Teaching Democracy Through Instruction or Experience: A Qualitative Evaluation of Two Sets of Lessons

Democratic Subject Matter

This study focuses on the teaching of democracy, specifically on models of government and democracy, political institutions, and political-ideological positions. We address teaching about various dilemmas and possibilities related to the organisation of democracy, such as forms of decision-making (e.g. majority rule, compromise, and deliberation) and ways in which citizens can influence politics (e.g. voting in elections and referenda; R. Dahl, 1998; Held, 2006; Lijphart, 2012). With regard to democratic institutions, we focus on teaching about political parties, parliament, local councils, and democratic innovations such as citizens’ assemblies (Andeweg et al., 2020). Moreover, we address political pluralism, referring to the coexistence of various political-ideological positions, such as left-wing, right-wing, progressive, and conservative (Ball et al., 2019). Attention is also given to tensions that may arise between democratic principles, such as the balance between majority rule and the protection of minority interests and individual rights (Levitsky & Ziblatt, 2025; Overeem, 2020).

Teaching Methods

Instruction-based and experience-based teaching methods offer different ways to engage students in the complexities of democratic subject matter. Below, we elaborate on these types of teaching methods and how they can stimulate democratic competences among students.

During the use of instruction-based teaching methods, students are introduced to domain-specific concepts and theories (such as those concerning democracy), which they are expected to understand well in order to appreciate and participate in democracy (Galston, 2001; Hirsch, 2020). Educational experiments have shown that these methods can effectively promote the acquisition of democratic knowledge and other democratic competences, such as political efficacy (e.g. Anson, 2017; Green et al., 2011). When instruction-based teaching methods are used, students learn as they are presented with the subject matter in a structured way and are guided to memorise it (e.g. Rosenshine, 2009). The teacher explains the subject matter or shows videos, and students are expected to apply this information, often by engaging with it in assignments, such as short, well-structured tasks in a workbook (Doyle, 1983; Marx & Walsh, 1988). During these tasks, students can, for example, relate concepts to each other and answer reflective questions (e.g. Marzano, 2007). Students also learn when teachers pose questions during lectures that deepen their understanding of the subject matter (Wilen, 2001). However, while the importance of domain-specific learning through classroom instruction is recognised in the above studies, little qualitative research has been done on instruction-based lessons to teach specifically about democratic subject matter. Although educational experiments show that this teaching method can be effective, exactly how the process by which students learn about democracy works is an open question that we address in this research.

During the use of experience-based teaching methods, students engage in social situations involving complex social issues, actively interacting with their fellow students, which helps them better appreciate democratic coexistence (Lind, 2023; Van der Ploeg, 2016). It is also argued that sensory-motor experiences related to abstract concepts (such as those associated with democracy) make them clearer for students, thereby enhancing their understanding (Lebert & Vilarroya, 2024; Löhr, 2019). The effectiveness of experience-based methods is demonstrated by multiple educational experiments, which show that experiences can stimulate various democratic competences, including democratic knowledge, political efficacy, and the ability to deal with differences (e.g. Levy et al., 2019; Mariani & Glenn, 2014). In general, when using these methods, students learn by experiencing social situations, reflecting on their actions, connecting abstract concepts to their experiences, and applying what they have learned in subsequent social situations (Kolb, 1984). The current study focuses on simulations as experience-based teaching methods. Simulations reflect real life in a miniaturised and structured way, illustrate dynamic social processes, and engage students as active participants (Wright-Maley, 2015). However, insights into teaching through simulations are often formulated broadly for the social studies curriculum, and there is little qualitative research specifically on the perceived efficacy of using simulations to teach democratic subject matter. Even though educational experiments show positive effects on stimulating democratic competences, it is not yet clear from the existing body of research how students actually learn about democracy during a simulation.

Classroom Practices

To better understand the learning process of instruction-based and experience-based methods, this study examines the perceived efficacy of elements within these methods for learning about democracy. Based on previous research with expert teachers, potentially effective classroom practices have been identified (Teegelbeckers et al., 2025). However, it is unclear whether these are also perceived as efficacious by other teachers and students. In this study, we used these practices as design principles for the development of instruction-based and experience-based lessons, which we subsequently evaluated (McKenney et al., 2006). The following practices are the focus of this research:

While these classroom practices are considered effective for learning about democracy, teaching with them can also be difficult or present dilemmas, which we refer to as challenges (similar to the concept of pedagogical dilemmas; see Windschitl, 2002). Examples of such challenges in the social studies context include balancing emotional engagement with the need for a safe and comfortable classroom climate (Pace, 2019; Sheppard & Levy, 2019), fostering productive conflict around collective solutions (Dack et al., 2016; Hess & McAvoy, 2015; Smith & Stitzlein, 2024), and supporting students in progressing from surface-level understanding to higher-order critical thinking, such as argument evaluation and well-substantiated reasoning (Newmann, 1991; Onosko, 1991). However, relatively little research has been done on these challenges in the context of teaching democratic subject matter through various teaching methods. Therefore, this study also examines these challenges, as well as their relation to the perceived efficacy of classroom practices.

