6
International teachers:
peacekeepers or change agents?
ITEPS student teachers' perceptions of democratic citizenship, human rights education and global citizenship education
Marcel Haagsma
Bath University UK
2016
Context
This study was done in the context of the International Teacher Education for Primary Schools curriculum (www.iteps.eu), a context that I work in as lecturer in various subjects such as Democratic Citizenship, Research and Academic Working Methods and Intercultural Understanding & Religion.
The ITEPS consortium is a group of universities and university colleges in the North West of Europe (The Netherlands, Norway and Denmark). Its programme is a Bachelor of Education that aims to educate professionals for the field of teaching in international primary schools around the world. "International school" in this context means: "schools offering English speaking tuition in a school outside of an English-speaking country" (ISC Research definition according to Bunnell 2015, cited by Hayden, Levy and Thompson (eds.), loc. 11295 of 22044).
One of the taught subjects in this international teacher education course is called Democratic Citizenship, which has learning outcomes at its core, such as:
Critical awareness of the dimensions of his/her own cultural identity, critical thinking and individual reflection,
Have an understanding of how meaning is produced,
Positioning him/herself in relation to the overall responsibility to educate children for life and to do so within the contested area of educating for personal, social, national, European and global citizenship,
Making reflections on the concept of democracy and
Teaching school children of different ethnic or cultural background to live together in mutual tolerance and understanding of each other's values and norms for participating in a democratic society
And many more (14 in total).
The student teachers study this subject in a taught course (10 European Credits) in which they read, discuss, present, research and prepare tasks to carry out in teaching practice. Assessments consist of portfolio assembly, writing of autobiographies, presentations, (oral and written) exams and assessment of teaching practice. It is safe to say that there is an important focus on raising future teachers' awareness of their important role in the development of their learners as responsible and interculturally sensitive and responsive global citizens. Another important part of the course consists of development of teachers' competence in the pedagogical and subject methodological domains.
Aim (Haagsma 2016, p.7-8)
The overall research aim of this study was to advance an understanding of the perceptions of ITEPS student teachers on the contested concepts of democratic citizenship, human rights education and global citizenship education in relation to their teacher identity and to formulate curriculum recommendations for the subject of Democratic Citizenship in the ITEPS programme. In order to investigate this, the following research objectives were formulated for this study:
1. Identification of existing conceptions and agendas for democratic citizenship education, human rights education and global citizenship education in international educational contexts of primary education.
2. Exploration of ITEPS student teachers' views (who have just finished their first year of teacher education) on conceptualising democracy, citizenship and human rights education, including views on educating global citizens.
3. Formulation of recommendations on the further development of the Democratic Citizenship course in the ITEPS curriculum.
Research questions (Haagsma 2016, p.8)
The following lines of inquiry were investigated through a literature review, in order to contextualise this study. The answers were used as probe to frame the project:
1. What are current conceptions of democratic citizenship education, human rights education and global citizenship education in the literature?
2. What are current agendas for global citizenship education in the literature?
Subsequently, the following question was investigated empirically:
3. How do ITEPS student teachers, who have just finished their first year of study, conceptualise democratic citizenship, human rights education and global citizenship education?
Based on literature study and empirical investigation, this study further aimed to clarify the following:
4. What are the implications of an analysis of the findings of this research for the further development of the course content of the subject Democratic Citizenship in the ITEPS curriculum?
Methods (Haagsma 2016, p.23-33)
This study departs from an interpretivist research paradigm. The researcher aimed to portray and analyse "a single case" (Cohen 2011, p.129) in which the ideas and perceptions of the individual student teachers about democratic citizenship education, human rights education and global citizenship education can be found, depicted and analysed. That is why the case study approach (Cohen et al. 2011, pp.289-302) was chosen for this study. In order to gain in-depth understanding about respondents' points of view, a mixed-methods approach was chosen in which quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection have been combined.
The base-line quantitative data was analysed and used to drill down more deeply and more narrowly into the meaning of respondents' responses by using a qualitative approach as a follow up. As a consequence, quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis were sequentially organised (as suggested by Teddlie and Tashakkore 2009, cited by Cohen et al. 2011, p.25). The main data collection method chosen in this research project was a questionnaire. From a research population of 193 ITEPS students overall in the Netherlands (2016), the questionnaire was set out among all year 2 students (N=42) who had just finalised their subject Democratic Citizenship. This sample was drawn because their impressions about the taught subject were still fresh. All 42 students responded to the questionnaire among which 32 (n=32) completed the survey. The responses of these 32 were analysed. Subsequently interviews were held with 4 respondents from the sample of 32 (n=4) to further function as illustration to the data found from the questionnaire.
Analytical Framework (Haagsma 2016, p.10-21)
The analytical framework used to investigate the lines of inquiry and to analyse the findings from the questionnaire and the interviews drew on various scholars' research. Most important frames of reference were the studies done by Carr, Zyngier and Pruyn (2012), Camicia & Franklin (2011), Bajaj (2011, 2012), Osler & Starkey (2010), Osler (2016) and Westheimer (2015). Carr's (2012) framework was used to detect thinner and thicker notions of democracy among respondents' perceptions of democracy and democratic citizenship, Camicia & Franklin's (2011) concepts of neoliberal, democratic and cosmopolitan views on community and citizenship, combined with Westheimer's (2015) typology of three kinds of citizens were used as tools of analysis of preferred types of global citizenship education, as outed by respondents, where Osler and Starkey's (2010) and Osler's (2016) views on human rights as basic cosmopolitan framework for citizenship education, and Bajaj's (2012) three ideological orientations toward human rights education were used as frames of analysis for the interpretation of respondents' views on human rights education.
