07. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Paper
Social and Ecological Justice from a Diversity-Sensitive Perspective at a Public School in Germany
Barbara Gross
Chemnitz University of Technology, Germany
Presenting Author: Gross, Barbara
One of the main goals in education is to provide just educational opportunities for all learners with inclusion and equity as leading principles (UNESCO, 2017). This complex agenda is not yet sufficiently considered in education policy documents (e.g., Gross, Francesconi & Agostini, 2021; Kelly, Hofbauer & Gross, 2021) and in educational practice. Besides this, one of the challenges - also of Education for Sustainable Development - is to link ecological with social justice. A diversity-sensitive pedagogy aims at developing a culture of acceptance of heterogeneity and of democratic equity of people with different life experiences. Thus, diversity-sensitive educational institutions strive for inclusion, equity (Ainscow, 2020) and reflexivity, and recognise and work against disadvantages that derive from intersections of categories (Holzbrecher, 2017). Within the goal number 4 of the 17 SDGs (Ensure inclusive, equitable and quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all; UN, 2015) the current efforts to jointly consider and implement Education for Sustainable Development and inclusive education emerge and focus on participatory processes (Rieckmann & Stoltenberg, 2011, p. 117). Learners are thus asked to actively engage in issues of social and ecological justice and to develop corresponding problem-solving strategies, social and personal competences to sensitise, shape and further develop social spaces.
This paper presents first results of a study in a public school in Chemnitz, Saxony (Germany) that highlights its diversity-sensitive and inclusive approach. The school offers forms of open and across age group teaching, in which students learn from grade 1 to 10 in all-day classes.
The aims of the project, on that this paper is based on, are to:
a) study official national, regional, local and institutional policies and documents on social and ecological justice.
a) observe everyday pedagogical practice and explore inclusive and sustainable practices of educational actors.
c) to recognise not only adults (teachers, school leaders and educational administrators) but also learners as actors in the production of knowledge.
In this regard, the questions to be addressed are:
a) To what extent do learners have the opportunity to shape and transform their reality and future in an inclusive and sustainable way?
b) What theoretical and practical knowledge, problem-solving strategies and competences for social and ecological justice do students acquire?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe methodological approach of the study is based on an ethnographic research. Participatory observations and interviews are combined to shed light on the studied phenomenon and to provide an in-depth description of the social and pedagogical reality. Detailed field notes are used to present distinctive observations and their reflected practice. The methodological procedure is not strictly predetermined, as the research process is subordinated to the exploratory world of the people to discover, describe and understand the characteristics and peculiarities. To investigate to what extent the school has already implemented instruments and procedures in its everyday pedagogical life to promote social and ecological justice and whether and how learners are addressed as actors in shaping a sustainable future, a method triangulation of participatory observations of pedagogical practice and ethnographic interviews is used. Participant observations are complemented by an analysis of visual data – i.e., the inclusion of images, photos, video and audio recordings and digital documents of the school (Gobo & Molle, 2017; Pink et al., 2016). The ethnographic observation involves participation in field activities, listening and asking questions (Knoblauch & Vollmer, 2019) and is designed in a participatory way to create a practitioner-researcher partnership (Ainscow, 2022). To answer the research question regarding the students' participation in transforming their reality, participant observation within the research project is not sufficient as the meaning of the actions of the participants remains hidden to observation. For this reason, interviews were conducted with the coordinator in the educational administration, the school leader, teachers, and learners. The interviews are open and do not follow predefined questions, but rather use questions that arise during the research process (Knoblauch & Vollmer, 2019). The data analysis is carried out using the software MAXQDA.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe expected results give insights in the learners' participation in shaping educational institutions towards inclusivity, sustainability, and social and ecological justice, and their contribution to transform the own environment and social reality. The results will stimulate quality development in schools through research-based inputs and raise awareness of diversity-sensitivity and social and ecological justice.
ReferencesAinscow, M. (2020). Inclusion and equity in education: Making sense of global challenges. Prospects 49(3), 123-134.