Research Context

For this study, we designed and evaluated two sets of lessons for secondary vocational education ² (middelbaar beroepsonderwijs; MBO) in the Netherlands. We focus on this track because citizens with this educational background (and similar citizens in other democracies) often participate less in democratic processes and tend to have lower levels of political self-efficacy than more academically educated citizens (Bovens & Wille, 2017; Savage et al., 2021). There is also little research on how to teach democracy to these types of students (see Teegelbeckers et al., 2023). In this track, there is a requirement to teach explicitly about democracy and to stimulate students’ participation in politics and society. This is often done in a course named Citizenship (Den Boer & Leest, 2021). For this requirement, students on this educational track need to learn about representative and direct democracy, and about democratic decision-making at various levels of government. They also need to learn about various perspectives on political issues (Adult and Vocational Education Act, article 17a, third paragraph; Government of the Netherlands, 2023).

Sets of Lessons

Both sets evaluated in this study consist of eight lessons that largely address the same learning goals and subject matter (Appendix A). However, the sets differ in sequence and focus due to the distinct teaching methods. Experiencing democracy through simulations can take more time than providing instruction on it, which limits the number of topics covered in the experience-based lessons compared to the instruction-based ones. Below, we outline each set of lessons, including their learning goals and lesson structure, followed by an overview of how we integrated the classroom practices into each set.

Instruction-based Set of Lessons

The instruction-based set of lessons had the learning goals of providing students with knowledge about democratic subject matter. Another learning goal was to encourage students to reflect on their own views regarding models of government and democracy, as well as political-ideological positions. The core idea of these lessons is that students listen to information about democracy and then discuss, process, and critically think about this information during short workbook assignments, conducted individually or in pairs. The lessons start with the teacher giving instruction about the subject matter, sometimes showing a video. The teacher also asks questions to check students’ prior knowledge and verify their understanding. Students then complete the workbook assignments, which are debriefed through questioning. The integration of the classroom practices in this set of lessons is described in Table 1.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Integration of Classroom Practices in Instruction-based Set of Lessons.

Classroom practice	Integration in the lessons	Example
Meaningful embedding	The lessons included everyday life examples, videos that demonstrate a democratic concept in practice, and assignments in which students had to think about their own examples of the abstract concepts.	Students watched a video about illiberal democracy and how civilians, such as journalists and doctors, experience this form of government.
Providing multiple perspectives	Political-ideological positions and arguments about models of government and democracy were integrated into classroom explanations and the workbook, and visualised in pictures and diagrams.	Students were shown a diagram illustrating the interrelations between left-wing and progressive, and right-wing and conservative, which was explained during the classroom lecture.
Thinking about solutions from divergent perspectives	Students were asked to think about political solutions in a systematic way, either individually or in pairs.	Students worked on an assignment in which they chose a regional political issue that they tried to find a solution for, considered which citizens are affected by this issue, proposed a solution, and identified who might oppose the solution along with the reasons for opposing it.
Critical reflection on the subject matter	Students were required to think about the strengths, limitations, their own value judgements, and underlying arguments of models of government and democracy, as well as political-ideological positions.	Students answered workbook questions that required them to consider the strengths and limitations of centralised and decentralised democratic government.

Experience-based Set of Lessons

The experience-based set of lessons had the primary learning goal of helping students develop a positive attitude towards collective decision-making. Additionally, these lessons aimed to provide students with knowledge of democracy, foster their understanding of the strengths and limitations of different models of government and democracy, and encourage insight into their personal value judgements about these models. The core idea of these lessons is that students experience different forms of decision-making and then reflect on them. The lessons start with a short explanation of democratic concepts and the decision-making activities. Students then work together, based on roles or their personal beliefs, to decide on a policy issue in a simulated setting (e.g. a parliament). Afterwards, during a debriefing session, students reflect on the type of decision-making they experienced. For example, students reflect on how a particular type of decision affects the different parties involved (such as those in the majority and minority), and they discuss their value judgements on the matter. The integration of the classroom practices in this set of lessons is described in Table 2.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Integration of Classroom Practices in Experience-based Set of Lessons.

