10. Teacher Education Research
Paper
Educational Practices of Teachers in Dealing with anti-Semitism at School.
Caroline Rau, Marcel Scholz
University of Bamberg, Germany
Presenting Author: Rau, Caroline;
Scholz, Marcel
The presentation looks at anti-Semitism in schools. Specifically, the focus is on educational practices of teachers when they meet anti-Semitism in school.
Anti-Semitism is interpreted as a phenomenon of exclusion. It is thus diametrically opposed to the claim of recognising diversity. Anti-Semitism is a complex phenomenon, which is addressed in different forms and by different groups of actors (Koerrenz, 2021). Anti-Semitism can be explicated as a permanent and latent structure of hostility towards Jews. On the individual level, it can manifest itself as a form of emotional beliefs, on the cultural level in the form of myths, (conspiracy-) ideologies, stereotypes, and so on. On the practical level, these manifestations can lead to discrimination and political mobilisation against Jews, among other things (Benz, 2015). Contemporary anti-Semitic phenomena relate to the national state of Israel: these phenomena are constituted in certain political and religious collectivities (Taguief, 2004). Recent empirical research shows that there has been a Europe-wide increase in anti-Semitic incidents since 2001 (EUMC, 2004). These have their origins in developments in a globalised world (Holz, 2010): For example, the global financial crisis of 2008 is used to reactivate the image of so-called "Jewish financial elites" (Bergmann, 2016).
Anti-Semitism and its various manifestations also affect the learning venue school (Bevelander & Hjerm, 2015; Vogtländer & Voth, 2015; Greene & Kingsbury, 2017). Studies focus on Jewish young people affected by anti-Semitism. In addition, the extent to which anti-Semitism is represented among non-Jewish young people is taken into account (Mansel & Spaiser, 2013). In the context of "Holocaust education", adolescents are explicitly sensitised to anti-Semitism and its manifestations (Wetzel, 2019). In this context, analyses of textbooks and curricula (Kößler, 2006) also provide recommendations for schools that should lead to attitudes that promote democracy.
In addition, a discourse on the professionalism of educators in the context of anti-Semitism has been established (Gläser, Hentges & Meier, 2021). In particular, there are studies on how open youth work educators deal with anti-Semitism (Radvan, 2010 & 2011). In the context of schools, studies have been conducted that explore anti-Semitism among students and the relationship of teachers to anti-Semitism (Haynes, 2003; Fechler, 2006; Moulin, 2016; Thomas, 2016; Bernstein, 2020). Recently, Rüb was able to show that teachers at German schools attribute a high relevance to anti-Semitism. In this context, teachers show very different orientations of action by means of which they counter anti-Semitic statements by pupils: These orientations of actions range from trivialisation and externalisation to a historicising perspective of the anti-Semitic incident (2023, i.E.).
A desideratum exists with regard to the question of what educational practices teachers display when they encounter anti-Semitism at school. This study addresses this desideratum. It explores the educational practices of teachers in the context of anti-Semitism. Specifically, it focuses on the following questions: How do teachers exert educational influence on the development and behaviour of pupils in order to counteract anti-Semitism? How do teachers shape these educational processes? What concrete values do they try to instil in students to counter anti-Semitism? In which situations where anti-Semitism occurs do teachers take educational action?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe research design of this study is based on a qualitative-reconstructive approach. To date, there are only a few research findings on teacher professionalism and teacher action in the context of anti-Semitism. Given this deficient research situation, this study is based on a hypothesis-generating, qualitative-reconstructive paradigm: Methodologically and methodologically, the study specifically connects to teachers' everyday educational practices when they come into contact with students' anti-Semitic remarks.
For this research approach, it is important that interviewees are treated with openness so that they can set their own themes that are relevant to them. This requirement was met by using the narrative interview as a data collection method (Nohl, 2010). During an open-ended narrative interview, teachers were able to tell about their educational experiences and practices in the context of anti-Semitism. The data were analyzed using the documentary method (Bohnsack 2014, 2017): This method succeeded in providing empirical access to teachers' educational practices. The combination of data collection method "Interview" and data analysis method "Documentary Method" is based on the basic methodological assumptions of Mannheim (1964, 1980). Within the framework of his sociology of knowledge, Mannheim distinguishes between communicative, explicit knowledge and conjunctive, implicit knowledge. Explicit knowledge is theoretical. It contains normative statements about educational self-concept. Teachers can make this knowledge explicit. For example, "What do teachers say about their educational approach in the context of anti-Semitism?". Tacit knowledge is experiential. It influences teachers' habitualized, educational actions; this knowledge is not reflexively accessible to teachers. For example, "How do teachers educate in the context of anti-Semitism?". Implicit knowledge is actualized during the interview via narratives on the part of teachers and can be reconstructed using the Documentary Method (Bohnsack, 2022; Bohnsack et al., 2010).
