inter-cultural learning in european primary schools: some

Inter-cultural Learning inEuropean Primary Schools:

Some Theoretical Perspectives.

John HalochaBishop Grosseteste University College

Lincoln.

Background• European projects in the 1990s:

Oxfordshire schools linked with Italy, Spain and Greece.

• HERODOT involvement

• Socrates programme:‘The Implementation of a European Dimension by PeerLearning in Primary Schools’

• A need to review recent theoretical perspectives in 21st

century.

• Review to support colleagues.

Sociological analysis

Young (1998)• Engage/re-engage pupils in learning

through changing the nature of thecurriculum.

• ‘The possibilities of change’• National curricula seen as a process

rather than a product.

Sociological analysis

Morgan (2004)• The curriculum within the context of

cultural politics.• Post-modernist approach to the

construction and production of knowledge.• The creation of local and situated

knowledge.• Knowledge is fluid requiring constant re-

evaluation.

Sociological analysis

Szczesna & Wojtanowicz (2005)• Development of emotional relationships

and a sense of identity through primarygeography.

• Relationship with place.• ‘Little homeland’ as a reference point.Roberts (2005)• Geography education ignores children.

Citizenship in context

Kociemba & Banzo (2005)• Pupil’s concepts of citizenship controlled

by teachers.Fisher (2004)• Communities of enquiry.Dewey (1909, 1933)• Reflective thinking.

Spatial understanding andRepresentation

Spencer & Blades (2006)• 8 year olds knowledge of other countries.Wiegand (1995)• Social group influences on pupil’s knowledge

beyond Britain.Axia et al (1998)• Levels of world knowledge in southern and

northern Italy.Spencer & Blades (2006)• Likes and knowledge of countries not related.

Spatial understanding andRepresentation

Schmeinck (2005)• Variation on pupil’s perceptions of countries.Ross (2000)• Geography encourages children to develop

boundaries between ‘them’ and ‘us’.Schmeinck (2006)• Qualitative categories to analyse perceptions of

the world.Storey (2004)• Use and understanding of nested hierachies.

Spatial understanding andRepresentation

Wiegand (2006)• Representation of Europe in maps.Castner (1987)• The influence of maps and atlases on

visualising complexity and developinggeneralisations.

Kelly (2006)• “Geographies should be celebrated as

emerging geographic reasoning”.

Children’s WorldsMuir (2002)• Objective and subjective processes in

geography.Eibl-Eibesfeldt (1979)• The effect of emotions, perceptions and

individual identity on a person’s sense if identitywithin a national context.

Azevedo (2004)• “Emergent meanings of cultural landscapes”.• ‘Biographies of landscapes’.

Children’s Worlds

Catling (2006)• 10 geographical worlds.Brooks (2004)• YoungNet Project – ways in which 8-14

year olds selected and presented theirlocalities to other European children.

Practical ConsiderationsVodopija (2002)• Variation in communication competences in

everyday life and education.Beneker, Paul & van der Vaart (2005)• University geography students.• ‘European average style’ v cultural diversity.Mentz (2005)‘Conquest by language’ across Europe.‘Celebration of diversity’.

Conclusion

• Moving on pedagogically from projects ofthe 1990s – what is innovative in the 21st

century?

• Towards a shared understanding of ‘peerlearning’ between members of the project.

• Keeping a focus on the children ratherthan the project.