Discourses of Globalisation, Cultural Diversity and Values Education 3031228510, 9783031228513

Citation preview

Globalisation, Comparative Education and Policy Research 34

Joseph Zajda

Discourses of Globalisation, Cultural Diversity and Values Education

Globalisation, Comparative Education and Policy Research Volume 34

Series Editor Joseph Zajda, Faculty of Education and Arts, Australian Catholic University, East Melbourne, VIC, Australia Editorial Board Robert Arnove, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA Birgit Brock-Utne, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway Martin Carnoy, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA Holger Daun, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden Lyn Davies, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK Fred Dervin, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland Karen Evans, University of London, London, UK Kassie Freeman, Alcorn State University, Lorman, USA MacLeans Geo-JaJa, Brigham Young University, Provo, USA Andreas Kazamias, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA Leslie Limage, UNESCO, Paris, France Susan Majhanovich, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada Marcella Mollis, University of Buenos Aires, CABA, Argentina Val Rust, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA Yvonne Vissing, Salem State University, Salem, MA, USA Advisory Editors Abdeljalil Akkari, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland Beatrice Avalos, National Ministry of Education, Santiago, Chile Karen Biraimah, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA David Chapman, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA Sheng Yao Cheng, Chung Chen University, Chia-yi, Taiwan Pamela Hallam, McKay School of Education, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USA Deborah Henderson, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia Yaacov Iram, Bar Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Henry Levin, Teachers College Columbia University, New York, NY, USA Noel McGinn, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA David Phillips, Oxford University, Oxford, UK Gerald Postglione, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong Heidi Ross, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA M’hammed Sabour, University of Joensuu, Joensuu, Finland Jurgen Schriewer, Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany Sandra Stacki, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY, USA Nelly Stromquist, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

Carlos Torres, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA John Whitehouse , Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia David Willis, Soai University, Osaka, Japan

The Globalisation, Comparative Education and Policy Research book series aims to meet the research needs of all those interested in in-depth developments in comparative education research. The series provides a global overview of developments and changes in policy and comparative education research during the last decade. Presenting up-to-date scholarly research on global trends, it is an easily accessible, practical yet scholarly source of information for researchers, policy makers and practitioners. It seeks to address the nexus between comparative education, policy, and forces of globalisation, and provides perspectives from all the major disciplines and all the world regions. The series offers possible strategies for the effective and pragmatic policy planning and implementation at local, regional and national levels. The book series complements the International Handbook of Globalisation and Education Policy Research. The volumes focus on comparative education themes and case studies in much greater scope and depth than is possible in the Handbook. The series includes volumes on both empirical and qualitative studies of policy initiatives and developments in comparative education research in elementary, secondary and postcompulsory sectors. Case studies may include changes and education reforms around the world, curriculum reforms, trends in evaluation and assessment, decentralisation and privatisation in education, technical and vocational education, early childhood education, excellence and quality in education. Above all, the series offers the latest findings on critical issues in comparative education and policy directions, such as: . developing new internal strategies (more comprehensive, flexible and innovative modes of learning) that take into account the changing and expanding learner needs; . overcoming ‘unacceptable’ socio-economic educational disparities and inequalities; . improving educational quality; . harmonizing education and culture; . international co-operation in education and policy directions in each country.

Joseph Zajda

Discourses of Globalisation, Cultural Diversity and Values Education

Joseph Zajda Faculty of Education and Arts Australian Catholic University East Melbourne, VIC, Australia

ISSN 2543-0564 ISSN 2543-0572 (electronic) Globalisation, Comparative Education and Policy Research ISBN 978-3-031-22851-3 ISBN 978-3-031-22852-0 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-22852-0 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Dedication To Rea, Nikolai, Belinda, Sophie, Imogen, Paulina, Jan, Dorothy and Jim

Foreword

Discourses of Globalisation and Values Education, the 34th book in the 48-volume book series Globalisation, Comparative Education and Policy Research, analyses major discourses of effective and engaging learning environments for teaching values education globally. The main aim of this monograph is to offer a new insight into understanding of the nexus between ideology, the state and values education. Topics addressed include globalisation and values education globally, major models of values education, active citizenship education, education for sustainability, multicultural education and values education in historical narratives. The book contributes in a very scholarly way, to a more holistic understanding of the nexus between globalisation, comparative education research and education reforms for teaching values education. The chapters offer a timely analysis of current issues affecting schooling and strategies for teaching values globally. The book also provides innovative ideas concerning the future directions that education and policy reforms, in order to promote more engaging and more meaningful knowledge and values education globally. Joseph Zajda, Ph.D. FACE Faculty of Education and Arts Australian Catholic University East Melbourne, VIC, Australia

vii

Preface

Discourses of Globalisation, Cultural Diversity and Values Education, the 34th book in the 48-volume book series Globalisation, Comparative Education and Policy Research, analyses major discourses of values education in schools, and effective learning environments, in order to offer more engaging approaches for teaching and learning values of pluralist democracy, social justice and human rights. Globalisation and the competitive market forces have generated a massive growth in the knowledge industries that are having profound impact on society and educational institutions globally. These have significant effects on dominant approaches in defining and teaching desirable knowledge, and content of values education. By examining some of the recent shifts in values education in educational institutions, the book provides a comprehensive picture of the intersecting and diverse discourses of globalisation, ideology and values education. The book focuses on relevant learning and teaching strategies that promote a better and more critical and meaningful knowledge of values embedded in our societies. As a sourcebook of ideas for researchers, practitioners and policymakers specialising in the areas of globalisation and values education, the book provides a unique and timely overview of current reforms and strategies for enhancing the quality of values education in educational institutions globally. Joseph Zajda, FACE Faculty of Education and Arts Australian Catholic University East Melbourne, VIC, Australia

ix

Editorial by the Series Editor

Discourses of Globalisation, Cultural diversity and Values Education (Volume 34) is a further publication in the Springer Series of books on Globalisation, Comparative Education and Policy Research, by Joseph Zajda. Joseph Zajda’s monograph Discourses of Globalisation, Cultural diversity and Values Education, the 34th book in the 36-volume book series Globalisation, Comparative Education and Policy Research, examines dominant discourses in values education globally. This book critiques dominant discourses and debates pertaining to values education, and cultural identity, set against the current backdrop of growing social stratification and unequal access to quality education. It addresses current discourses concerning globalisation, ideologies and the state, as well as approaches to values education in schools. It explores the ambivalent and problematic connections between the state, globalisation and values education. The book also explores conceptual frameworks and methodological approaches applicable to research on values education, multiculturalism and identity politics. Drawing on diverse paradigms, ranging from critical theory to globalisation, the book, by focusing on globalisation, ideology and values education, critically examines recent research dealing with cultural diversity and its impact of identity politics. Given the need for a multiple perspective approach, the authors, who have diverse backgrounds and hail from different countries and regions, offer a wealth of insights, contributing to a more holistic understanding of the nexus between values education, multiculturalism and national identity. With contributions from key scholars worldwide, the book should be required reading for a broad spectrum of users, including policymakers, academics, graduate students, education policy researchers, administrators and practitioners. I want to express my deep gratitude to Suzanne Majhanovich (Western University, Ontario), Yvonne Vissing (Salem State University), Sev Ozdowski (University of Western Sydney) and Vince Wright (Education consultant, Taupo, New Zealand) for their insightful and constructive comments, and I am also grateful to the anonymous international reviewers who reviewed the chapters in the final manuscript.

xi

Contents

1 Discourses of Globalisation and Values Education for Equality, Democracy and Social Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

2 Global Models of Values Education for Democracy and Cultural Diversity in Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

21

3 Multicultural Education Globally for Democracy, Equality, and Social Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

39

4 Using Critical Discourse Analysis in Values Education . . . . . . . . . . . . .

57

5 Active Citizenship Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

73

6 Values Education for Sustainability in a Global Culture . . . . . . . . . . . .

91

7 Values Education for Human Rights and Social Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

xiii

About the Series Editor

Joseph Zajda B.A. (Hons), M.A., M.Ed., Ph.D., FACE, co-ordinates and teaches in graduate courses: M. Teach courses: (EDES591, EDFX522, and EDSS600) in the Faculty of Education and Arts, at the Australian Catholic University (Melbourne Campus). He specialises in globalisation and education policy reforms, social justice, history education, human rights education and values education. He has written and edited 52 books and over 150 book chapters and articles in the areas of globalisation and education policy, higher education, history textbooks and curriculum reforms. Recent publications include: Zajda, J. (2023). Discourses of globalisation, cultural diversity and values education. Springer; Zajda, J. (2022). Discourses of globalisation, and the politics of history school textbooks. Springer; Zajda, J. (2022). Globalisation and education reforms: Overcoming discrimination. Springer; Zajda, J. (2022). Discourses of globalisation, and the politics of history school textbooks. Springer; Zajda, J. (2021). Globalisation and education reforms: Creating effective learning environments. Springer; Zajda, J. & Majhanovich, S. (2022). Race, ethnicity and gender in education: Emerging paradigms. Springer; Zajda, J. & Vissing, Y. (2022). Discourses of globalisation, ideology, and human rights. Springer; Zajda, J. (Ed). (2021) 3rd International handbook of globalisation, education and policy research. Springer; Zajda, J. (2021). Globalisation and education reforms: Creating effective learning. Dordrecht: Springer; Zajda, J. & Majhanovich, S. (Eds.) (2021). Globalisation, cultural identity and nationbuilding: The changing paradigms. Springer Zajda, J. (Ed). (2020). Globalisation, Ideology and Education Reforms : Emerging paradigms. Springer; Zajda, J. (Ed). (2020). Human Rights Education Globally . Dordrecht: Springer; Zajda, J (Ed.). (2020). Globalisation, Ideology and Neo-Liberal Higher Education Reform. Dordrecht: Springer; Zajda, J. & Rust, V. (2020). Globalisation and comparative education. Dordrecht: Springer; Zajda, J. & Majhanovich, S. (Eds.) (2020). Globalisation, cultural identity and nation-building: The changing paradigms. Dordrecht: Springer; Zajda, J. (2019) (Ed.). Globalisation, ideology and politics of education reforms. Dordrecht: Springer; Zajda, J. (2018). Globalisation and education reforms: Paradigms and ideologies. Dordrecht: Springer; Zajda, J. (2017). Globalisation and National Identity in History Textbooks: The Russian Federation. Dordrecht: Springer; xv

xvi

About the Series Editor

Zajda, Tsyrlina-Spady & Lovorn (2017) (Eds.).Globalisation and Historiography of National Leaders: Symbolic Representations in School Textbooks. Dordrecht: Springer; Zajda & Ozdowski (2017). (Eds.), Globalisation and Human Rights Education Dordrecht: Springer; Zajda & Rust (Eds.) (2016). Globalisation and Higher Education Reforms. Dordrecht: Springer; Editor and author of the Second International Handbook on Globalisation, Education and Policy Research. Springer, 2015; Zajda, J. (2014). The Russian Revolution. In G. Ritzer & J. M. Ryan (Eds.), The WileyBlackwell Encyclopedia of Globalization Online; Zajda, J. (2014); Zajda, J. (2014). Ideology. In D. Phillips (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Theory and Philosophy. Thousand Oaks: Sage; Zajda, J. (2014). Values Education. In D. Phillips (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Theory and Philosophy. Thousand Oaks: Sage; Zajda, J. (2014); Values Education. In D. Phillips (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Theory and Philosophy. Thousand Oaks: Sage; Zajda, J (2008). Schooling the New Russians. Melbourne: James Nicholas Publishers. He is the Editor of the forty eight volume book series Globalisation and Comparative Education (Springer, 2013&2025). He edits the following journals below: http://www.jamesnicholaspublishers.com.au/journals/ct/; Editor, Curriculum and Teaching, volume 38, 2023. http://www.jamesnicholaspublishers.com.au/journals/es/; Editor, Education and Society, volume 41, 2023. http://www.jamesnicholaspublishers.com.au/journals/wse/ Editor, World Studies in Education, volume 24, 2023. His works are found in 665 publications in 4 languages and some 11,883 university library holdings globally. He is the recipient of the 2012 Excellence in Research Award, the Faculty of Education, the Australian Catholic University. The award recognises the high quality of research activities and particularly celebrates sustained research that has had a substantive impact nationally and internationally. He was also a recipient of the Australian Awards for University Teaching in 2011 (Citation for Outstanding Contributions to Student Learning, for an innovative, influential and sustained contribution to teacher education through scholarship and publication). He received the Vice Chancellor’s Excellence in Teaching Award, at the Australian Catholic University (Melbourne Campus). He was awarded an ARC Discovery Grant (with Monash University) for 2011–2015 for a comparative analysis of history national curriculum implementation in Russia and Australia ($315,000). He was elected as Fellow of the Australian College of Educators (June 2013). Completed (with Professor Fred Dervin, University of Helsinki) the UNESCO report: Governance in education: Diversity and effectiveness. BRICS countries. Paris: UNESCO (2022).

Chapter 1

Discourses of Globalisation and Values Education for Equality, Democracy and Social Justice

Globalisation and Implications for Values Education in Schools: Introduction Discourses of Globalisation and Values Education, the 34th book in the 36-volume book series Globalisation, Comparative Education and Policy Research, analyses major discourses of effective and engaging learning environments for teaching values education globally in schools. The main aim of this monograph is to offer a new insight into understanding of the nexus between ideology, the state, and values education in schools. Topics addressed include globalisation and values education globally, major models of values education, using discourse analysis in analysing values education in schools, multicultural education in schools, active citizenship education, education for sustainability, and values education for human rights and social justice.

Globalisation and Its Impact on Societies and Educational Systems While there is some general consensus on globalisation as a multi-faceted ideological construct defining a convergence of cultural, economic and political dimensions (‘global village’ now signifies and communicates global culture), there are significant differences in discourses of globalisation, partly due to differences of theoretical, ideological, and disciplinary perspectives. Multidimensional typology of globalisation reflects, in one sense, a more diverse interpretation of culture—the synthesis of technology, ideology, and organisation, specifically border crossings of people, global finance and trade, IT convergence, as well as cross-cultural and communication convergence. In another sense, globalisation, as a post-structuralist © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 J. Zajda, Discourses of Globalisation, Cultural Diversity and Values Education, Globalisation, Comparative Education and Policy Research 34, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-22852-0_1

1

2

1 Discourses of Globalisation and Values Education for Equality, …

paradigm, invites many competing and contesting interpretations. These include not only ideological interpretations, but also discipline-based discourses, which include the notions of the homogenisation and hybridisation of cultures, the growth of social networks that transcend national boundaries supranational organisations, the decline of the nation-state, and the new mode of communication and IT that changes one’s notion of time, and space. Since the 1980s, globalisation, marketisation and quality and efficiency driven reforms around the world have resulted in structural, ideological and qualitative changes in education and policy (Zajda, 2021a). They including an increasing focus on the UNESCO’s concepts of knowledge society, the lifelong learning for all, representing the lifelong learning paradigm in the knowledge economy and the global culture. In their quest for excellence, quality and accountability in education, governments increasingly turn to international and comparative education data analysis. All agree that the major goal of education is to enhance the individual’s social and economic prospects, as well as promoting quality education. This can only be achieved by providing high academic standards and quality education for all. Students’ academic achievement is now regularly monitored and measured within the ‘internationally agreed framework’ of the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). This was done in response to the growing demand for international comparisons of educational outcomes (Zajda, 2022a). To measure levels of academic performance in the global culture, the OECD, in co-operation with UNESCO, continues using World Education Indicators (WEI) programme, covering a broad range of comparative indicators, which report on the resource invested in education and their returns to individuals.

Cultural and Social Origins of Values Values can be defined as standards, in a given society, defining what is good or bad, acceptable or non-acceptable, or right and wrong. Every society has its own legal rules defining desirable behaviour and actions. This is a normative dimension of all societies and their cultures, consisting of norms, and values. Values are regarded as one of the most fundamental components, like ideology, of a group’s culture (Zajda, 2022a). They generally represent the core of the culture, and provide individuals with values defining their social identity, their rights and obligations. The term values education refers to a multifaceted process of socialisation in societies and schools, which transmits dominant values, in order to provide and legitimate the necessary link between the individual, the group and society, in promoting desirable values and behaviour. Values education in schools is a very specific and structured process of instilling desirable aspects of moral education, ethical traits and standards. Values are culturally internalised, shared, and transmitted ideas concerning what is good or desirable. Values may refer to: a particular belief system—believing that pluralist democracy is the best model of social/political system; a code of conduct—being honest, tolerant and courageous; a state of existence—peace, tolerance and equality;

Globalisation and Its Impact on Societies and Educational Systems

3

or a moral judgment—truth, beauty, and justice. Teaching our students morality, or values education, means teaching them what we ourselves, as citizens, with a democratic voice in a pluralist democracy, believe and understand such concepts as morality and moral values. Values, such as peace, tolerance, courage, civility, honesty, moderation, and frugality should be taught to all, if we are to maintain a truly caring, peaceful, and responsible democratic community. We can differentiate between aesthetic, cultural, moral, civic, family, economic, environmental, intellectual, legal, political, religious, scientific, technological and social values. It is also important to understand that not only values may differ and vary from culture to culture, but that they are also subjective. A value considered good in one society, may be unacceptable in another. For instance, the values of racial segregation in the USA, or de jure segregation, or segregation, sanctioned by law, were practised until 1954, when the US Supreme Court ordered that the public schools be desegregated. Since then, the values have shifted towards advancing racial and ethnic equality, inclusive schooling and school integration. It has taken hundreds of years to achieve this value shift. Another example is the White Australia Policy, which enforced racial aspects of the immigration law. It was finally dismantled by the Holt Government’s Migration Law in 1966, and 1973 marked the end of the White Australia policy. Earlier, Butts (1988) identified twelve core values that had to be taught, as a part of students’ preparation for citizenship in a genuinely democratic society. The values are divided into two clusters: these that deal with the obligations of citizenship and those that define the rights of citizenship. Accordingly, we have an important citizenship obligation to support: . . . . . .

justice for all, equality of opportunity, legitimate authority, participation, truth, patriotism.

The rights of citizenship The rights of citizenship include: . . . . . .

the right to freedom, diversity, privacy, due process, property, human rights.

These twelve core values continue to be useful towards a more meaning understanding of democracy and citizenship. The Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians (MCEETYA, 2008, pp. 4, 5, 9) asserts ‘the need to nurture an appreciation of and respect for social, cultural and religious diversity’ and argues that ‘a school’s legacy to

4

1 Discourses of Globalisation and Values Education for Equality, …

young people should include national values of democracy, equity and justice, and personal values and attributes such as honesty, resilience and respect for others’. It commits governments to developing active and informed citizens who ‘act with moral and ethical integrity’, ‘are committed to national values of democracy, equity and justice’, and ‘work for the common good, in particular sustaining and improving natural and social environments’ (Education Services Australia, 2008, p. 127). The topic civics and citizenship education, provided by Education Services Australia (2020), offers suggestions for teaching the nine values in the classroom. These nine values were defined in the Australian government policy document ‘Values for Australian schooling’ in the National Framework for Values Education in Australian Schools (2005). The Nine Values for Australian Schooling are: Care and Compassion – Care for self and others Doing Your Best – Seek to accomplish something worthy and admirable, try hard, pursue excellence Fair Go – Pursue and protect the common good where all people are treated fairly for a just society Freedom – Enjoy all the rights and privileges of Australian citizenship free from unnecessary interference or control, and stand up for the rights of others Honesty and Trustworthiness – Be honest, sincere and seek the truth Integrity – Act in accordance with principles of moral and ethical conduct, ensure consistency between words and deeds Respect – Treat others with consideration and regard, respect another person’s point of view Responsibility – Be accountable for one’s own actions, resolve differences in constructive, non-violent and peaceful ways, contribute to society and to civic life, take care of the environment Understanding, Tolerance and Inclusion – Be aware of others and their cultures, accept diversity within a democratic society, being included and including others. (DEST, 2005) Gilbert and Hoepper (2017) offer useful strategy for teaching values, as shown in Table 1.1. Discussing values in the classroom, as part of democracy and democratic decision making and participation is challenging. Gilbert and Hoepper (2017) suggest an important distinction between discussing an issue, which is ‘the shared expression…of diverse views’, and deliberation, which focusses on descending a plan of action to resolve a shared problem’ (p. 139). Apart from this useful and relevant distinction, we need to ensure that when discussion values, such as tolerance and empathy, we are employing informed decision making, grounded in critical thinking and critical literacy. Furthermore, one needs to be careful of potential bias, due to preconceived beliefs, opinions, and dogmatism. Uniformed debates may be misleading as they avoid such elements, as informed decision making in developing a consensus on certain issues, which are necessary for negotiation and collaboration. Gilbert and Hoepper (2017) stress that the ‘deliberation, conflict resolution, problem solving,

Globalisation and Its Impact on Societies and Educational Systems

5

Table 1.1 Teaching elements of the valuing process

Source R. Gilbert & B. Hoepper, Teaching society and environment (pp. 141–142)

consensus seeking and negotiation processes are necessary’ in teaching and learning values, ethical understanding and controversial issues (p. 139). In developing a good knowledge and understanding of values, we need to be careful to avoid possible biases. As mentioned earlier, students’ and teachers’ belief and opinions may be affected by major agencies of socialization, such as the social media, environment, and peers.

6

1 Discourses of Globalisation and Values Education for Equality, …

The Role of Values in the Classroom Discussing certain values, like democracy, freedom, freedom of speech, tolerance, and empathy, and issues such as racism, demands a mastery of competencies in terms of knowledge, skills and strategies. Students, as demonstrated by various global research finding, find it difficult to understand certain concepts and values (NAEP Civics Assessment, 2018; Tourney-Purta et al., 1999). NAEP Civics Assessment (2018) showed that students had difficulties with understanding concepts only a minority of U.S. students reach the adequate standard on the NAEP Civics Assessment (NAEP Civics Assessment, 2018).