The sample of the study consists of 17 interviews with German teachers: According to different "theoretical sampling" strategies (Glaser & Strauß, 1998), the interviews were compiled (e.g., gender, age, teaching position in large city or small town, different school types, professional experience, Jewish and non-Jewish origin). The findings of the study were consensually validated in monthly meetings in the context of a research workshop. The findings were generalized into a typology. This typology maps teachers' educational practices in the context of anti-Semitism.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe yield of the study lies in the empirical exploration of teacher professionalism. Education - understood as the intentional influencing of psychological dispositions through social interactions (Brezinka, 1978) - is seen as a significant task and competence within the framework of teacher professionalism (Baumert & Kunter, 2006; Terhart, 2011). By exploring teachers' educational practices in the context of anti-Semitism, a contribution is made to diversity-sensitive teacher practices in schools.
Empirical analysis of the data reveals, among other things, the following: Teachers delegate the task of education to educands. Teachers ask students, for example, to leave the classroom and think about their own anti-Semitic statements. This shows that teachers do not make the intentional content of the educational activity explicit to the students. The goals of the educational activity are thus likely to remain largely undefined for the educand.
Furthermore, teachers' practices are oriented by different regulative principles. One of these is the construction of a causal relationship. Teachers assume that certain actions will inevitably lead to their intended educational goal. The subjectivity of students, which can perturb educational actions, is hardly taken into account. Moreover, teachers become educationally active particularly when students express anti-Semitic views. Thus, the educational potential of anti-Semitism for raising awareness about diversity remains largely untapped: Anti-Semitism is addressed on a situational basis and hardly finds its way into teachers' educational activities as a cross-cutting issue.
At the same time, the findings show that teachers see themselves as part of a team of educators. They involve other school stakeholders (e.g., principals, school social workers, etc.). At the level of the individual school, concepts are developed to enable a consistent approach to dealing with anti-Semitism among students. Educational practices of teachers in dealing with anti-Semitism show up here as a facet of cooperation in multiprofessional, school-based teams.
ReferencesBernstein, J. (2020). Antisemitismus an Schulen in Deutschland, Befunde – Analysen Handlungsoptionen. Weinheim & Basel: Beltz.
Bevelander, P., & Hjerm, M. (2015). The religious affiliation and anti-Semitism of secondary school-age Swedish youths: an analysis of survey data from 2003 and 2009. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 38 (15), 2705-2721. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2015.1042893
Bohnsack, R., Pfaff, N. & Weller, W. (2010). Qualitative analysis and documentary method in international educational research. In R. Bohnsack, N. Pfaff & W. Weller (Hrsg.), Qualitative analysis and documentary method in international educational research (p. 7–40). Opladen u. Farmington Hills: Barbara Budrich. https://doi.org/10.3224/86649236
European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) (2004). Manifestations of Antisemitism in the EU 2002–2003. Based on information by the National Focal Points of the RAXEN Information Network. Wien.
Gläser, G., Hentges, G. & Meier, M. (2021). Implementing Antisemitism Studies in German Teacher Education. Journal of Social Science Education, 20(3), 75–101.
Greene, J. P. & Kingsbury, I. (2017). The Relationship Between Public and Private Schooling and Anti-Semitism. Journal of School Choice, 11(1), 111–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/15582159.2016.1270143
Haynes, M. (2003). „Vive la Differance“: Jewish Women Teachers' Constructions of Ethnicity and Identity and Their Experiences of Anti-Semitism in Secondary Schools. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 6(1), 51–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332032000044585
Koerrenz, R. (2021). Semitismus und Antisemitismus. Über aktives und passives Othering. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik und Theologie, 73(2), 130–150. https://doi.org/10.1515/zpt-2021-0018
Moulin, D. (2016). Reported schooling experiences of adolescent Jews attending non-Jewish secondary schools in England. Race Ethnicity and Education, 19(4), 683–705. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2015.1013459
Nohl, A.‑M. (2010). The Documentary Interpretation of Narrative Interviews. In R. Bohnsack, N. Pfaff & W. Weller (Hrsg.), Qualitative analysis and documentary method in international educational research (p. 195–218). Opladen u. Farmington Hills: Barbara Budrich.
