Conference Agenda

An important aspect of Educational Psychology (EP) practice is the ability to apply theoretical knowledge to practice. We, the authors, are part of an academic team on a training programme for educational psychologists in Scotland. Our presentation concerns the recent revision of the manner in which we ‘teach’ key developmental theories in educational psychology. In the past, these theories were imparted as discrete pieces of knowledge, with students then required to integrate theory and practice by presenting an assessment of how a particular theory can be applied in practice. The discrete ‘teaching’ that this approach necessitated was identified by the programme team as being a major limitation as it did not reflect the often messy and complex interplay of theories that real life practice often presents.

Following our evaluation of this, we sought to engage with the question of what students are expected to learn and decided to come to the theories of development through real life scenarios which reflect the complexity that EPs in practice face on a daily basis. We now approach this teaching by starting from such a vignette, which we then seek to unpick by discussing (in a co-teaching format) how different aspects of the vignette reflects a variety of theories, some of which interact with each other. Stories can bring abstract principles to life by giving them concrete form and tends to have more depth than a simple example (Green, 2004).

Research question: How can we “reimagine” the teaching of developmental theories in educational psychologists’ professional training?

This approach reflects the humanising drive which we seek in the professional training of EPs, where we actively position ourselves, in our role as practitioners as well as teachers, as subjects rather than objects. And as subjects engaging in the contradictions and tensions in a complex social world, we develop our “critical awareness and willingness to engage in transformative action” (Roberts 2008, 2). Using the problem-posing andragogy, seen by Paolo Freire as ‘liberating education’, we start from the posing of problems rather than the giving of answers, and its dialogical nature means that teachers and students learn from each other. Our planning also involved a graduated approach, where trainees would first see us, as members of academic staff, have a discussion about the psychological theories in a story, after which we would then gradually support the trainees to do the same with other casework vignettes. This graduated approach to having the trainees work on the vignettes independently was aimed at supporting their thinking and their self-efficacy in a process of conscientisation as the trainees’ (indeed even that of academic staff) understanding of the social world is deepened through the dialogue.

This approach, we believe, contributes to increasing the trainees’ capacity for critical reflection and engaging in praxis, both ethical processes which are inherent in the formation of a professional. This is important for educational practitioners as it highlights the interaction that is needed between theorising and acting in order to critically reflect on reality and therefore create change through action. This ties in with our previous work phronêsis, the capacity ‘to see’ and be sensitive to a situation, discern, deliberate, reflect, judge and act (see Carr, 2006). The suggestion that trainees are viewing the more experienced lecturers deliberate and uncover complexities in the stories is in line with Joseph Dunne’s (1993) work that trainees need to experience this virtue to enable them to embed it in their character, in both their thinking and their practice.

The current study examines teachers' processes throughout an online teachers' professional development (TPD) program and an interactive activity, where 68 teachers shared their cultural components with teachers from other cultures.

People within countries are diverse in many aspects, such as race, ethnicity, origin, gender, age, family, and disabilities (Aylward and Mitten 2022; Banks and Banks 2019; Dhiman et al. 2019; Ghazaie, Rafieian, and Dadashpoor 2021). For example, Israel has a diverse and multifaceted society, and its public education system is divided into multiple cultures and, sometimes, deep social-cultural rifts (Sabbagh and Resh 2014; van de Weerd 2020). Particularly, Israel’s public education system is divided into a Jewish system, which is again divided into several subsystems (secular schools, religious schools, and independent ultra-religious schools), and an Arab system (Abu-Saad 2019; Agbaria 2018). As a result, secular, religious ultra-orthodox, and Arab teachers rarely meet or work together. Further, students from these groups do not meet or know each other.

Under such circumstances, managing diversity effectively is crucial for societies worldwide and in Israel. For example, celebrating diversity is the key to greater productivity, increased creativity, and heightened workplace morale and motivation (Dhiman, Modi, and Kumar 2019). Urban areas and cities can break segregation and turn diversity into a creative force for innovation, growth, well-being, and safe places for the residents (Ghazaie, Rafieian, and Dadashpoor 2021; Fincher et al. 2014). Within this, social inclusion in schools is an important goal, supporting social-emotional and academic success for all students (Hymel and Katz 2019; Walsh, Fogel-Grinvald, and Shneider 2015; Pizmony-Levy and Kosciw 2016).