Controversial Issues Both students and teachers may find it difficult, for a number of reasons, to discuss meaningfully certain controversial issues in the classroom. Historically, Holocaust represents the most inhuman, barbaric and horrific treatments of people incarcerated in the Third Reich Nazi Germany and its 40,000 extermination camps between 1933 and 1945. The first extermination camp was established in Dachau, near Munich, in Germany. Hitler’s ‘final solution’, targeted the complete extermination of the Jews, resulting in some 6,000,000 deaths. Advancing Allied troops in April 1944, discovered evidence of gas chambers and crematoriums, with human remains. Some American soldiers when confronted with such horrific sights felt so sick and vomited. Discussing Holocaust in the classroom today is a painful and a challenging task, particularly when some individuals deny that it ever happened. Why the Jews were targeted for extermination defies rational explanation. They were German citizens, and they were Jews because of their religious identity: Judaism. The Nazi Germany had a dominant racist ideology of the Übermensch (superior) and Untermenschen (inferior). This idea can be traced to the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche (1883), and his novel Thus Spoke Zarathustra, which described the existence of superior and inferior people. Today, there are many controversial topics that can be used for enhancing further our understanding of teaching democracy, equality and human rights. These include racism and discriminations in societal and educational settings. We could add the current topic of refugee resettlement, both locally and globally. Here, we can develop further a more meaningful understanding and knowledge of democracy and democratic principles in societies and schools. Goodman (1995), in ‘Circles of democracy: A School’s internal governance’ suggested the establishing of circles of democracy, in order to promote ‘genuine collaboration and negotiation among individuals’ (Goodman, 1995, p. 176). This idea can be extended to teaching values in the classroom, within collaborative groups, using social constructivist pedagogy, under the umbrella of circles of democracy. This is an example how classrooms are able to practice democracy, by operating in a democratic was, as circles of democracy.

Globalisation and Its Impact on Societies and Educational Systems

7

Meaningful, effective and engaging values education can lead individuals to experiencing a deeper sense of democracy and freedom. The nexus between democracy, empowerment, and education was already analysed skilfully by Shor (1992), who argued that the values that guide education for transformation and change, should be affective, emotional, participatory, as well as intellectual, problem-posing, situated, multicultural, dialogic, activist, and democratic, thus challenging both existing knowledge, and the experiences that make us who we are, in terms of our cultural identities. Smolicz (1999), on the other hand, stressed both the symbolic and collectivist essence of values and their significant role in maintaining individual and collective identity: It is through core values that social groups can be identified as distinctive ethnic, religious, scientific or other cultural communities. (1999, p. 105)

The process and effectiveness of values education in 12 countries was examined by Cummings et al. (2001), who argued that the essence of values education was one of shaping the autonomous individual, and suggested that values education will continue to have a high priority, and schools will play a key role in values education (see also Brady, 2005, 2011a; Cogan et al., 2002; Habermas, 1990; Hattie, 2003; Shor, 1992; Zajda, 2022). During thousands of years of history of civilizations, core values have always emerged within different societies and cultures, and were also inscribed in their different religions, social institutions, and schools. The Ten Commandments contained a list of religious and value imperatives. Other major religions have their own code of values defining what is good and desirable. In the global culture, international policy documents provide value statements. The United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN, 1948) was a defining policy document by the international community of the inalienable rights and fundamental freedoms for all human beings. In Article 26, Part 2 it stressed that education ‘shall be directed…to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedom. It shall promote understanding tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups…’ (UN, 1948, p. 7). Other specific value policy documents are found in various international and legal treaties. For example, the four major Council of Europe treaties protecting the human rights of children combined offer a policy direction for developing and promoting a global vision for a better childhood. The four principal treaties are the European Convention on the Human Rights (1950), the European Social Charter (1996), the European Convention on the Exercise of Children’s rights (1996) and the European convention on Contact Concerning Children (2003). Values associated with schooling are found in the Report to UNESCO of the International Commission on Education for the twenty-first century, Leaning: the Treasure Within (Delores 1996) and its four essential pillars of education for the Twenty-First Century: learning to know, learning to do, learning to live together and learning to be. In 2005, the UNESCO Conference on Education for Shared Values and for Intercultural and Interfaith Understanding (2005) called on educational systems to incorporate common and agreed values into school curricula, to promote intercultural and interfaith understanding (see also

8

1 Discourses of Globalisation and Values Education for Equality, …

OECD, 2021; UNESCO, 2021a, 2021b, 2022). Current UNESCO’s (2021a) six core values include children’s rights and cultural pluralism.

Discourses of Values Education in Schools Since the 1990s, a number of scholars and policy analysts, informed by major and influential education policy documents, began to formulate and emphasize the moral function of schooling and pedagogy, both locally and globally (Bindé, 2002; Cogan & Morris, 2001; Council of Europe, 2020; Cummings et al., 2001; Delors, 1996; Lovat, 2017; OECD, 2019; Panev, 2020; Purpel, 1999; UNESCO, 2005; Zajda, 2022). For instance, Jacques Delors (1996) in his cutting-edge policy report to UNESCO of international Commission on education for the Twenty-first Century, Learning: The Treasure Within, believed that education had an important role to play in promoting tolerance and peace globally: In confronting the many challenges that the future holds in sore, humankind sees in education an indispensable asset in its attempt to attain the ideals of peace, freedom and social justice. (p. 13)

A similar policy analysis of moral dimension in education was discussed earlier by Jérôme Bindé (2002) in his article ‘What Education for the Twenty-First Century? It was argued that a new paradigm shift in education should be aiming to ‘humanize globalization’ (Bindé, 2002, p. 391, see also Bindé, 2000; Gökçe, 2021). At the same time, Bindé reminds us that one of education’s future major challenges will be in using the new information and communication technologies to disseminate knowledge and skills (Bindé, 2002; Zajda & Gibbs, 2009). More recently, OECD (2019), in their policy document, Attitudes and values for 2030, articulated the significance of values in schools globally, and stressing that ‘knowledge, skills, attitudes and values’ are necessarily inter-related: Knowledge, skills, attitudes and values are not competing concepts; they are developed interdependently. As schools, workplaces and communities become more ethnically, culturally and linguistically diverse, it will be more important than ever to emphasise the inter-relatedness of knowledge, skills, attitudes and values. (OECD, 2019)

OECD (2019) also stated that relevant competencies in values education were already integrated in schools, and they also required a new pedagogical approach: attitudes and values are increasingly integrated into curriculum frameworks, an acknowledgement that competencies require more than knowledge and skills. (OECD, 2019)

Overall, OECD (2019) policy document Attitudes and values for 2030, promoted a new, innovative, and more holistic perspective in values education for schools globally. In another OECD (2018) policy document, Preparing our Youth for an Inclusive and Sustainable World: The OECD PISA global competence framework, it was

Local and National Values

9

suggested that, since cultural diversity affects everyone, there a need to recognize and accept the inter-relatedness of ‘knowledge, skills, attitudes and values’: As schools, workplaces and communities become more ethnically, culturally and linguistically diverse, it will be more important than ever to emphasise the inter-relatedness of knowledge, skills, attitudes and values. Cognitive skills, such as exposure to and training in other languages; and emotional and social skills, such as perspective-taking and empathy. (OECD, 2018)

Values education is and continues to be an essential part of schools’ mission statements and classroom pedagogy, even though the nexus between values education and pedagogy can be very contested and problematic. The situation is further complicated, as values education, and moral education was seemed to be ‘subject to changes of fashion’ (Winch & Gingell, 1999). Berkowitz (2011) perceived the values education process in schools to be an ‘attempt within schools to craft pedagogies and supportive structures to foster the development of positive, ethical, pro-social, inclinations and competences in youth’ (Berkowitz, 2011, p. 153). In their comparative study of citizenship education, Cogan and Morris (2001a, 2001b) examined school policies and curriculum of civics education in 17 schools in six countries: Australia, Hong Kong, Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, and the nature of policy intentions; its operationalization in school curricula; and implementation in United States (Cogan & Morris, 2001a).

Local and National Values Values education in schools differs around the world, both locally, regionally and nationally. Different values are transmitted, learned and shared, according to differences in cultural settings, be they religious, cultural or political. In some communities and societies, dominant values are defined by the ideology of religion, or politics. As Huntington (1996) argued in his book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order that culturally diverse nations, divided by different and competing ideologies for global dominance, have different values priorities. For instance, in the USSR, prior to its sudden collapse in December 31, 1991, values education was based on cultivating a communist morality of Homo Sovieticus, and promoting a collectivist, rather than individual identity (Bronfenberenner, 1970; Zajda, 1988, 2017). In the USA, on the other hand, being a democratic society, the values of individualism, equality, freedom, democracy and self-fulfilment are inculcated in schools (Bronfenberenner, 1970; Zajda & Rust, 2021). Similarly, values education in Europe, and elsewhere, tend to reflect dominant economic and social principles, which embrace student-centred learning, accompanied by core values, embedded in cognitive, social and emotional development, as well as vocational philosophies of achievement, credentialism, success and work. Both Bronfenbrenner (1979) and Banks (2007, 2013) offered two different models of values education shaping one’s social and cultural identity. In his research, Bronfenbrenner focused on major agencies of socialisation shaping the self and identity.

10

1 Discourses of Globalisation and Values Education for Equality, …

Banks (2013), on the other hand, developed a very influential model of multicultural education, grounded in values education for cultural diversity, and citizenship education (see also Banks & McGee Banks, 2019).

Urie Bronfenbrenner’s Model of Major Agencies of Socialization Urie Bronfenbrenner (1917–2005) was the Jacob Gould Schurman Professor of Human Development and of Psychology, at the Cornell University. He developed an ecological model describing major socio-cultural factors defining values and shaping one’s social identity and learning (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 2005). Bronfenbrenner’s model was adapted and widely used by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) in Citizenship and Education in Twenty-Eight Countries study of values education in civics. The Octagon model used in IEA studies was based on eight major socialising agencies affecting the values of individuals in different countries. Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) definitive and popular model explains the role of major agencies of socialisation contributing to our identities, attitudes, values and behaviour patters. Individuals’ particular attitudes, values, and behaviour, including biases and discriminatory practices, are usually acquired, and shaped by a number of major agencies of socialization, such as the family, the peers, the school, the neighbourhood, and the media. Urie Bronfenbrenner (1994), influenced by sociological perspectives of major agencies of socialization, and Lev Vygotsky’s theory of language development, within one’s environment, as well as Kurt Lewin’s study of human social behaviour, refined his earlier Ecological Systems Model (1979), by developing his new Bioecological model of development. The model combined both genetics and environment, which is reminiscent of Eysenck’s (1982) research on genetics and environment, affecting individuals and their IQ, helps to explain more fully the complexity of social and cultural interactions contributing to human development (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998). Eysenck (1982) also suggested a ‘more interactive model of intelligence, which combined both genetic and environmental influences, published in New Education’ (Zajda, 2021). In his research, Eysenck discussed genotype (the set of genes that the individual carries) and phenotype (observable characteristics, which influenced both by the individual’s genotype and by the environment), as the two major intersecting dimensions, defining and constructing the concept of intelligence. Eysenck stressed that ‘even though some facets of intelligence were inherited, they were not fixed as such, as they were also affected by environmental influences’ (Zajda, 2021). In Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) earlier Ecological Systems Model, the individual was influenced by a number of major and powerful agencies of socialization, such as the family, peers, environment, and teachers. The family and peers, as socializing agencies, are the primary groups, characterised by intimacy, closeness, love, and

Local and National Values

11

affection. Secondary groups, as socializers, are larger and more impersonal. Bronfenbrenner & Ceci (1994) proposed their new and interactive bioecological model of development in 1994. This theoretical model of gene–environment interactions in human development was a revision of the 1979 model. This new model is relevant in explaining major factors and forces contributing to individuals’ attitudes and values acquisitions. The model is also useful for understanding possible sources of racism and discriminatory behaviour patterns, acquired by some individuals (see Barbieri & Ferede, 2020). Bronfenbrenner also added the chronosystem, to explain the interaction between the person, time, and environment. The revised bioecological model stressed the significance of proximal processes and the relationship between the processes, the person, context and time (PPCT). Proximal processes were defined as the reciprocal interactions taking place between a developing human being and one or more of the persons, objects, and symbols in his or her immediate environment. These reciprocal interactions were to become ‘progressively more complex’ over time (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, p. 996). Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Model was created to explain how individuals’ attitudes and beliefs are shaped by their particular culture and environment and how they affect their resultant values and behavior patterns. According to Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model, children are influenced by various levels of agencies of socialization, as constructed in the Ecological Systems Model, beginning with the home (primary group) and then continuing at school (secondary group).

James Banks and His Model for Multicultural Education James A. Banks, who was Professor in Education and Chair in Diversity Studies, at the University of Washington, and the author of Educating Citizens in a Multicultural Society (2007), developed his popular model for multicultural education in schools in his book An Introduction to Multicultural Education (2013). The model for values education, within the framework of multiculturalism, proposed by Banks, consists of five dimensions of multicultural classrooms: Content Integration (teaching diversity); Knowledge Construction (teaching how knowledge is created); Prejudice Reduction (developing positive relationships among students of different ethnic backgrounds); Equity Pedagogy (facilitating the academic success of students from different ethnic and social class groups): and Empowering School Culture (inclusive classroom environment that is conducive to the academic and emotional needs and growth of all students). This model has been widely used to teach multicultural education in schools in the USA, and elsewhere, aiming to reduce racism, prejudice, inequality and discrimination in societies and school settings globally.

12

1 Discourses of Globalisation and Values Education for Equality, …

Values Education in Schools Values education in schools reflects a complex and controversial area of the curriculum. However, it is an essential and constantly changing area of study that develops critical thinking skills that are vital for all other areas of study. A very good example of the nexus between globalisation, and values education in humanities and social sciences education is the National Council for the Social Studies. According to NCSS (2010), social studies educators should ‘teach students the content knowledge, intellectual skills, and civic values necessary for fulfilling the duties of citizenship in a participatory democracy’ (NCSS, 2010), and that in multicultural societies students need to ‘understand the multiple perspectives’ reflecting cultural diversity: In a multicultural, democratic society and globally connected world, students need to understand the multiple perspectives that derive from diverse cultural vantage points. (National Curriculum Standards for Social Studies, 2010)

In Attitudes and values for 2030 (OECD, 2019) policy document it was suggested that values need to reflect ‘a fair and equitable world’ and that ‘values are often caught, not taught’: When considering attitudes and values as part of education, it is useful to ask, now and in the future: what kinds of attitudes and values would we want our leaders and decision makers to have, to ensure a fair and equitable world in which everyone would want to live and thrive? It is important to keep in mind that attitudes and values are often caught, not taught. (OECD, 2019, p. 14)

The Nature of Values in Schools As mentioned earlier, different values are associated with different epistemological and ontological criteria, and societal needs and priorities. Snook (2002) noted the nexus between ethical theory and classroom pedagogy (see also Carr, 2010; Zajda, 2014). In his book, The Ethical Teacher, Snook (2003) argued that the ethical teacher is one who one who understands both the moral purpose of education, and the importance of viewing the process of teaching as essentially ethical in its nature. Among the ethical teacher’s roles, Snook identified respect for autonomy and respect for reason. He asks the question: How can teachers respect the learner as a person and yet try to change her in fundamental ways? This, according to him, constitutes the basic ethical dilemma of teaching: The ethical teacher, taking into account the student’s age and maturity, tries to impart not just the conclusion of processes and arguments but the methods of arriving at the conclusions: not just ways of behaving but an understanding of these ways of behaving and the reasons for them. Thus, guided by teachers who respect her reason, the student gradually learns to use her own reason, to become autonomous, and hence does not have to rely forever on the views of others. This task of handing over full control to the learner may take a long time but it needs to be begun early so that she learns the habit of ‘thinking for herself’. (Snook, 2002)

Values Education in Schools

13

In examining moral education, we note at least two closely related problems in debates surrounding ethics—the lack of provision of moral education, and the loss of moral direction in society. One could argue that a more relevant vision of moral education is one that provides a meaningful understanding and knowledge of the ‘moral sphere’, defining core values (see Woods & Barrow, 1995), just as the study of history equips one with the logic of historiography, and the logic of historical thinking. Earlier, in his work, Barrow (1977) already asked the relevant question ‘What is the most effective way to morally educate the children?’ (Barrow, 1977, p. 199). He suggested that children inevitably do, to some extent, acquire moral attitudes, and beliefs from their environment, which includes parents, peers, and teachers, and other role models. Perhaps the most important point Barrow makes is when he argues that it would be wrong to assume that what a moral philosopher says is true, must be so. Look to his reasoning, and not his judgment, reminds us Barrow (Barrow, 1977, p. 212).

Values Education for Democracy, Equality, and Social Justice When teaching values in the classroom, we need to remind ourselves that they are grounded in the universal principles of democracy, equality, human rights, and social justice. As discussed above, values education in schools are informed by relevant school policies, but also by major education policy documents by the UNESCO, the UN, OECD, and the Council of Europe. It is important to teach children the concept of democracy and its meaning. The origins of the word ‘democracy’ can be traced to the Ancient Greece, where it meant the rule of the people (demos), or the people, and kratos, or the power, or rule. It originated in the fifth century BC in Ancient Greek city-states, mainly in Athens. Just like today, democracy referred to the rule of the people. Parents and teachers alike can begin teaching and practicing democracy using three basic steps: 1. Explain clearly the meaning of ‘democracy’. 2. Explain how democracy is associated with the values of equality, freedom, and justice and voting. 3. Practice democracy by helping and sharing work, and by being an active member of the community. Classroom examples of practicing democracy is voting and electing monitors, and class captains, and in discussions in collaborative groups, treating all individual with respect and giving them a fair go to voice their opinions, thus acting as a responsible citizen. Kathleen Cotton (1996) believed that children should be taught the democratic values of public good, care, tolerance, social justice, and respect for human rights. Cotton (1996) suggested that some schools, in the USA, which were ineffective in teaching the values of democracy, due to four reasons:

14

1 Discourses of Globalisation and Values Education for Equality, …

‘Lack of meaning. Children were given isolated facts and weren’t taught how to apply them to real-life situations. Lack of focus on rights. Children were not taught about individual freedoms granted in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, such as freedom of speech. Passive learning. Children were lectured to or read to from a book instead of being trained in thinking for themselves and developing their own skills. Avoidance of controversial topics. Topics that would naturally pique a child’s interest were avoided, denying children the opportunity to think critically and make up their own minds when presented with contradictory evidence’ (Cotton, 1996). Most of these problems can be resolved, if engaging and effective teachers employ critical thinking and critical literacy in the classroom, during their collaborative groups, defined by cognitive and social constructivist pedagogies (Zajda, 2022). In such groups, students can be invited to think about democracy and construct their own list of things, and actions characterising democracy (see ‘5 things to teach about democracy in the classroom’, 2020). One of the pillars of democracy is the student’s right to express an opinion, and the use of the voice, which is respected, and treated equally. In addition, cognitive and social constructivist pedagogies can be used to teach the concept of equality, human rights and social justice, which reflect school’s principles of inclusive pedagogy. Learning and teaching the concept of social justice occurs at all levels of schooling. What are some of the principles of social justice? Ken State (2020) in their blog ‘The Five principles of social justice’, list access, equity, diversity, participation and human rights, as the main principles of social justice. These, and other principles, have already been included in most inclusive policies in schools, both locally and globally. There are many ways for learning and teaching social justice. It depends on the teacher’s knowledge and skills. Caitrin Blake (2020) suggests that the first way to advance social justice is to create a ‘community of conscience’: This environment ensures that students’ voices, opinions and ideas are valued and respected by their instructor and peers. Teachers can establish a community of conscience by creating rules that teach fairness in classroom discussions and behaviour. (Blake, 2020)

Once students are introduced to the ideas of social justice, they can discuss them in cooperative and collaborative groups, using their critical thinking and critical literacy skills, in the atmosphere of social constructivist pedagogy.

The Erosion of Moral Education In examining dominant discourses of moral education, we note at least two closely related problems in debates surrounding ethics—the lack of provision of moral education, and the loss of moral direction in society. One could argue that a proper moral education is one that provides an adequate understanding and knowledge of the

The Politics of Values Education

15

‘moral sphere’ (see Woods & Barrow, 1995), just as the study of history equips one with the logic of historiography and the logic of historical thinking. Earlier, in his work, Carr (1993) believed that teachers were regularly blamed, especially in times of moral panic, for ‘failing to set a good example and teach proper moral standards’ (Carr, 1993, p. 193). Using paternalism and liberalism, as the two distinct approaches to teaching values in schools, Carr critiqued different modes of moral pedagogy and the degree of connection between teachers’ private and personal values, attitudes and behaviour, and their professional conduct and responsibilities. He argues that liberal ethical theory is essentially a theory of the rights rather than of the good (Carr, 1993, p. 201). Paternalism is the view that that it is the right or responsibility of some, as a result of their superior knowledge, expertise and wisdom, to decide what is good for others—‘in their alleged best interest’ (Carr, 1993, p. 195). Liberalism, on the other hand, is the view that individuals have an ‘inalienable moral right’ to the free expression of speech, thought or conduct of ‘any point of view whatsoever’ (Carr, 1993, p. 197). The paternalistic approach to moral education and values transmission process tends to be characteristic of more traditional, or culturally homogeneous societies, whereas the liberal approach favours advanced democracies.

The Politics of Values Education The current debate on values education has become an overtly societal, political and educational issue, producing a dominant ideology of teaching values and character education. I am reminding the readers that what we call values education was also known as ‘character education’ in most schools during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. During the 1990s, values education has become a dominant ‘metaphor and code’, almost a meta-narrative for pedagogy, pursuing the neo-liberal and conservative social and cultural agenda (Purpel, 1999, p. 83). In some ways, according to Purpel (1999), the values taught in schools were traditional, rather than modern: … The values taught in the schools are very much in line of Puritan tradition of obedience, hierarchy, and hard work, values which overlap nicely with the requirements of an economic system that values a compliant and industrious work force, and a social system that demands stability and order. (Purpel, 1999, p. 89)

Not only values education appears to be more traditional than modern, but by emphasising such traditional values as loyalty, responsibility, duty, obedience and honesty, they may well be advancing a newly reinvented moral paradigm of ‘domesticating values’ (Snook, 2002). He argued that that all programmes of values education are dependent on political judgements, and tend to reinforce the existing inequality: They serve to reinforce the status quo and the power structures which serve the interests of the dominant group. We need only reflect for a moment on how the values of “loyalty and submission” and even “love” have served the oppression of women by men while generations of South Africans and African Americans were schooled to know their place and be loyal to their exploiters …

16

1 Discourses of Globalisation and Values Education for Equality, …

The curriculum as an ideological construct, and discourses surrounding cultural and political dimensions of schooling should take into account the ideological nature of school subjects, as well as moral, character, and values education (Apple, 2004; Narvaez & Rest, 1995; Purpel, 1999; Zajda, 2009d, 2014). As Purpel (1999) argued, part of this strategy is to create a discourse in which the schools are blamed for not ‘teaching values’. Such a discourse, which defines desirable values to be taught in schools, attempts to shift the argument from social and political spheres, to the individual and personal traits. Blaming the individual, for not learning desirable values, is far more acceptable, than blaming society and its structures, for producing its inherent inequality, which exerts a powerful socialising influence. Purpel (1999) also reminds us that ‘Moral issues are by definition socially and culturally situated and any dialogue on proper character is based on some communal notion of propriety’ (Purpel, 1999, p. 89). Yet, values education research is characterised by the near absence of political and ideological analysis. This is a paradox, as researchers and writers addressing the issues of moral crisis, would necessarily need to explain social, political and economic conditions responsible for such a phenomenon (see also Arenas et al., 2009).