Radvan, H. (2010). Pädagogisches Handeln und Antisemitismus. Eine empirische Studie zu Beobachtungs- und Interventionsformen in der offenen Jugendarbeit. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.
Rüb, P. (2023, i.E.). Der Umgang mit Antisemitismus im Unterricht. Eine qualitativ-rekonstruktive Studie zu Orientierungen von Lehrkräften. Bad Heilbrunn: Julius Klinkhardt.
Taguieff, P.-A. (2004). Rising from the Muck: The New Anti-Semitism in Europe. Chicago, IL: Ivan R. Dee.
Thomas, P. (2016). Exploring Anti-Semitism in the Classroom: A Case Study Among Norwegian Adolescents from Minority Backgrounds. Journal of Jewish Education, 82(3), 182–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/15244113.2016.1191255
Vogtländer, N., & Voth, H.–J. (2015). Nazi indoctrination and anti-Semitic beliefs in Germany. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences oft he United States of America, 112(26), 7931–7936. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1414822112
10. Teacher Education Research
Paper
Populism and Its Impact on Young People in Schools - A Comparative European Snapshot
Justin Rami1, John Lalor1, Chris Gifford2, Ognen Spasovski3, Nikolina Kenig3, Epameinondas Panagopoulos4
1Dublin City University, IE; 2University of Huddersfield, UK; 3Ss. Cyril and Methodius University of Skopje, MKD; 4University of Patras, GR
Presenting Author: Rami, Justin;
Lalor, John
The concept of Populism has been identified as a challenge to democracy, tolerance, and European values (Bugaric, 2020). This joint paper explores the context, curriculum and teaching methodologies related to addressing issues associated with the rise of populism in Europe.
The paper describes the interim findings of a research initiative hosted by CitEdEv, a pan-European research network, which is supported by the European Commission’s Jean Monet Programme. The research project team consists of researchers from the UK, Ireland, Greece and the Republic of North Macedonia. The larger research network brings together experts from 28 institutions from across 19 European countries concerned with and committed to developing all children’s and young people’s active citizenship in line with fundamental European values. The project seeks to make EU citizenship education relevant to a context in which many children and young people are anxious and concerned about their futures in the face of populism, xenophobia, divisive nationalism, discrimination, fake news and misinformation, as well as the challenge of radicalisation.
Schools are considered to play an important role as institutions educating young people about democratic principles and serve as niches for the development of civic engagement (Hüning, 2022). The broad conceptualisation of civic education is often used to describe ‘the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that children are expected to learn to be virtuous and civically productive members of society’ (Levinson, 2014, p.1). Echoing this year’s ECER conference theme (The Value of Diversity in Education and Educational Research) this timely research outlines the views and perspectives of educationalists working with young people in the classroom. As Biesta (2020) states 'education for democracy raises awareness of ourselves and others, how we act in society, our freedom and the limits that our living together poses to our own freedom’ (p.96).
Contribution to the European dimension – As part of the Jean Monet network this research project aims to contribute to the will operationalising of the Paris Declaration of March 17 2015 (Eurydice, 2016) agreed upon by EU Education Ministers and Commissioner Navracsics promoting citizenship and common values through education, which identified the ‘urgent need to cooperate and coordinate, to exchange experiences, and to ensure that the best ideas and practices can be shared throughout the European Union. Using the Paris objectives as a framework, CitEdEv will compare and contrast the definitions, perceptions and implementation of European values in formal and informal education settings and in their different national and institutional contexts and identify ways to enhance best practices.