Ainscow, M. (2022). Promoting inclusion and equity in schools through practitioner-researcher partnerships. In K. Black- Hawkins and A. Grinham-Smith (Eds), Unlocking Research. Routledge.
Gobo, G., & Molle, A. (2017). Doing Ethnography. SAGE.
Gross, B., Francesconi, D., & Agostini, E., (2021). Ensuring equitable opportunities for socioeconomically disadvantaged students in Italy and Austria during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative analysis of educational policy documents. Italian Journal of Educational Research, 27, 27-39.
Gross, B., Kelly, P., & Hofbauer, S. (2022). ‘Making up for lost time’: neoliberal governance and educational catch-up for disadvantaged students during the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy, Germany and England. Zeitschrift für Diversitätsforschung und -management 2, 161-174.
Holzbrecher, A. (2017). Pädagogische Professionalität in der diversitätsbewussten Schule entwickeln. In S. Barsch, N. Glutsch & M. Massumi (Hrsg.), Diversity in der LehrerInnenbildung (S. 17–33). Waxmann.
Knoblauch, H. & Vollmer, T. (2019). Ethnographie. In. N. Baur & J. Blasius (Hrsg.), Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung (S. 599–617). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Pink, S., Horst, H., Postill, J., Hjorth, L., Lewis, T., & Tacchi, J. (2016). Digital Ethnography. Principles and Practice. SAGE.
Rieckmann, M. & Stoltenberg, U. (2011). Partizipation als zentrales Element von Bildung für eine nachhaltige Entwicklung. In K. Kuhn, J. Newig & H. Heinrichs (Hrsg.), Nachhaltige Gesellschaft? Welche Rolle für Partizipation und Kooperation? (S. 119–131). Springer VS.
UNESCO (2017). A guide for ensuring inclusion and equity in education. UNESCO.
UN/United Nations (2015). Transforming Our World. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. UN Press.
07. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Paper
How to Foster Cultural Diversity? The Potential of the Similarity Approach in Intercultural Education.
Francesca Berti
Free University Bolzano/Bozen, Italy
Presenting Author: Berti, Francesca
One of the general objectives of intercultural education is to contribute to the valorisation of both the universal aspect of human nature – as is expressed in the Declaration of Human Rights - and the particularity of cultures, in order to overcome prejudice and promote cultural diversity (UNESCO 2006). This balance between universal and particular, however, is implicitly precarious: as was pointed out by the anthropologist Gerd Baumann in "The multicultural riddle", multiple drives are at play in the multicultural society, at times claiming universal rights and, at others, those of a specific group. In the school context, the greatest constraint of intercultural education practice is the risk of falling into a culturalist representation of cultures, where, by trying to valorise both the universality of human beings and the diversity of cultures, the latter is often predominant. The result is often excessive emphasis on the differences between cultures, while the cultures themselves are unintentionally represented as separate from each other. Such risks can indeed be explained in terms of diversity belonging to the paradigm of difference.
The aim of the paper is to point out that the exploration of similarities among cultures, instead, reveals that cultures are not rigidly separate entities, but include overlapping areas, spaces in-between that make boundaries blurred (Bhatti and Kimmich, 2018). There are many concrete elements of cultures showing similarities between each another, such as handcrafts, bread baking, folk tales, or play practices. The latter, for example, enable us to emphasise the universality of the experience of play, while also highlighting the huge variety of games, expression of cultural diversities. In other words, they attain a representation of cultures that attest to unity through diversity. To recall a metaphor by Wittgenstein – who referred to games as examples for his concept of family resemblances - games represent “the fibres” that “run through the whole thread” holding together the experience of play of children and adults in the world (Wittgenstein, 1968).