Moral Dilemmas in Teaching Values We can easily reach a consensus on understanding and knowing such values as fairness, obedience, loyalty and kindness. The Nuremberg and other trials for crimes against humanity, demonstrated that obedience and loyalty to a given regime is sometimes a vice. Individuals have been executed for being obedient, and following the orders of various political leaders/dictators. As Snook (2002) pointed out, even such a value as ‘loyalty’, when translated into practice, can be problematic: … Loyalty – surely we should be loyal only to those who deserve it? It is debatable whether citizens should be loyal to governments that break their word once elected. Should students be loyal to a school that treats them unjustly? Should ethnic minorities be loyal to institutions that have grossly discriminated against them? Should a woman be loyal to the man who abuses her? Should staff be loyal to educational institutions which have rejected the basic values of the academic life?… The lesson is that one should be obedient only to worthy authorities. We have to ask if our “democratic” governments of recent years have been worthy of our obedience …. (Snook, 2002)

Virtues such as freedom, justice, truth telling and kindness are general moral principles, or abstractions. They, in themselves, cannot explain their daily applications. Hence, values education need to be realistic and practical, as individuals confront their values, beliefs, societal values, choices, and their applications in everyday life. Furthermore, a critical understanding, analysis and evaluation of moral principles, such as freedom, human rights, social justice and responsibility in classroom pedagogy, constitutes the essence of morality and value education, and should form the foundation of moral education of an individual. Here, the focus is on translating

Values Education and Academic Achievement

17

abstract moral principles into everyday life. It is important to explain fully the meanings of such abstractions as democracy, equality, freedom and social justice. Unless this is done effectively in the classroom, students may not be able to understand meaningfully these constructs. Research findings have demonstrated that students struggle to comprehend such concepts taught in the classroom (Theobald, 2020; Tourney-Purta et al., 1999). The methodology and methods of values education in schools, which advocate that values need to be taught, rather than left to chance, could be Durkheimian, in the sense that morality must be taught, rather than caught. Marsh (2011) described values education as the development of students’ ‘understanding of challenges and making choices about how to respond’. The National Framework for Values Education (2005) in Australia articulated two distinct styles of Values Education: the first develops abstracted and shared values and virtues; the second develops the critical thinking skills required to develop the students’ ethical judgements and understanding of values. A more pragmatic approach to learning and teaching values in schools is combining critical thinking, and critical literacy, with values education, in order to enhance students’ deeper understanding and knowledge of discourses of values and values education. Understandably, there is constant tension in the content, philosophical and pedagogical approaches, as well as in the process and product of values education. All this can be resolved, by using social constructivist pedagogy, and working with collaborative groups in the classroom. Such groups can focus on discussing the meaning of values and their normative and social roles and significance in societies.

Values Education and Academic Achievement A good deal of research findings has produced substantial and significant evidence of the nexus between values education and improved performance and academic achievement (Berkowitz, 2011; Ellis, 2001; Gillies, 2016; Slavin, 1983, 1995a, 1995b, 2003, 2014; Tran, 2014; Yamarik, 2007). Slavin (1995a), for instance, examined more than 100 studies, dealing with cooperative learning, and performance, and argued that students consistently demonstrated higher academic achievements, compared with traditional classrooms. Subsequently, Slavin (2003) argued that cooperative learning strategies that ‘incorporate group goals and individual responsibility’ demonstrated ‘substantial positive effects’ on academic achievement’ (Slavin, 2003, p. 274). Similarly, Berkowitz (2011) argued that major empirical research findings demonstrated that facilitating the development of ‘positive, ethical, pro-social inclinations and competencies in youth’ resulted in improvement in their achievement’. Lovat, (2017), having evaluated current research findings, dealing with values education and academic achievement, suggests that values education, properly implemented, is likely to impact positively on a range of educational goals, emotional, social, moral and academic.

18

1 Discourses of Globalisation and Values Education for Equality, …

There is also a new insight regarding the nexus between neuroscience, feelings, emotions and values education. Research findings show that that good practice pedagogy must be directed to the whole person. Furthermore, it is the process of cognition that activates a range of emotional, social and moral impulses. Lovat et al. (2010) suggest that a contemporary understanding of values education, or values and wellbeing pedagogy, fits well with recent neuroscience research: Notions of cognition, or intellect, are far more intertwined with social and emotional growth than earlier educational paradigms have allowed for. In other words, the best laid plans about the technical aspects of pedagogy are bound to fail unless the growth of the whole person – social, emotional, moral, spiritual and intellectual, is the pedagogical target. (Lovat et al., 2010)

Recently several neuroscientists like Churchland, (2018), and Narvaez (2014) have argued that moral education possesses rare potential to activate those emotional and social centres of the brain that, taken together, can impel the form of sound reasoning associated in educational research generally with efficacious learning. Narvaez’s (2014) research shows that this stimulation relies on both the learning ambience and what she refers to as efficacious pedagogy, a pedagogy that is morally bound and focussed on eliciting moral content from the curriculum. Lovat (2017) suggests that it is research of this type that would appear to highlight, yet again the significant role that moral education can play in enhancing all educational goals, and improving academic standards.

Evaluation For some educational philosophers and researchers, especially Peters (1966), Kohlberg (1975), Carr (1991), Cummings (2008), Brady (2009), and Zajda (2014), values education is the essential part of school pedagogy. For others, like Phillips (1979), Straughan (1982), and Ryle (1972) the nexus between values education and pedagogy is very contested and problematic. The situation is further complicated, as Winch and Gingell (1999) argued that moral education was affected by fashion (p. 147). For instance, when Hare (1981) was popular in the UK, his theory of moral education was very widely used, and when MacIntyre (1981) re-invented the Aristotelean pedagogy of values education, it became very popular approach to virtue theory, which was based on Aristotle’s Nichomachaean Ethics. Virtue advocates argue that moral concepts and values should be explicated in terms of character traits, which children can internalise, through classroom pedagogy and reflection. In the Soviet Union this process of moral education was known as vospitanie (upbringing). According to Kohlberg, virtue education as part of moral education requires deliberation and reflection, where complex moral choice (or moral dilemma) is involved (see Winch & Gingell, 1999, p. 245). The issue is not so much methodological, or pedagogical, concerning the approaches to be used in classroom pedagogy of values education, but rather one

Evaluation

19

between the ‘believers’ and ‘non-believers’, in teaching values education in the classroom. Ryle (1972), who criticised moral education in schools, argued that morality is caught, not taught. He argued that if we define teaching as ‘the passing on of expertise’, then any notion of moral expertise seems ‘deeply dubious’, for if such expertise did exist we expect for it to be institutionalised (Winch & Gingell, 1999, p. 148). Straughan (1982), on the other hand, in his critique of dominant approaches to the content of values education and the structure of values education, and the contested areas and boundaries between moral reasoning and the content of morality, suggested a pragmatic approach to values education, based on what I call the 3Ms of moral education: . teaching that informed decisions must be made in making moral choices, . teaching how to think for themselves as autonomous moral agents, . teaching children to want to be moral (to guarantee moral goodness in an individual) (see also Winch & Gingell, 1999, p. 149). To adopt Straughan’s (1982) approach to values education, especially ‘teaching to want to be moral’, which continues the role of exemplification in values education stressed by moral philosophers such as Carr (1991), Phillips (1979) and Ryle (1972). This suggest that pedagogues, as effective role-models, should act morally themselves and exemplify the role of moral agents, or portray a moral action charisma. Snook (2002) argued that values education has to be supported, but it must be ‘liberated from those who seek to cure the ills by more doses of the medicine which caused them’. As he reminds us, schools ought to practice pluralist democracy, by discussing its values: There must be a place for the disparity of views which mark a pluralistic society. Current proponents are fond of talking of the values which we all share. More important are the values which divide us; it is conflict, not consensus which marks the values domain: young people in schools should confront these conflicts and learn to handle them rationally and tolerantly. (Snook, 2002, p. 6)

Using Straughan’s (1982) approach to values education, namely ‘teaching to want to be moral’, suggests that values education to be meaningful, engaging and authentic must involve more emphasis on critical thinking, and discourse analysis, and a deeper and critical understanding of democracy, equality, freedom, human rights and social justice for all. There is also a connection between values education and academic achievement. The nexus between values pedagogy and academic performance has been also demonstrated in recent research findings in neuroscience. The above approaches to teaching values education in schools indicate that for values education to be authentic, effective, and realistic, there is a need to employ diverse, relevant and effective models of values education, as discussed above. I strongly recommend using critical discourse analysis, together with cognitive and social constructivist pedagogies, in values education, as it is necessarily linked to critical thinking and critical literacy.

20

1 Discourses of Globalisation and Values Education for Equality, …

Conclusion As above demonstrates, values education to be meaningful, engaging and authentic must involve a greater sense of community, more emphasis on cultural diversity, and a deeper and critical understanding of democracy, equality, human rights and social justice for all. In schools, both locally and globally, where values education and critical literacy are taught, values should be discussed and critiqued, within the paradigm of cultural diversity, and pluralist democracy, grounded in human rights and social justice discourses. The role of the teacher is significant in values education in the classroom, and it is argued that in an atmosphere of open democratic classroom, directed by critical inquiry learning, and critical literacy, students should not be forced to hold particular views, nor should they be afraid to discuss controversial issues. The values of democracy, human rights and social justice will protect them from unfair imposition, though they must also practise these same values in their dealings with others. Values should be discussed and critiqued, within the paradigm of cultural diversity, and pluralist democracy, grounded in human rights and social justice discourses. Values education has a potential to affect and change individuals in every sphere: social, emotional, moral and cultural. Teachers need to assist and encourage students to think through controversial issues, and introduce them to a wide range of ideas, free of bias. But all this needs to be done in an open, inclusive and critical atmosphere that welcomes cultural diversity, and which is orientated to constructing democratic, just, peaceful and sustainable futures, both in the classroom and the wider society. New research findings demonstrate the nexus between neuroscience, feelings, emotions and values education. They also demonstrate that effective, and engaging pedagogy of values education in the classroom must be directed towards the whole person, and that it is the process of cognition itself that activates a whole range of intersecting emotional, social and moral impulses, which affect resultant attitudes and behaviour patterns. Values education in schools ought to represent our quest for the ideal of the morally good society, in order to promote a deeper and critical understanding of democracy, equality, human rights and social justice for all.

Chapter 2

Global Models of Values Education for Democracy and Cultural Diversity in Schools

Global Models for Values Education in Schools: Introduction By using critical discourse analysis, which is concerned with examining and critiquing major patterns of economic and social inequalities globally, and the resultant social stratification, I want to refer to various major policy documents, defining human rights, as our starting point of analysis of values education. The Western and non-Western models of values act as dominant and defining agencies of socialization for values education, cultural identity, citizenship education, and nation-building. Western-informed international conventions provide value statements globally. To begin with, the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN, 1948) was, at the time, a defining policy document by the international community of the inalienable rights and fundamental freedoms for all human beings, as discussed in Chapter 1. The United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN, 1948) in its introduction recognized ‘the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world’. In its 30 articles, it covered freedom equality, and rights. I am listing the first ten Articles, so that we can have a better knowledge and understanding the core principles of democracy, freedom, equality and human rights: ‘Article 1 All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Article 2 Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 J. Zajda, Discourses of Globalisation, Cultural Diversity and Values Education, Globalisation, Comparative Education and Policy Research 34, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-22852-0_2

21

22

2 Global Models of Values Education for Democracy and Cultural … Article 3 Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person. Article 4 No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. Article 5 No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Article 6 Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. Article 7 All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. Article 8 Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law. Article 9 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. Article 10 Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him’. (UN, 1948)

Taking into account that this document was written over 70 years ago, it was a monumental step forward in advancing fundamental principles of democracy, freedom, and human rights, and which was ahead of its time.

Policy Documents Defining Values Education The OECD (2019) Future of education and skills 2030 Concept note. Attitudes and values for 2030 policy document, as discussed in Chapter 1, provides a pragmatic global guide to developing and strengthening desirable attitudes and values in democratic nations, and educational institutions. The OECD (2019) policy document defines attitudes and values as ‘the principles and beliefs that influence one’s choices, judgements, behaviours and actions on the path towards individual, societal and environmental well-being’ (OECD, 2019, p. 4). Consequently, values are divided into four, but interconnected groups: personal, social, societal and human: Personal values are associated with who one is as a person, and how one wishes to define and lead a meaningful life and meet one’s goals. Social values relate to those principles and beliefs that influence the quality of interpersonal relationships. They include how one behaves towards others, and how one manages

Policy Documents Defining Values Education

23

interactions, including conflict. Social values also reflect cultural assumptions about social well-being, i.e. what makes a community and society work effectively. Societal values define the priorities of cultures and societies, the shared principles and guidelines that frame the social order and institutional life. These values endure when they are enshrined in social and institutional structures, documents and democratic practice, and when they are endorsed through public opinion. Human values have much in common with societal values. However, they are defined as transcending nations and cultures; they apply to the well-being of humanity. These values can be identified across spiritual texts and indigenous traditions spanning generations. They are often articulated in internationally agreed conventions, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). (OECD, 2019, p. 4)

In terms of critical discourse analysis, the above set of values offer a useful tool for analysing values, in terms of both epistemological, or meanings, and ontological dimensions, or the nature of being, dimensions. The imperatives of inclusive education are addressed by the UN (2020a) policy document, Universal, inclusive education ‘non-negotiable’ articulates the need for inclusive education. The report mentions that existing inequalities ‘exacerbate learners’ needs, well-meaning laws and policies often falter, and educational opportunities continue to be unequally distributed, keeping quality education out of reach for many’ (UN, 2020a). The existence of economic and social inequalities affects the level of access to education and inclusive schooling: Even before the pandemic, one-in-five children, adolescents and youth were entirely excluded from education. Stigma, stereotypes and discrimination mean millions more are further alienated inside classrooms, with the current crisis further perpetuating different forms of exclusion... inclusive education means equal access for all learners, notwithstanding identity, background or ability. (UN, 2020a)

Inclusive Schooling in Early Childhood We need to start with the value of inclusive schooling in early childhood. There exists a global consensus on the significance of access to quality education for early childhood (Gilmore et al., 2022; UNESCO, 2000, 2021). In their special issue, dedicated to the theme ‘Internationalisation and interculturality in early childhood teacher education’, Gilmore et al. (2022), discussed the concept of internationalisation and interculturality in early childhood teacher education, through their own cultural lens, and using their own specific context they demonstrate the nexus between interculturality, cultural awareness and diversity in early childhood teacher education. In examining current development in early childhood education, at the education policy level, UNESCO (2021) policy document, focusing on inclusive schooling in early childhood, stated its key message, which called upon an urgent ‘increase in access to quality inclusive early childhood care and education for the most excluded children, by adopting diversity-focused policies and anti-discrimination’:

24

2 Global Models of Values Education for Democracy and Cultural … Early childhood services aim to provide for all children equally, but when the most vulnerable children are excluded or ignored, universal participation is unattainable. Many children are denied access because of gender, disability, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, geographic location, language, refugee or displaced status, or due to a humanitarian crisis or natural disaster. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated this exclusion. Today, more than ever, it is vital to intensify advocacy and concrete efforts to guarantee the right of every child to ECCE by mobilizing the multiple actors working to achieve Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4) and its targets related to inclusive early childhood education. (UNESCO, 2012)

The fact that even today, children are still denied access to quality education in the early childhood sector, due to discriminations based on gender, disability, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, to name a few, is totally unacceptable, as it is against the accepted tenants of human rights, and constitutes the violation of human rights, both locally and globally. The reality of access to quality inclusive early childhood care and education is that ‘Too many young children are still deprived of an inclusive education from early childhood’ (UNESCO, 2021).

Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights According to the Council of Europe (2017) policy document on education for democratic citizenship and human rights, education has a significant role in teaching the values of democracy, human rights, and democratic citizenship: Education plays an essential role in the promotion of the core values of the Council of Europe: democracy, human rights and the rule of law, as well as in the prevention of human rights violations. More generally, education is increasingly seen as a defence against the rise of violence, racism, extremism, xenophobia, discrimination and intolerance. This growing awareness is reflected in the adoption of the Council of Europe Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education by the Organisation’s 47 member states in the framework of Recommendation...The Charter is an important reference point for all those dealing with citizenship and human rights education. It provides a focus and catalyst for action in the member states. It is also a way of disseminating good practice and raising standards throughout Europe and beyond. (Council of Europe, 2017)

Values Education for Reducing Discriminations With reference to values education, grounded in democracy, equality and cultural diversity, Council of Europe (2020) policy document Tackling discrimination, reminds us all that discrimination in any form, anywhere, is a human rights violation. Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights contains a prohibition on discrimination with respect to any of the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Convention. Article 2 of Protocol No.1 requires the state to ensure that all individuals have access to its formal educational provision:

Policy Documents Defining Values Education

25

The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status (ECHR, Article 14). (Council of Europe, 2020)

Addressing discrimination, according to Council of Europe (2020), is not simply a ‘duty laid on schools by the European Convention of Human Rights, it is also important for student well-being and educational success’. Children and young people who are treated unfairly or discriminated against are more likely to have: . . . . .

‘negative attitudes to school lower levels of motivation and academic achievement a higher risk of dropping out of formal education experience of bullying mental health problems’ (Council of Europe, 2020).

Acknowledging the existence of the ubiquitous negative stereotypes defining minority groups is one of the challenges in reducing discrimination in schools and society in confronting and solving ‘the existence of negative stereotypes about minority groups among teachers, parents, students and other school stakeholders (see Zajda, 2022). Discrimination constitutes the violation of human rights, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), and UNESCO’s Convention Against Discrimination in Education (1960), as well as the UN International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965), the UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), to name a few (see also my book Zajda, 2022a, Globalisation and Education Reforms: Overcoming Discrimination). Under the Racial Discrimination Act (1975) in Australia, ‘treating someone differently because of the language that they speak may be against the law in some circumstances. Discriminating against someone on the basis of their race or ethnic origin is against the law, and language may be directly linked to ethnic background’ (Racial Discrimination Act, 1975). Language discrimination in education and society represents a significant violation of the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICER) rights to non-discrimination in education and freedom of expression (1969, pp. 3–4). It was one of the first human rights treaties to be adopted by the United Nations. More than 156 countries (four-fifths of the membership of the UN) have ratified the Convention; including Australia, which ratified the Convention on 30 September 1975.

26

2 Global Models of Values Education for Democracy and Cultural …

Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL) for Teaching Values in the Classroom Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL) model begins with students’ prior knowledge and experience and moves through a deliberate constructivist and rational thinking process to extend this knowledge (Vygotskian perspective). In IBL model, according to Reynolds (2019), teachers select and group learning experiences & activities and under the following 6 headings: . . . .

‘Tuning in (framing and focusing questions). Finding out (locating, organizing and analyzing evidence). Sorting out (evaluating and reporting findings). Going further (Going further activities and learning experiences provide students with alternative experiences in order to gain new insights into the topic). . Making conclusions (require students to articulate new understandings, analyse, challenge and synthesise ideas, answer and refine questions and reflect on their learning. It could involve in a brief power point presentation). . Taking action (action involves doing something with or about what has been learned)’. IBL or critical inquiry approach, involves a consideration of problems of knowledge, skills and values. The key idea is that IBL occurs when students, based on their research findings and discussion in cooperative or collaborative group settings discover and construct their own knowledge. Reynolds (2019), believes that IBL involves a teacher student collaboration and is a shift away from traditional didactic teaching. Students take greater control and responsibility for their learning. IBL relies ‘on the teacher and pupil sharing responsibility for the teaching and learning’ (Shelley, cited in Reynolds, 2021). The key advantages of IBL include: . . . . .

in-depth knowledge of the topic skills in processing information intrinsic motivation developing attitudes, values and reflections problem-solving skills

We also need to remember that discovery learning, used in the IBL model, was popularised by Jerome Bruner in his book The Process of Education. Bruner (1960), like other progressive educators, believed that the basic concepts of knowledge can be grasped intuitively at a very early age. He argued that the teaching and learning process should be designed to promote and advance such early intuitions, and then build on them to further a more meaningful understanding of the concepts, knowledge and analytical skills. Bruner also reminded us that the teacher is ‘not only a communicator but a model’ (Bruner, 1960, p. 90).

The Role of Critical Thinking and Critical Literacy in Values in Schools

27

The Role of Critical Thinking and Critical Literacy in Values in Schools The above discussed Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL) model is informed by critical thinking and critical literacy. Critical thinking, as defined by Scriven and Paul (2003) is the ‘examination of those structures or elements of thought implicit in all reasoning: purpose, problem, or question-at-issue, assumptions, concepts, empirical grounding; reasoning leading to conclusions, implication and consequences, objections from alternative viewpoints, and frame of reference’ (Scriven & Paul, 2003). Michael Tomaszewski (2022) defined critical thinking as ‘the ability to think in an organized and rational manner in order to understand connections between ideas and/or facts. It helps you decide what to believe in. In other words, it’s “thinking about thinking”— identifying, analyzing, and then fixing flaws in the way we think’ (Tomaszewski, 2022). For Beyer, the essence of critical thinking is the word ‘criteria’: ‘The word critical in critical thinking comes from the Greek word for criterion, kriterion, which means a benchmark for judging’ (Beyer, 1995, pp. 8–9). Thus, critical in Beyer’s sense, or evaluative thinking provides the means to assess the ‘accuracy, authenticity, plausibility, or sufficiency of claims’ (Beyer, 1995, p. 10). Initially, Beyer suggested that critical thinking involves 10 cognitive operations, which can be employed in any sequence or combination as needed for the thinking task at hand: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

‘Distinguishing between verifiable facts and value claims Distinguishing relevant from irrelevant information, claims, or reasons Determining the factual accuracy of a statement Determining the credibility of a source Identifying ambiguous claims or arguments Identifying unstated assumptions Detecting bias Recognizing logical fallacies Recognizing logical inconsistencies in a line of reasoning Determining the strength of an argument or claim’ (Beyer, 1988, p. 57).