The aim of the research is to view the initial findings in the context of international and pan-European trends. The research aims to include a comparative element taking in parallel research by the CitEdEV partners in a number of EU member and accession countries. The research will recognise that best practices must reflect the experiences and voices of all.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedPhase 1 of the research (2021-2022) developed the methodological and conceptual framework used by the research consortium. One of the objectives of the research is to make a practical contribution that supports those working in education and young people’s organisations as they face the populist challenge. It will do this by collating an evidential base from academic, government and civil society research that will inform best practice and identify gaps where policy and practice have and has not been successful. The broader Network’s activities and research will be shaped to address these lacunae. The data will be triangulated with secondary analysis of literature, expert interviews, and case studies. Purposive sampling was applied to the target population, ensuring a range of experiences, genders, school-type and governance. During the interviews, teachers were asked about their understanding of the term populism, if and how it featured in the formal and informal activities of the school, what resources teachers might need to teach about this idea and how education systems might respond to the threats and challenges posed by populism to EU values and to previously accepted notions of knowledge-formation, understanding and expertise.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsSome of the initial findings outline that teachers need to be responsive and flexible in addressing real-world issues e.g. (the Ukraine crisis, climate change and refugee issues).
Respondents from some of the partner countries had a limited understanding of the concept of populism. Others stated that it is not relevant to education, but rather related to institutional politics. Some teachers who are aware of the rise and influence of populism are in a minority and can, at times, feel isolated. Interestingly, in relation to European values, some teachers blame the EU as a cause of populism (e.g: accession in North Macedonia, and austerity in Greece). Emerging from the data was the concept of the differences between education institutions, the formal curriculum, and the wider political/social culture, particularly in these fast-changing times where political national and European events can determine societal and individual responses. The data also revealed that there are significant differences in scope and opinion depending on the educational discipline of the teacher. The analysis of the findings may help to enable teachers to respond skilfully and quickly to a wider populist political culture in their home countries.
ReferencesBiesta, G.J.J. 2020. ‘Risking Ourselves in Education: Qualification, Socialisation, and Subjectification Revisited’ in Educational Theory, Vol 70, Issue 1, pp 89-104
Bugarič, B. (2020). The Populist Backlash against Europe: Why Only Alternative Economic and Social Policies Can Stop the Rise of Populism in Europe. In F. Bignami (Ed.), EU Law in Populist Times: Crises and Prospects (pp. 477-504). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108755641.017
European Education and Culture Executive Agency, Eurydice, Promoting citizenship and the common values of freedom, tolerance and non-discrimination through education : overview of education policy developments in Europe following the Paris Declaration of 17 March 2015, Publications Office, 2016, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2797/396908
Hüning, H. Schools’ We-mentality and Students’ Civic Engagement – A Text-based Approach. Child Ind Res 15, 2215–2241 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-022-09954-0 in Guillaume, C., Jagers, R. J., & Rivas-Drake, D. (2015). Middle school as a developmental niche for civic engagement American Journal of Community Psychology, 56: 321-331
Levinson, M., (2014). Citizenship and Civic Education. In Encyclopedia of Educational Theory and Philosophy, ed. Denis C. Phillips. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10. Teacher Education Research
Paper
Vocational Teachers’ View on Civic Education at Vocational Schools
Robin Busse
University of Goettingen, Germany
Presenting Author: Busse, Robin
School-based civic education is given a crucial role in developing youths’ democratic competences (Galston 2001). A large body of research examined effects of civic education in general school education, whereas civic education at vocational schools is so far hardly investigated (Busse et al. 2022). In many European countries, vocational schools provide not only learning opportunities for trainees’ vocational education and training (VET) but also civic education. In Germany, the educational administration recently emphasized the need of a stronger civic education at vocational schools. In many German federal states, this emphasis resulted in educational tasks for vocational schools aimed at the promotion of students’ democratic competences by the whole school staff (e.g., Ministry of Education and Cultural Affairs of Lower Saxony 2021). Although all teachers at vocational schools are explicitly addressed by this task, those who specialized in civics or political science may have particular responsibilities.
