>Keywords: citizenship education, deliberative communication, classroom climate, morality of recognition, reflexive cooperation, student participation, deliberative didactics, Dewey, pragmatism, focus groups.</p>

The aim of this dissertation is to study learning through deliberative dialogue, the social climate of the classroom, and certain aspects of student participation in civic education in upper secondary schools, as well as aspects of deliberative didactics. It takes its theoretical point of departure in John Dewey’s texts on democracy and education. An additional perspective on the social and moral aspects of democratic life is provided by Axel Honneth’s studies on disrespect and a morality of recognition. An empirical study is presented in which students and teachers were interviewed in focus groups about their opinions and experiences, on the basis of the aim of the dissertation and the research questions addressed. The analysis reveals a potential to learn civics thorough dialogue and discussion. A dialogue with deliberative qualities is characterized as one with a clearly defined purpose and relevant knowledge content. In the course of such a dialogue, the participants apply and develop certain abilities, some of which are identified in the study. Regarding the social climate in the classroom, especially during learning through dialogue and discussion, several difficulties and problematic situations were mentioned in the focus group interviews. These were problems related to “disturbing silence” and “troubling speech”. Honneth’s theory of moral recognition is in such situations seen as a basis for teachers’ professional reflections and for deliberative dialogues involving teacher and students. Concerning student participation and the civic education classroom as a form of democratic community and a public sphere, both students and teachers interviewed spoke of a balancing act between many different interests, some of which are discussed with a focus on the formation of interests. Other aspects studied are how a sense of community can be created and how the private and individualistic meet the public and common in civic education. It is concluded that the civic education classroom, considered as a public sphere, can be an arena for deliberation and thus develop a sense of community and a deliberative competence for use in a wider citizenship perspective. In the final chapter it is concluded that deliberative didactics can be seen as a didactic dimension of reflexive cooperation. It is characterized as a reflexive approach whereby the teacher invites the students to deliberate on issues of subject content, ways of working, the social climate of the classroom, and different aspects of participation and common interests. It is also argued that the practical cooperation – the actions and their consequences – following from intersubjective speech are as important as the dialogue itself.