In addition, Beyer (1995) believed that successful critical thinking required ‘complex and often simultaneous interaction’ of the following six elements: ‘Dispositions:

Critical thinkers develop habits of mind that “guide and sustain critical thinking”, including skepticism, fairmindedness, openmindedness, respect for evidence and reasoning, respect for clarity and precision, ability to consider different points of view, and a willingness to alter one’s position when reason and evidence call for such a shift.

28

2 Global Models of Values Education for Democracy and Cultural …

Criteria:

Critical thinkers know about and have the ability to construct appropriate benchmarks for judging the issue at hand. Argument: defined as “a proposition with its supporting evidence and reasoning.” Critical thinkers are skilful at constructing, identifying, and evaluating the strength of arguments. Reasoning: the “cement that holds an argument together.” Critical thinkers determine the strength and validity of a conclusion by examining the soundness of the inductive or deductive process through which the conclusion was reached. Point of View: Critical thinkers are aware of their own point of view and capable of examining other points of view in order to better evaluate an issue. Procedures for applying criteria Critical thinkers have a repertoire of strategies and judging: appropriate to the subject matter and type of judgment to be made’ (Beyer, 1995, pp. 10–20). In short, critical thinkers, according to Beyer (1995), always question the ‘authenticity’ of anything they experience, in order to determine the degree of its authenticity. They also make judgments, based on certain standards, reflecting ‘plausibility and truthfulness’, and paying attention to the specific reasons underpinning ‘conclusions and claims’ (Beyer, 1995, p. 22). In addition, Tomaszewski (2022), in analysing various critical thinking skills, offers 8 logical steps in critical thinking: ‘identify the problem, gather data, analyze and evaluate, identify assumptions, establish significance, make a decision, and communicate’: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

‘Identify the problem or question. Gather data, opinions, and arguments. Analyze and evaluate the data. Identify assumptions. Establish significance. Make a decision/reach a conclusion. Present or communicate’ (Tomaszewski, 2022).

In order to become an effective critical thinker, one needs to ask basic questions, and ‘challenge common assumptions, and be aware of ‘one’s biases, and read more’ (Tomaszewski, 2022). Finally, Tomaszewski (2022) lists, as an example, top critical skills: . . . .

‘Analysis: the ability to collect and process information and knowledge. Interpretation: concluding what the meaning of processed information is. Inference: assessing whether the knowledge you have is sufficient and reliable. Evaluation: the ability to make decisions based on the available information.

The Valuing Process

. . . .

29

Explanation: communicating your findings and reasoning clearly. Self-Regulation: the drive to constantly monitor and correct your ways of thinking. Open-Mindedness: taking into account other possibilities and points of view. Problem-Solving: the ability to tackle unexpected problems and resolve conflicts’ (Tomaszewski, 2022).

Both Beyer (1995) and Tomaszewski (2022) offer modern, logical and pragmatic models of critical thinking, stressing the significance of analysis, detecting bias, and evaluation. Earlier, Bloom (1956, 1984) attempted to provide sequential steps for critical thinking mastery. Bloom’s Taxonomy comprises three learning domains: the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. Bloom’s cognitive domain contained 6 levels, which were updated in 2001 (Anderson et al., 2002). In the revised version, the three categories were renamed and all the ‘categories were expressed as verbs rather than nouns. Knowledge was changed to Remembering, Comprehension became Understanding, and Synthesis was renamed Creating. In addition, Creating became the highest level in the classification system, switching places with Evaluating. In the revised version the learning domains are now Remembering, Understanding, Applying, Analysing, Evaluating and Creating’ (Bloom’s Thinking & Learning, 2022): 1. ‘Remembering: Retrieving, recognizing, and recalling relevant knowledge from long-term memory. 2. Understanding: Constructing meaning from oral, written, and graphic messages through interpreting, exemplifying, classifying, summarizing, inferring, comparing, and explaining. 3. Applying: Carrying out or using a procedure for executing, or implementing. 4. Analyzing: Breaking material into constituent parts, determining how the parts relate to one another and to an overall structure or purpose through differentiating, organizing, and attributing. 5. Evaluating: Making judgments based on criteria and standards through checking and critiquing. 6. Creating: Putting elements together to form a coherent or functional whole; reorganizing elements into a new pattern or structure through generating, planning, or producing’ (Anderson et al., 2002; Bloom’s Thinking & Learning, 2022). In terms of critical thinking, the above levels of cognitive domain can be used to structure the lessons, learning outcomes, and assessments in the classroom. Bloom’s revised and updated taxonomy of educational objectives continues to provide relevant and engaging learning domains for critical thinking in educational settings globally.

The Valuing Process In order to overcome discrimination and discriminatory practices in school, we can use idea of the valuing process, building on the Inquiry Based Learning Model. The concept of valuing, as a process was introduced by Gilbert and Hoepper (2020), defining valuing as:

30

2 Global Models of Values Education for Democracy and Cultural … A proess of feeling, thinking, expressing and acting, through which people make and apply judgements about what is desirable or undesirable…. (p. 172)

In discussion of democracy, Gilbert and Hoepper (2020) suggest the following four elements contributing to the valuing process in the classroom: 1. 2. 3. 4.

‘Guiding principles Logical analysis Empathy, tolerance and open-mindedness Decision-making and participation’ (Gilbert & Hoepper, 2020).

1. ‘Guiding principles refer to ‘understanding the principals that guide values’, rights and responsibilities, and ideas concerning ‘desirable ways being and acting’ (p. 172). 2. Logical analysis in values principles indicates applications ‘in real context’, and with accepting the belief that ‘certain actions will have certain effects’ and understanding and ‘predicting the effects of actions involves logical and empirical thinking’ (p. 172). 3. Empathy, tolerance and open-mindedness in the valuing process, denotes ‘empathising with others and being open-minded’ (p. 173). In plain language, empathy is defined as a ‘response to another person’s feeling’ (Jones et al., 2018). It is making students to see the world from ‘another person’s perspective and develop compassion for others’ (Gilbert & Hoepper, 2020, p. 173). As a significant component of social-emotional learning, empathy can help students to ‘build relationships, communicate better, and resolve conflicts’ (Gilbert & Hoepper, 2020, p. 173). 4. Decision-making and participation, as one of the key features in the valuing process in the classroom, refers to discussing values in terms of meanings, and relevant research in relation to controversial issues, mentioned earlier.

Values Education, Cultural Diversity and Overcoming Discrimination In order to have a better understanding and knowledge of values acquisition and resultant unintended formation of bias, prejudice, discrimination and discriminatory practices, I am using a critical theory paradigm in analyzing Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) definitive and popular model of major agencies of socialization, contributing to our identities, attitudes, values and behaviour patterns (Zajda, 2022). Individuals’ particular attitudes, values, and behaviour, including biases and discriminatory practices, are usually acquired, and shaped by a number of major agencies of socialization, such as the family, the peers, the school, the neighbourhood, and the media. Urie Bronfenbrenner (1994), influenced by sociological perspectives of major agencies of socialization, and Lev Vygotsky’s theory of language development within one’s environment, as well as Kurt Lewin’s study of human social behaviour, refined his

Values Education, Cultural Diversity and Overcoming Discrimination

31

earlier Ecological Systems Model (1979), by developing his new interactive Bioecological model of development. The model, which combined both genetics and environment, which is reminiscent of Eysenck (1982), helps us to understand and explain more meaningfully the complexity of environmental, social and cultural interactions contributing to human development (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). Specifically, Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Model was created to explain how individuals’ attitudes, beliefs and values are shaped by their particular culture and environment, and how they affect their resultant behaviour patterns. According to Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model, children are influenced by various major levels of agencies of socialization, as constructed in the Ecological Systems Model, beginning with the home (primary group) and then continuing at school (secondary group). Bronfenbrenner’s model lists five major spheres or levels of socialization, affecting children and adults alike in different cultures globally: Microsystem: Mesosystem: Exosystem:

interactions in the child’s immediate environment. connections between settings involving the child. settings in which the child is not involved, but which nonetheless influence the child’s development. Macrosystem: societal and cultural influences in development. Chronosystem: influence of time on each setting and interaction. Bronfenbrenner and Ceci (1994) proposed their new and interactive bioecological model of development in 1994, which combined environment and genetics, affecting human development. This theoretical model of gene–environment interactions in human development was a revision of earlier Bronfenbrenner’s 1979 model. This new model is particularly relevant in explaining major factors and forces contributing to individuals’ identity formation, attitudes, beliefs, behaviours, and values acquisitions (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994). The model is also useful for understanding possible sources of racism, prejudice, and discriminatory behaviour patterns, acquired by some individuals (see Barbieri & Ferede, 2020). Another major theory relevant to attitudes and values acquisition in individuals is that of well-known Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory. According to this theory, individuals learn through observing others’ behaviour, and attitudes: Learning would be exceedingly laborious, not to mention hazardous, if people had to rely solely on the effects of their own actions to inform them what to do. Fortunately, most human behaviour is learned observationally through modelling: from observing others one forms an idea of how new behaviours are performed, and on later occasions this coded information serves as a guide for action. (Albert Bandura, Social Learning Theory, 1977)

Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory attempted to explain how human behaviour is formed, and shaped by means of continuous reciprocal interaction between behavioural, cognitive, emotional, social, and environmental influences. Bandura (1977) developed his model of social learning, consisting of four steps: 1. ‘Attention—various factors increase or decrease the amount of attention paid.

32

2 Global Models of Values Education for Democracy and Cultural …

2. Retention—remembering what you paid attention to. Includes symbolic coding, mental images, cognitive organization, symbolic rehearsal, motor rehearsal. 3. Reproduction—reproducing the image. Including physical capabilities, and selfobservation of reproduction. 4. Motivation—having a good reason to imitate’ (https://impactofspecialneeds.wee bly.com/social-learning-theory.html). Major factors influencing observational learning include cognitive development, learning from ‘significant others’, or role models, vicarious leaning, outcome expectations, self-efficacy, and personal goals. There are at least three basic models of observational learning: a. A live model, which involves an actual individual demonstrating or acting out behaviour. b. A verbal instructional model, which involves descriptions and explanations of behaviour. c. A symbolic model, which involves real or fictional characters displaying behaviours in books, films, television programs, or online media. The above two major models offer relevant explanations how individuals’ attitudes and beliefs are shaped by their particular culture and environment. They make it clear that individuals, their identities, values, beliefs, attitudes and behaviour, are largely constructed and defined by major agencies of socialisation (Bronfenbrenner, 1994). In addition, Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory explains that ‘most human behaviour is learned observationally through modelling’, by imitating their socially desirable role models (Bandura, 1977). In analysing values, from a critical discourse analysis, one needs to address social, political and economic inequalities, which result in unequal distribution of socially valued commodities, such as power, wealth, income, education, occupation and status. They produce an endemic and entrenched social stratification globally. This is most relevant to an informed discussion of values, values education, and inequality. There exists a great deal of evidence, showing that existing bias, prejudice and discriminations, practised by some individuals against others, contribute to on-going inequality, and social stratification. In my research, I have argued that one of the most compelling and significant reasons for learning and teaching values in schools is to enable students and pedagogues to have a more informed knowledge of their identities, democracy, equality, social justice, and cultural diversity (Zajda, 2022). This is addressed by various multicultural education policy documents in the countries globally. The main goal of multicultural curriculum and transformational pedagogy is to promote democracy, human rights, social justice and equality for all, which defines quality education. This can only be achieved by addressing meaningfully and effectively the existence of inequality, discrimination and discriminatory practices in schools and societies. It could be argued that genuine emancipatory and transformationalist pedagogues need to use current research evidence, knowledge and skills for cultivating a new sense of knowledge and empowerment, in order to reduce existing and visible

Values Education, Cultural Diversity and Overcoming Discrimination

33

inequality, and discrimination, based on pre-conceived ideas, bias, prejudice, stereotypes, and ethnocentrism. Providing meaningful, effective, and engaging inclusive classroom and quality education for all is completely dependent on reducing all forms of discriminations in schools and societies.

Reducing Discrimination in the Classroom There are at least four steps for reducing racism in the classroom. The first step towards reducing racism and discrimination in the classroom is establishing an inclusive, engaging, equitable, and motivational atmosphere, where all students feel they belong, and can work together, in cooperative or collaborative group settings, as part of social constructivist pedagogy. This strategy offers inclusive schooling, and addresses cultural identities, as students, working together on the tasks in the lesson, and learning from each other, are likely to accept one another on equal terms (Booth & Ainscow, 2000; Council of Europe, 2020; Eredics, 2018). Working in small groups, students learn to share knowledge and skills, the right way to behave towards each other, and accepting others, as their equal team members. It is here that values education, and acquired knowledge, based on equality, tolerance, human rights, and social justice are being internalised and practised by the students. The second step in reducing racism and discrimination, is teaching students to develop their specific and task-oriented metacognitive strategies, to enhance further their self-awareness and self-reflection (Zajda, 2021b). Students need to know and understand how racism, discrimination and discriminatory practices inflict pain and suffering on students, who are targeted, and how the resultant label becomes a painful stigma affecting the individual’s identity, self-esteem, and mental health (Abbey et al., 2011). One could argue that some students’ bias and prejudice against other students reflect the influence of various major socializing agencies, as illustrated in Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) model, including the family, the peers, the neighbourhood, schools and the mass media. In addition, a person’s bias, attitudes and behaviour, including racism, may be also affected by their level of ignorance, knowledge deficit, phobias, and possibly differential levels of cognitive, emotional and social developments. The third step in reducing racism and discrimination, in shaping desirable values, attitudes and behaviour patterns in the classroom, is the use of classroom peer groups. Research has demonstrated the power of peer groups affecting other children, their attitudes, values, knowledge, and behaviour (Crone & Konijn, 2018; Dustin et al., 2013).Teachers, as powerful and influential role models, have the power and authority to establish and promote an inclusive, and moral climate in the classroom, where children are taught that doing the right thing is expected, and that accepting other students and their cultural identities, on equal terms, is necessary and desirable (MuñozHurtado, 2018). Strategies for teaching students from different cultural backgrounds, and promoting inclusive education, include:

34

2 Global Models of Values Education for Democracy and Cultural …

. Teachers should respect the cultural background of the students and should encourage and support them. . Teachers can demonstrate role plays in classroom, so that the students experience different cultures. . Teachers should ensure that students from different cultures have opportunities to work with others in small group—activities. . Use resources that highlight multicultural perspectives. . Teacher may use multi-media to highlight discrimination. . Encourage students to be open and willing to evaluate their attitudes, beliefs, values and behaviour (Zajda, 2022). The fourth step is for students to develop social and emotional learning (SEL) knowledge and power, which helps to resist bullying effectively, and results in increased emotional and social well-being, self-regulation, classroom relationships, and kind and helpful behaviour among students (Divecha, 2019; Zych et al., 2018). How can we overcome endemic and ubiquitous social inequality and discrimination in schools? From a macro-social perspective, we can draw on Bronfenbrenner’s model of socialization, affecting individuals, located in their environments globally. This model explains how major agencies of socialisation, starting at home, contribute to the development of individuals’ attitudes, values, beliefs, and specific behaviour patterns. We can also refer to Banks (2013) five dimensions of multicultural classrooms, discussed in Chapter 1. When we move to the classroom, we can use Bandura’s social learning theory, where individuals learn their values and behaviour, by observing others, and by imitating desirable role models. Bandura’s reciprocal causation model, which lists three factors affecting social learning, namely environmental, behavioural and individual, can be used in the classroom to promote the formation of desirable attitudes and values, by means of social constructivist pedagogy, and learning from desirable role models, when working in small groups. In addition, we can also employ Vygotsky’s (1962) social constructivist learning theory, which explains environmental influences on one’s language and behaviour. Vygotsky (1962), in his much quoted book Thought and Language, focused on the role of environment, and its impact on individual’s language development. Drawing on Vygotsky’s (1962) idea, we can use social constructivist learning theory, involving cooperative and collaborative groups in classroom settings. Working in small groups in the classroom promotes inclusive environment, acceptance of cultural diversity, and empathy, as well as improving students’ academic performance (Mayasari et al., 2018; Whitehouse, 2021; Zajda, 2021). As demonstrated above, Vygotsky’s (1962) theory of environmental influence on language development, together with Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) Bioecological model of development, and Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory, represent three prominent and influential models explaining how individuals are shaped and influenced by their environment, and how they acquire specific attitudes, knowledge, values, and behaviour patterns, by observing others, specifically their role models. There are other approaches that can be used to shape and change individuals’ challenging attitudes and behaviour. The most prominent one is the use of behavioural learning

Classroom Models for Teaching Values

35

theories, specifically behaviour modification procedure for shaping and changing behaviour.

Classroom Models for Teaching Values Approaches to values education in the classroom have the following among their specific goals: . Helping students to appreciate one another’s cultural differences. . Helping students and teachers to identify cultural stereotypes as presented in the media, when teaching values of cultural diversity. . Teaching students to avoid using language that is insensitive, offensive, embarrassing or damaging. . To help students adopt multiple perspectives, conceptualizations and behaviours. . To help students to be respectful and tolerant of other students with different backgrounds and beliefs. . Helping students to understand that social responsibility extends beyond local and national boundaries (Zajda, 2014a). To these educational goals for teaching values, we can add helping students to overcome racism and other forms of biases and discriminations in society and schools. In schools globally, some of the many models, strategies and approaches to values education include: . UNESCO’s values perspective. Activities should view health, well-being and quality education as mutually interdependent and be addressed together. Such values include values education in early childhood centres, environmental values education and a sense of belonging, based on Jérôme Bindé (see Zajda, 2022). . Values Inculcation. Instilling socially desirable values in students—through direct teaching, including story-telling, or indirectly through routine practices in the classroom, role models, reinforcement, praising, simulation and role playing to instil values in students. . Values Clarification allows students to be more socially aware and become critical thinkers. It also helps students understand and accept everyone’s values and beliefs. Includes practical activities to clarify feelings towards person/event/issue. . The Social Action and Participation. This approach to values education assumes that individuals learn values best by practicing them. There are numerous examples of social action and participation projects, including EfS (education for sustainability), the use of circles of democracy in the classroom, human rights education etc. . The Trait approach refers to values that are classified more important than others and involves teaching a set of qualities such as honesty, loyalty and compassion.

36

2 Global Models of Values Education for Democracy and Cultural …

. Service Learning approach—activities at school and in the community. According to Freakley (2008), schools should provide experiences as opportunities to practice making a choice of actions. . Cognitive Development approach is where values education is seen as a movement through stages. This helps students to improve reasoning and to not differentiate right and wrong decisions. Includes dilemma activities, small group discussions, and decision making tasks to further develop students’ values. . Role Plays explores multi-layered values in complex moral scenarios. It is responsible for finding solutions in spontaneous unrehearsed dialogue (see Brady, 2009). . Empathy approach involves an informed understanding and interpretation of cultural diversity (see Zajda, 2014). . The Time-Traveller approach involves looking back at historical events, locating them in a time continuum, and relating to current events in history (see also Brady, 2011b). . Social constructivist pedagogy involves students working in collaborative groups to discuss current issues confronting humanity, both locally and globally, including sustainability, inequality, conflict resolution, and promoting peace (Zajda, 2022). . Critical discourse analysis engages students in discussing inequality, poverty and racial and ethnic discrimination (Zajda, 2022) . Global education perspective provides students with the ‘space ship Earth’ approach, in order to promote cooperation, peace, tolerance, and harmony (Zajda, 2022). Of the above models for values education in schools, I want to examine three major and innovative models for values education globally: UNESCO’s values perspective Social constructivist pedagogy Global education perspective

UNESCO’s Values Perspective Guiding UNESCO’s policy documents are a set of commonly shared values that include such globally relevant concepts as ‘justice, solidarity, tolerance, sharing, equity, respect for human rights, including women’s rights, and cultural diversity, pluralism and democratic principles’ (https://www.google.com/search?q=%E2). Examples of some core values include: 1. ‘Every child and young person has a fundamental right to education, well-being and a healthy life; 2. Non-discrimination, solidarity, equality of opportunity and treatment, and universal access to education, health and well-being underpin all activities of the Chair;

Classroom Models for Teaching Values

37

3. Development of autonomy of children and young people in order to prepare them to be free and responsible citizens in democratic processes of decision-making; 4. Active involvement of all children and young people, enabling them to work as powerful agents of healthy change in their own life, in schools, in families and in local communities; 5. Celebrate, value and learn from global diversity of knowledge, perspectives and experiences; 6. Cultural pluralism and appropriateness of activities and recommendations are recognized and taken into account as health and education of children and young people are rooted in different socio-economical, environmental, political, cultural and religious contexts’ (Retrieved from https://unescochair-ghe.org/the-unescochair-ghe/values-and-principles). The above policy statements demonstrate that UNESCO’s policy documents on values education include such major concepts as democracy, equality, cultural diversity, tolerance, social justice and human rights. I also analysed these concepts in my book Globalisation and education reforms: Overcoming discrimination (2022).

Social Constructivist Pedagogy Social constructivist pedagogy, which is immensely popular globally, involves students working in collaborative groups to discuss current issues confronting humanity, both locally and globally, including sustainability, inequality, democracy, conflict resolution, and promoting peace and harmony globally. Working in small collaborative or co-operative groups, and employing both cognitive and social constructivist learning, students can be given a far greater autonomy and responsibility for making relevant decisions, and they can develop their own views in relation to what has happened in the past, and today. They can also discuss various current events within the concepts of democracy, equality, freedom, social justice and human rights (Zajda, 2022). Classroom activities may include: . Using children’s literature to provide examples and practice, in promoting values (Pulimeno et al., 2020). . Classroom activities should provide experiences as opportunities and to practice making a choice of desirable actions (Zajda, 2021). . Setting a positive role model—you are a role model for the students in your classroom. . Being truthful and honest: The best way to encourage truthfulness in students is to be a truthful to them. Encourage them to also be truthful to others in the classroom. . Generating current and serious questions that will promote authentic dialogue about values. . Encouraging students to be involved in helping others. Students learn desirable values by practicing them.

