Conference Agenda

Diversity characterises the current social situation and is reflected at all levels of society and its institutions and organisations, including schools. Although migration-related diversity is becoming increasingly common in schools, it is frequently looked at from a deficit perspective (see Hummrich & Terstegen, 2020; Oberlechner-Duval, 2021). The thought patterns and ideas underlying such a perspective are usually implicit and rooted in social hierarchies that are reproduced in schools. This symposium examines socially learned biases as a challenge for teacher professionalisation and school development. The four contributions deal with diversity-sensitive professionalisation through mobility (internships abroad or school service abroad) or through programmes employing an anti-bias approach in university education or further training. All contributions in this symposium adopt discrimination-critical perspectives on teaching and learning, focusing on different areas: working with newly arrived and refugee students (Rosen & tom Dieck), language as a “mark of difference” (Dirim & Guldenschuh), culturalization and devaluation processes (Mantel), stereotypes, institutional discrimination and their reflection (Dedecek Gertz et al.).

International mobility programmes are increasingly part of teacher education and professionalisation. Universities and colleges of education offer accompanying mobility programmes for future teachers in which students can gain experience in schools. But also, professional mobility of in-service teachers, such as stays in schools abroad, is supported by educational administrations. In both cases, teacher training students and in-service teachers who spend time in schools abroad are expected to acquire competencies for dealing with intercultural and multicultural education in diverse contexts ‘at home’, that is, in societies characterised by migration. However, these expectations are often not met and experiences abroad can even be counterproductive, leading to the consolidation of existing stereotypes (see Dockrill et al., 2016; Mantel in this symposium). This finding raises questions about the design of diversity-sensitive and discrimination-critical preparation and follow-up of such experiences abroad as a part of teacher training and in-service training/further education. In the symposium, we discuss questions along the lines of: How can we support teacher-training students and in-service teachers to critically reflect on their experiences during internships or work abroad? How can this reflection contribute to the development of competencies for teaching and learning in (inter)national diversity contexts?

In our symposium, we not only consider international mobility as part of diversity-sensitive education and training; we also ask more generally how teacher education and training can initiate a critical reflection of socially learnt biases in societies characterised by migration. Research shows that orientations towards dominant linguistic-cultural norms lead to discrimination in schools (see Dirim, 2010; Skutnabb-Kangas, 2015). Promoting positive attitudes towards migration in education, especially in times of stress, remains a challenge (Borgonovi & Pokropek 2018). In the symposium, we will discuss applications of the anti-bias approach in teacher training and in-service training/further education. That approach, we argue, is appropriate for encouraging students to reflect upon their own experiences – including those related to school internships at home or abroad – and to understand structures and processes of discrimination. When working with in-service teachers, the anti-bias approach can be an asset in focusing on institutional discrimination and sharpening the development of a discrimination-critical school structure and environment.

All contributions of this symposium have implications for the question of how teacher training and mobility programmes for teacher education can be designed to develop a professional approach to diversity and discrimination critique in schools.

Two transfer projects apply the anti-bias approach and explore their outcomes/their effectiveness: a university teacher training programme (1) and a training programme for in-service teachers (2) in order to enable the participants to reflect on and (re)design classroom and organizational practices with goals of social justice and discrimination critique in mind. The DiCoT project (Diversity Contexts in Teacher Education) at the University of Hamburg supports critical thinking about discrimination among prospective teachers through a self-reflexive approach (Iwers & Yilmaz, 2021, p. 221). The goal of employing the anti-bias approach is not only to impart knowledge but also to strengthen future teachers in their professional roles. They should be enabled to create educational spaces in which diversity and anti-discriminatory action are explored at the same time (Gomolla 2022, p. 11). In a preparatory seminar, future teachers are prepared for an internship in Germany or abroad where they can experience different diversity contexts. The accompanying qualitative research investigates the extent to which critical reflection processes are initiated. In the symposium, we will present excerpts from observation protocols (seminars) and interviews with students. We will analyse stereotypes about cultural behaviour and discuss how students can be encouraged to question deeply rooted assumptions about culture and nation. The Advisory Centre for Intercultural Education at the Hamburg State Institute for Teacher Training and School Development offers training for in-service teachers, also based on the anti-bias approach (Panesar, 2022). In a two-year training, participants learn about basic fields of school development (curricula and classroom practice, organizational development and staff structure) and anti-bias pedagogy in externally offered modules. The development and implementation of initial practical projects in the schools are advised and accompanied by the framework of the training programme. An in-depth analysis of qualitative data (interviews, document analysis, semi-structured questionnaire) from a perennial formative evaluation study of the in-service training programme (Gomolla, 2019) provides insights into the learning and professionalisation processes of the participants as well as into the dynamics of implementing discrimination-critical school development in some of the participating organisations.