Classroom practice	Integration in the lessons	Example
Meaningful embedding	Students engaged in sensory-motor experiences and the evocation of feelings and emotions within simulated political environments.	Students worked in pairs to design a new chill area for the school. During the presentation of the ideas, the teacher arbitrarily rejected some of them, for instance based on their personal taste. The intention was to foster a feeling of injustice among the students through this process.
Providing multiple perspectives	Political-ideological positions and arguments about models of government and democracy were integrated into the roles assigned to the students or because the students were encouraged to discuss with each other on the basis of their own opinions.	Students were assigned roles within a municipality (engaged citizens, disengaged citizens, representatives, experts) with different opinions on certain topics, such as the opening hours of the supermarket.
Thinking about solutions from divergent perspectives	During the simulations, students had to find collective solutions, based on divergent perspectives in prescribed roles or their own opinion. Students did this through various forms of decision-making.	Students had to reach a compromise by submitting amendments to a proposed law in a simulated parliamentary setting.
Critical reflection on the subject matter	During the debriefing discussions of the simulations, students were required to think about the strengths, limitations, their own value judgements, and underlying arguments of models of government and democracy, as well as political-ideological positions.	Students discuss the strengths and limitations of majority rule as a form of decision-making after experiencing it. They are required to support their views with arguments and, based on this, indicate their value judgement about this form of decision-making.

Participants and Measurements

The sets of lessons were carried out and evaluated in two periods (April to June 2022 and September to November 2022), by eight teachers: three teaching the instruction-based lessons and seven teaching the experience-based ones. Of these, two teachers taught both sets of lessons in different classes and at different times. We included more teachers to teach the experience-based lessons compared to the instruction-based ones because experience-based teaching methods are more demanding for teachers to implement and are not frequently used (Glazier, 2011; Schulz et al., 2025). In contrast, the instruction-based lessons involve teaching methods that are more commonly used, requiring fewer moments of evaluation and thus involving fewer teachers.

The lessons were evaluated through individual teacher interviews and student group interviews (one of which was individual). These evaluations were usually conducted after two or three lessons, typically after Lessons 1–3, Lessons 4–6, and Lessons 7–8 (overview in Appendix B). Interviews were conducted with the active consent of the teachers and students (Ethics commission reference: 2021-CDE-14287). Prior to the interviews, we conducted classroom observations to get a sense of how the lessons were taught and to verify that they were taught as described in the teaching manual. In total, 90 lessons were observed.

Data Coding and Analysis

The interviews were transcribed verbatim and then coded using MAXQDA (Rädiker & Kuckartz, 2020). During the coding process, we used the four classroom practices as primary coding categories. We coded elements that contributed to learning through a classroom practice (indicating its perceived efficacy), as well as elements that were difficult or posed a dilemma during a classroom practice (indicating a challenge). For the coding of perceived efficacy, we developed codes in advance based on theory about classroom practices and then examined how these appeared in the data. In contrast, for the coding of challenges, we derived codes from the data itself and subsequently explored how these related to existing theory (see Xu & Zammit, 2020, on hybrid coding). In both approaches, we applied an iterative coding process in which our theoretical insights and data continuously informed and refined one another (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012). We coded text fragments as perceived efficacy or as challenges when they were explicitly indicated by a teacher or student, or when we interpreted them as such. The codes are summarised in Table 3. To make sense of the large number of coded text fragments, we added a short memo to each fragment. In each memo, we briefly described how we interpreted that specific part of the interview.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Categories en Description of Classroom Practices and Perceived Efficacy/challenges.

Primary categories	Subcode	Description
Meaningful embedding	Perceived efficacy	The teacher or a student mentions that the subject matter is perceived as relatable and lively, is connected to real-life situations, and is genuinely seen and felt as linked to the real world.
	Challenge	The teacher or a student explicitly mentions that the subject matter is not meaningful or connected to the real-world, or that while it is seen and felt, it also triggers strong emotions.
Providing multiple perspectives	Perceived efficacy	The teacher or a student mentions that they are learning about the subject matter because different perspectives are provided during the explanation, classroom discussions, assignments, worksheets, role-based activities and debriefing sessions.
	Challenge	The teacher or a student mentions that they do not need to use the perspectives in follow-up activities, or that they find it difficult or prefer not to work with these perspectives.
Thinking about solutions from divergent perspectives	Perceived efficacy	The teacher or a student mentions that, in a whole-class discussion, an assignment, or a simulation, they are working towards a solution. This also applies when students mention that they experience it as a complex task to reach a solution, as this is relevant for learning about democracy.
	Challenge	The teacher or a student mentions that the student does not justify or substantiate their solution, or that students agree with each other very quickly.
Critical reflection on the subject matter	Perceived efficacy	The teacher or a student mentions that students reflect on the subject matter, because they are asked questions in the textbook, during assignments, or in the debriefing of a simulation.
	Challenge	The teacher or a student mentions that students’ ideas are not substantiated with arguments.

