| Session | ||
07 SES 04 A: Dialogue, Responsiveness and Sustainability in Intercultural Education
Paper Session
| ||
| Presentations | ||
07. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Paper Interreligious and Interfaith Dialogue, and Community Action: Indicators, Conditions, and Guidelines for Success. Universitat Autònoma Barcelona, Spain Presenting Author:Interreligious and interfaith dialogue, as well as community action, are two areas of growing interest today, given that religious and cultural diversity is a worldwide reality that poses challenges to coexistence and social cohesion. Interreligious and interfaith dialogue refers to the process of communication and mutual understanding among individuals from different religious traditions and/or beliefs. On the other hand, community action refers to collaboration among community members to address challenges and improve the quality of community life. From the review of academic literature, an underexplored relationship emerges between interreligious and interfaith dialogue and community action. This relationship is important because both initiatives aim to promote peace, justice, and harmony in society (Ibrahim et al., 2012; Orton, 2016). Through interreligious dialogue, prejudices and cultural barriers between different religions and communities can be reduced. This can help foster mutual cooperation and understanding, leading to increased community action and the resolution of common problems. Community action can also be a means to promote interreligious dialogue. When working together on community projects, people from different religions and cultures can learn about their similarities and differences, fostering greater understanding and mutual respect. In many cases, interreligious and interfaith dialogue and community action have been used to address specific issues, such as poverty alleviation, promotion of education and training, or conflict resolution, both internationally and in Catalonia ̶ the context of our research. Additionally, interreligious and interfaith dialogue and community action can also be a way to address broader social and political challenges. For example, in some countries, religious organizations have worked together to address climate change (Fedorova, 2016; Purnomo, 2020). However, we cannot ignore the obstacles in promoting interreligious and interfaith dialogue and community actions, as highlighted by research. One of the major challenges is the lack of understanding and tolerance that may arise between communities belonging to different religions and cultures (Abu-Nimer, 2001; Edwards, 2018; Farell, 2014; Miller, 2017; Pallavicini, 2016; Vila-Baños et al., 2018). This can hinder collaboration and joint work on community projects. There may also be mistrust and references to historical conflicts between different religious groups during interaction, making cooperation and community action difficult (Helskog, 2015; Kuppinger, 2019). Additionally, there may be challenges such as linguistic and cultural barriers that make communication difficult (Kruja, 2020; Mitri 1997), as well as logistical and institutional challenges in organizing joint community projects. Despite these challenges, academic literature provides data on initiatives worldwide to promote interreligious dialogue as community action. In Catalonia, too, there are emerging studies in this regard, from both a broader social perspective (Freixa-Niella et al., 2022) and a more educational and formative perspective (Vilà-Baños et al., 2022). AUDIR (2023) identified up to twelve practices of interreligious and interfaith dialogue in our country in which there is a community action component. The preliminary results of our research have expanded this collection up to 37 existing good practices currently. Hence, for potential becoming a tangible reality, rather than a mere theoretical construct, it is necessary to delineate the conditions that make it possible, encompassing personal, geographical, cultural, social, economic, political, and, notably, religious dimensions. This forms the crux of the research we present, which sets the overarching goal: "To comprehensively grasp the conditions that mold interreligious and interfaith dialogue into a good practice of community action fostering coexistence in Catalonia." The preliminary stages of the research took place from October 2023 to January 2024, and were dedicated to the update of the landscape of interreligious and interfaith dialogue practices within Catalonia, as well as the formulation and validation of an indicator system designed to facilitate the identification of good practices among them. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The research project, financed by the Catalan government, spans a duration of one year and is structured into four distinct phases. This paper delineates the methods and outcomes corresponding to the initial two phases, both of which concluded in January 2024. The methodology is qualitative. Each phase is guided by specific methods or methodologies. In Phase 1, the subject of research was addressed on an exploratory basis. The research team collaborated with AUDIR (UNESCO) to compile a map of interreligious and interfaith dialogue practices in Catalonia, resulting in a collection of 37 practices. Two research actions were conducted: documentary analysis and individual interviews. Documentary analysis was performed based on criteria of relevance and pertinence to the topic, involving the identification of at least ten sources from mixed origins (academic and institutional). The interviews were conducted with three key informants selected based on criteria of expertise and experience in the field, representing the administration, social entities, and academia. In Phase 2, the research team aimed to identify the subject of research, by identifying which of these practices promotes community action in specific local environments and the criteria that allows us to qualify them as good practices. The expert focal group technique was applied through a three-session seminar to build an indicator system for evaluating interreligious and interfaith dialogue practices as community action. The first session focused on conceptual clarification, the second on identifying success factors, and the third on building a proposal for indicators. The proposal was based on the international SMART model. The selection of participants also followed a mixed composition. The group consisted of 9 individuals: three representatives from administrations, three from entities, and three from the academia. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Following the completion of phases 1 and 2 in our research, we present two significant outputs. Firstly, an updated landscape has been elaborated, comprising nearly all prevailing interreligious and interfaith dialogue practices in Catalonia, including a comprehensive collection of 36 different practices. This compilation not only features detailed information about each practice, but also provides a thorough description of their primary activities and outcomes, along with an assessment of their effectiveness as good practices. At present, it is the most detailed and extensive compilation of interreligious and interfaith practices taking place in Catalonia. Parallel to phase 1, we conducted phase 2, which involved a series of three seminars featuring a group of 11 experts on the field of interreligious and interfaith dialogue and community action. These experts were chosen from academia, administration and organizations actively engaged in the field. Throughout the seminar, these experts collaborated with the research team to formulate an indicator system to assess the suitability of an interreligious and interfaith dialogue practice for community action. These indicators have been inspired by Hatry’s indicator system development (Hatry, 2014), employing key criteria such as relevance, clarity, consistency, precision, accessibility, pertinence, and flexibility. In addition to these two outputs, the research process has yielded other results. The process involves dynamic interactions between academic and institutional agents who typically operate independently, fostering reflective processes. Furthermore, it activates contact with other social institutions, promoting broader interreligious and interfaith dialogue. These collaborative efforts have strengthened relationships among diverse actors in the interreligious and interfaith dialogue field, has offered the administration a fresh perspective on community issues and facilitated direct communication between organizations on the ground and administration. Outcomes and findings from the preliminary phases of the research are being actively analyzed, and are expected to be presented in the ECER Conference. References Abu-Nimer, M. (2001). Conflict Resolution, Culture, and Religion: Toward a Training Model of Interreligious Peacebuilding. Journal of Peace Research, 38(6), 685-704. AUDIR. (2023). Llistat de bones pràctiques de diàleg interreligiós i interconviccional a Catalunya. Daddow, A., Cronshaw, D., Daddow, N. & Sandy, R. (2019). Hopeful cross-cultural encounters to suport Student well-being and graduate attributes in higher education. Journal of Studies In International Education, 24(2), 1-17. Edwards, S. (2018). Critical reflections on the interfaith movement: A social justice perspective. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 11(2), 164–181. Farrell, F. (2014). A critical investigation of the relationship between masculinity, social justice, religious education and the neo-liberal discourse. Education and Training, 56(7), 650-662. Freixa-Niella, M., Graell-Martín, M., Noguera-Pigem, E., & Vilà-Baños, R. (2021). El diálogo interreligioso: una asignatura pendiente entre las organizaciones sociales y educativas. Modulema: revista científica sobre diversidad cultural, 5, 151-169. Hatry, H.P. (2014). Transforming Performance Measurement for the 21st Century. The Urban Institute. Helskog, G.H. (2015). The Gandhi Project: Dialogos philosophical dialogues and the ethics and politics of intercultural and interfaith friendship. Educational Action Research, 23(2), 225-242. Ibrahim, I., Othman, M.Y., Dakir, J., Samian, A.L. et al. (2012). The importance, ethics and issues on interfaith dialogue among multi racial community. Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 8(6), 2920-2924. Orton, A. (2016) Interfaith dialogue: seven key questions for theory, policy and practice, Religion, State and Society, 44(4), 349-365. Kruja, G. (2022). Interfaith harmony through education system of religious communities. Religion and Education, 49(1), 104-117. Kuppinger, P. (2019). Spaces of interfaith dialogue between protestant and muslim communities in Germany. Gender and religion in the city: Women, urban planning and spirituality (pp. 51-63) Miller, K. D. (2017). Interfaith dialogue in a secular field. Management Research Review, 40(8), 824-844. Pallavicini, Y. S. Y. (2016). Interfaith education: An islamic perspective. International Review of Education, 62(4), 423-437. Purnomo, A. B. (2020). A model of interreligious eco-theological leadership to care for the earth in the indonesian context. European Journal of Science and Theology, 16(4), 15-25. Sabariego-Puig, M., Freixa-Niella, M., Vila-Baños, R. (2018). El diálogo interreligioso en el espacio público: retos para los agentes socioeducativos en Cataluña. Pedagogía social: revista interuniversitaria, 32, 151-166 Vila-Baños, R., Aneas-Álvarez, A., Freixa-Niella, M., Sabariego-Puig, M. & Rubio-Hurtado, M.J. (2018). Educar en competencias para el diálogo interreligioso e intercultural para afrontar el radicalismo y la intolerancia religiosas. A Lleixá-Arribas, T. (Ed.). Educación 2018-2020, Universitat de Barcelona, pp. 67-72. 07. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Paper Centering Turkish-origin students: Culturally responsive teaching in an Austrian technical school 1Southwestern University, United States of America; 2Allen High School, United States of America Presenting Author:Romanians, Serbians, and Turks make up the largest immigrant communities in Austria (Statistik Austria, 2023). Turkish people are often represented as the least integrated immigrant community throughout Germany, Austria, and the Netherlands (Wets, 2006). Second-generation Turkish youth have the lowest academic outcomes of any major immigrant community in Western Europe, with students experiencing lower academic outcomes in Germany and Austria, compared to France, Belgium, and the Netherlands (Crul & Vermeulen, 2004). In recognition of the academic disparities, this study seeks to examine how four teachers in an Austrian vocational school (Handelsschule), with a substantial Turkish origin student population, utilized culturally responsive teaching methods to support students. Much of the initial Turkish immigration began in the 1960s as part of bilateral labor agreements with the Turkish government to address shortages in the workforce after WWII (Wets, 2006; Herzog-Punzenberger, 2003). Although the guestworker program in Austria ended in 1973, Turkish immigration increased in 1974 as guestworkers’ families arrived (Herzog-Punzenberger, 2003). In 2006, Austria had the highest achievement gap between Turkish origin students and native students, with a gap of 133 points between Turkish students and native students on the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), compared to gaps of 114 points in Germany and 91 points in Switzerland (Buchmann & Parrado, 2006). In both Germany and Austria, Turkish origin students were in schools with higher student-teacher ratios and less resources, compared to native students (Song, 2011). In Austria, Turkish origin students were also disproportionally enrolled in special education programs (Herzog-Punzenberger, 2003). Analysis of 2006 PISA results demonstrated that home factors (i.e. number of books at home, language spoken, and parent level of education) accounted for 55% of the test score difference between native students and Turkish origin youth in Austria (Song, 2011). It is clear that there is a dire need for teachers to shift pedagogical strategies to ensure that immigrant-origin students, particularly Turkish-origin students, feel a sense of belonging in the classroom and are effectively supported. Our primary research questions in this study are: What culturally responsive teaching practices are being used in Austrian schools? What barriers exist for teachers in implementing culturally responsive teaching practices? In theorizing culturally relevant pedagogies, which originated within a U.S. context, we utilized Ladson-Billings’ (1995b) model, which includes three characteristics: “an ability to develop students academically, a willingness to nurture and