38

2 Global Models of Values Education for Democracy and Cultural …

Global Education Perspective In my earlier book Global Pedagogies (2010), I argued that global education, as the main sphere of human activity for changing and transforming education in all spheres, must be concerned with the intended and deliberate way in which individual’s consciousness, conscience and identity are formed. Individuals, as such, have the power to contribute significantly to a world, in which equality, social justice, tolerance and care for the environment become the dominant social paradigm for transformation and socio-economic change. An example of global education perspective is the Global Education project, which was developed by Diane Boase (2016) and her team, who are geography teachers. They discussed identity, culture, social justice, human rights, and focused on values education for sustainability. They argued, that in terms of values, the four major aspects of a sustainable future need to include ethical, environmental, social, and economic dimension. The above major models and approaches to teaching values education in schools indicate that for values education to be authentic, engaging and effective, there is a need to use relevant school policy documents, and major models of values education, together with realistic and achievable classroom applications, as discussed above. In addition, schools need to list and document various relevant policies, concerning values education in their teaching and learning resources.

Conclusion As demonstrated above, values education in schools globally play a significant role in promoting and maintaining democracy, equality, freedom, social justice, and active citizenship education. Teaching such core values as democracy, freedom, equality, active citizenship, intercultural understanding, human rights, social justice, and peace, consolidates our ideal of participatory democracy, equality, peace, and freedom. In schools, both locally and globally, where values education and critical literacy are taught, values should be discussed and critiqued, within the paradigm of cultural diversity, and pluralist democracy, grounded in human rights and social justice discourses. Values education to be meaningful, engaging and authentic in schools globally, must involve a greater understanding and more meaningful knowledge of democracy, freedom and equality.

Chapter 3

Multicultural Education Globally for Democracy, Equality, and Social Justice

Multicultural Education Globally for Democracy, Equality, and Social Justice: Introduction My interest in multicultural education and culturally diverse environments was immensely influenced by my upbringing, my memories, my background, and experiences, as a child and pupil in the USSR, Poland and Australia. In the USSR, we lived in a very multicultural community in Stanisławów, now Ivano-Frankivsk (Western Ukraine). Stanisławów was already a fortress built in the thirteenth century, to defend the settlement against the Mongols, who invaded the place in 1240. Stanisławów became a city in 1662, under a Polish nobleman Andrzej Potocki, who was a count and a powerful military leader. The city ratusz (town hall) was completed later in 1666. As it was within walking distance, from where we lived, I used to see it daily, as well the ruins of the fortress on the hill, as I walked to the school. I had no idea that these historic sites dated to 1240 and 1666 respectively. I suspect my teachers themselves were unaware of the historical significance of the place. Languages spoken included Ukrainian, Russian, and Yiddish. In our block of flats, where we lived, there were Russian, Ukrainian and Jewish families. After some 13 years of living in Ivano-Frankivsk, one day, my mother announced ‘We are going to Poland’. There were three reasons for her decision. She was missing her mother, and her sister, living in Poland, near Zielona Góra. The family were given a wheat farm, confiscated from a wealthy German Bauer (farmer) by the Polish Government after 1945. My uncle arrived to Stanisławów, from West Germany to see his mother (my grandmother). His wife, Kate, stayed in West Germany. He came too late, as his mother had died a few months earlier from pneumonia. He was grief stricken and wanted to return to West Germany. Even though he was a German citizen, the Soviet authorities would not recognize it, and treated him as a former Soviet citizen, who volunteered to work in Germany. In desperation, he decided to cross the border, and once in Poland, find his way to Western Germany. It was more easily said than done. He had to idea of the Iron Curtain and the vigilance of border © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 J. Zajda, Discourses of Globalisation, Cultural Diversity and Values Education, Globalisation, Comparative Education and Policy Research 34, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-22852-0_3

39

40

3 Multicultural Education Globally for Democracy, Equality, and Social …

guards in both the USSR and Poland. He was eventually caught somewhere in Poland by the Polish border guards, and returned to the Soviet border guards. We found out that he was in custody, when the NKVD (secret police) came to our flat, and took at the items that belonged to my uncle. They also informed us that he was held in the local prison, awaiting his sentence. He was sentenced to 5 years in a gulag, in Vorkuta, north of the Arctic Circle. This seriously affected my father’s work, and health, as he now had a ‘black cloud’ hanging over his head. His boss, at the local railway depot said to him ‘Tovarishch Zajda, za vami malenkie greshki’ (Comrade Zajda, you have little sins’), referring to my father’s brother, and his arrest. Lastly, my mother did not want me to serve in the Soviet Army, as a conscript. If it was not for my courageous, determined, and loving mother, who wanted to give us all a better life, I would still be living in Ivano-Frankivsk, which was bombed by the Russians in February 2022, during an undeclared war between the Russian Federation (RF) and Ukraine, which has been going on for the last ten months. My life and my career prospects would have been vastly different, as I would not have been able to have the opportunity to become, following my family’s arrival in Melbourne, and completion of my secondary and tertiary education, a successful academic, a university professor in education, and a prolific author. As my mother was Polish, we were allowed to migrate to Poland (the USSR was indeed the Iron Curtain). The Iron Curtain enclosed the USSR and the countries it controlled from the West during the Cold War period. It was a huge concession by the Soviet authorities to allow Polish citizens to migrate to Poland. At the time, the USSR had signed an agreement with Poland, to return ethnic Poles, still living in the Western Ukraine, and elsewhere, to Poland. One needs to know how impossible it was to leave the USSR, unless you were Jewish or, people like us. The government authorities were only too happy to let us go to Poland, since we were labelled as undesirable, in terms of my mother’s ethnicity, to continue living in the Western Ukraine. When we arrived at the Polish border, the Polish officer, who was a captain, informed us that we would be moved to a refugee camp, in Zgorzelec (Görlitz in German), a city next to the German border, pending being given a free housing accommodation, and a job for my father, who was a qualified fitter and turner, and a locomotive driver. The border guard officer also asked, almost apologetically, ‘Do you mind being in this camp with all the Jews?’ My father replied ‘This is fine. We don’t mind it at all’. This reply seemed to disappoint our Polish officer. The Jews, who left the USSR, wishing to migrate to Israel, and to other countries, including Poland, were stripped of their Soviet passports, and of their identities as Soviet citizens, and declared stateless persons, when they arrived at the Soviet border. This was such a humiliating act by the authorities, against the Soviet Jews, and was not only discriminatory, but went against the very fabric of universal principles of human rights. When we first arrived at Zgorzelec refugee camp, we thought it was a military barrack, because of its size. This refugee camp, in Zgorzelec, turned out to be a former prisoner of war camp, and a huge German Stalag VIII-A POW camp during WW2. Zgorzelec is divided by a river, and the bridge is the border. The Neisse River, as the Polish-East German border, at the time, divided Zgorzelec and Görlitz. The first half of the bridge on the river was patrolled by Polish border guards, and the

Multicultural Education Globally for Democracy, Equality, and Social …

41

second half was manned by East German border guards. Both groups were marching on this bridge, creating quite a spectacle. I did not realize at the time, the historical significance of the location. Zgorzelec was already settled in 1071AD by Slavs. In 1354, it was founded by Casimir the Great, King of Poland from 1333 to 1370. Subsequently, Zgorzelec became a commercially thriving town during the fourteenth century (Lusek & Goetze, 2011). After living some months in the camp, we were eventually re-settled to Legnica. As part of the Zemi Odzyskane (reclaimed land), the city had a number of vacant houses and flats, since the German inhabitants either left in a hurry, or were expelled from the city. The city was first mentioned in chronicles in the year 1004AD. By 1149, under Boleslaw IV, who was the Duke of Poland, of the Piast dynasty, it became a prominent commercial hub. Legnica was also famous for the battle between the Mongols, and the Polish armies and her allies, at a village Legnickie Pole, near the city, on 9 April 1241. (Chisholm, 1911). At the time, it was the first Mongol invasion of Poland. The Christian coalition under the command of the Polish Duke Henry II, the Pious, suffered a catastrophic defeat, and Henry II the Pious was killed by the Mongols during the battle. This defeat was largely due to, as historical chronicles demonstrated, ineffective battle plans, and poor strategies. In Legnica, I encountered another multicultural milieu. Legnica, as a medieval city, was very close to the German border. Prior to 1945, Silesia, known as Dolny ´ ask (Lower Silesia, or Schlesien, in German), was part of Germany for some Sl˛ 300 years. There were still some German-speaking citizens, German slogans on the prominent buildings in the city, Russians, mainly the military, and people like us. Legnica had some historically significant buildings and sites. Most of the Piast dynasty, who reigned for some 700 years, were buried there. Legnica was one of the historical burial sites of Polish monarchs and consorts. There is a Piast castle, built in the thirteenth Century in Legnica, and it represents the oldest castle in Poland (Chisholm, 1911). I remember walking on the cobblestones at the centre of the city, and seeing the stone gate outside the city, commemorating the battle of 1241, with the inscription ‘It is here that we stopped the Mongols’. This was, undoubtedly, a part of the nation-building myth, as according to historical records, the Poles were completely defeated by the Mongols, who subsequently withdrew back to Mongolia, to elect a new leader, their khan. After a few years of living in Legnica, and following extensive correspondence with my two aunts, on my father’s side, who lived in Melbourne, we (my mother, again, was instrumental in our move) decided to migrate to Australia, and we settled in Melbourne, a very multicultural and cosmopolitan city. During the early 1950s, my two aunts arrived to Melbourne, from Germany, as migrants, from displaced persons camps in post–World War II Europe. They were part of millions in the forced labour system in Nazi Germany during WW2. When we finally arrived in Melbourne, my aunt Maria was most anxious for me to go to school, and learn English. I was a 15-year old, who had completed the first year of a general education lyceum (Polish: Liceum ogólnokształc˛ace). The Polish education system, like elsewhere in Europe, had an 8 plus 4 model: eight years for primary school, and four years for secondary school. In our first year at lyceum,

42

3 Multicultural Education Globally for Democracy, Equality, and Social …

we studied Polish, mathematics, physics, chemistry, history, music, art, Russian, and other subjects. Teachers were called ‘Professors’ and some had made fun of academically less-able students. I was taken by my aunt to a nearby secondary college. She wanted me to join Year 7 class, as my English was inadequate. The local Principal took one look at me and said ‘He is too big to mix with year 7 pupils’. My aunt took me to another local secondary school. We were greeted by the Principal, and a Latvian-born interpreter, who was a teacher at the school, and who later became my friend, as I also ended up teaching there later. He translated my lyceum certificate of completion of the first year, and the Principal thought I should be in Year 10, but for my poor proficiency in English. This was communicated to me by the interpreter. So, it was decided that I would be placed in Year 9. Both I and my aunt were amazed and surprised at this decision. She said to me: ‘How is this possible? You hardly speak English.’ In the end, I was taken to my new class, and ended up sitting next to a boy, from a Polish background. The first thing I asked him was to confirm the year level. He said ‘You are in Year 9D’. Later I discovered that performing Year 9 grades were Year 9A and Year 9B, and Year 9D was designated as a woodwork class, obviously designed for academically less-able students. When I completed Year 9, I ended up with a very high mark for mathematics and woodwork (100% in each subject), but 32% for English, and, as a result of my overall above grade average, I was transferred, the following year, to Year 10B. At the end of the Year 10, I passed all 10 subjects, including English. It was customary, at the time, for the Principal to come and announce the results at the end the year. As he read out the names, some started to cry, as they failed to receive the Intermediate Certificate, necessary for employment in white collar occupations. He finally read out my name, and declared that I passed all 10 subjects and, as a result, I was awarded the much coveted Intermediate Certificate. I still remember the wow exclamations in the class. I completed my Year 12 successfully, and was accepted, as an undergraduate, in the Science Faculty, at Monash University. After one year, I transferred to the Arts Faculty, and completed a BA (Hons), in literature, philosophy and languages. I was awarded the Monash Graduate Scholarship for Master of Arts (by major dissertation), which I completed, on a full time basis in one year. The same scholarship was extended by the university, when I was accepted for a Ph.D. degree. Subsequently, I was able to complete my Ph.D, as a full-time doctoral candidate, in two-years. My family, particularly my wife Rea, were very proud of my achievements. I was only 30 and already a ‘Dr’. At the graduation ceremony, I was the only candidate, to receive a doctorate degree. The above describes the richness, diversity and complexity of my multicultural experiences in the USSR, Poland, and Australia, speaking Polish, Russian and Ukrainian, and learning English. Urie Bronfenbrenner (1970), in his classic book Two Worlds of Childhood, described and analysed schooling in the USA and the USSR. However, I had experienced three worlds of childhood: the USSR, Poland and Australia.

Multicultural Education Globally

43

Overall, multicultural education is a field of study, reflects cultural diversity in societies and schools, and aims to promote and create equal educational opportunities for all students from culturally diverse backgrounds. Above all, multicultural education is built on the ideals of democracy, social justice, equality, peace, human rights, and freedom. Multiculturalism is a term, which recognizes and celebrates the cultural diversity of a population. Banks (1984) defined multicultural education, as ‘an inclusive concept used to describe a wide variety of school practices, programs, and material designed to help children from diverse groups to experience educational equality’ (Banks, 1984, p. 182). Multicultural education involves learning about the distinctive characteristics that are representative of and are common within a particular group of people. Global education, on the other hand, is about teaching students the values, skills, attitudes and knowledge which will enable them to be aware and empowered global citizens of the future.

Multicultural Education Globally Multiculturalism is a social, cultural and educational program/policy recognizing the past and present cultural diversity in a given society, and promoting the equality of all cultural traditions (Zajda, 2022). Multicultural education is a progressive approach for transforming education that holistically critiques and responds to discriminatory policies and practices in education. It is grounded in ideals of social justice, education equity, and critical pedagogy. Multicultural education acknowledges that schools are essential to building the foundation for the transformation of society and the elimination of injustice. The underlying goal of multicultural education is to affect a real social change. The pathway toward this goal incorporates three strands of transformation: . the transformation of self; . the transformation of schools and schooling; and . the transformation of society Multicultural education is a philosophical concept built on the ideals of freedom, justice, equality, equity, and human dignity. It affirms our need to prepare students for their responsibilities in an interdependent world. It recognizes the significant role schools can perform in teaching cultural diversity, and in developing the attitudes and values necessary for a democratic society. Multicultural education, as a policy, promotes cultural diversity and affirms the pluralism that students, their communities, and teachers’ knowledge and attitudes reflect. It challenges all forms of discrimination in schools and society through the promotion of democratic principles of social justice. Multicultural education is an on-going process that permeates all aspects of school practices, policies and organization, as a means to ensure inclusive schooling, and the highest levels of academic achievement for all students. It helps students develop a positive self-concept, by providing knowledge, and critical thinking skills, about

44

3 Multicultural Education Globally for Democracy, Equality, and Social …

the histories, cultures, and contributions of diverse groups. Multicultural education also prepares students to work actively and collectively toward attaining justice, and structural equality in organizations and institutions, by providing the relevant knowledge, dispositions, and skills for the necessary redistribution of power and income inequality among diverse groups. Multicultural education advocates the belief that students and their life histories and experiences should be placed at the centre of the teaching and learning process, and that classroom pedagogy should occur in a context that is familiar to students and which addresses multiple ways of thinking. For this reason, school curriculum must directly address inequalities and discriminations, characterised by racism, sexism, classism, linguicism, ageism, heterosexism, religious intolerance, and xenophobia. In addition, teachers and students are encouraged to analyse critically the existing and on-going social inequality, oppression and power relations in their communities, society and the world. Multicultural education will always reflect the existing cultural diversity, characterised by the existence of many cultural identities, located in stratified societies, divided by power, wealth, occupation, income, SES, and education. As such, multicultural education demands teachers who are culturally competent. Teachers need to possess relevant knowledge and skills; they need to be multiculturally literate, and capable of including and accepting families and communities, in order to create an inclusive environment that is supportive of different cultural identities, and offering empowering experiences of genuine pluralist democracy. The reality and relevance of cultural diversity and multiculturalism in the USA was already addressed by Banks (2019), who analyzed the existence of a growing ethnic, cultural, social-class, and linguistic gap between many of the teachers and their students in the USA. Banks, who is a leading multicultural educator and writer in the world, has been writing on multicultural education in the USA for many decades (see Zajda, 2022). The goal of Banks’ (2019) multicultural education model is to enable students from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds to fully engage with and access the curriculum, and acquire designated knowledge, skills and values. To advance multicultural education in schools, Banks (1995a) developed his timely and relevant model of multicultural education strategy, based on his five dimensions: content integration, the knowledge construction process, prejudice reduction, equity pedagogy, and an empowering school culture and social structure (Banks, 1995a). His model was designed to help teachers in promoting the philosophy of multicultural curriculum: . ‘Content Integration: Teaching diversity . Knowledge Construction: Teaching how knowledge is created . Prejudice Reduction: Developing positive relationships among students from culturally diverse backgrounds . Equity Pedagogy: Promoting high academic achievement for all students . Empowering School Culture: Inclusive classroom environment that is conducive to the academic and emotional needs and growth of all students’ (Banks, 1995a; 2019)

Multicultural Education Globally

45

Content integration refers to the ways teachers employ multiculturalism, to inform their content in their multicultural classroom pedagogy. Teachers discuss various culturally diverse narratives, focusing on dominant values and identities and provide relevant examples drawn from culturally diverse environments. Knowledge construction, probably the most important stage in constructivist pedagogy, where students working in small collaborative groups, have the autonomy and power to construct new knowledge, as a result of interacting with each other, while discussing the text, and sharing their findings with their teacher. Prejudice Reduction focuses on reducing racism, bias and prejudice towards individuals from culturally diverse backgrounds. The major goal is to develop accepting and positive attitudes towards individuals from culturally diverse environments. Some students come to school with biased and prejudiced attitudes and values toward students from culturally diverse environments. Equity Pedagogy in schools concentrates on promoting equity defined school policies, in order to motivate all students to be engaged and attain high academic standards. This is also reflected in the UNECO’s policy documents on quality education. Empowering School Culture, on the other hand is created ‘when the culture and organization of the school are transformed in ways that enable students from diverse racial, ethnic, and gender groups to experience equality and equal status’ (https:// education.uw.edu/cme/view). As I have argued in my books Globalisation and education reforms: Creating effective learning (2021), and Globalisation and education reforms: Overcoming discrimination (2022), the student’s ‘self-concept, together with self-esteem and selfefficacy’ will invariably play a major role in the overall learning process, academic achievement and motivation to learn and do better in culturally diverse classrooms (Zajda, 2021, 2022). In Globalisation and education reforms: Overcoming discrimination (2022), in Chapter 2, dealing with dominant discourses of race and ethnicity discrimination in education, I examined racial stratification and inequality and argued that it is one of the ‘most serious inequality issues confronting societies and schooling globally’: Racial prejudice is one of the greatest obstacles for achieving authentic pluralist democracy, equality, human rights and social justice. Race, as a construct, continues to be a significant dimension of social inequality, and discrimination, contributing to entrenched racial stratification in society, and education, and affecting academic achievement in the USA and elsewhere (Zajda, 2022, pp. 17, 24)

Bronfenbrenner (1979) in his influential bioecological model argued that individuals are shaped by major agencies of socialization: the family, the peers, the neighbourhood, the school, the media, etc. This particular model, together with Bandura’s social learning theory, helps us to understand better how we are socialized by major agencies of socialization, and how we acquire our attitudes, values and behaviour. Both Bronfenbrenner’s and Bandura’s models explain also the origins of bias and prejudice, exhibited by some individuals towards people from culturally diverse environments. In addition to Banks’ multicultural education model I want to add

46

3 Multicultural Education Globally for Democracy, Equality, and Social …

global education and intercultural dialogue, as two additional perspectives, to enrich our knowledge of cultural diversity. These offer additional perspectives to major discourses of multicultural education. Let me examine further their relevance and significance in culturally diverse environments.

Global Education With reference to global education, I would like to define ‘globalisation’, from a social and cultural transformation perspective, as a new dominant ideology of cultural convergence, which is accompanied by corresponding economic, political, social, technological and educational transformations. Such a process is characterised by increasing economic and political interdependence between nations, and which ultimately, transforms the ethnocentric core of the nation-state and national economy. The phenomenon of ‘globalisation’ refers, in general sense, to people around the globe being more connected to each other than ever before, to a quantum-like pace of the international flow of communication, knowledge and money, to consumer goods and services produced in one part of the world being increasingly available in all parts of the world, and to the explosion of international travel (Zajda, 2021a). Global education is built on the ideals of genuine human rights, democracy, freedom, social justice, equality, peace and harmony. ‘Global education seeks to prepare students to live in an increasingly globalised world society and to be active, participating citizens in that society, who contribute to shaping a better world. It operates in the assumption that people and communities are becoming increasingly interdependent’ (Global Education Project, 2014; see also Zajda, 2021a). As such, global education aims to provide both students and teachers with opportunities to develop a better and deeper knowledge, understanding, and skills of major global issues affecting our lives. These include: . . . . . . . . . . . .

Globalisation Inequality Slavery Human Rights Freedom Poverty Global Warming/Climate change Population Growth Food inequity Water quantity & quality Education for social justice Disasters etc.

Multicultural Education for Equality, Democracy and Social Justice

47

Multicultural Education for Equality, Democracy and Social Justice What we need to remind ourselves is that the major goal of multicultural education in schools is to promote a better and informed knowledge equality, democracy and social justice for all. We begin our informed critical thinking with a better knowledge and understanding of cultural diversity, which is all around us. Cultural diversity will continue to grow in its complexity, and we need to accept it. We are surrounded by individuals from culturally diverse backgrounds, who speak many languages and who display different values and life styles. This represents the on-going reality of growing multiculturalism and cultural diversity, both locally and globally. One of the goals of effective multicultural education is to help transform and reconstruct society and schools globally, providing equality for all. One could practice a culturally responsive teaching. This is one of the strategies, which can foster the growth and acceptance of cultural diversity in multicultural classrooms. The approaches could include: inquiry learning, critical thinking, role play, cooperative learning, literature-based activities, and story-writing. Effective multicultural pedagogies can help reduce significantly an on-going racism and discrimination in schools and societies (Zajda, 2022). Human rights are violated by all forms of racism, as discussed in my books Globalisation and education reforms: Creating effective learning (2021), and Globalisation and education reforms: Overcoming discrimination (2022). Multicultural education tends to focus on reducing prejudice and discrimination among groups, and works on developing equality, opportunity, and access to quality education for all. The pedagogue’s key role is to provide engaging activities that promote authentic cultural diversity, where all students feel that they belong. The school curriculum for inclusive pedagogy should provide opportunities for students to learn another language, so that some students become bilingual. The school and the inclusive pedagogy should provide equal attention to all students from diverse cultural backgrounds. In addition, inclusive classrooms tend to create a classroom climate that encourages trust, tolerance, respect, harmony and peace. As a social reconstructionist pedagogy, multicultural education deals more directly with such topics as oppression and social equality, based on race, ethnicity, social class, religion, and gender. One of the major goals of a social reconstructionist pedagogy is one of preparing students to acquire the ability to reconstruct and change the future society, so that it better serves the interests of all groups of people. How this can occur in the classroom? We could encourage students to develop a sense of responsibility and critical thinking for desirable social actions, and ask them to analyse, for instance, discrimination, conflict, and inequality affecting their own lives.

