inter-cultural learning in european primary schools: some
TRANSCRIPT
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.