support cultural competence, and the development of a sociopolitical consciousness” (p. 483). Recognizing that cultures are not static, Alim and Paris (2017) also proposed the concept of culturally sustaining pedagogies, which are those that support linguistic and cultural pluralism in schools. Within both definitions, the concept of critical consciousness, which is rooted in Freire’s (1970) concept of conscientização, played a central role. Culturally responsive teaching is “a way of teaching and learning that considers the social, emotional, cognitive, political, and cultural dimensions of every student” (Powell et. al., 2016). Findings using the Culturally Responsive Instructional Observation Protocol (CRIOP), have demonstrated that students, who have teachers that score higher on a culturally responsive teaching scale, score higher in both Math and Reading assessments (Powell et. al., 2016). In Austria, a “pedagogy for foreigners” (Ausländerpädagogik) exists, but this has been perceived as a deficit-based model that does not effectively support integration (Seyfried, 2014). Culturally responsive pedagogical models have been proposed as one potential means of reducing the achievement gap between immigrant-origin and native students (Seyfried, 2014). We recognize that there are teachers who may be implementing these models, partially or in-full, even if they have not been provided with formal training in culturally responsive pedagogies, which led to the current research. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used We utilized the Culturally Responsive Instructional Observation Protocol (CRIOP) to identify specific culturally responsive pedagogical strategies used by teachers in one Austrian school. Interviews and school observations were conducted with four teachers in a technical school (Handelsschule). One researcher on our team was an English Language Assistant at the school during the time of research. She obtained approval from the school director, then asked teachers and administrators to provide recommendations for teachers who seemed to have more success with immigrant-origin students. She reached out to invite these teachers to participate in the study and four teachers accepted. Teachers in the study taught Geography and German Language Arts. She observed one class period for each teacher, then conducted a 30-60 minute interview with each teacher after the observation. During observations, minute-by-minute notes were typed, focusing on actions of the teacher and interactions with students. Interviews were recorded and transcribed, except in one case where the interviewee requested the interview not be recorded. In this case, notes were taken during the interview. After observations were complete, the CRIOP was used to code interviews and observation data. The CRIOP (Powell et al., 2017) is a tool that operationalizes culturally responsive pedagogy using six elements: classroom relationships, family collaborations, assessment practices, instructional practices, discourse, and critical consciousness. Within each of the six elements, are multiple indicators that focus on actions of the teacher aligned with each element. These include, for instance, “teacher incorporates culture into the conversation,” “teacher intentionally learns about students’ cultures,” “instruction is contextualized in students’ lives, experiences, and individual abilities.” Within the protocol, examples of each indicator are provided for how this might look in responsive and a non-responsive classrooms. The non-observing researcher conducted an initial round of coding, then the observing researcher conducted a second round of coding. After completing the coding, we each completed the CRIOP, scoring each participant in each indicator, as well as a final score in each element. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Findings demonstrate the importance of valuing students’ home languages, developing strong relationships with students, and connecting content to student’s lives. Similar to research conducted in the United States using the CRIOP (Powell, Cantrell, Malo-Juvera, & Corell, 2016), the highest CRIOP ratings for teachers were in the area of classroom relationships, promoting a sense of comradery in the classroom. In one classroom, the teacher allowed discussion in either German or Turkish when students worked together. In another class, the teacher encouraged student feedback and incorporated this into lessons. Also similar to the U.S. context, the lowest ratings were in the area of critical consciousness. Teachers seem to struggle to make meaningful connections to students' lives, particularly in providing opportunities to interrogate inequities that may be impacting students on a daily basis. In another class, through a lesson on population, the teacher encouraged students to make connections to different generations of their family. Limitations arose through an inability to conduct