So far, little is known about how civic education is conceptualized by the school staff at vocational schools. This is of particular importance as teachers’ education-related views influence how they teach (Reichert et al. 2021). Teachers’ views may affect the selected topics and classroom activities for students’ learning (e.g., Fives/Buehl 2012). Thus, this study assumes that what teachers think about the aims of civic education matters to their teaching (Martens/Gainous 2013). Given the missing empirical knowledge regarding vocational teachers’ views on civic education, this study investigates the following research question:
How does the school staff at vocational schools vary in their understanding of civic education?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedFollowing a multi-method research design, the present study used individual semi-structured interviews and a standardized online questionnaire to explore participants’ views on civic education at vocational schools. The study was conducted in 2022 in the region of Lower-Saxony in Germany. 20 of the 130 official vocational schools in Lower-Saxony were invited to take part in the study. In total, 10 vocational schools participated. In each participating vocational school, the school principals, department head of the vocational school of the dual system (Berufsschule), team leaders of politics teachers, and politics teachers were invited to take part in the study. In total, so far n = 55 participants were interviewed and participated in the online questionnaire. Each interview was audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim.
A qualitative content analysis was conducted with MAXQDA to compare participants’ views on the concept of civic education at vocational schools. A combination of a deductive and inductive approach was used to analyze the content of the interviews. A set of categories describing main facets of democratic competences was first derived deductively from the literature to systematize participants’ views. For this purpose, the framework of the Europarat (2018) was used as it provides an internationally shared understanding of democratic competences. The deductively derived (sub )facets were than extended based on the interviews, which resulted in a final coding scheme with 5 main categories and 28 sub-categories. Each response regarding teachers’ concept of civic education was categorized with the (sub-)facets of democratic competences they applied to.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsMost of the interviewed participants (65%) conceptualized civic education at vocational school as the transmission of knowledge about democratic institutions, processes and concepts. Fostering student’s democratic skills was also largely considered by the teachers to be an important aim of civic education (56%). Almost half of the interviewed participants (47%) conceptualized civic education at vocational school as promoting students’ participation in democratic processes to stand up for their interests and for the democracy itself. The transmission of democratic attitudes was also pointed out by half of the interviewed participants to be an important aim of civic education (47%). Only 37% of the participants stated that civic education should foster students’ democratic values.Taken together, the interviewed teachers placed a strong emphasis on promoting students’ democratic knowledge and skills. However, an emphasis on knowledge transmission was not aligned with a focus on the promotion of skills and vice versa. In contrast, the results indicate that teachers who emphasize knowledge transmission are systematically less likely to highlight the promotion of skills (AME = -0.25; p < 0.10). These results of the qualitative data are also confirmed by the quantitative data of the follow-up questionnaire.
Taken together, the interviewed school staff can be classified in relation to their views about the concepts of civic education. Following Reichert and Torney-Purta (2019), it may be expected that distinct understandings of the concepts will provide different types of instruction that then may lead to different learning opportunities for students. This study showed that there is a mixed understanding regarding the concept of civic education among the school staff of vocational schools. Enhancing teacher development requires to understand heterogeneity among vocational school teachers as different aims of civic education may be associated with different pedagogical approaches and learning outcomes (e.g., Torney-Purta/Amadeo 2011).
ReferencesBusse, R., Krebs, P., Seeber, S., &Seifried, J. (2022). Zur Bedeutung der beruflichen Bildung für die politische Partizipation von Auszubildenden. berufsbildung. Zeitschrift für Theorie-Praxis-Dialog, 75(195), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.3278/BB2203W002
Council of Europe (2018). Reference framework of competences for democratic culture. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.
Fives, H., & Buehl, M. M. (2012). Spring cleaning for the “messy” construct of teachers’ beliefs: What are they? Which have been examined? What can they tell us? In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, S. Graham, J. M. Royer, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook. Individual differences and cultural and contextual factors (pp. 471–499). American Psychological Association.
Galston, W. A. (2001). Political Knowledge, Political Engagement, and Civic Education. Annual Review of Political Science, 4(1), 217–234. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.4.1.217
Reichert, F., Lange, D., & Chow, L. (2021). Educational beliefs matter for classroom instruction: A comparative analysis of teachers’ beliefs about the aims of civic education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 98, 103248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103248
Torney-Purta, J., & Amadeo, J. A. (2011). Participatory niches for emergent citizenship in early adolescence: An international perspective. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 633(1), 180-200.