To ensure the reliability of the classroom practice and efficacy/challenge categories, we established inter-coder agreement using Cohen’s kappa. The first author and an independent coder each coded 40 text segments, resulting in κ = .80 for classroom practices and κ = .84 for efficacy/challenge, indicating substantial to almost perfect agreement. Any disagreements were discussed between the coders. Some text fragments could be coded in multiple ways, particularly those related to meaningful embedding and providing multiple perspectives. To determine whether a fragment could be categorised under one of these classroom practices, we looked for specific elements in the answers of teachers and students that clearly referred to either practice. This approach resulted in full consensus on the coding categories.

Following the coding process, we conducted a thematic analysis both within and across the sets of lessons to explore the evaluations of the classroom practices. This involved comparing data segments, identifying similarities and anomalies, and looking for consistent patterns in the data. We focused on the overall efficacy and challenges related to the classroom practices that were integrated into the sets of lessons, and on the learning outcomes these practices may have facilitated.

Meaningful Embedding

Instruction-based lessons: We intended to make the subject matter meaningful by using concrete examples and showing videos that demonstrated democratic concepts in practice. The teachers and students perceived this classroom practice as efficacious for understanding democracy, because it made abstract subject matter more tangible for students. Teachers and students specifically mentioned that instruction was perceived efficacious for learning about democracy when abstract concepts were linked to the daily lives of ordinary people. For example, during one of the lessons, students watched a video about illiberal democracy and how restricted freedom impacts civilians in their daily lives and occupations. Students mentioned:

By seeing real people and their experiences with (the absence of) democracy, students seemed to better understand this concept.

Experience-based lessons: We intended to make the subject matter meaningful by allowing students to experience, through feelings and emotions, how democracy (or the lack thereof) functions in practice. The teachers and students indicated that this classroom practice helped students develop a deeper understanding of abstract democratic concepts. For example, in a simulation on dictatorship, students worked in pairs to design a “chill area” for the school and subsequently presented their ideas, with the teacher approving some while arbitrarily rejecting others. The goal was to demonstrate how decisions in a dictatorship are made according to the arbitrary will of the ruler. Students mentioned that this simulated form of dictatorship provoked feelings of injustice. As one student said:

Students who experienced injustice during a simulated dictatorship seemed to gain a sense of what life in this form of government might actually feel like, and could therefore understand the concept better.

A challenge with this classroom practice in simulations, mentioned by both teachers and students, was that it could sometimes affect the safety or comfortability of the classroom climate due to the strong emotions it could evoke. About the lesson in which the teacher arbitrarily rejected students’ ideas, both teachers and students mentioned that teachers really needed to be careful, as it could evoke feelings of frustration. One teacher said:

With the first student, I also noticed that when I rejected her idea, she really didn’t like it. Later, the students understood that I was doing it for a specific reason. [. . .] So you really have to be careful with that, that you don’t say anything crazy or personal.

This indicates that a challenge during experience-based lessons lies in teachers carefully managing any arising feelings and emotions; otherwise, the safe classroom environment may be compromised.

Providing Multiple Perspectives

Instruction-based lessons: We integrated multiple perspectives into images and diagrams presented and discussed during instruction. The students and teachers perceived this practice as efficacious for students to gain a better understanding of different political-ideological positions and interests. For example, in one lesson, political-ideological positions – left-wing, right-wing, progressive, and conservative – were presented in a diagram. Teachers and students mentioned that visualising these positions in a structured overview helped students make sense of the political landscape. One student noted:

With such a diagram, you can see [left-wing and right-wing] more clearly. And if you think you’re very right-wing, you can see what very right-wing looks like. Then you can make your [political preference] based on that. I think it clarifies things.

Thus, through this instructional approach, the different political-ideological positions can be directly and concretely explained.

A challenge with this classroom practice in the instruction-based lessons is that, although multiple perspectives were introduced, students were minimally encouraged to engage with them during the lessons. An example of this is a lesson in which a word web about a political issue was created with the whole class, with the teacher and students discussing various actors involved. One teacher said:

I wrote the [perspectives] on the whiteboard and then didn’t do much more with it. Perhaps there could have been a useful connection where students had to incorporate [the perspectives] into the [follow-up] assignment.

Students also indicated that merely introducing perspectives felt somewhat limited:

This indicates that a risk of merely introducing perspectives through an instruction-based method is that students may not actively engage with them, which can result in a superficial understanding of these perspectives.

Experience-based lessons: We integrated multiple perspectives into the simulations by assigning students roles with different viewpoints during democratic decision-making. Teachers and students indicated that this fostered an understanding of these perspectives and how they view various models of government and democracy. For example, in one lesson, students assumed the roles of engaged citizens, disengaged citizens, political representatives, and experts to decide whether decisions should be made through direct or representative democracy. One teacher said:

I noticed that [students] were able to easily make the connection with what direct democracy is and what representative democracy is. They quickly understood it afterwards, like, ‘Okay, what was my role? And what did we want, and why did we choose that [form of democracy]? And why didn’t we choose representative, or why not direct?’