multiple observations of these particular teachers. In addition, observations were conducted approximately 2 months prior to the end of the school year, which may not always be the most representative of a teachers’ pedagogy throughout the year. Interviews provided one way to allow teachers to reflect on their overall pedagogy, mitigating some of these limitations. Implications of this study include the need for teacher education programs to highlight issues of social justice and injustice, as well as provide instruction in developing curriculum that connects to students' lives. In particular, centering critical consciousness within teacher education programs has the potential to increase the success of immigrant-origin students. We are currently in the process of developing a manuscript to further disseminate the findings from this research. References Alim, H.S. & Paris, D. (2017). What is culturally sustaining pedagogy and why does it matter? In D. Paris & H.S. Alim (Eds.), Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world (pp. 1-21). Teachers College Press. Buchmann, C., & Parrado, E. A. (2006). Educational achievement of immigrant-origin and native students: A comparative analysis informed by institutional theory. In D. Baker, & A. Wiseman (Eds.), The impact of comparative education research on institutional theory (pp. 335-366). Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Leeds. Crul, M., & Vermeulen, H. (2004). Immigration, education of the Turkish second generation in five European nations: A comparative study. Luxembourg LIS/Maxwell immigration conference, Luxembourg. Freire, P. (1970). Cultural action and conscientization. Harvard Educational Review, 40(3), 452-477. Hertzog-Punzenberger, B. (2003). Ethnic segmentation in school and labor market: 40 year legacy of Austrian guestworker policy. The International Migration Review, 37(4), 1120-1144. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Education Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491. Powell, R., Cantrell, S.C., Malo-Juvera, V. & Correll, P. (2016). Operationalizing culturally responsive instruction: Preliminary findings of CRIOP research. Teachers College Record, 118, 1-46. Powell, R., Cantrell, S.C., Correll, P. K., & Malo-Juvera, V. (2017). Culturally Responsive Instruction Observation Protocol (4th ed.). Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky College of Education. Seyfried, C. (2014). Trust-based learning and its importance in intercultural education. CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture, 16(3), 1-6. Song, S. (2011). Second-generation Turkish youth in Europe: Explaining the academic disadvantage in Austria, Germany, and Switzerland. Economics of Education Review, 30, 938-949. Statistik Austria. (2023). Mehr als ein Viertel der Bevölkerung hat Wruzeln im Ausland. [data set]. Migration and Integration Statistic Almanac 2023. https://www.statistik.at/fileadmin/announcement/2023/08/20230824MigrationIntegration2023.pdf Wets, J. (2006). The Turkish community in Austria and Belgium: The challenge of integration. Turkish Studies, 7(1), 85-100. 07. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Paper Education for Sustainable Interculturality University of Jyväskylä, Finland Presenting Author:Over the decades intercultural encounters have been introduced in research and education inclusive of communication between humans and different communities. Dervin, Sude, Yang & Chen (2022) problematizes the dominant discourse on interculturality between East and West and the need for diverse languages to be introduced in the dialogue. This study explored the ways in which interculturality can provide means towars planetary justice and sustainable societies. In the future, intercultural dialogue should not be based on the humanistic assumptions of a solitary human self, separate and autonomous from the rest of the planetary system. This paper discusses opportunities to shift the language around interculturality incorporating interdisciplinary, social justice and planetary lense by using the metaphor of contact zone in between interculturality and sustainability towards more sustainable interculturality. Utilizing the contact zone theory by Mary Louise Pratt (1991), this study explores the opportunity of interculturality to be understood as a dialogue and the encounters beyond Western intepretation of (inter)culture. Pratt’s (1991) theory of contact zone, in its traditional understanding, refers to the interculturality (her original term used was transculturation) as a social space, where people meet, clash, and struggle with each other, often in contexts of highly asymmetrical relations of power (Pratt, 1991, 6). In her writings, Pratt mentioned a story of a letter addressed by an unknown but apparently literate Andean to King Philip III of Spain. The purpose of the letter was to guide the King to rule in a more respectful manner towards the indigenous Andeans. The