In the effort to answer the research question of how to foster cultural diversity, the study resulted in the emergence of a model for the intercultural encounter suggesting that the emergence of similarities should occur in an initial moment, prior to and indispensable for the appreciation of diversities (Berti 2023). This claim is substantiated by the fact that the search for similarity involves a necessary attitude towards exploring relationships among two or more objects. In turn, it is in the discovery of these relationships that nearness emerges (Bhatti and Kimmich, 2018). Still, to look at relationships and not so much at objects themselves is a method of inquiry that requires change at an epistemological level (Bateson, 1979). In this context, a turn in intercultural education towards the exploration of cultural education practices based on similarity is seen here as a necessary shift to enhance the appreciation of cultural diversity and support intercultural dialogue.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedIn order to understand the field of intercultural education on an European perspective, the study has analysed Italian, German and English research of the last 15 years (Grant and Portera, 2011; Nigris, 2015, Aguado Odina and Del Olmo, 2009; Gundara, 2015; Banks, 2009; Prengel, 2006; Krüger-Potratz, 2018; Gogolin et al., 2018; Mecheril et al., 2010; among others). The qualitative study has included the review of national, EU and UNESCO guidelines, sheding light on numerous references relating to the difficulty of translating theory and policies into the daily practice of multicultural schools and on the dearth of research into best practice (Gorski, 2008). Particularly, the persistence of the dominance of the paradigm of difference and the risk of the discourse on cultural diversity slipping into it, has emerged from the analysis of contemporary research on development of the field in Germany over the past fifty years - from the early sixties, the time of guest works (Gastarbeites), until present (Gogolin et al., 2018).
By exploring the concept of culture and the processes of Othering from an anthropological point of view, I then came across several cultural turns (Bachmann-Medick, 2016) and the contribution of postcolonial studies towards the similarity approach (Bhabba, 1994). By stressing the potential of similarity, therefore, I align myself to the interpretation given by cultural studies scholars, as underlined by Anil Bhatti and Dorothee Kimmich’s Similarity – A paradigm for culture theory (2018). The approach represents more than a change of perspective, as it implies a shift of paradigm, from difference to similarity. This shift is anything but simple, as to think in terms of difference - identifying categories and elements of distinctions - is a functional method of modern science, and it has therefore structured the way not only science but also how the whole of western thought is constructed: this is how knowledge has been produced and transferred from the 17th Century onwards when, first the English philosopher, Francis Bacon, and later the French philosopher and mathematician, René Descartes, began to criticise similarity as a fundamental experience and a form of knowledge: they denounced it as a confusing tangle that needed instead to be analysed in terms of measure and order (Foucault, 1971). Similarity was not totally abandoned, but it was no longer analysed in terms of unity and relationship of equality or inequality, but in terms of identity and differences.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe paper identifies the primary constraints of intercultural education as being the tension generated by the attempt to accommodate both universalism and cultural pluralism giving value to the aspect of the universality of human beings alongside the valorisation of their cultural diversity (UNESCO, 2006). This tension is unresolvable, as, in intercultural education practice, the weight given to the aspect of cultural diversity is often more pervasive (Gorski, 2008). Such an imbalance leads to the paradox that differences - primarily defined in terms of nationality, ethnicity and religion (Baumann, 1999) - tend to be emphasised even more, stressing, for example, the origin of pupils with a migrant background, or making them a target group (Gogolin et al., 2018).
In intercultural education, a focus on similarity would allow for a shift of attention away from cultural elements of nation, ethnicity and religion to resemblances and intersections amongst cultures. This shift helps us to overcome boundaries because the objects previously considered as separate can now be discovered as no longer so different from one another, or even almost the same (Fastgleichheit) (Bhatti, 2014). This approach does not reject the acknowledgment of cultural diversity rather, it suggests considering it alongside another category. The result is that, by questioning the rigid separation of cultures, the search for overlapping fields of similarity temporarily diverts attention away from stressing dichotomies or boundaries. As was explained by Bhatti, this perspective would now emphasise the principle of “this...as well as that, instead of either–or”, opening up diverse and new ways to deal with the problems of complex societies as opposed to using methodologies focusing on differences (Ibid.). The exploration of similarities among cultures, thus, would help us to overcome cultural boundaries, reduce processes of othering, and facilitate dialogue.
ReferencesAguado Odina, T. and Del Olmo, M. (Eds.) (2009). Intercultural education: perspectives and proposals. Madrid: Del Olmo Pintado.