This teacher suggests that by taking on roles, students came to understand why someone with a certain perspective might prefer to participate in democracy in a particular way. This indicates that role immersion can help students gain a deeper insight into different perspectives on models of democracy.

However, some students found role immersion challenging. One reason they mentioned is that they struggled to come up with arguments for their role if they did not agree with the perspective of that role: “It’s quite difficult if you don’t agree with the [role] yourself, to then, let’s say, come up with [arguments] for that [role].” Another reason students mentioned is that they prefer to engage in discussions based on their personal opinions: “It’s nice that everyone gets a [role card] with an opinion on it, but it’s more enjoyable to express your own opinion.” Thus, role immersion requires significant effort during a simulation lesson.

Thinking About Solutions From Divergent Perspectives

Instruction-based lessons: We integrated this practice into the workbook assignments, in which students explored democratic solutions to political issues with conflicting perspectives. Teachers and students perceived this as efficacious for helping students realise the difficulty of reaching a collective solution. For example, in one lesson, students worked on solutions to regional political issues (e.g. infrastructure deficits) while considering opposing viewpoints. Students indicated that they came to recognise that different perspectives and interests are involved in solving a political issue. As the following students noted:

This indicates that students recognised the divergent perspectives and interests involved in solving an issue. Notably, this way of thinking does not seem obvious to students, as they also seemed to have an oversimplified expectation of the government – that it should “just fix that road.”

A challenge with this classroom practice during instruction was getting students to substantiate and justify a solution based on divergent perspectives, which was not always accomplished. Teachers mentioned that merely thinking about a solution was not enough; rather, substantiating and justifying the choices and perspectives involved could contribute to a deeper understanding. One teacher said:

[The solutions] didn’t necessarily have to be justified, or anything like that. [. . .] Why did they choose that solution? That wasn’t clearly reflected in the answers. [. . .] Do they take into account: Who is involved? Who makes the decisions? Those kinds of things.

Justification is seen as necessary by the teachers to gain better insight into whether the solution truly incorporates multiple perspectives and has been democratically reached. In the workbook assignments, students simply proposed solutions without providing justification.

Experience-based lessons: We integrated this practice into the simulations by having students collectively think about a solution to a political issue in a structured manner. Teachers and students indicated that this made the difficulties of the democratic decision-making process more tangible for students. Also, they indicated that students learned how to come to a decision together. For example, during one lesson students gradually put forward new ideas and negotiated legislative amendments in a simulated parliament to reach a compromise. One student said:

It was just insightful, that [to reach a compromise] you actually make an [amendment] [. . .] And then, for example, a student comes and immediately says, ‘I disagree with that.’ [. . .] And then you eventually come to a point where you say, ‘I agree with it, but. . .’ and then make a small adjustment [to the proposal]. And then each time a small adjustment. And you still come to an agreement.

By engaging in step by step negotiations, students and teachers mentioned that students saw how arguments and counterarguments shaped solutions. They indicated that this experience helped students better understand how compromises are reached.

A challenge arose when students had to make collective decisions based on their personal opinions rather than assigned roles. In such cases, students often agreed with each other from the outset, which limited their exploration of divergent perspectives. This occurred, for example, during a simulated citizens’ assembly in which students had to make a collective decision on meat taxation. One teacher said:

What we noticed in both classes is that we had to be careful that they all agree too easily, which happens very quickly. [. . .] I tried to address this by advising them beforehand to sit with someone they disagree with, so that there’s diversity in their subgroup. This is indeed important because that’s when all the different arguments truly come to light.

In these cases, learning about democratic decision-making became challenging, as the entire group had already reached unanimous agreement beforehand.

Critical Reflection on the Subject Matter

Instruction-based lessons: We integrated this practice in the lessons by having students think about dilemmas related to democracy through questions that were posed during lectures and in workbook assignments. Critical reflection, as operationalised in this study, encompasses various aspects, including students reflecting on their personal value judgements about models of government and democracy, as well as political-ideological positions. The interviews with students and teachers indicate that the instruction-based lessons were efficacious in stimulating better insight into those personal judgements of the students. One student said:

I think the way the questions [in the workbook] are asked is good. They always say: ‘What do you think about it?’ or ‘What do you think?’ rather than ‘What is it actually?’ It always includes ‘According to you’ or ‘According to you all.’ The book is open [for my opinion], like, you can really say what you truly think.

This indicates that the workbook questions and those during classroom discussion seemed to help students develop their ability to form their personal value judgements about models of government and democracy, as well as political-ideological standpoints.

Another aspect of critical reflection in this study involved students considering the strengths, limitations, and underlying arguments of normative concepts, such as models of democracy. While some students mentioned they found this interesting, both teachers and students noted that providing in-depth responses to related reflection questions was often challenging. For instance, teachers noted that students’ answers were sometimes short and superficial, and students sometimes left questions about limitations on models of democracy unanswered in their workbooks. One student said:

I found strengths [of forms of democracy] easier to find than limitations [. . .] I always find positive thinking easier than negative thinking. [. . .] I had to think of a negative [side of a form of democracy], but then I didn’t really know what to think and how.