48

3 Multicultural Education Globally for Democracy, Equality, and Social …

Objectives of the Multicultural Curriculum Multicultural education has at least 3 components: 1. A school policy reinforcing that all students should have equal opportunities to learn and participate in quality education, regardless of their race, ethnicity, social class, or gender. 2. An educational reform movement to bring about changes in societies and schools by introducing community language programs, ESL programs, and bilingual education programs 3. A continuing policy and curriculum process for promoting multiculturalism within the classroom, the school, and community) Banks & McGee (2015). Overall, multicultural education in schools focuses on at least 2 distinct classroom strategies: 1. Micro-level issues (cultures, languages, and experiences of students and their families) 2. Macro-level issues (nations, economies, organizations, racial stratifications, inequalities, unequal distribution of resources. Objectives of the multicultural curriculum are informed by such core concepts as democracy, equality, social justice and human rights. Some of the objectives could include: . Teaching students to avoid using language that is insensitive to other students . Encouraging students to examine and eliminate curricular materials that may be damaging, embarrassing, debasing, offensive and reversely motivating . Know your rights and responsibilities . Challenge racism and discrimination, whenever it occurs . Be a positive role model . Assess your own attitudes, behaviour and training needs . Recognise and value cultural diversity . Create an inclusive learning environment . Encourage the involvement of parents and community members from all backgrounds. The checklist: The global and multicultural classroom . . . .

The classroom setup promotes interaction and communication of cultural diversity Learning activities are experiential and interactive Students are taking responsibility for their own learning Students have opportunities to take part in decision making and to learn processes of negotiation and consensus building . Students work co-operatively with each other in pairs, small groups and large groups . Students participate in diverse roles and have their voices heard . All students feel free to express themselves

Multicultural Education for Equality, Democracy and Social Justice

49

. Students are encouraged to think critically . Students are exposed to a diversity of media and other sources of information addressing cultural diversity and multiculturalism. A very popular approach for offering engaging multicultural education experience is the museum approach. It involves learning about the ‘material’ aspects of a culture. For example: Geography, History, landmarks, national flags, climate, religion, traditions, dress, food, etc. Other approaches for teaching multicultural education also include: 1. Field Studies and Inquiry Learning . Excursions to related places . Inquiry - Student-generated questions 2. Role-playing . Good way to explore social issues 3. Service Learning . Become involved with the community 4. Cooperative learning . Work with people from different cultural backgrounds . Group work 5. Civics and Citizenship Education . Look at democracy, racism, rights, responsibilities, etc. 6. Using Literature and Stories . Literature Circles . Partnership Story Projects 7. On-line learning . Make links with others locally, nationally and internationally . Sister schools locally & globally . E-pals or pen pals. Within the discourses of multicultural education we need to incorporate effective learning environment to promote a deeper understanding and knowledge of today’s cultural diversity affecting us all. To me, the most significant key ideas and concepts affecting all aspects of multicultural education and quality learning in schools globally begin necessarily with the student’s cultural identity, self-concept, values education, and active engagement. In addition to the student’s identity, and self-concept, we also need to think of time, place, school’s location, and country. Culturally diverse students globally, depending on where they are located and how they are shaped by major agencies of socialisation, are likely to display different attitudes, values, and behaviour patterns towards schooling (Zajda, 2021).

50

3 Multicultural Education Globally for Democracy, Equality, and Social …

Discourses of Cultural Identity Discourses of cultural identity suggest that national identity is not fixed, but dynamic in nature, affected by dominant forces of globalisation and the media. One of the most powerful forces of globalisation shaping cultural identities is the ubiquitous presence of information technology and the mass media. Every facet of culture and identity is defined by the mass media, and propelled by the information technology. Global marketing of socially desirable commodities, such as clothing, fashion and global brands, perfumes, toys, and the entertaining industry, to name a few, has affected cultural identity. Global marketing affecting the formation of one’s cultural identity has manufactured a new consumerist and materialistic culture, of ‘commodification of the self’ (Zajda, 1988). Cultural identity discourses demonstrate a complex nexus between globalisation, cultural identity and ideology. Recent research indicates that cultural identity discourses have shifted from one dimensional concept towards a multidimensional concept of cultural identity. Hence, there is a need to position cultural identity research and various discourses surrounding cultural identity within dominant ideologies, and identity politics.

Values Education in Culturally Diverse Classrooms Defining Values in Schools Values can be defined as the principles governing rules and standards for socially desirable behaviour. Such values include freedom, democracy, equality, justice, truth, and human rights. Values also provide moral standards, by which actions are judged as right or wrong (Zajda, 2018). In general, values refer to beliefs held by individuals or groups concerning moral standards defining actions that are ‘good or bad’, and what is desirable and what is not desirable. Global research findings have demonstrated the nexus between values education and students’ academic performance in schools. Values education to be meaningful, engaging and authentic must involve a greater sense of active citizenship education, social constructivist pedagogy, and more emphasis on cultural diversity, critical thinking and a deeper and critical understanding and knowledge of democracy, equality, human rights and social justice for all. All teaching and learning in classroom settings is necessarily grounded in morality, ethics and laws, defining and directing classroom pedagogy. Ethics, derived from moral philosophy, is concerned with the study of right and wrong actions, or choosing between good or bad. While teachers are entitled to their own beliefs and values, in the classroom, teachers’ responsibility is defined and guided by their designated school policies, classroom pedagogies, prescribed curriculum, content and its standards (Zajda, 2020). What I want to argue is that values education and effective learning environments have a positive and significant impact on students’ identities and their academic achievement.

Global Models for Values Education

51

Values Education The term values education refers to a multifaceted process of socialization in schools, which transmits dominant values, in order to provide and legitimate the necessary link between the individual, the group and society. Values education is a structured process of instilling desirable aspects of moral education, ethical traits and standards. Values are culturally internalized, shared, and transmitted ideas about what is good or desirable. Values may refer to: a particular belief system—believing that pluralist democracy is the best model of social/political system; a code of conduct—being honest, tolerant and courageous; a state of existence—peace, tolerance and equality); or a moral judgment—truth, beauty, and justice.

Global Models for Values Education The Western and non-Western models of values act as dominant agencies of socialization for values education, social identity, and nation-building. Western-informed international conventions provide value statements globally (Zajda, 2021). The United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN, 1948) was a statement by the international community of the inalienable rights and fundamental freedoms for all human beings. In Article 26, Part 2 it stressed that education “shall be directed … to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedom. It shall promote understanding tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups …” (UN, 1948, p. 7). Other specific value positions are found in various international and legal treaties. For example, the four major Council of Europe treaties protecting the human rights of children combined offer a policy direction for developing and promoting a global vision for a better childhood. The four principal treaties are the European Convention on Human Rights (1950), the European Social Charter (1996), the European Convention on the Exercise of Children’s Rights (1996) and the European convention on Contact Concerning Children (2003). Values associated with schooling are found in the Report to UNESCO of the International Commission on Education for the twenty-first century, Learning: The Treasure Within (Delores, 1996) and its four essential pillars of education for the twenty-first century: learning to know, learning to do, learning to live together and learning to be. More recently, the UNESCO Conference on Education for Shared Values and for Intercultural and Interfaith Understanding (2005) called on educational systems to incorporate common and agreed values into school curricula, to promote intercultural and interfaith understanding. Recently, the idea of ‘global competence’ was developed by OECD and PISA. The teaching of global competence to enhance students’ knowledge and values of intercultural sensitivity was developed in Preparing our youth for an inclusive and sustainable world the OECD PISA global competence framework (PISA, 2018a):

52

3 Multicultural Education Globally for Democracy, Equality, and Social … Global competence is a multidimensional capacity. Globally competent individuals can examine local, global and intercultural issues, understand and appreciate different perspectives and world views, interact successfully and respectfully with others, and take responsible action toward sustainability and collective well-being... Schools can encourage intercultural sensitivity and respect by allowing students to engage in experiences that foster an appreciation for diverse peoples, languages and cultures. (PISA, 2018b, p. 4)

Values education differs around the world both locally, regionally and nationally. Different values are transmitted, according to differences in cultural settings, be they religious, cultural or political. In some communities and societies, dominant values are defined by the ideology of religion or politics. As Huntington (1986) points out, in his book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order culturally diverse nations, divided by different and competing ideologies for global dominance, have different values priorities. In the USA, being a democratic society, the values of individualism, equality, freedom, democracy and selffulfilment are inculcated in schools. Values education in Europe reflect economic and social principles, which embrace student-centred learning, accompanied by dominant values embedded in cognitive, social and emotional development, and vocational philosophies of achievement, success and work (Zajda, 2021).

Values Education in Schools Values education in schools represents an essential, contested and constantly changing area of study that develops critical thinking skills that are vital for all other areas of study. A very good example of the nexus between globalisation, and values education in humanities and social sciences education is the National Council for the Social Studies. According to NCSS, social studies educators should ‘teach students the content knowledge, intellectual skills, and civic values necessary for fulfilling the duties of citizenship in a participatory democracy and that ‘In a multicultural, democratic society and globally connected world, students need to understand the multiple perspectives that derive from diverse cultural vantage points’ (National Curriculum Standards for Social Studies, 2010). Carr, P. Pluim, G. & Thesse, G. (2017) in examining the nexus between multicultural social justice education, democracy, and education for democracy, argued for the need to employ critical thinking and critical pedagogies, in order to develop a new knowledge and skills of ‘transformative education for democracy’: Our findings underpin the need to include critical pedagogies that focus on reflexivity, transmediation, autobiography, and self-positionality throughout the educational process. A broad, multi-pronged framework for conceptualizing a critical, engaged, transformative education for democracy is proposed, in which multicultural social justice education is inextricably interwoven. (Carr, Pluim & Thesse, 2017)

The current debate on values education has become an overtly partisan political issue producing a dominant ideology of teaching values and character education. I am reminding the readers that what we call values education was known as ‘character

Objectives of Values Education in the Classroom

53

education’ in most schools during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Values education has also became a ‘metaphor and code’ for pedagogy pursuing the neoliberal and conservative social and cultural agenda (Purpel, 1999, p. 83). In some ways, according to Purpel (1999), the values taught in schools are traditional rather than modern: ...the values taught in the schools are very much in line of Puritan tradition of obedience, hierarchy, and hard work, values which overlap nicely with the requirements of an economic system that values a compliant and industrious work force, and a social system that demands stability and order. (Purpel, 1999, p. 89)

Virtues such as freedom, justice, truth telling and kindness are general moral principles, or abstractions. They, in themselves, cannot explain daily applications. Hence, values education need to be practical, as individuals confront their values, societal values, choices and their applications in everyday life. Furthermore, a critical understanding, analysis and evaluation of moral principles such as freedom, human rights, social justice and responsibility in classroom pedagogy constitutes the essence of morality and value education and should form the foundation of moral education of an individual. Here, the focus is on translating abstract moral principles into everyday life (Zajda, 2021).

Objectives of Values Education in the Classroom Approaches to values education in the humanities and social sciences curriculum should serve at least two general goals: . To help students make the most of their lives (within reason, as ‘Sky is not the limit’). . To preserve and improve our evolving democratic society. Other, more specific goals may include: . Helping students to appreciate one another’s cultural differences. . Helping students and teachers to identify cultural stereotypes as presented in the media, when teaching values of cultural diversity. . Teaching students to avoid using language that is insensitive, offensive, embarrassing or discriminatory. . Helping teachers develop multiple perspectives, conceptualizations and behaviors, when teaching values education. . Teachers should aim to foster respect, tolerance and equality among diverse students, as equal members of their school . Helping students to understand that our social responsibility extends beyond local and national boundaries.

54

3 Multicultural Education Globally for Democracy, Equality, and Social …

Humanities and social sciences curriculum focuses on how students learn to think about, uphold and apply values with reference to multiculturalism and cultural diversity. This allows students to view values as a valuing process of feeling, thinking, expressing and acting by which people make or imply judgments about what is desirable, good or bad, moral or immoral. Gilbert (2020) suggested that there are different elements in teaching values in the classroom: . ‘Understanding values principles- Values that derived over centuries through religion, and social policies, and politics. Analyzing the value of democracy—refers to the integrity and rights of all people and promoting equal opportunities and equal participation. . Logical and empirical analysis- applying values in real life contexts and with the belief that certain actions will have certain effects. . Empathy, tolerance and open mindedness- being open to the views of others without judging . Caring—acting in ways that promote and enhance moral or ethical behaviour’ (Gilbert, 2020). Values can be incorporated in the area of Humanities and social curriculum and generally works well in an inquiry based approach (IA), and constuctivist learning and teaching, focusing on citizenship as the area of study. Marsh (2018) suggested that there are 4 subject groups designated to teach values in Humanities and social sciences which are: . ‘Democratic process: promoting ideals of equal participation and access for individuals and groups . Social justice: including the concern of welfare, rights and dignity for all, empathy with multicultural families and fairness . Ecological and economical sustainability: quality of peoples’ lives and the natural environment . Peace: promoting positive relations with others and the world’ (Marsh, 2018). The above approaches to teaching values education in schools indicate that for values education to be effective, teachers to be familiar with major policy documents, dealing with values education. Also, teachers, in order to promote a meaningful, relevant and engaging knowledge, concerning values and values education, have to use relevant strategies, including cognitive and social constructivist pedagogy (Zajda, 2022a).

Conclusion As demonstrated above, multicultural education, in terms of values education in schools globally can play a significant role in promoting democracy and active citizenship education. Teaching such core values as democracy, freedom, active citizenship, intercultural understanding, human rights, social justice, and peace, consolidates our ideal of participatory democracy. In schools, both locally and globally,

Conclusion

55

where cultural diversity, values education and critical literacy are taught, values should be discussed and critiqued, within the paradigm of cultural diversity, and pluralist democracy, grounded in human rights and social justice discourses. Multicultural education requires a comprehensive school reform, as multicultural education, to be effective, must pervade all aspects of the school community. Multiculturalism and values education have a potential to affect and change individuals in every sphere: cognitive, social, emotional, moral and educational. Values education in schools ought to represent our quest for the ideal of the morally good society, in order to promote a deeper, meaningful and critical understanding of democracy, equality, human rights and social justice for all. Values education to be meaningful, engaging and authentic in schools globally, must involve a greater sense of active citizenship education, grounded in pluralist democracy.

Chapter 4

Using Critical Discourse Analysis in Values Education

Introduction In my book Discourses of Globalisation, Cultural Diversity and Values Education (2023), and in Globalisation and education reforms: Overcoming discrimination (2022, Springer), I argue that we need to offer more relevant, meaningful and engaging approaches for teaching and learning core values of pluralist democracy, equality, freedom, social justice and human rights (Zajda, 2023; Zajda, 2022). Unless we do this effectively, we will not be able to achieve our goals of equality, peace and harmony in societies (Council of Europe, 2020; OECD, 2019; UNESCO, 2014; UNESCO, 2020; World Bank, 2010). I also defined values in terms of their historical, social, political, and cultural origins, and suggested that both cultural diversity and dominant ideologies affect the structure and content of values, both locally and globally. In short, different values are reflected in different culture, as they incorporate dominant ideologies, religions, ethics, beliefs, attitudes and behaviour patterns. However, we need to remind ourselves that in democracies, rather than autocracies, and totalitarian societies, core values in most countries, reflect desirable and necessary principles of democracy, human rights, and social justice. We are reminded that The Universal declaration of human rights policy document (1948) offered a global perspective on human rights and equality for all. In addition, this was further developed, as shared values, in the UNESCO’s policy document Education for shared values and for intercultural and interfaith understanding (UNESCO, 2005), UNESCO (2020) Framework for action on values education in early childhood, OECD (2019) Conceptual learning framework: Attitudes and values, Council of Europe (2016). Competences for democratic culture: living together as equals in culturally diverse democratic societies, Council of Europe (2017), Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education, Council of Europe (2018) Reference framework for competencies for democratic culture, and Council of Europe (2020) Tackling discrimination.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 J. Zajda, Discourses of Globalisation, Cultural Diversity and Values Education, Globalisation, Comparative Education and Policy Research 34, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-22852-0_4

57

58

4 Using Critical Discourse Analysis in Values Education

In critiquing approaches to teaching dominant values in my recent writings, I had advocated the use of critical discourse analysis, which is concerned with analysing and critiquing patterns of economic and social inequalities globally. I have argued elsewhere, that effective, engaging and relevant uses of values education policies in schools have the power to reduce inequality, discrimination and discriminatory practices (Zajda, 2022a). The more recent Council of Europe (2020) policy document Tackling discrimination, reminds us that all forms of discrimination represents an unacceptable human rights violation, and should not be tolerated under any circumstances. In my book Globalisation and education reforms: Overcoming discrimination (Zajda, 2022a), I also argued, that using critical discourse analysis, helps us to have a more meaningful understanding and knowledge of values education, within inclusive, effective and motivational learning environments. Values have a powerful, positive and significant impact on students’ cognitive, social, and emotional domains, as well as on their self-esteem, self-efficacy, acquired desirable values, and academic achievement (Council of Europe, 2020; Lovat et al., 2011; Lovat, 2017; OECD, 2019; Secombe 2016; Vecchione and Schwartz (2022); Zajda, 2022). Lovat, (2017), and others, having evaluated current research finding, dealing with values education and academic achievement, suggested that values education, taught meaningfully and effectively, are likely to affect students positively in every sphere, and improve their academic achievement (Gamage et al., 2021; Koscielniak & Bojanowska, 2019; Lovat, 2017). Similarly, Vecchione & Schwartz (2022), in their recent research of the nexus between personal values and academic achievement, demonstrated that both self-direction-thought and conformity-rules correlated with improved academic achievement: These two values related to grades through a different path. Self-direction thought promoted grades through autonomous forms of academic motivation. Conformity rules promoted grades through better teachers’ evaluations of students’ classroom behaviour. Self-directionaction and conformity-interpersonal were unrelated to grades. (Vecchione & Schwartz, 2022)

Discourse Analysis The term ‘discourse’ was widely used by Michel Foucault in his writings between the 1960s and the 1980s. Foucault was a French historian and philosopher, who was influenced by the structuralist and post-structuralist theories. Foucault’s definition of discourse was ‘systems of thoughts, composed of ideas, attitudes, courses of action, beliefs and practices that systematically construct the subjects and the worlds of which they speak’(cited in Zajda, 1988, p. 11). Foucault’s definition of discourse referred to ‘the social production of meaning’, and that meanings can be ‘embodied in technical processes…in patterns for general behaviour’ (Foucault, 1977). In this sense, discourse ‘can also refer to not only statements, but social or institutional practices through which the social production of meaning takes place or is embodied’

Discourse Analysis

59

(Zajda, 1988. p. 11). The idea of social construction of meaning is relevant to both epistemological and ontological dimensions of values and values education. Foucault developed his concept of discourse in his early work in the Archaeology of Knowledge (1969). Discourse in a philosophical sense is a form of questioning of the basic assumptions concerning knowledge, and how it is formed. Discourse, derived from critical theory, is fundamentally a form of critical and deconstructive reading and interpretation of a text. Rea Zajda (1988) was one of the first researchers to use discourse analysis in her work, in order to examine the construction of the self, gender and identity. She argued that ‘Discourse is concerned with the social production of meaning’. These meanings, she argued, can be ‘embodied in technical processes, in institutions, in patterns for general behaviour, in forms for transmission and diffusion and in pedagogical forms’ (Zajda, 1988, p. 11). In this sense, Rea Zajda (1988) argued that ‘it can also refer to not only statements, but social or institutional practices through which the social production of meaning takes place or is embodied’ (Zajda, 1988, p. 11). Using the notions of the social production of meaning and its transmission of patterns of general behaviour, we can have a better and more meaningful understanding and knowledge of how core values are formed, and shaped by dominant ideologies and the power of language, and how they are transmitted and internalized by individuals globally. Apart of being a core element of cultures, values have, depending on a country, social, moral, political, and religious aspects for defining cultural identity and desirable attitudes and behaviour. Rebecca Rogers (2011), in her edited book An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in Education, examined three major traditions in critical discourse studies—discourse analysis, critical discourse analysis, and multimodal discourse analysis. Like many other discourse analysis authors, such as Foucault, 1977; Fairclough, 1993; Wodak, 2008; Zajda, 1988 and others, Luo (2022) suggested that discourse analysis is concerned with analysing text, situated in the social context. Luo (2022) also proposed the following four ways of doing discourse analysis: . . . .

‘The purposes and effects of different types of language Cultural rules and conventions in communication How values, beliefs and assumptions are communicated How language use relates to its social, political and historical context’ (Luo, 2022).

Defining Discourse Analysis It is difficult to give a single definition of Critical or Discourse Analysis as a research method. Indeed, rather than providing a particular method, Discourse Analysis can be characterized as a way of approaching and thinking about a problem. Discourses, according to Sarup (1993) are best understood as ‘practices that systematically form the objects of which they speak’. The term discourse, as employed by Michel Foucault, involves an intertwining of ideas, themes, forms of knowledge and also positions held by individuals in relation to these. In this sense, Discourse Analysis is

60

4 Using Critical Discourse Analysis in Values Education

neither a qualitative nor a quantitative research method, but a manner of questioning the basic assumptions of quantitative and qualitative research method. In one sense, Discourse Analysis is a deconstructive reading and interpretation of a problem or text, while keeping in mind that poststructuralist/postmodern theories conceive of every interpretation of reality and, therefore, of reality itself as a text. Every text is conditioned and inscribes itself within a given discourse, thus the term Discourse Analysis.