Bachmann-Medick, D. (2016). Cultural Turns: New Orientation in the Study of Culture, Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.
Banks, J. A. (2009). The Routledge International Companion to Multicultural Education. New York: Routledge.
Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature. A necessary unity, New York: E.P. Dutton.
Baumann, G. (1999). The Multicultural Riddle. Rethinking National, Ethnic and Religious Identities. New York and London: Routledge.
Berti, F. (2023). The Shared Space of Play. Traditional Games as a Tool of Intercultural Education. Zürich: Lit Verlag (In print).
Berti, F. (2023). Il filo che lega il gioco nel mondo. Didattica ludica, narrazione e incontro interculturale. Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht. (In print).
Bhabha, H. (1994). The location of culture. New York and London: Routledge.
Bhatti A. and Kimmich D. (Eds.). (2018). Similarity. A Paradigm for Cultural Theory, New Delhi: Tulika Books.
Bhatti, A. (2014). ‘Cultural Similarity Does Not Mean that We Wear the Same Shirts’: Similarity and Difference in Culture and Cultural Theory. Interview with Anil Bhatti. Word and Text. A Journal of Literary Studies and Linguistics, Vol. IV, Issue 2, pp. 13-23.
Foucault, M. (1971) [1966]. The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. New York: Pantheon Books.
Gogolin, I., Georgi, V. B., Krüger-Potratz, M., Lengyel, D. and Sandfuchs, U. (Eds.) (2018). Handbuch Interkulturelle Pädagogik. Bad Heilbrunn: Verlag Julius Klinkhardt.
Gorski, P. C. (2008). Good Intentions are not enough: A Decolonizing Intercultural Education. Intercultural Education, Vol. 19, N. 6, pp. 515-525.
Gundara, J. (2015). The Case for Intercultural Education in a Multicultural World. Oakville: Mosaic press.
Mecheril, P., Castro Varela, M. d. M., Dirim, I., Kalpaka, A., & Melter, C. (2010). Migrationspädagogik. Weinheim, Basel: Beltz.
Nigris, E. (Ed.) (2015). Pedagogia e didattica interculturale. Culture, contesti, linguaggi. Milano: Pearson Mondadori.
Portera, A. and Grant, C. A. (Eds.) (2011). Intercultural and Multicultural Education. Enhancing Global Interconnectedness. New York: Routledge.
Prengel, A. (2006). Pädagogik der Vielfalt. Verschiedenheit und Gleichberechtigung in Interkultureller, Feministischer und Integrativer Pädagogik. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Portera A. (2013). Manuale di pedagogia interculturale. Risposte educative nella società globale. Roma: Laterza.
UNESCO (2006). UNESCO guidelines for intercultural education. Available at: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000147878
Wittgenstein, L. (1968) [1953]. Philosophical Investigations. Translated by G. E. M. Anscombe. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
07. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Paper
Global Competence as an Important Asset of Students’ Academic Achievement
Klaudija Šterman Ivančič, Urška Štremfel
Educational Research Institute, Slovenia
Presenting Author: Šterman Ivančič, Klaudija
In the last few decades, globalization has affected almost all public policies, including education. Its implications are evident in the increasing endeavours of national education systems to raise global citizens who will be able to deal with the challenges of the modern globalized world (Majewska, 2022). Sälzer and Roczen (2018) explain that while, as a concept, global competence has been used in common language for several decades (e.g. Lambert, 1994), it is a relatively young scientific construct and is mostly studied in the Western context (e.g. Boix Mansilla & Jackson, 2013). Skinner (2012) adds that very little academic research has yet been carried out in the field of global education in Slovenia nor in the wider Central Eastern European region. Šterman Ivančič and Štremfel (2022) reveal that PISA 2018 presents the first assessment of students’ global competencies in Slovenia. The student questionnaire items covered students’ attitudes and dispositions regarding their: awareness of global issues; self-efficacy regarding global issues; interest in learning about other cultures; respect for people from other cultures; ability to understand the perspectives of others; cognitive adaptability; attitudes towards immigrants; awareness of intercultural communication; global-mindedness; and teachers’ discriminatory behaviour (OECD, 2020). The first results of the PISA 2018 data showed that, compared to their peers in OECD countries, Slovenian students reported somewhat lower levels of global competencies and as such indicate the need for further research in this area. This is especially important since the research also shows that student participation in global education programmes is positively associated with a range of learning outcomes, including academic achievement. There has been found positive associations with students' academic achievement, regardless of their individual background (gender, ethnicity, SES) (Ahmed and Mohammed, 2022) and positive associations of participation in global learning programmes with students' personal development, autonomy and sensitivity towards people from other cultures (Klump and Nelson, 2005).