Accordingly, teachers and students suggested that in order to make arguments that students do not come up with on their own – such as those concerning limitations of models of democracy – more accessible, it might be better to explain these arguments during a lecture or in the workbook.

Experience-based lessons: We integrated this practice by having students reflect on their simulation experiences through guided questions about dilemmas related to models of government and democracy during debriefing sessions. Interviewed teachers noted that students often clearly reflected on the strengths and limitations of different models, as well as their personal value judgements. One teacher explained:

[The reflection revolved] around discussing the desirability of [majority rule], and the strengths and limitations. I think that students initially thought, ‘Oh, that’s easy, the majority.’ And they reconsidered that after the discussion. [. . .] At the moment when they weren’t in the majority it was very frustrating [for them]. And some even said: ‘Yes, it takes so much effort and energy to convince people [who are in the majority].’

Thus, critical reflection during debriefing seemed to help students better understand the strengths and limitations, of, in this case, majority rule, along with the impact of decisions on various groups, such as the majority and minority. Experiencing something first-hand, followed by critical reflection during the debriefing, appears to be efficacious for deepening students’ understanding of democratic decision-making, as it allows them to reflect on how various decision-making aspects became apparent through the experience.

Table 4 summarises the perceived efficacy and challenges of all four examined classroom practices.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 4.

Summary of the Perceived Efficacy and Challenges of the Four Classroom Practices.

Classroom practice	Instruction		Experience
	Perceived efficacy	Challenge	Perceived efficacy	Challenge
Meaningful embedding	Students saw abstract subject matter reflected in the real world with real people. For example, they observed how civilians live under illiberal democratic rule and were therefore able to understand this political system better.	n/a	Students were able to gain a sense of the abstract subject matter by experiencing and feeling it in a simulated setting. For example, they felt injustice in a simulated dictatorship and were therefore better able to understand this form of government.	Feelings and emotions sometimes evoked frustration, such as feeling excluded or unjustly treated, which compromised the safety and comfortability of the classroom climate and thus the learning process.
Providing multiple perspectives	Students were presented with different political-ideological positions and interests on political issues and discussed them. These perspectives were structured through visualisations, such as diagrams, which clarified the political landscape for them.	Students were presented with perspectives, such as actors on political issues in a word web, but did not further engage with them, which may result in a superficial understanding.	Students immersed themselves in a perspective by adopting a role, such as a political actor with a specific interest in a political issue, which enhanced their understanding of that perspective and of that actor’s view on democracy.	Students found it difficult to immerse themselves in a role, such as that of a political actor they disagreed with, or preferred reasoning from their own opinions on a political issue.
Thinking about solutions from divergent perspectives	Students worked on a solution to a political issue during an assignment or classroom discussion and realised that it can be difficult to take different people’s perspectives into account.	Students did not substantiate their thoughts on political solutions using different perspectives, so it did not become clear whether a solution was truly reached democratically.	Students collectively decided on a political issue during a simulation based on arguments and counterarguments. By doing so, they experienced that, despite the difficulty, it was still possible to take many people’s perspectives into account.	Students quickly arrived at a solution because they easily agreed with each other. As a result, there was little conflict of arguments, which made it more challenging for them to learn about democratic decision-making.
Critical reflection on the subject matter	Students could express their opinions during questioning in lectures or workbook assignments and, as a result, learned to develop their own value judgements about models of government and democracy, as well as about political-ideological positions.	Students found it difficult to argue the strengths or limitations of models of democracy; they did not clearly substantiate their ideas with arguments or they provided only superficial argumentation.	During the debriefing, students reflected on their simulated experience to identify the strengths and limitations of models of government and democracy. This simulation–reflection sequence helped them learn to express well-substantiated value judgements about these models.	n/a

Meaningful Embedding and Dealing With Emotions

One finding of this study is that the lessons were perceived as meaningful, particularly when the abstract concept of democracy was linked to real-life experiences. Democracy is thus not only an abstract and complex concept but also something that can be made concrete for students (Löhr, 2019). In this case, democracy was made concrete because abstract democratic concepts were illustrated through examples and videos (instruction-based) and because these were embedded in sensory-motor experiences (experience-based; Lebert & Vilarroya, 2024; Smets, 2024). According to the teachers and students, the lessons allowed students to see and feel democracy in action, helping them attach meaning to democratic concepts and better understand their practical implications. Also, consistent with Rosiek (2003), meaningful embedding in the evaluated lessons sometimes triggered students’ emotions, which may foster deeper emotional engagement with the subject matter. However, teachers must be aware of the discomfort that emotions may cause, especially when focusing on sensitive topics like dictatorship and exclusion during decision-making.