Uses of Discourse Analysis Discourse Analysis can be applied to any text, that is, to any problem or situation. Since Discourse Analysis is basically an interpretative and deconstructing reading, there are no specific guidelines to follow. One could, however, make use of the theories of Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Julia Kristeva, or Fredric Jameson, as well as of other critical and postmodern thinkers. Discussions of discourse analysis can be found in Foucault’s books The Order of Things (1970), The Archaeology of Knowledge (1972), and Power/Knowledge (1980). I have used discourse analysis approach to study the power of language and ideology in prescribed history textbooks in the Russian Federation in 2015 (Zajda, 2017). Warriner & Anderson (2017) have evaluated the use of discourse analysis as a method of inquiry in educational research. Zajda & Whitehouse (2018) used discourse analysis to further historical understanding, and thinking of significant events, including the preferred way the Russian Revolution was represented in school history textbooks in the Russian Federation.

A Genealogy Approach to Discourse Analysis A genealogy approach to discourse analysis, as demonstrated by Foucault’s works, also attempted to debunk highly regarded ethical values of scientific knowledge by showing their historical contingency (Minson, 1985, p. 18). Genealogy as a form of critique attempts to reveal the multiplicity of factors behind an event. In short, language and the meaning-making process of de-construction or discourse analysis create their own objects/subject dichotomy and, as Jacques Derrida (1976) had demonstrated his mistrust of metaphysical language and produced a new poststructuralist theory of meaning. He argued that there is no fixed boundary between ‘signifiers’ (signs, symbols) and ‘signified’ (intended meanings). According to Derrida, who used Martin Heidegger’s notion of ‘under erasure’ (eg. the self), by crossing out the word, to stress that the word was inadequate but necessary, signs refer to what is absent, as ‘meaning’ is continually moving along on a ‘chain of signifiers’, and we cannot be precise about its exact ‘location’, because it is never tied up to one particular sign (Sarup, 1993, p. 33).

Discourse Analysis

61

A Deconstruction Approach in Discourse Analysis Discourse Analysis is a deconstructive reading and interpretation of a problem or text (the term was coined by Jacques Derrida). Discourse analysis has been taken up in a variety of social science disciplines, including art, media studies, sociology, history, social psychology, and education, and each of which is subject to its own assumptions, dimensions of analysis, and methodologies. Derrida was strongly influenced by Nietzsche, Freud and Heidegger. Like Heidegger, he adopted the technique of ‘sous rature’ (under erasure), which became an important tool of his deconstruction paradigm. In attempting to understand the many-layered language, Derrida turned to the study of the role of metaphors in the construction of the text or how these rhetorical and prosody devices shape our perception, knowledge, and judgements. The text, via language works by ‘means of transference from one kind of reality to another and is thus essentially metaphorical’ (Sarup, p. 47). What needs to be stressed here is that the rhetorical dimension of metaphor has also cultural and political implications, which also define the power relations—the power and politics of metaphor. The focus of discourse analysis is any form of written or spoken language, such as a conversation or a newspaper article. The main topic of interest is the underlying social structures, which may be assumed or played out within the conversation or text. It concerns the sorts of tools and strategies people use when engaged in communication, such as use of metaphors, choice of particular words to display affect, and so on. The investigator attempts to identify categories, themes, ideas, views, roles, and so on, within the text itself. The aim is to identify commonly shared discursive resources (shared patterns of talking). The investigator tries to answer questions such as how the discourse helps us understand the issue under study, how people construct their own version of an event, and how people use discourse to maintain or construct their own identity.

Deconstruction Metaphors in the text are nor simply prosodic devices, or figures of speech, they represent one of the preferred (and culturally and politically correct) ways in which a given discourse is situated and constructed—thus powerfully influencing how we perceive and decipher the preferred knowledge, which is already politically, socially and economically inscribed in what Bakhtin (1963) referred to it as the podtekst (sub-text). An influential post-structuralist philosopher, Foucault liked using his ‘geographic’ and spacial metaphors, such as domain, landscape, region, position, displacement, site and field. Marx, on the other hand, used a metaphor of a building, the base, and superstructure, whereas Goffman prefers a stage ‘performance’ metaphor, with actors, stage and players.

62

4 Using Critical Discourse Analysis in Values Education

Deciphering metaphors can also help us to understand the symbiotic (a biological metaphor) relationship between power, knowledge and stake-holders (an economic metaphor). It was Foucault who alerted us, in a post-structuralist sense, to the politics of the text and the knowledge-power connection. According to Foucault (1980, p. 68), ‘knowledge functions as a form of power’: Once knowledge can be analysed in terms of region, domain, implantation, displacement, transposition, one is able to capture the process by which knowledge function as a form of power and disseminates the effects of power.

Close-Reading One of the favourite metaphors used by deconstructionists is that of the palimpsest— reading the text resembles the X-raying of pictures, which reveals, under the surface, another hidden layer. Derrida’s method of ‘close-reading’ a ‘text’ reveals a set of binary opposition and a number of taken-for-granted assumptions that are found ‘inscribed’ within the text. As Sarup (1993, pp. 50–1) explains: In each of the pairs, private/public, masculine/feminine, rational/irrational, true/false, central/peripheral, etc, the first term is preferred.

Preferred Reading of the Text Some post-structuralist, including postmodernists suggested the use of the notion of multiple subjectivities, for a variety of readings of the texts. We would like to suggest that despite this, there exists a dominant or preferred reading of each text. This unmasks the existence of a ‘dominant ideology’ defining the text (Zajda, 2020b). Stuart Hall (1980) used the theory of hegemony, borrowed from the work of the Italian neo-Marxist Gramsci, as the basis of his arguments, that although there is a preferred reading of a text, it is decoded by the reader from different perspectives. His argument can be summarised in the following way. Texts transmit messages to consumers. This ‘labour process in the discursive mode’ does in some ways mirror other types of production in our society, but it differs because consumption can only have taken place if the meaning of the message is taken and then transmitted into social practices. If meaning is not transformed into social practices then it has had no effect. So unless messages which are encoded by the producers are not decoded by the audience with some degree of correspondence, then effective communication (intended messages are internalised) would not have taken place. Critical investigation of the past may become destabilising, rather than stabilising process of transformation, against the background of ‘culture wars’. The national and patriotic discourse of citizenship, as a result of a ‘problematic constituent of identity’, may be challenged and subverted by the mined ‘assemblage’ of faults and

Memory of the Past in History

63

heterogeneous layers. As such it may be ‘splintered into multiple and ever-changing narratives’. Texts certainly privilege a preferred reading, which draws that view of social life which is hegemonic or dominant. Stuart Hall (1980) argued that there is more than one position from which a subject may decode the discourse. He was influenced by the Gramscian notion of resistance, by the subordinate economic class, and by those who were manipulated, positioned and exploited by the power politics of the text. He also referred to the Russian Formalist Volosinov, who argued for the ‘polysemic nature of discourse’, or multiple meanings. Volosiniv (1929) saw the ‘sign’ (what is referred to as signifier, symbol, metaphor in contemporary media studies), as ‘multi-accentuated’, or open to different meanings and interpretations, when seened from different power and class-based subjective positions. In Volosinov’s theory, meaning is also negotiated through power and class-based social interaction, thereby reflecting the underlying reality of social-economic relations. Voloshinov argued that language should be seen as a particular kind of social interaction the forms of which derive from production conditions and socio-political order (see Laehteenmaeki, 2008).

Memory of the Past in History If we are to follow Nietzsche’s and Foucault’s notions of ‘heritage’ and ‘geneology’ of relevance to ‘truth in memory’ of the past we could argue that the function of ‘Kundera’s paradigm’ is to resist forgetting. The term was coined by Richard Esbenshade in 1995 to explain the relationship in Eastern Europe between the state that erases and the memory that resists—one of memory against forgetting. It referred to Milan Kundera’s paradigm (1981) sentence ‘The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting’ in his Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1981, p. 3). It is a vivid example of the ‘Kundera paradigm’, or the dichotomy between the State that erases, and the memory that resists. The use of ‘Kundera paradigm’ or any other critical paradigm in the use of memory needs to be critiqued, so that we question the very notion of social history of memory. Whenever memory work is involved we should be asking: why, by whom, where, in which context, against what, and for what purpose the reconstruction and rewriting of a specific history text is taking place? What is the ultimate agenda? Consequently, discourse analysis of historical narratives offers a theoretical framework through which researchers can critique the intersections of society and culture (in this case, history education, national and gender identity) by examining uses of language, ideology and power in social or socio-political dynamics. Using a discourse analysis approach in analysing historical knowledge and understanding, the textbook is defined through a particular way of writing about the past. In the analysis of discourse of national identity (DNI), we demonstrate how the RF is engaged today to construct the new national identity. As a result, the re-writing history process could become destabilising rather than stabilising. The politically correct ‘Grand Narrative’

64

4 Using Critical Discourse Analysis in Values Education

of nationalism and patriotism as a means of State’s control of the citizen’s historical memory can be subverted by plurality of endless and ideologically and culturally ever-changing narratives.

Discourse Analysis in Comparative Education Research Discourse analysis has been used effectively in comparative education research (Cowen & Kazamias, 2009; Klerides, 2010; Rust, 1991; Schriewer, 2010; Vavrus & Seghers, 2010; Warriner & Anderson, 2017; Whitehouse, 2018; Zajda, 2020a; Zajda, 2017). Rust (1991), who was at the time, one of the first comparative education researchers, to remind us of the relevance of post-structuralist paradigm in comparative education. By 2010, Schriewer suggested that the comparative study of the social and educational fabric of the modern world needs to re-consider the intellectual shaping, or discourse formation, of comparative education as a field of research. Vavrus and Seghers (2010) used critical discourse analysis in comparative education to evaluate the effectiveness of poverty reduction policies in Tanzania. On the other hand, Lundahl & Sotiria (2016) employed discourse analysis in comparative education approach in critiquing the rankings of the OECD PISA results in comparative education research.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Discourse Analysis DA, and its use of critical thinking, has provided a new theoretical perspective, by offering a different, and a more critical way of theorising the existing, and taken for granted nexus between language, knowledge and power, as found in the text. DA, derived from critical theory, was a different way of critical and deconstructive reading and interpretation of a text (Zajda, 1988). Foucault used discourses to study the modern self, reflecting subjectivity or individualism. Overall, discourse, as one of the few critical theoretical perspectives, is concerned with the social production of meaning. DA critiqued the neutrality of knowledge and ideology in language and text. Zajda (1988) also reminded us that the critical aspect of discourses challenged both the hierarchical structuring of authority of knowledge and the neutrality of knowledge (Zajda, 1988, p. 12). More recently, critical discourse has been used in comparative education research to study such topics as education policy and reforms in comparative research, cultural identity formation, and international comparisons and rankings of the OECD PISA results (Zajda, 2020a). The clear methodological advantage of using comparative education in discourse analysis is the focus on comparison, rather than a single unit. DA also critiques the nature of knowledge and a resultant ‘reification’ of life and existence in a given society. According to Berger and Luckmann (1966), ‘reification’ occurs when specifically human creations are misconceived as ‘facts of nature, results

The Role of Critical Discourse Analysis in Values Education

65

of cosmic laws, or manifestations of divine will’ (Berger & Luckmann, 1966, p. 89). Unlike Marx, who used the concept of reification in his Das Capital (1867/1996) to demonstrate that it was an inherent and necessary characteristic of economic value, I use ‘reification’ in a broader sense, covering power, domination and control. Reification, in this sense, also connects with Baudrillard’s (1994) idea of signification, where perceived key concepts and social, political and economic societal goals have no independent referent in any ‘reality’ except their own, which is subjective. One of the disadvantages of DA, as a paradigm, is the obvious lack of clear and acceptable definition of ‘discourse’ as a theoretical construct. As argued by Hogan (2013), there is no single definition and the term is employed differently by different theorists, representing a multitude of academic disciplines. The other disadvantage in the use of DA is the conceptual and theoretical complexity of discourse as a methodology. In my writings, I have used the idea of how dominant ideologies and values are depicted in the text, and how the use of language is coloured and influenced by its cultural, social, and political dimensions. Also, in my works I have used discourse analysis, critical discourse analysis, and, at times, multimodal discourse analysis, to demonstrate the role of multiple modes of communication in the meaning-making process. In my research, multimodal discourse analysis was particularly useful when examining critically such events as the October 1917 Russian Revolution, and World War 2, as well as the use of slogans, posters, and symbols, depicting these events. More importantly, and focusing on inequality debate, Monica Desrochers & Jessica Murray (2021), in ‘Applying critical discourse analysis in the classroom: A guide for educators’, examine various relevant approaches to CDA, to overcome inequality, oppression, and injustice in societies.

The Role of Critical Discourse Analysis in Values Education Discourse in a philosophical sense is a form of questioning of the basic assumptions of knowledge. Discourse, derived from critical theory, is fundamentally a form of critical and deconstructive reading and interpretation of a text. Critical discourse analysis in values and values education can be employed to examine how societies, by means of dominant ideologies and power define and form dominant values. Foucault (1967) used the role of discourses in wider social processes of legitimating power, and emphasizing the construction of totalising truths. Discourse analysis, as employed by Foucault, concentrated on analysing power relationships in society, as expressed through language and social practices. This process is particularly relevant to defining values. In examining the content and structure of values, we could analyse the language used to define and formulate core values. Values, as discussed in Chapter 2, can be defined as major principles governing rules and standards for socially desirable behaviour (Zajda, 2022a). Such values include freedom, democracy, equality, justice, truth, and human rights. Values also provide moral standards, by which actions are judged as right or wrong (Zajda,

66

4 Using Critical Discourse Analysis in Values Education

2018).Overall, values also refer to beliefs held by individuals or groups, concerning moral standards defining actions that are good or bad, and what is desirable and what is not desirable. Values are regarded as one of the most fundamental components, like ideology, of a group’s culture (Zajda, 2021). They generally represent the core of the ideological system, and provide individuals with values about their cultural identity, and which define and characterise the social group and its membership (Zajda & Majhanovich, 2020). The term values education refers to a multifaceted process of socialization in schools, which transmits dominant values, in order to provide and legitimate the necessary link between the individual, the group and society. One’s evolving cultural identity is shaped, to a certain degree, by acquired attitudes and values, in both societal and educational settings. Values education can be perceived as a structured process of instilling desirable aspects of moral education, ethical traits and standards. Values are culturally internalized, shared, and transmitted ideas about what is good or desirable. Values may refer to: a particular belief system—believing that pluralist democracy is the best model of social/political system; a code of conduct—being honest, tolerant and courageous; a state of existence—peace, tolerance and equality); or a moral judgment—truth, beauty, and justice (Zajda, 2021).

Global Meta-Models for Values Education The Western and non-Western models of values act as dominant agencies of socialization for values education, social identity, and nation-building (Daun, 2021). Westerninformed international policy documents provide value statements globally. Significant policy documents on values can be traced to The United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN, 1948), which was a policy statement of the inalienable rights and fundamental freedoms for all human beings. Using discourse, as a form of questioning of the basic assumptions of knowledge, and the role of power of the language, and dominant ideologies, we can have a better understanding and knowledge of the above policies on human rights. These policy documents are grounded in principles of democracy, freedom, equality, human rights, and social justice. The United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN, 1948), as noted above, was the first attempt to offer a globally significant policy statement on democracy, freedom and human rights. In analysing the language used in human rights policy documents we can refer to the palimpsest. As one of the favourite metaphors used by deconstructionists, the palimpsest is a reading of the text that resembles the X-raying of pictures, which reveals, under the surface, another hidden layer. Derrida’s method of ‘close-reading’ a text reveals a set number of taken-for-granted assumptions that are found inscribed within the text (Zajda, 2020). These assumptions include the notion that we share a consensus on the meanings, when discussing democracy.

Values Education in Schools

67

Values Education in Schools I want to suggest that one of the starting points of values education in schools is the implementation of inclusive schools policies. There are major policies in place, which include the 4 Anti discrimination Acts: Racial Discrimination Act 1975, Sex Discrimination Act 1984, Disability Discrimination Act 1992, Age Discrimination Act 2004. For instance, under the Equal Opportunity Act 2010, education providers are required to make changes, known as reasonable adjustments, to allow students with disability to participate in education on the same basis as other students. (Equal Opportunity and Human Rights—Students, Victoria (https://www2.education.vic.gov.au/pal/ equal-opportunity-human-rights-students/policy). Other relevant policies were designed to support schools to create safe and respectful school climates and address all forms of bullying, including cyberbullying: Building Respectful and Safe Schools 2010, The National Safe Schools Framework 2011. Anti-bullying guidelines were introduced into Victorian government schools in 2006, in order to provide advice to schools on strategies to prevent all forms of bullying. The purpose of this policy was to ‘support schools to create safe and respectful school climates and address all forms of bullying, including cyberbullying’. (https://www.goodschools.com.au/insights/education-updates/how-bullying-isbeing-eliminated-in-australian-schools). In 2010, the Victorian Government’s Building Respectful and Safe Schools was published as a resource for school communities to help create and maintain a ‘respectful and safe school environment’. The government reported that since the 2006 guidelines were introduced, there have been significant developments in the approaches taken by the schools, specifically those targeting the increasing use of digital technologies (Building Respectful and Safe Schools). The report identified bullying in schools as a ‘shared responsibility and urges teachers, parents and school leadership teams to get involved and provide support to affected students’ (https://www.goodschools.com.au/insights/education-updates/ how-bullying-is-being-eliminated-in-australian-schools). The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) launched the National Safe Schools Framework in 2011 with the belief that ‘all students should be able to learn and develop in safe and supportive environments’ (https://www.google.com/search?q=The+Department+of+Education%2C+ Employment+and+Workplace+Relations). This overarching framework placed an emphasis on ‘student wellbeing and child protection, as well as the need to respond to emerging technologies (such as social media and smartphones) and their effect on bullying in Australian schools. Each state and territory has its own

68

4 Using Critical Discourse Analysis in Values Education

anti-bullying policy’ (https://www.google.com/search?q=The+Department+of+Edu cation%2C+Employment+and+Workplace+Relations). As soon as school administrators, teachers, students and parents become familiar and informed with all relevant school policies, which promote equality of opportunity, inclusive schooling, and safe and supportive environments for all, the school can select an effective and relevant model of teaching values education.

Models of Values Education in Schools As I argued in my works (Zajda, 2018, Zajda, 2022a), one of the most significant role of values education globally, is to advance and implement relevant policies and curricula, which focus on preserving democracy, reducing all forms of discriminations, and overcoming inequality, and striving towards achieving peace and harmony in societies and educational settings. In this way we are meeting UNESCO’s, the UN, and the Council of Europe global commitment, as documented in their major policies, to address and achieve social justice and human rights for all. In my 2022 book Globalisation and education reforms: Overcoming discrimination (Springer), drawing on research findings concerning values education in schools, I was able to indentify at least nine popular approaches to values education in schools globally (see Zajda, 2022a, Chapter 6). I have added 3 more models for values education in schools: social constructivist pedagogy, critical discourse analysis, and global education perspective (see Zajda, 2022b, Chapter 2). Social constructivist pedagogy, as a model for values education, is possibly the most effective way of learning critically the values of democracy, equality, freedom and human rights in schools. This is achieved by the use of social constructivist pedagogy in collaborative groups in the classroom, where students discuss these constructs, as a meaning-making activity, and learning and sharing ideas, in an inclusive atmosphere. Critical discourse analysis model for values education focuses on current inequalities globally, discrimination, and discriminatory practices, and suggesting ways of reducing social stratification based on dimensions of race and ethnicity. On the other hand, global education, as a model of values education, offers a holistic and global knowledge and understanding of cultural diversity and dominant values. The model demonstrates, that, we as humans, have much more in common, than we realise, in terms of our needs, desires, beliefs and actions for the common good, and for freedom, peace and harmony. Some authors have argued that children’s literature can contribute to the development of better understating and knowledge of global awareness, well being and empathy (Furner, 2018; Lowe, 2018; Pulimeno et al., 2020; Zajda, 2014). For instance, children’s literature and storytelling could be helpful in ‘promoting students’ global development and wellbeing, when included in school curricular activities’ (Pulimeno et al., 2020). As I have also argued in my Chapter 2 of this book, individuals have the power, knowledge and skills to contribute significantly to changing and transforming our world, in which democracy, equality, freedom, social justice, tolerance, and care for

Using Critical Discourse Analysis in Values Education

69

the environment become the dominant social paradigm, for both local and global transformation and change. All these models of values education in schools globally, are useful, and are likely to be chosen by different pedagogues to reflect specific values needed for their needs, in order to instil a more meaningful understanding and knowledge of such core concepts as democracy, equality, freedom, and social justice for all. I strongly recommend beginning values education in schools, by using the UNESCO’s values perspective, as it addresses all that we value, namely our commitment to democracy, equality, cultural diversity, respect for human rights for all, and a sense of belonging. I also believe that the most effective strategy for teaching values education in schools successfully is social constructivist pedagogy, informed by critical thinking and critical literacy. Recent research findings demonstrate the effectiveness of social constructivist pedagogy on students’ evolving and changing identities, beliefs, attitudes and behaviour globally (Booth & Ainscow, 2000; Eredics, 2018; Council of Europe, 2020; OECD, 2019; Zajda, 2021). The use of constructivist pedagogy in schools promotes more meaningful learning and significantly improves academic performance (Adak, 2017; Zajda, 2018).

Using Critical Discourse Analysis in Values Education The Power of Language As argued earlier, discourse begins as a form of questioning of the basic assumptions concerning knowledge, and values and how they were constructed. In discussing values, we can use critical thinking, critical literacy and constructivism, including social constructivist pedagogy, involving learning and teaching process in collaborative groups. Since discourse is also grounded in the power of language, we need to focus on the use of language in values, and values education discourses. Throughout history there are numerous examples of the power of language. Elizabeth 1 made a rousing speech, at Tilbury, 8 August 1588, on the eve of the invasion by the Spanish Armada: Let tyrants fear, I have always so behaved myself that, under God, I have placed my chiefest strength and safeguard in the loyal hearts and good-will of my subjects; and therefore I am come amongst you, as you see, at this time, not for my recreation and disport, but being resolved, in the midst and heat of the battle, to live and die amongst you all; to lay down for my God, and for my kingdom, and my people, my honour and my blood, even in the dust. I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too.... (Queen Elizabeth I speech to the troops at Tilbury, 1588)

The above words convey the power of the language used by Elizabeth 1. The words are incredibly modern, and could be used even today, to convey a similar heroic message. Against overwhelming odds, the battle was won, and the mighty Spanish

70

4 Using Critical Discourse Analysis in Values Education

Armada, which was at the time, the most powerful in Europe, was defeated. Similarly, Winston Churchill in 1940 delivered some of his inspirational and powerful speeches in the Parliament, to keep Britain fighting against the Nazi Germany during WW2: I would say to the House, as I said to those who have joined this government: ‘I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat’. (House of Commons—13 May 1940) We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender. (House of Commons—4 June 1940) Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duty and so bear ourselves that if the British Commonwealth and Empire lasts for a thousand years men will still say, ‘this was their finest hour’. (House of Commons—18 June 1940) Never in the field of human conflict was so much been owed by so many to so few (House of Commons—20 August 1940).