Indeed, it is possible to improve intergroup relations and celebrate diversity and societal multiculturalism through the contact hypothesis by encouraging meetings between cultures under appropriate conditions, face-to-face and online (Dovidio, Eller, and Hewstone 2011; Amzalag and Shapira 2021; Vezzali et al. 2014; Pettigrew et al. 2011). Thus, we based the current research on the assumption that we can foster a multicultural approach and celebrate diversity in the Israeli educational system through meetings and discussions between teachers from different cultures as the first phase before meetings between the students. Another assumption is that the meetings themselves are not enough. The teachers should meet, discuss, and learn about other teachers’ core cultural components (Hidalgo, 2013; Sever, 2014, 2016; Spencer-Oatey, 2012). Moreover, these meetings and discussions can occur online considering the separation in the Israeli educational system and the promise by scholars that online contact improves intergroup relations (Amzalag and Shapira 2021).

To foster meaningful meetings and discourses between teachers in Israeli society, we designed a Teachers Professional Development (TPD) program called ‘educators for shared society.’

The online TPD program aimed to accompany teachers who wanted to promote a shared society through:

• meaningful meetings and discourses among teachers from different cultures
• creating pairs of teachers from different cultures
• planning a shared program for students
• implementing the program in the classrooms

The current research presents the whole process of the TPD program. It focuses on the first phase of the program: a meeting that was conducted through an interactive presentation. On the first slide of the presentation, an explanation was presented outlining what culture is and what the core and peripheral components of culture are. Each teacher was asked to add a picture representing their culture, write about the picture and respond to two teachers from other cultures.

The research questions guiding our research are:

1. What changes occurred in the teachers’ attitudes regarding multiculturalism before and after the TPD program?
2. What cultural characteristics appeared in the interactive activity during the TPD program?
3. What characterizes the connection between the teachers during the TPD program?

This study investigates user experiences with newly built school environments by capturing experiences from Norwegian students and teachers. The school's physical environment is important for students' learning, well-being, and participation, and the physical environment outside and inside schools affects both learning and the working environment (Plotka, 2016; Niemi et al., 2022). Over the past twenty years there has been an effort to modernize schools and education, which has led to changes and new thinking in the design of school buildings and learning spaces (Deed & Lesko 2015; Rönnlund et al., 2021). In parallel there has been an international focus on skills needed for the 21st century and on inclusive education (eg. OECD, 2013). New school buildings, often named as innovative learning environments, are designed with flexible learning spaces, modern technology, and equipment to create room for a more adaptable and varied curriculum and to facilitate reformed practises of teachers’ work and students learning (Benade & Jackson, 2017). Innovative learning environments can be seen as a physical and pedagogical move to change educational culture and restructure educational practices (Page et al., 2021). Traditional classrooms, with rows of desks and teachers as instructors and mediators in front of the students, are nowadays described as outdated (Benade & Jackson, 2017). Flexible and extended learning spaces for larger student groups are thought to better support and improve teaching and student-active learning (Frelin & Grannäs, 2022). These environments are introduced with the aim of facilitating innovative forms of teaching and learning which in turn will promote future-oriented competences. However, little is known about how well the new school buildings support educational goals, and whether the physical environment and equipment are used as intended, are experienced as appropriate for the users, or live up to the ambitions, assumptions and intentions put forward regarding changes in teaching and learning (Mulcahy et al., 2015). In many cases, the design and use of new schools have revealed significant challenges for practical use and studies have shown such problems to be costly, when new schools must be rebuilt, rearranged, or re-aligned to become more appropriate for educational practice (Tse et al., 2019; Saltmarsh et al., 2015). Thus, the design of schools must be carefully assessed, and several considerations and factors come into play on how well a school building meets users’ needs (Byers et al., 2018; Dovey & Fisher, 2014). The design of new school buildings has met some resistance, and challenges with noise, unrest and concentration problems among students have characterized the debate (Everatt et al., 2019; Mealings et al., 2015; Shield et al., 2010). How teachers work in and respond to innovative and flexible school buildings can influence educational practice (Saltmarsh et al., 2015). Research on flexible learning environments and teachers' work points to different types of opportunities and challenges teachers face in new learning environments (Campbell, 2020; Young et al., 2020, Niemi, 2021; Vidergor, 2021). There is much evidence that teachers being able to experiment with teaching activities and organization is important to be comfortable and safe using new school buildings in an appropriate way (Vidergor, 2021). Today's school life has evolved from controlled timetables to an increase in students’ self-management through daily and weekly plans, and from having a clear and regulated school environment, to many children experiencing learning environments arranged for project and group work. The schools have to be inclusive both by design and educational practice for a varied diversity of students. Knowledge about teachers and students’ interactions, relations and experiences with the school’s physical environments may contribute to understanding how to and what supports both teachers' and students’ practices and well-being at school