Iwers, T., Yilmaz, S. M. (2021). Entwicklung von Reflexionsmodalitäten inklusiven Unterrichts durch die Fallreflexion in sieben Schritten. In T. Iwers, U. Graf (Eds.), Vielfalt thematisieren: Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede gestalten. Bad Heilbrunn, 220-231. Gomolla, M. (2022). Vorwort zum Buch ‚Gerechte Schule. Vorurteilsbewusste Schulentwicklung mit dem Anti-Bias-Ansatz‘ von Rita Panesar. Göttingen, 8-16. Gomolla, M. (2019). Evaluationsstudie „Qualitätsentwicklung von Schule in der Migrationsgesellschaft: Fortbildung zur interkulturellen Koordination“. Zeitschrift für Diversitätsforschung und -management (ZDfm), 4(1-2), 117-123. Panesar, R. (2022). Gerechte Schule. Vorurteilsbewusste Schulentwicklung mit dem Anti-Bias-Ansatz. Göttingen.

German education policy attaches great importance to returnees from German schools abroad: Through their professional mobility, they are expected to acquire relevant competencies for intercultural and multilingual education as well as language-aware teaching and to put these skills into practice back in Germany (KMK 2017: 6). The starting point of this paper is to examine whether this educational policy assumption is viable and supported by academic findings. An international literature review focusing on English- and German-language studies points to the benefits of teachers' professional stays abroad, such as broadening their worldview, developing a range of professional skills, learning new teaching methods, approaches, tools and materials, and so on (Bense 2016: 45). However, when these teachers return home, they are unable to use these skills and knowledge because they are not recognised in terms of salary and career opportunities (ibid). In particular, in our own case study of a returnee from a German school in Turkey (Fißmer & Rosen forthcoming; Fißmer, Rosen & tom Dieck under review), it became clear that the teachers increased competence in language-sensitive teaching and multilingual education was not only not recognised, but also devalued in the face of the “monolingual habitus” (Gogolin 2008) of the German school. Following this, we present another case study of a teacher who worked at a German school in the USA and returned during the “long summer of migration” (Römhild et al. 2018) in 2015. To combine ethnographic and biographical research perspectives, we present the analysis of a biographical narrative interview with her from 2020, in which she reflects on her experiences abroad. Secondly, we draw on participant observations of her teaching of a language support measure for newly arrived and refugee students immediately after her return (see Rosen & tom Dieck 2022 and tom Dieck & Rosen 2023 for additional ethnographic analysis in this educational setting). A key exploratory finding is that a devaluation of the teacher's professional competence is also reconstructed in this case study, as the teacher had to wait another six years for a permanent position after her return. This seems all the more serious as she practices a migration-sensitive teaching style that avoids othering and instead focuses on shared experiences of everyday life abroad. In the concluding discussion, reflections on professionalisation are offered on the one hand, and a critical perspective on the partly missionary character of the German school abroad is raised on the other.