Making the subject matter meaningful therefore involves a potential dilemma concerning offering an authentic, emotionally engaging experience versus maintaining a comfortable and safe learning environment with fewer emotions. Our results show that an emotionally engaging experience is perceived as efficacious; for example, when students experience injustice in a simulated dictatorship, it evokes genuine emotions and therefore potentially fosters a better understanding of the concept of dictatorship. However, this also entails a risk, because students may experience negative emotions as frustrating, which can compromise the comfortability and safety of the classroom climate (cf. Pace, 2019, on dilemmas surrounding classroom safety). Our results thus indicate that there can be a trade-off for teachers between predominantly comfortable learning experiences with few emotions vis-à-vis experiences that evoke stronger emotions, which may enhance learning but can also trigger emotions so intense that they hinder it (see also Sheppard & Levy, 2019).

Multiple Perspectives, Collective Problem-solving and Stimulating Conflict

The results also indicate that both teachers and students found that providing multiple perspectives – through the use of diagrams or role immersion – helped students develop a clearer overview of these perspectives. To promote a deeper understanding of multiple perspectives, previous studies emphasise the importance of moving beyond the mere presentation of opposing views and actively engaging students in perspective-taking, particularly with perspectives that challenge their own (Gehlbach, 2011; Gehlbach et al., 2008; Lo & Parker, 2016; Sandahl, 2020). The findings of this study suggest that this was successfully achieved through role immersion in the evaluated simulations, where students were required to reason from alternative viewpoints. In contrast, the instruction-based lessons in this study were less successful in this regard, because perspectives were often only explained and not further explored by students.

Another finding is that, according to both teachers and students, students gained insight into democratic decision-making processes by exploring collective solutions to political issues. This was integrated into the lessons through structured sequences of questions in written assignments (instruction-based) and through predefined decision-making procedures embedded in simulations (experience-based). The importance of this for learning aligns with previous research – both on instruction-based and experience-based teaching – which suggests that breaking down complex subject matter, such as decision-making processes and negotiations, and having students practise them step by step helps them understand these concepts better (Rosenshine, 2009; Wright-Maley, 2015). It is noteworthy that both diverse teaching methods can be successfully used to support students in understanding how collective solutions to political issues are developed, indicating that both methods can be valuable for learning about democracy.

Additionally, when learning about collective solutions, it is considered important that students experience sufficient conflict and that they substantiate their solutions from multiple perspectives (Guérin, 2017; Hess & McAvoy, 2015). However, this proved to be a challenge in the instruction-based lessons because students sometimes worked individually and occasionally chose one-sided solutions. Furthermore, the results indicate that finding collective solutions was also challenging during simulations, as students sometimes reached consensus too quickly (similar findings by Dack et al., 2016). This was especially the case in simulations when students reasoned from their own perspective rather than from a prescribed role. Therefore, in both teaching methods, ensuring that students arrive at a solution by considering divergent perspectives remains challenging.

This study also reveals a potential dilemma concerning collective problem-solving based on assigned roles versus problem-solving based on students’ personal perspectives. In the present study, students enjoyed collective problem-solving from their own perspectives, which aligns with research showing that speaking from personal viewpoints is positively related to enjoyment (Graf et al., 2024). However, the findings also show that in simulations where students hold similar opinions – or may be debate- or conflict-avoidant (K. E. Dahl, 2024) – speaking from personal viewpoints may lead to premature consensus and limit engagement with divergent perspectives (see also, e.g. Smith and Stitzlein, 2024, on the “oneness” of opinions). In contrast, our findings also indicate that role-taking in such simulations can foster better understanding of divergent views (see also Lo & Parker, 2016), but students often found role-taking difficult or less enjoyable. This indicates that there can be a trade-off for teachers. On the one hand, there are activities involving role assignment that foster substantial conflict, but these may be more demanding or less enjoyable for students. On the other hand, there are activities in which students speak from their own views, but when these views are quite similar to one another, opportunities to learn about divergent perspectives and the complexities of collective problem-solving may be limited.

Stimulating Critical Reflection

The findings of this study further suggest that, during classroom discussions and reflections, students found it interesting to explore their personal value judgements on models of government and democracy, as well as political-ideological positions. However, higher-order critical thinking – where students, for instance, use arguments to support their ideas – can require significant effort from teachers (Newmann, 1991; Onosko, 1991). One way to foster higher-order thinking is through an experience-reflection sequence, such as in simulations (Crookall, 2023; Kolb, 1984). The efficacy of this approach for learning about democracy is supported by this study’s results. Students directly experienced and observed the strengths and limitations of models of government and democracy in simulations. They were then able to clearly articulate these strengths and limitations during debriefing. In the instruction-based lessons, however, there were instances where students seemed to struggle to express themselves in depth during the workbook assignments, as they sometimes were unable to come up with arguments on their own or provided limited substantiation for their ideas. This may be due to the fact that the type of student involved in this research sometimes finds argumentation – especially in writing – challenging, which indicates the need for more structured attention to academic literacy and critical thinking, possibly supported by additional scaffolding from teachers (e.g. Konstantinidou et al., 2023; López et al., 2023). Thus, promoting higher-order critical reflection among these students through instruction-based lessons requires considerable effort.