story continues with a belief that the letter was never delivered to the King (ibid, 1991,6). This leads to the ongoing issue of today’s education – whose knowledge is taught at schools and whose (inter)culturality is recognized in the education policies when intercultural education theories rely mainly on western knowledge system. For the longest, teaching interculturality, has been recognized as important based on global education policy frameworks (see for example the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Global Competency Framework, 2020 and The Council of Europe’s White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue, 2008). As an example, Finnish national curriculum recognizes interculturality in a form of language and cultural diversity, to remind about the ethnic diversity in schools. Interculturality and sustainability both play a significant role in our increasingly interconnected and diverse world, with also increased tensions and crises. However, interculturality has not been much included to the sustainable development goals, namely to the Education for All SDG4 goal. Interculturality here refers to the interaction and dialogue that takes place in highly asymmetrical power relations, often centered on beliefs and values among individuals or groups from different ethnic, educational, socio-economic and geographical locations (see for example Dervin, 2015). Whereas sustainability focuses on the long-term well-being of both the environment and society, aiming to preserve resources and promote social equity between species. This study explored the intersection between interculturality and sustainability, their interdependence and the potential for positive synergies towards sustainable interculturality with the focus on planetary justice. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study aimed to explore opportunities to create further contact zones with the idea of interculturality and sustainability in education. In 2021, a literature search was conducted to understand the relationship between sustainable and global/intercultural education. This was part of a project aiming to strengthen global and sustainable education at the Faculty of Education and Psychology at the University of Jyväskylä, Finland. The keywords for the search were sustainable education, sustainability education, education for sustainable education and global citizenship education. The literature review was organised in themes, which were further developed to contact zones between the interculturality and sustainable education. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Three contact zones between intercultural and sustainable development in education were identified through the literature review and thematic analysis: 1. Intersecting Interculturality, Global Citizenship and Sustainable Education, 2. Cultural heritage and sustainability of different communities and species and 3. Competencies required for intercultural planetary well-being. To conclude, the key is to problematize how all this can become action and/or pedagogy. Börjesön & al. (2006) mention two types of futures thinking 1) concerns about what the future could be (possible futures), and 2) what it should be (preferable futures). This provides an interesting pedagogical question to solve about what type of futures do we want to achieve and what needs could be filled to create possible and preferable futures. Whatever frameworks and concepts are used, we should think if creating universal international goals is preferable. Reflecting on different types of positive and negative scenarios might help to understand the role of different intercultural encounters and power systems in the process, which can be referred to as systemic thinking. Resilience and adaptation are seen as important skills to be learnt in education, especially during times of emergencies and global crises. References Börjeson, L.; Höjer, M.; Dreborg, K.; Ekvall, T.; Finnveden, G. (2006). Scenario types and techniques: Towards a user’s guide. Futures, 38, 723–739 Dervin, F., Gajardo, A., & Lavanchy, A. (2011). Politics of interculturality. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars. Dervin, F. (2015). Towards post-intercultural teacher education: Analysing ‘extreme’ intercultural dialogue to reco Dervin, F. (2016). Interculturality in Education: A Theoretical and Methodological Toolbox. Palgrave Macmillan. Glasser, H. (2018). Toward Robust Foundations for Sustainable Well-Being Societies: Learning to Change by Changing How We Learn. Sustainability, Human Well-Being, and the Future of Education. Stein, S., & Andreotti, V. (2021). Global citizenship otherwise. In Conversations on Global Citizenship Education (pp. 13-36). Routledge. Yuan, M.; Sude; Wang, T.; Zhang, W.; Chen, N.; Simpson, A.; Dervin, F. (2020). Chinese Minzu Education in Higher Education: An inspiration for ‘Western’ Diversity Education? Br. J. Educ. Stud., 68, 461–486 | ||