Martens, A. M., &Gainous, J. (2013). Civic Education and Democratic Capacity: How Do Teachers Teach and What Works? Social Science Quarterly, 94(4), 956–976. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2012.00864.x
Ministry of Education and Cultural Affairs of Lower Saxony (2021). Foster civic education at public general and vocational schools. https://www.mk.niedersachsen.de/download/169692
/Erlass_zur_Staerkung_der_Demokratiebildung_in_Niedersachsen.pdf
10. Teacher Education Research
Paper
Playful Learning, Primary Teaching and Education Reform in Ukraine
Oksana Zabolotna1, Rachel Parker2, Amy Berry2
1Pavlo Tychyna Uman State Pedagogical Uni, Ukraine; 2Australian Council for Educational Research
Presenting Author: Zabolotna, Oksana;
Berry, Amy
Ukrainian education used to be part of the Soviet system and partly preserved its legacy with teacher-centered approaches and reproductive methods. Even after decades of independence, it was still knowledge-oriented and hardly connected with real-life experiences. It was evident that education did not prepare students for lifelong learning, critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and other 21st-century skills; therefore, radical long-term reform was on the agenda and it started in 2016. The New Ukrainian School (NUS) Reform was planned at all levels for decades ahead and was driven by the idea that teachers were the primary agents of change.
Primary school was the first to welcome the change and to encounter challenges. New Primary Education standards came into use, requiring dramatic changes in approaches to teaching and learning with inquiry-based learning, cooperative and collaborative learning, and problem and project-based learning as its main drivers. In the Standards, we do not find the terms “playful pedagogies” and "learning through play." Still, they are implicitly communicated through the attention to their characteristics and the skills to develop: “the ability to express one's own opinion orally and in writing, critical and systematic thinking, creativity, initiative, the ability to logically justify a position, the ability to constructively manage emotions, assess risks, make decisions, solve problems, and cooperate with others” (Cabinet of Ministers, 2018, p. 3).
Achieving all the ambitious plans is impossible without “motivated teachers who enjoy the freedom of creativity and professional development” (Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine, 2017, p. 7). The scope of work with primary school teachers included many offline and online courses, exchanging ideas, and learning from Ukrainian and international partners.
Learning Through Play at School is a partnership between the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) and the LEGO Foundation. The Ukraine Educational Research Association (UERA) implements the research study in-country. This study is part of the larger research project involving 30 Ukrainian teachers participating in a two-year professional learning program to support their understanding of playful learning and their implementation of playful pedagogies in the classroom.
To be successful, professional learning programs designed to promote teacher change need to consider not only what teachers do but also how teachers’ existing beliefs may influence the process of professional learning. The relationship between teacher beliefs and teacher practice is undeniably complex and has been the subject of considerable attention in the research literature for several decades. Broadly speaking, teacher beliefs act as filters for interpreting new information and experiences, frames for defining problems or situations, and guides when deciding on what actions to take (Fives & Buehl, 2011). In relation to pedagogical reform initiatives, teacher beliefs have the potential to influence what the teacher chooses to focus on and how they interpret it, what they perceive is required of them, and their decision-making when it comes to taking action. As part of a two-year professional development program focusing on playful learning at school, this study explored the initial beliefs held by participating teachers in relation to the reform agenda and the concept of playful learning at the start of the program and answered the research question: What are challenges and enablers in introducing Learning Through Play at Ukrainian School?
Understanding the contributing factors to (un)successful interventions is vital for designing/adapting a Teacher Professional Development Programme that develops teachers’ positive views, skills, and knowledge regarding playful pedagogies.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedGiven the potential influence of teacher beliefs on the implementation of playful learning during the program and beyond, the teachers were invited to take part in individual interviews at the beginning of the project to explore their thoughts about playful learning, their experiences of implementing playful learning at school, and their perspectives on the barriers and enablers to integrating playful learning in their classroom.
Interviews. The aim was to capture the meanings that participants make of their experiences in their own words. A semi-structured format was chosen to ensure that major touch points were addressed within each interview (providing a degree of comparability across interviews), while remaining sufficiently open to allow the interviewer to personalise the interview by asking probing follow up questions based on the response given. Key questions from the interview protocol were:
Can you describe a typical lesson in your classroom with first year students? (to understand whether playful learning approaches feature in a typical lesson)
What do you think might be some of the challenges to implementing learning through play?
What supports you to implement learning through play?
If you had to describe what learning through play means to you at the moment, how would you describe it?
How do you feel about participating in the study and what do you hope to achieve?