Considering these findings, this study aims to investigate the associations between the global competence of Slovenian students and their achievement on PISA literacy scales. This is important since the results from past PISA cycles in Slovenia show that there are significant differences in the achievement of students according to different groups, especially between students that attend different educational programmes. For example, the difference in average reading achievement between students in secondary general and vocational education programmes of medium duration is 159 points (Šterman Ivančič, 2022), which is equivalent to 2 PISA levels of reading literacy, and as such represents a great concern. For this reason, the research questions we aim to address in this study, are i) are there significant differences in the global competences of Slovenian students according to the educational programme; ii) are global competences a significant predictor of PISA achievement on reading, mathematics and science literacy scales; and iii) which dimensions of global competences that are the most significant predictors of PISA reading, mathematics and science literacy.
Taking into consideration the OECD PISA 2018 results and their contextualisation in Slovenia, the article with its original empirical scientific contribution fills the research gap in the field and provides an understanding of the role of students’ global competence in fostering students’ academic achievement and the possibility of reducing the achievement gap between students from different educational tracks.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedFor the purpose of the data analysis, we used the data from the PISA 2018 survey, which in Slovenia includes students aged between 15 years and 3 months and 16 years and 2 months. Sampling in the PISA survey is multi-level and stratified. In Slovenia, the sample includes all secondary education programmes and a few randomly selected primary schools and adult education institutions. 6401 male and female students participated in PISA 2018. For the analysis, we excluded from the sample 15-year-olds who attended vocational education programmes of short duration, as these students did not fill in the questionnaire on global competence attitudes and dispositions. The final sample in the analysis includes a representative sample of 6241 15-year-old male and female students, of which 2054 (34%) students attended secondary general education, 2578 (42%) technical education programmes and 1442 (24%) students attended vocational education programmes of short duration.
In PISA 2018, the student questionnaire was used to identify the effects of different background factors on student achievement. From the 2018 questionnaire, we used separate scales addressing students’ awareness of global issues; self-efficacy regarding global issues; interest in learning about other cultures; respect for people from other cultures; ability to understand the perspectives of others; cognitive adaptability; attitudes towards immigrants; awareness of intercultural communication; global-mindedness; and teachers’ discriminatory behaviour. All scales showed good internal consistency in the PISA 2018 sample of Slovenian students, with coefficients ranging from α = .83 to α = .93 (OCED, 2021).
For the analysis, we used the standardized values of indices for Slovenia from the PISA 2018 database for all the above-mentioned scales. First, we used descriptive statistics to compare the average values of indices between different education programmes and to the OECD average within the programmes. Since we were interested in the effects of students’ global competencies on students' academic achievement in reading, math and science, we used the linear regression procedure to further analyse the size effects. To avoid multicollinearity between the variables, we also checked for Pearson correlation coefficients prior to undertaking regression. Data were analysed using the statistical programme IEA IDB Analyzer (Version 4.0.39), which, in processing data due to two-stage sampling in the study in addition to the use of weights for individual students (W_FSTUWT), also allows us to use sample weights to properly assess the standard parameter errors in the population using the Bootstrap method.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe results of the study show that there are significant differences in global competences between students from different educational programmes in Slovenia. The largest differences were observed between the secondary general and vocational education programmes of short duration, where students from secondary general education programmes reported significantly higher attitudes and dispositions on all global competence scales, also compared to the OECD average. Furthermore, the results show that global competences significantly predict reading, mathematics and science achievement on PISA test in Slovenia. Across all three types of achievement, students' perceived discriminatory behaviour by teachers had the largest negative effect, and perceived self-efficacy regarding global issues, students' awareness of intercultural communication and respect for people from other cultures proved to have the largest positive effects.