Limitations

This qualitative, exploratory study was conducted specifically in secondary vocational education in the Netherlands. As a result, we gained in-depth insights into this educational context, but these are not directly generalisable or transferable. Therefore, further qualitative and quantitative research is needed among other student populations in different educational tracks and national contexts. Also, the researchers’ involvement in lesson design, observations, and interviews may have influenced the results. The researcher asked the participants to be as honest and critical as possible during the interviews and used probing questions that invited criticism, like “what went less well during the teaching method?” or “what do you think could be improved?”; however, participants might still have responded more positively in the presence of the lesson designer during interviews (McKenney et al., 2006). Furthermore, the findings may be influenced by teacher-related factors like personality and teaching style, or by the subject matter covered during the lessons. Although both sets of lessons covered similar subject matter, their emphasis differed. For example, forms of democratic decision-making was a central theme in the experience-based lessons but was only addressed in one of the instruction-based ones. Therefore, differences in the evaluations may reflect variations in subject matter or teacher characteristics, rather than the teaching method alone. For this reason, we are cautious about making direct comparisons between the teaching methods based on our results.

Implications for Teaching Practice

The results of the present study have several practical implications for teachers. Our findings show that teachers can use the different classroom practices integrated into the instruction-based and experience-based teaching methods examined in this study, which may be effective in stimulating democratic competences and values. Therefore, when designing and implementing lessons, teachers elsewhere can adopt the methods and practices used in the present study. Although the teaching methods and classroom practices in our study are tailored to democracy in the Netherlands (see Andeweg et al., 2020), the findings are also relevant to other countries, as the methods and practices are based on studies conducted in various political and cultural contexts. The methods and practices from the present study can thus be adjusted to the political system of the specific country in which a teacher works and to the sociopolitical issues that are salient there. Teachers can make the subject matter meaningful by allowing students to experience democratic decision-making on urgent issues within country-specific institutions, by exposing them to different perspectives on country-specific political issues, by encouraging them to think about solutions from those perspectives, and by prompting them to reflect critically on decision-making processes in that country. In addition, similar to the lessons in the present study, it would be valuable for teachers to compare forms of government and democracy in the country in question with those of other countries.

This study also shows that, in designing and implementing lessons on democracy, there are challenges that teachers should take into account. During simulations, teachers need to be aware of students’ backgrounds and likely emotional responses, and they may use “de-escalation techniques” (Pace, 2019), such as avoiding placing students who might feel angry or offended in uncomfortable roles (e.g. a minority position or an unjust role) and meeting with them one-on-one before or after the lesson. Teachers might also allow for emotional release after the simulation and create space to discuss these emotions during the debriefing (Crookall, 2023). In addition, prior research indicates that teachers need a solid understanding of the subject matter and the skills to ask thought-provoking questions that help students understand it (Wilen, 2001). For the lessons in the present study, this means having a good grasp of fundamental aspects of different forms of government and democracy, their strengths and limitations, and how these are integrated into the assignments and the simulations. Teachers also need to be able to question students’ value judgements through open and follow-up questions, inviting them to respond to one another and asking them to justify their views with arguments, for example by drawing on their simulation experiences.

This study also has implications for teacher education programmes. For instruction-based lessons, such programmes can support preservice teachers by first having them analyse students’ democratic reasoning. Based on this analysis, preservice teachers can develop skills to stimulate their students’ critical thinking, such as which questions to ask, what feedback to provide, and which scaffolds to offer (see, e.g. Klijnstra et al., 2024). For experience-based lessons, teacher training programmes can focus on preservice teachers reflecting in advance on how their students might respond to democracy simulations, for teacher educators to model simulation practices, and for preservice teachers to rehearse simulations themselves (see, e.g. Lampert et al., 2013; Loughran & Berry, 2005). This can help them understand, for example, their students’ emotions or the possible emergence of conflict or consensus, and how to anticipate these reactions.

In conclusion, evaluating the four classroom practices integrated into the lessons provided valuable insights into the mechanisms of instruction- and experience-based teaching for democracy. This study clarified how teachers and students perceive these classroom practices as efficacious for learning about democracy, alongside the challenges involved. Future research could further investigate the actual effectiveness of these methods when incorporating such classroom practices. This could contribute to a better understanding of how to design effective democracy lessons for vocational education students.