Bense, K. (2016). International teacher mobility and migration. Educational Research Review, 17, 37-49. Fißmer, J., Rosen, L. & tom Dieck, F. (under review). Denied recognition of teachers’ mobility experiences: Perspectives of Teachers Returning to Germany from German Schools Abroad. Fißmer, J. & Rosen, L. (forthcoming). Zum Zusammenhang von Auslandsschulerfahrun-gen und Professionalisierung für die Schule der Migrationsgesellschaft in transnationa-len Berufsbiographien von Lehrkräften. In: Rakhkochkine, A. & Flötotto, M. (Hg.): Inter-nationalisierung der Lehrerbildung und internationale Lehrermigration. FAU University Press. Gogolin, I. (2008). Der monolinguale Habitus der multilingualen Schule. Waxmann. KMK (2017). Einsatz deutscher Lehrkräfte im Auslandsschulwesen als ein Instrument der Personal- und Schulentwicklung der Länder. https://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/Dateien/veroeffentlichungen_beschluesse/2017/2017-10-12-EinsatzLK-ASW.pdf. Römhild, R. et al. (2018). Witnessing the Transition: Moments in the Long Summer of Migration. BIM. Rosen, L. & tom Dieck, F. (2022). "Can I tell my class teacher?" – Newly Arrived Youth Between Language Support Measures and Regular Classes in the Contemporary German School System. Tertium Comparationis, 28(2), 213-233. tom Dieck, F. & Rosen, L. (2022): Before, in or after transition? On becoming a ‘main-stream student’ in Germany and Italy in the context of new migration. In: Seyda Subasi Singh et al. (Eds.): Perspectives on Transitions in Refugee Education. Barbara Budrich, 161-174.

Language is not only a means of communication but also a mark of difference that can be used to establish a gap between two groups "We" and the "Others". Austria and Germany are multilingual countries with allochthonous and autochthonous languages, which at first glance could be seen as a welcome sign of diversity. However, it makes a difference which languages someone can call one’s own. This difference concerns various domains in life – with different consequences for the speakers. On a symbolic level, languages and language variants are valued differently and so are their speakers (Settinieri 2011; Kalpaka & Räthzel 2000), as Bourdieu already made clear with his study on the social difference between someone speaking patois and someone speaking ‘the’ standardized variant of French in France (Bourdieu 1982). Dialects and standard languages are presumably valued differently everywhere (Guldenschuh 2018). But what happens when a migration-society perspective is taken into consideration? This perspective reveals that "accents" and languages are valued differently alongside the differentiation "native speaker". Being – or at least sounding like – a so-called native speaker evokes the mental image of an autochthonous person, who is more often than not perceived as competent and generally capable. Not sounding ‘native’, not speaking fluently and/or with an accent, on the other hand, can be related to being generally less capable (Dirim 2010) and as not belonging to the linguistic majority – the “We”. Not belonging, or being perceived as not belonging to the hegemonic and majority group means potentially facing multiple challenges. From less severe consequences like being seen as an expert in the so-called mother tongue or heritage language (at this point already being labelled as part of the group of the “Others”) to real challenges like facing difficulties and/or unfairness in school or at university (Dirim 2013; Gomolla & Radtke 2009; Döll & Knappik 2015; Knappik & Dirim 2013, Pokitsch 2022), or not being considered to rent an apartment or not getting a job. This fact was reconstructed with studies in various countries, including Turkey and Austria. The problem of devaluing languages and language variants will be illustrated with examples in the lecture and then theorised. It will be shown that colonial (Cyffer 2011) and nation-state (Gogolin 2008) traditions of thought and native speakerism (Holliday 2006) play a major role in the emergence of the described problems and complement Bourdieu’s perspective of power.

Bourdieu, P. (1982): Ce que parler veut dire. Paris: Fayard. Bourdieu, P.(1990): Was heißt sprechen? Wien: Braumüller. Cyffer, N. (2011): Gibt es primitive Sprachen oder ist deutsch auch primitiv? Stolz et al. (eds.): Kolonialzeitliche Sprachforschung. Berlin: Akademie. Dirim, İ. (2010): „Wenn man mit Akzent spricht, denken die Leute, dass man auch so denkt oder so. In: Mecheril et al. (Eds.): Spannungsverhältnisse. Münster: Waxmann. Dirim, İ. (2013): Rassialisierende Effekte? In: Mecheril, et al. (Eds.): Migrationsforschung als Kritik? Wiesbaden: Springer Döll, M. & Knappik, M.(2015): Institutional mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion in Austrian pre-service teacher education, Tertium Comparationis, 21(2). Gogolin, I. (2008): Der monolinguale Habitus der multilingualen Schule. Münster: Waxmann. Gomolla, M. & Radtke, F. (2009): Institutionelle Diskriminierung. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Guldenschuh, S. (2018): Akzentismus. In: Dirim et al. (Eds.): Sprache(n) und Diskriminierung in (Hoch-)Schule und Gesellschaft. Holliday, A. (2006): Native-speakerism, ELT 60(4). Kalpaka, A. & Räthzel, N.(2000): Die Schwierigkeit, nicht rassistisch zu sein, In: Räthzel, N. (Ed.): Theorien über Rassismus. Hamburg: Argument. Knappik, M. & Dirim, İ. (2013): „Native Speakerism“ in der Lehrerbildung, Journal für LehrerInnenbildung 3/2013 Pokitsch, D. (2022): Wer spricht?. Wiesbaden: Springer. Settinieri, J. (2011): Soziale Akzeptanz unterschiedlicher Normabweichungen in der L2-Aussprache Deutsch, Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht 16(2)