The interviews were conducted in Ukrainian and, due to COVID-19 restrictions, they took place online.
Participants. The participants in this study were 29 primary school teachers teaching Grade 1 students in Ukrainian schools. They represented a range of experience levels, with most having over 10 years of experience; all teachers were female. The teachers were spread across five regions of Ukraine (Kyiv, Dnipro, Kharkiv, Poltava, and Zaporizhzhia). There were six teachers from each region, except for Poltava where one teacher chose not to be interviewed but remained a part of the larger study.
Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed in Ukrainian and then translated into English for analysis in NVivo. The analysis followed a general inductive approach as described by Thomas (2006), with research questions providing the focus for the initial analysis. Initial categories were formed based on responses to interview questions. From there, the search began for sub-categories, and new codes were formed to represent these sub-categories. Once a coding framework was established, reliability checking was undertaken to test the inter-coder reliability (ICR) of the framework.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe findings are concerned with answering the question |”What are challenges and enablers in introducing Learning Through Play at Ukrainian School?”
Perceived challenges in implementing playful learning. When asked what challenges they faced in implementing LTP in their classroom, the teachers identified a number of potential barriers. In general, the challenges of Time, Children and Teacher knowledge, skill, confidence were identified across most/all of the schools and regions. The challenges of Accountability, Number of children, Physical environment and Parents were identified in only some regions/schools.
Perceived enablers in implementing playful learning.While some teachers (n=5) felt unable to identify what would support them to implement playful learning due to a lack of experience with this approach, most were able to provide an insight into the following perceived enablers: being motivated and supported to do it, knowing how to implement it, and knowing what playful learning is.
In the discussion part, we look into how these findings connect with the literature around implementing LTP at school and will see if the perceived barriers and enablers relate to system-level factors that are discussed in the opening sections.
ReferencesCabinet of Ministers. (2018). Derzhavnyj standart pochatkovoyi osvity [Primary Education State Standard]. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/87-2018-%D0%BF#Text
Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Research, Merrill.
Fives, H., & Buehl, M. M. (2011). Spring cleaning for the “messy” construct of teachers’ beliefs: What are they? Which have been examined? What can they tell us? APA Educational Psychology Handbook, Vol. 2: Individual Differences and Cultural and Contextual Factors, 2, 471-499.
Gorozidis, G., & Papaioannou, A. G. (2014). Teachers' motivation to participate in training and to implement innovations. Teaching and teacher education, 39, 1-11.
Hargreaves, A. (1997). Cultures of teaching and educational change. In M. Fullan (Ed.), The challenge of school change: A collection of articles (pp. 33-45). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Kennedy, M. (2016). How does professional development improve teaching? Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 945-980.
Labaree, D. F. (2021). The dynamic tension at the core of the grammar of the grammar of schooling. Phi Delta Kappan, 103(2), 28-32.
Liu et al. https://cms.learningthroughplay.com/media/zbcd21td/neuroscience-review_web.pdf
Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine. (2017). The New Ukrainian School. Conceptual Principles of Secondary School Reform. https://mon.gov.ua/storage/app/media/zagalna%20serednya/Book-ENG.pdf
O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: debates and practical guidelines. International journal of qualitative methods, 19,
Richardson, V. (1996). The Role of Attitudes and Beliefs in Learning To Teach. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 102–119). New York: Macmillian.
Roskos, K. A., Christie, J. F., Widman, S., and Holding, A. (2010). Three decades in: priming for meta-analysis in play-literacy research. J. Early Child. Lit. 10, 55–96.
Shulman, L. S., & Shulman, J. H. (2004). How and what teachers learn: a shifting perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36, 257-271.
Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American journal of evaluation, 27(2), 237-246.
Shchudlo, S., Zabolotna, O., & Lisova, T. (2018). Ukrainian Teachers and the Learning Environment. Results of All-Ukrainian Monitoring Survey of Secondary SchoolTeachers and Principals (by the TALIS methodology). Executive Summary. UERA Trek LTD.
Van Eekelen, I. M., Vermunt, J. D., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2006). Exploring teachers’ will to learn. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 408-423.
Zosh, J. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Hopkins, E. J., Jensen, H., Liu, C., Neale, D., et al. (2018). Accessing the Inaccessible: redefining Play as a Spectrum. Front. Psychol. 9:1124.
|
