The study explores the meaning of knowing how to reason about justice in civics in upper secondary school. This is examined through the analysis of students’ conceptions of justice, and of their conceptions of civic reasoning about justice. It is also examined through the analysis of civic education practise. In the study, teaching was designed using Variation Theory and the theory of intersubjectivity in Activity Theory, and examined and evaluated in three Learning Studies. The empirical material consists of filmed and transcribed research lessons and interviews, as well as of written pre- and post-tests. The material was first analysed using phenomenography, and then analysed using content-oriented conversation analysis. Students’ conceptions of justice were found to move between the conception of justice as (A) a universal value, (B) a personal value or (C) a value of principle. Students’ conceptions of civic reasoning about justice were found to move between three conceptions: (a) reporting about justice, (b) analysing causes of different perspectives on justice or (c) critical reasoning about principles of justice. The critical aspects of knowing how to reason about justice in civics that students needed to discern were the relativity of justice, the basis for arguments for principles of justice and the analysing as well as the criticizing aspects of reasoning. The subject-knowledge that the teachers expressed in their teaching was one condition of the practise of civics that was found to be of importance for the students’ learning. Others were the assumed purpose of the practise of civics and a genuine need for the intended knowledge in the practice. Communicative actions that seem to facilitate these conditions are real learning tasks and a subject-specific language and variation of critical aspects as mediating tools. The findings are discussed in relation to theories of justice in political science and to the practise of civics education.

The study addresses the question of what conditions of teaching that benefits the development of the ability to critically analyse issues of justice in early social science and civics education. It also presents some indications of this emerging ability, where students treat the concept of justice not as a stated or explained fact or viewpoint but as a contested concept that needs critical examination. The analysis shows the possibility for eight-year-olds to start learning how to reason about justice as an essentially contested concept and to start participating in critical analyses of societal issues of distributive justice in a qualified way. This article discusses how teaching can be designed to help younger students develop and qualify the ability to analyse justice issues and proposes indications of such an ability.

Social science in primary school is often shaped by a crowded curriculum, and directed towards remembering and recapitulating facts rather than developing qualified ways of reasoning about societal issues. Nevertheless, critical reasoning is regarded a crucial ability for civics, both in the national curriculum and by teachers. The article explores teaching designed to benefit students’ possibilities to qualify their critical reasoning about issues of judicial justice in civic education in year 6 of primary school. The focus is on how the actions of students’ and teachers’ build teaching practises that promote or hinder critical reasoning about justice issues, depending on the motives for civics expressed and mediated through the actions of both teachers and students. Data material in the study consisted of transcribed group discussions and whole class conversations from three cycles of research lessons in a learning study conducted in collaboration with a team of seven primary school teachers. Four subject practises were identified, driven by different motives: participation, identity, deliberation and critical judgment. Actions driven by deliberation and critical judgment benefitted students’ critical reasoning about justice issues, while actions driven by participation and identity conflicted with it. The results may contribute to the discussion within social science didactics about the meaning of critical reasoning and critical judgement as a subject specific ability.