Internationalisation has become an important part of the strategic development of Universities of Teacher Education in Switzerland, and mobility programmes belong to the most prevalent activities in this regard. Often, it is claimed that mobility programmes contributed to the future teachers’ «global competencies». Often, the learning is assumed to take place almost automatically while studies show that this learning cannot be taken for granted. Sometimes, these learning expectations are not met (Leutwyler, 2014), in fact, sometimes, the international experience is even counterproductive leading to increased culturalising or stereotyping of the constructed ‘others’ (Dockrill et al., 2016). This paper, therefore, aims at tackling the question of how learning from mobility experiences is shaped and in what ways it is supported, enabled or obstructed. For this purpose, insights from two different research projects are consulted and discussed: The first project addresses learning from international internships (Mantel et al., 2022). We pursued a qualitative-hermeneutic approach according to the Documentary Method (Bohnsack, 2010) and collected data from group discussions with student teachers returning from an international internship. The analysis shows that there are two main aspects that can explain to what extent positive learning outcomes can be achieved or not. One of them refers to the way of dealing with perceived contrasts from the familiar and the other to the way of dealing with particularly challenging situations. The results are discussed with reference to the concept of reflective thinking (Dewey, 1910) as well as to the concept of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). The second project deals with the question of what learning abroad experiences mean from a biographical perspective as well as related to the pedagogical orientations, particularly in terms of orientations in dealing with questions of belonging and equity in schools of a migration society. Again, the research was pursued according to the Documentary Method (Bohnsack, 2010), this time with data collection through biographical-narrative interviews (Schütze, 1983). These analyses reveal that the question of whether learning from international experience has an effect on the way of teaching can best be explained if referring to the teachers’ own feeling of recognition (Honneth, 1995; Butler, 1997). The insights from both studies have relevant implications for the questions of how mobility programmes can be designed. At the University of Teacher Education Zug, a new module has been created on the basis of the mentioned insights. The experiences will be shared and discussed.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy. The Exercise of Control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company. Bohnsack, R. (2010). Documentary Method and Group Discussions. In R. Bohnsack, N. Pfaff, & W. Weller (Eds.), Qualitative Analysis and Documentary Method in International Education Research (pp. 99-124). Opladen & Farmington Hills: Barbara Budrich Publishers. Butler, J. (1997). The psychic life of power : theories in subjection. Stanford University Press. Dewey, J. (1910). How We Think. New York: Dover Publications. Dockrill, H., Rahatzad, J., & Phillion, J. (2016). The Benefits and Challenges of Study Abroad in Teacher Education in a Neoliberal Context. In J. A. Rhodes & T. M. Milby (Eds.), Advancing Teacher Education and Curriculum Development through Study Abroad Programs (pp. 290-305). Hershey: Information Science Reference. Honneth, A. (1995). The Struggle for Recognition. The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Leutwyler, B. (2014). Between Myths and Facts: The Contribution of Exchange Experiences to the Professional Development of Teachers. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 3(2), 106-117. Mantel, C., Kamm, E., & Bieri Buschor, C. (2022). International teaching internships for future teachers: potential and challenges for learning. Educational Research for Policy and Practice. Schütze, F. (1983). Biographieforschung und narratives Interview. Neue Praxis, 13(3), 283-293.