These results are in line with the research (e.g. Demaine, 2002) which points out that global competence could be a significant indicator of differences in knowledge between different groups of students, where some disadvantaged groups have reduced access to global information. Such differences bring to the fore the issue of the compensatory role of schools in equalizing these differences, by providing all students, especially deprived students who do not have the opportunity to develop them in the home and out-of-school environment, with equal opportunities to develop global competences (Dijkstra et al., 2021; Hoskins et al., 2017).
The research provides so far missing empirical and internationally comparative data on the attitudes and dispositions of Slovenian pupils in the field of global competences, with the main focus on the relevance of strengthening the global competences of all pupils, especially of the disadvantaged groups. The findings of the paper are critically examined in terms of providing implications for the European Union Citizenship Education as well.
ReferencesAhmed, E., in Mohammed, A. (2022). Evaluating the impact of global citizenship education programmes: A synthesis of the research. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 17(2), 122–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/1746197921100003
Boix Mansilla, V., & Jackson, A. (2013). Educating for global competence: Learning redefined for an interconnected world. In H. H. Jacobs (Ed.), Mastering Global Literacy (pp. 5–27). Bloomington: Solution Tree Press.
Demaine, J. (2002). Globalisation and Citizenship Education. International Journal Studies in Sociology of Education, 12(2), 117–128.
Dijkstra, A. B., Dam ten G., & Munniksma, A. (2021). Inequality in Citizenship Competences. Citizenship Education and Policy in the Netherlands. In B. Malak-Minkiewicz in J. Torney-Purta (Eds.), Influences of the IEA Civic and Citizenship Education Studies (pp. 135–146). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71102-3_12
Hoskins, B., Janmaat, J. G., in Melis, G. (2017). Tackling inequalities in political socialization: A systematic analysis of access to and mitigation effects of learning citizenship at school. Social Science Research, 68, 88–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2017.09.001
Klump, J., in Nelson, S. (ur.) (2005). Research-based resources: Cultural competency of schools. Retrieved from http://www.mwrel.org/request/2005journal/
Lambert, R. D. (Ed.). (1994). Educational Exchange and Global Competence. New York: Council on International Educational Exchange.
Majewska, A. (2022). Teaching Global Competence: Challenges and Opportunities. College Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2022.2027858
OECD (2020). PISA 2018 results (Volume VI): Are students ready to thrive in an interconnected world? Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD (2021). PISA 2018 Technical report. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/pisa2018technicalreport/.
Sälzer, C., & Roczen, N. (2018). Assessing global competence in PISA 2018: Challenges and approaches to capturing a complex construct. International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning, 10(1), 5–20. I https://doi.org/10.18546/IJDEGL.10.1.02
Skinner, A. (2012). How is global education perceived and implemented within two secondary schools in Slovenia? Dissertation. Institute of Education, University of London. Retrieved from http://www.pef.uni-lj.si/ceps/dejavnosti/sp/2013-04-10/06%202%20Skiner_Global%20education%20in%20Slovenia.pdf.
Šterman Ivančič, K. (2022). Učiteljevo poučevanje in motivacija za branje: razlike po spolu in izobraževalnem programu [Teachers' teaching and motivation to read: differences by gender and educational programme]. In A. Mlekuž, & I. Žagar Žnidaršič (Eds.), Raziskovanje v vzgoji in izobraževanju: učenje in poučevanje na daljavo - izkušnje, problemi, perspektive (pp. 17–36). Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
Šterman Ivančič, K., & Štremfel, U. (2022). Globalne kompetence in trajnostni razvoj: slovenski učenci in učenke v raziskavi PISA [Global competencies and sustainable development: Slovenian students in the PISA 2018]. Sodobna pedagogika, 73(1). 41–57.
|