Results (Haagsma 2016, p.47-48)
Analysis of the most important trends that flow from the findings from the questionnaire (with illustrations of findings from the interviews).
Trend 1: Respondents overwhelmingly demonstrate thin notions of democracy citizenship (Carr 2012), where the role of the individual citizen is stressed in terms of either a status holder or an active community member. Respondents see raising awareness, developing knowledge about human rights and development of tolerance towards cultural differences in the classroom as their most important task when it comes to conceptualising democratic citizenship, human rights education and global citizenship education.
In the interviews, respondents demonstrate many outings that can be analysed as manifestations of the personally responsible and participatory citizen (Westheimer 2015), which also illustrate thinner notions of citizenship.
Trend 2: Human rights education is mostly described as education about human rights, and little as education through or for human rights. Interview findings illustrate the same trend.
Trend 3: It can be argued that in the findings, democratic cosmopolitan views (Camicia and Franklin (2011) overpower more critical views on global citizenship. Interview findings illustrate the same trend here too.
Trend 4: Global citizenship education is mainly described as raising awareness of cultural differences, developing respectful and tolerant attitudes and creating a welcoming and acceptant classroom atmosphere. This trend is also recognised in the interviews, where strong emphasis on mutual recognition of cultural differences in classrooms and the development of a sense of belonging in children is seen as most important learning outcome for global citizenship. Key concepts for development of global citizens that are most mentioned in the questionnaire are "cultures", "human rights" and "awareness".
Trend 5: Much overlap can be found in the findings about how respondents conceptualise democratic citizenship and human rights education and global citizenship education. Relationships and intersections between the three concepts investigated in this study, are often mentioned by respondents, most often in a descriptive way. These relationships are often meaningful but sometimes confusing to the respondents. Purposes of the three "educations" are often mixed by respondents, often in meaningful ways.
Trend 6: Ambiguities in responses. Addressing social injustice is seen as second important civic activity important right after voting by respondents. This is a remarkable and can be seen as an indication for a thicker notion of democracy and therefore would not align with trend 1. Respondents say they see voting as most important civic activity but at the same time more than 1 third (32, 26%) says never to vote for elections themselves. At the same time, respondents reply that most of them (87, 51%) see elections as important or very important to democracy. Views on what is seen as important in a democracy do not align with reported teacher behaviour in this domain (i.e. teaching a sense of democracy in students, q.26) and can argue to be are incongruent with respondents' imagined views of how education can contribute to the creation of democratic minds.
For more questionnaire findings or a copy of this study: please provide your email address to the researcher:
[email protected]
Discussion
This study has been carried out in the context of an international teacher education course.
The CIES 2017 theme Problematizing (in) equality in comparative and international education, in relation to this study's topic, can open up many avenues for discussion.
For example:
1.What should considered to be the main challenge for international primary school teachers in relation to teaching global citizens, developing internationally minded people and teaching for diversity, democracy and human rights?
2. What should considered to be the main challenge for international teacher educators who educate teachers for such a professional context?
3. What does legitimate citizenship education in an international primary school look like in the current state of the world?
4. Are international schools havens of "peace, harmony and social cohesion" [McNaughton & Peter (2015, loc. 12708 of 22044, cited in Hayden, M., Levy, J. and Thompson, J. , 2015. The SAGE Handbook of Research in International Education. Los Angeles and London: SAGE] in an ocean of inequality, oppression and exclusion?
5. Should international primary teachers be educated not to teach about, but rather for and through human rights in their future jobs?
6. Should national citizenship curricula globalise or should global citizenship curricula glocalise?
7.Should teachers stay neutral on controversial issues in their primary classrooms, given the young age of their pupils?
References
Bajaj, 2011. Human rights education- ideology, location and approaches. Human Rights Quaterly, 33(2), pp. 481-508.
Bajaj, M., 2012. Schooling for social change : the rise and impact of human rights education in India. New York & London: Bloomsbury
Camicia, S.P. & Franklin, B.M., 2011. What type of global community and citizenship? Tangled discourses of neoliberalism and critical democracy in curriculum and its reform. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9(3-4), pp. 311-322.
Carr, P.R., Zyngier, D., Pruyn, M. eds., 2012. Can Educators Make a Difference? Experimenting with and Experiencing, Democracy in Education. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., Morrison, K., 2011. Research methods in education. London & New York: Routledge.
Haagsma, M., 2016. International teachers: peacekeepers or change agents? ITEPS student teachers' perceptions of democratic citizenship, human rights education and global citizenship education. Bath University, Bath.
Hayden, M., Levy, J. and Thompson, J. , 2015. The SAGE Handbook of Research in International Education. Los Angeles and London: SAGE.
Osler, A., 2016. Human Rights and Schooling: An Ethical Framework for Social Justice (Multicultural Education). New York & London: Teachers College Press.
Osler, A., Starkey, H., 2010. Teachers and Human Rights Education. Sterling: Trentham Books.
Westheimer, J., 2015. What Kind of Citizen? Educating our Children for the Common Good. New York: Teachers College Press.
CIES 2017 Presentation of the study "ITEPS Student Teachers' Perceptions
of Democratic Citizenship, Human Rights Education & Global Citizenship Education"
by
Marcel Haagsma"ITEPS-Stenden University"The Netherlands
[email protected] " www.iteps.eu " www.stenden.com