His speeches had a profound moral, social, emotional and political effect on the British, and their values, in galvanizing them to unite and fight the Nazi Germany, when Britain was alone, and most countries of the Western Europe was already occupied by victorious Germany. His speech ‘Never in the field of human conflict…’ is very famous. Churchill was paying the nation’s tribute to the sacrifice made by the fighter pilots and bomber crews, during the battle of Britain, in order to establish air superiority over England, and winning the battle of Britain. In my publications dealing with the October 1917 revolution, I analysed various slogans and their power to unite the masses in their fight for democracy, equality and justice. Lenin and his Bolsheviks party used powerful and unifying slogans, such as ‘Peace, Bread, Land’, and ‘All Power to the Soviets’ (Zajda, 2017, 2020). These slogans projected an incredible social, economic, political and emotional power of the language, resulting in the overthrow of Kerenky’s Provisional Government, and the Bolsheviks coming to power. In France, by comparison, in 1789, the revolutionary slogan ‘Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité’ (liberty, equality, fraternity) was used to unite the impoverished masses. French Revolution, also called Revolution of 1789, was a revolutionary movement that completely and radically changed the political, social and economic structure of France between 1787 and 1799 and reached its climax in 1789. It denoted the end of the ancien régime in France, and resulted in the abolishing of the monarchy in 1792, with the execution of Louis XVI and his wife Marie Antoinette guillotine, at the Place de la Révolution, and most of the titled nobility, like counts and dukes.

The Role of Critical Discourse Analysis in Values Education In constructivism, especially in social constructivist pedagogy in the classroom, involving small cooperative and collaborative groups, the meaning-making process is normally employed by students to understand and decipher the meanings of such key concepts as democracy, freedom, inequality and social justice. Students, by using both

Conclusion

71

social constructivist pedagogy and critical thinking, focus on the use of language and its power to define and position specific concepts in particular ways. Critical discourse analysis (CDA) focuses on examining language, and power structures, in order to address exiting inequalities, injustice, exploitations, and rigid social and economic stratification (Zajda, 2022a). As argued earlier, CDA specifically examines the nexus of discourse practices, texts, within its social context (Fairclough, 1992; Luo, 2022; Widdowson, 2007). Students, using critical thinking and critical literacy skills, are capable of developing relevant understandings, knowledge and skills concerning the effects of language, ideologies, and dominant values on the structure and context of texts. They will be able to have a more meaningful knowledge of the nexus between language, and power, as defined and constructed by its cultural, social, and political context. As a result, they would be more informed and knowledgeable of the power of CDA in textual analysis. Above all, CDA can also be used with critical thinking and critical literacy tools for students and their resultant actions, in changing and transforming their environment. As such, CDA is particularly relevant for examining the role and the influence of values in different societies, within social, cultural, political, and religious beliefs spectrum. From a critical perspective, desirable values, internalised by individuals, meaningfully, have the power to call for the liberation of individuals from exploiting systems of dominance and oppression. Butzlaff (2022) examines critically the ways in which dominant discourses in liberal, post Marxist and postmodernist social theory have influenced and changed our knowledge and understandings of the term emancipation. Butzlaff (2022) focused on the following three conceptual ambiguities that have challenged these discourse and ‘restructured organisational imaginations of emancipation’, namely ‘who’, ‘to what end’ and ‘in which ways’: who might struggle for liberation, to what end and in which ways. In all three respects, understandings of emancipation have become increasingly individualised, contingent and process-oriented – both in theory and in its political-organisational correspondents. (Butzlaff, 2022)

In this emancipatory sense, desirable values education of democracy, equality and social justice can be re-examined further, for a deeper and more meaningful understanding and knowledge of existing social, economic and political inequalities, specifically in terms of unequal distribution of socially valued commodities, such as power, occupation, class, status and education. I have used these key concepts in my writings on social stratification, as five major dimensions of inequality.

Conclusion Discourse, as demonstrated above, is a type of methodology which is concerned with a deconstructive reading and critical interpretation of text, with reference to dominant themes, images, the power of language in shaping the self and identity, and ideologies. Foucault’s genealogy, as a form of discursive critique is used to

72

4 Using Critical Discourse Analysis in Values Education

analyse the power of knowledge and language. Foucault’s analysis of the uses of power and how disciplinary knowledge was created in our societies, and with what purpose, or effect, is particularly useful for critical discourse analysis in critiquing culture, organizations and ideology and their impact on producing knowledge and text. Foucault’s geneology, attempted to reveal the ‘singularity of events’, by turning away from the spectacular, in favour of discredited, and the neglected knowledge, which have been denied a history. Foucault’s intention was to challenge the centralising power of total or unitary theories and the institutions and practices to which they are linked. The critical aspect of discourses challenged the authority and neutrality of knowledge. As demonstrated above, researchers, employing discourse analysis attempted to identify and critique dominant themes and ideologies within the text itself. Consequently, discourse methodology can be used effectively and productively in cultural studies, text and language analysis, identity formation studies, especially in the media, educational research, comparative education, and elsewhere. As such, it is one of the most powerful critical research paradigms that can be used to critique the power of the language and inscribed dominant ideologies in the text, or hegemonies, which is not always addressed in other research methodologies, especially quantitave methodologies focusing on numerical data analysis. Discourse analysis specifically examines the power of the text, language and knowledge, in terms of reification. Individuals, located in certain moments of historical events, are either unable to understand critically social and economic conditions defining their lives, or perceive them uncritically, and accepting them as a given, various organisational constrains affecting their work, livers, destinies and equality (Zajda, 2020b). Using critical discourse analysis in examining values education, in order to develop and construct a better knowledge and understanding of its critical role in deepening our knowledge of values education in schools and societies may result in effective implementation in quality education, as demonstrated above. In critiquing values education, both locally and globally, I have suggested the use of discourse analysis, together with critical literacy, cognitive and social constructivist pedagogies, as a form of analysing the basic assumptions concerning knowledge, power, and dominant ideologies. I have also argued that the most significant goal in social justice and human rights discourses, which tend to focus on promoting universally desirable values of democracy, equality and freedom, is to advance and implement relevant policies and curricula in schools globally. These policies in schools have to focus on preserving our ideals of democracy, cultural diversity, equality, and reducing all forms of discriminations and inequality in all spheres of life. I have argued that we need to offer more meaningful, relevant and engaging approaches for teaching and learning core values of pluralist democracy, equality, freedom, social justice and human rights in the classroom. Our ultimate goal should be to achieve peace and harmony everywhere.

Chapter 5

Active Citizenship Education

Teaching Active and Informed Citizenship Education in Schools: Introduction The forces of globalisation have affected many societies in terms of their traditional image as healthy and robust multicultural nations. The challenge of balancing the diverse sets of values and ideals inherent within pluralistic democracies remains more real than ever before. In many countries around the world, our approaches to active citizenship education, in attempting to ‘reconstruct’ our new global and national identity, are based on advancing the continuing and genuine celebration of diversity and difference, of multicultural citizenship, and of global citizenship. All societies have a continuing interest in the ways in which their young people are prepared for citizenship and learn to take part in public affairs. In the 1990’s this became a matter of increased importance in societies striving to establish or re-establish democratic government, but also in societies with continuous and long established democratic traditions. The question of what active and effective citizenship means and the role of formal education in building a civic culture are of importance not only to governments and policy makers, but also to the public in general. How much knowledge do young people have, or indeed need, in order to understand democracy and citizenship? And what are their basic attitudes towards political issues in contemporary society such as tolerance for minorities or support for human rights, and participatory democracy? In addition to developing students’ literacy and numeracy skills, schools need to consider the civic mission of education. Schools can foster, according to Torney-Putra (2002) ‘civic knowledge and engagement when they teach fundamental democratic principles, respect students’ opinions, discuss issues about which people have different opinions, and make the importance of elections and voting an explicit curricular theme’ (Torney-Putra, 2002). In the USA, citizenship education is popularly known as civics. Civic education is a complex enterprise involving a variety of cognitive, conceptual and attitudinal strands, each of which is important and can be independently evaluated. There also is © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 J. Zajda, Discourses of Globalisation, Cultural Diversity and Values Education, Globalisation, Comparative Education and Policy Research 34, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-22852-0_5

73

74

5 Active Citizenship Education

abundant evidence that young children and early adolescents are learning powerful lessons throughout the day in extra or co-curricular activities, as well as in informal gatherings with their peers. Young peoples’ civic dispositions are being shaped as they encounter their country’s civic traditions, adult political culture, the media, and contemporary events. Young people also are affected by their everyday experiences with power and authority, with rules and laws, and with diversity in its many forms (Torney-Purta, 2002; Zajda, 2022a). Those attitude-forming experiences need to be discussed and reflected upon under the guidance of qualified civic educators. Research shows that young people not only need but want opportunities to interact with knowledgeable and caring adults who will help them understand society and their role in it (Niemi & Junn, 1998; Saha, 2000; Zajda, 2021). In the age of globalisation of fragmented communities, rapid social and economic change, concerns about national security, race, ethnicity, and achievement gaps among schools, how can schools nurture students’ respect for law, human rights and their participation in politics and civil society? This chapter deals with one of the most morally and politically significant issues—the current role and status of citizenship education in schools and ways of facilitating civic knowledge and engagement with fundamental democratic principles such as respect of other students’ opinions, discussion of issues about which people have very different opinions, and make the importance of elections and voting an explicit curricular theme.

The Origins and Definitions of Citizenship Education Saha (2006) informed us that discussions of citizenship can be found in the writings of Ancient Greek philosophers, namely Plato and Aristotle. Plato was ‘concerned about the idea of about the free democracy’ (Saha, 2006, p. 2). Plato in Protagoras (cited in Saha, 2006, pp. 45–46). Plato believed that justice was one of the key virtues for all the citizens. Aristotle, in his Politics, (350 B.C.E.), argued that a true citizen was one who shared in ‘the administration of justice’ (Saha, 2006, p. 2). Immanuel Kant, one of the leading philosophers in the eighteenth century, in his work The Science of Right, (1790), while distinguishing between ‘active’ and ‘passive’ citizenship, argued that there were three fundamental characteristics necessary for one to be a citizen: constitutional freedom, civil equality and political independence (Saha, 2006, p. 2). Gilbert (1996), in defining citizenship education, pointed out that that ‘Some definitions emphasise the nation state as an entity to which people should give allegiance and loyalty. Other definitions emphasise individual rights or a sense of shared loyalty. Others focus on citizen participation in government’. Consequently, Gilbert offered his four major perspectives of citizenship: . . . .

‘a status implying formal rights and duties; an identity and a set of moral and social virtues based on the democratic ideal; a public practice conducted through legal and political processes; participation in decision making in all aspects of life’ (Gilbert, 1996, p. 108).

Globalisation and Civics Education

75

Hébert & Sears (2001) specifically defined citizenship education as one of preparing ‘individuals to participate as active and responsible citizens in a democracy’ (Hébert & Sears, 2001, p. 1). Kerr (1999), on the other hand, defined citizenship in terms of preparation of individuals for ‘their roles and responsibilities as citizens’: Citizenship or civics education is construed to encompass the preparation of young people for their roles and responsibilities as citizens and, in particular, the role of education (through schooling, teaching and learning) in that preparatory process. (Kerr, 2000, p. 2)

Saha (2006), one of the most prolific researches on citizenship education lobally, in his ‘Education for active citizenship: Prospects and issues’, argues that active citizenship refers to. ...formal knowledge about the political system, voting in elections, and participating in community voluntary associations... the preparation for citizenship in a demographic context means that young people are prepared to make independent decisions regarding the social and political future....(Saha, 2006, p. 4)

Globalisation and Civics Education Review and rethinking of approaches to teaching civics education, was underway in well-developed and longstanding democracies, including USA, Canada, England, and the Netherlands (Torney-Purta et al., 2001). These case studies clearly demonstrate that there is a universal or near universal commitment to certain goals or themes. There exists an agreement in these countries, according to Margaret Branson (1999) that civic education should be: . . . . . . .

‘cross disciplinary participative interactive related to life conducted in a non-authoritarian environment cognizant of the challenges of social diversity, and co-constructed with parents and the community (including NGOs)’.

Branson (1999), in her report on citizenship education, argued that we need to teach citizenship education in schools to preserve our ideals of democracy: We must remember, however, that if we want to sustain constitutional democracy, civic education is essential. The habits of the mind, as well as “habits of the heart,” those dispositions that inform the democratic ethos, are not inherited... There is no more important task than the development of an informed, effective, and responsible citizenry. Democracies are sustained by citizens who have the requisite knowledge, skills, and dispositions. (Branson, 1999)

Branson (1999), in justifying the need for teaching citizenship education, argued that ‘We want a society and a government in which human rights are respected, the individual’s dignity and worth are acknowledged, the rule of law is observed, people

76

5 Active Citizenship Education

willingly fulfil their responsibilities, and the common good is the concern of all’. (Branson, 1999). There has not been enough research on the impact of civic education on students globally. Yet, the growing concern about the future of Australian democracy has helped propel the issue of developing good and active citizens back onto the education agenda. An Australian study discovered that although our society is keen to be informed about civics-related issues and to participate in civic life, it is ‘strikingly limited in its understanding of the current political, economic, social and cultural contexts of that life’ (O’Brien & Parry, 2002). It confirms the earlier findings of the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), a consortium of educational research institutes in 53 countries, that despite extensive efforts, there has not been universal success in any country in achieving the espoused goals of effective civics education for all students, and that the understanding of democratic values and institutions is ‘often superficial’ (Tourney-Purta et al., 1999). In the United States, the recent National Assessment of Educational Progress in Civics revealed that only 25% of students are proficient in their subject called Civics. In this respect, USA has much in common with the other countries including Australia. One can argue that one of the reasons that no country has succeeded in realizing the goals of civic education is that it is given insufficient attention within the curriculum, and few funds are directed to in depth classroom based research, despite the rhetoric and official pronouncements about the need for schools to produce ‘good citizens’ (Johnson, 1999; Zajda, 2021). The IEA (1999) study concluded that civic education is ‘a low-status subject’. Among the key findings of the American ‘New Millennium Project’ (1999) were these: . ‘Young people today lack interest, trust, and knowledge about American politics, politicians, and public life generally.’ . ‘Young Americans have only a limited, vague understanding of what it means to be a citizen in a democratic society.’ Educators throughout the world increasingly focus their programs upon the development of civic knowledge, civic skills, civic virtues (Quigley, 2000) and civic action, which can be defined as follows: ‘Civic knowledge consists of fundamental ideas and information that learners must know and use to become effective and responsible citizens of a democracy (including knowledge about political and economic institutions and global issues; also about the community and local institutions, as well as social, cognitive, emotional and moral capacities of cooperation, perspective-taking and empathy, interpreting text and media, communication). Civic skills include the intellectual skills needed to understand, explain, compare, and evaluate principles and practices of government and citizenship. They also include participatory skills that enable citizens to monitor and influence public policies. Civic virtues include the traits of character, dispositions, and commitments necessary for the preservation and improvement of democratic governance and citizenship. Examples of civic virtues are respect for the worth and dignity of each person,

Globalisation and Civics Education

77

civility, integrity, self-discipline, tolerance, compassion, and patriotism. Commitments include a dedication to human rights, the common good, equality, and a rule of law. Desired attitudes would include collective identifications, engagement, support for legitimate authority, tolerance for constructive dissent, and positive attitudes toward ethnic and immigrant groups. Civic action at the level of peer groups (face-to-face), in the community, in behavior directed at toward national government policy or global issues (in relation to public, market and private spheres as well as the state sphere)’ (Quigley, 2000). We can analyse the conceptualization of civic education in terms of the above four interrelated components. Students need to exhibit their informed knowledge of civic content, their skills in interpreting civic information, their understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of democracy, their concepts of the role of citizens, their attitudes toward democratic institutions and individual rights, and whether they intended to become involved in civic activities, more than just voting, when they became adults. Citizenship education was defined by the Council of Europe (2017a) policy document Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education, as one that empowers individuals to ‘exercise and defend their democratic rights and responsibilities in society, to value diversity and to play an active part in democratic life, with a view to the promotion and protection of democracy and the rule of law’ (Council of Europe, 2017a). This policy document captures the essence of citizenship education, namely for individuals being knowledgeable of key concepts of democracy, freedom, equality, human rights, and cultural diversity. Furthermore, according to the Council of Europe (2017a), there exists the nexus between citizenship education and human rights: Education for democratic citizenship focuses primarily on democratic rights and responsibilities and active participation, in relation to the civic, political, social, economic, legal and cultural spheres of society, while human rights education is concerned with the broader spectrum of human rights and fundamental freedoms in every aspect of people’s lives. (Council of Europe, 2017b)

As the above Fig. 5.1 of the Council of Europe’s 20 competences for democratic culture, demonstrates, the four main concepts relevant to citizenship education include values, knowledge, attitudes and relevant skills: . ‘Common values, or normative consensus and individual interests . Knowledge and critical understanding of political, social and economic, and responsibilities of citizens . Attitudes, in terms of accepting cultural diversity . Skills, based on the use of critical thinking and critical literacy, which contribute to developing empathy’ (Council of Europe, 2017b). In Council of Europe (2017b) policy document Citizenship education at school in Europe offers many relevant points concerning citizenship competence, critical thinking, acting in a socially responsible manner, learning how to co-operate and the

78

5 Active Citizenship Education

Fig. 5.1 The Council of Europe’s 20 competences for democratic culture (Source Council of Europe, 2017, p. 11)

promotion of a national identity. Critical thinking was regarded to be important in citizenship education: ‘thinking critically’ features more often in the curricula of secondary education. ’Exercising judgement’ is by far the most common competence...with ’thinking critically’ and ’reasoning and analysis skills’ ’media literacy’ following some way behind. (Council of Europe, 2017b, p. 54, p. 57)

Acting in a socially responsible manner, is another competence mentioned in the Council of Europe (2017b): Another indication that education authorities treat personal responsibility as an important citizenship competence is the fact that it features in the curricula at all school education... there are 35 countries that mention responsibility in their curriculum levels... Learning how to cooperate with others, in school and beyond, is clearly another priority that many curricula across Europe have in common. ’Cooperation’ is the third most common competence. (Council of Europe, 2017b, p. 56)

Citizenship education has been linked with the promotion of a national identity: The analysis of the most recent curricula on citizenship education reveals that although strengthening students’ sense of patriotism and national identity is still present, it is not

Informed Citizenship Education

79

ubiquitous. At most, 27 out of 42 European education systems refer to the advancement of a sense of belonging (including belonging to a national community)... the fact that modern citizenship education curricula in many countries promote competences related to pluralism and respect for other cultures, probably reflects the fact that Europe has become more diverse and multi-cultural. (Council of Europe, 2017b, p. 67)

As above demonstrates, Council of Europe (2017b) policy document, Citizenship education at school in Europe, provides relevant points on specific competencies and skills, based on critical thinking, personal responsibly, empathy, and cultural identities.

Informed Citizenship Education In general, informed citizenship education is associated with promoting the ideals of pluralist democracy, freedom, equality and social justice, when students learn their cultural identities, civic duties, rights and responsibilities, in order to engage in informed dialogue of citizenship education discourses, and emerging issues confronting democracies in establishing and maintaining peace and harmony. However, with the existence of so many culturally diverse nations, together with equally diverse ideologies and dominant values and religions, there is a need to rethink the pedagogical approaches for relevant and effective citizenship education, in order to promote an engaging and inclusive environment in the classroom for learning the values of active citizenship education. We need to remind ourselves of the power of forces of globalisation affecting individuals globally, in terms of their cultural identities, beliefs, ideologies, and values, defining and shaping their knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, and behaviour. There is no doubt that the mass media have substantially increased their power and ubiquity to shape, change and manipulate attitudes, values and behaviour of people, both locally and globally. This was already noted earlier by Marshal McLuhan (1967), in his classic book, The Medium is the Message. At the same time, CNN, MTV and the Internet have created an ‘incipient world-wide culture with great potential impact on attitudes and behaviour’ (Torney-Purta, 1999, p. 14). Already in the 1990s, research findings indicated that during the last two decades, there was a visible weakening of a sense of cohesion, and a sense of belonging to the civic culture, which was noticed in many societies (Tourney-Purta et al., 1999). According to Tourney-Purta et al. (1999): The personal commitment by individuals to shared identities that transcend ethnic, linguistic or other group affiliation and which contribute to social cohesion has weakened in many areas of the world. (Tourney-Purta et al., 1999, p. 14)

The Civic Education Study conducted during the 1990s by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), a consortium of educational research institutes in 53 countries with headquarters in Amsterdam, examined how students were prepared for ‘their roles as citizens in democracies’:

80

5 Active Citizenship Education The goal of the IEA study is to ‘examine…ways in which young people are prepared for their roles as citizens in democracies and societies aspiring to be democracies’. (Tourney-Purta et al., 1999)

In another study, Tourney-Purta et al. (2001) collected relevant and crucial documentary evidence in some 28 countries, on processes of civic education, and emerging issues, in response to a common set of framing questions. They also solicited the views of experts on what 14-year-olds should know about a variety of civic and political and issues. The researchers adapted Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological model for IEA Civics Education, called the ‘octagon’ model, which explained the major shapers, or agencies of socialization, defining cultural identities, values and behaviour. The model has eight dimensions, including institutions, processes and values in domains such as politics, economics, education and religion. The inner core includes the socialising influences of the family, the school, peer group, and neighbours. It was used to explain how 14-year-olds were shaped by major agencies of socialization, and how they acquired resultant values, attitudes and knowledge, with reference to citizenship and democracy. Subsequently, research findings by Tourney-Purta et al. (2001) were validated more recently, when the NAEP Civics Assessment (2018) demonstrated that only 25% of U.S. students reach the ‘proficient’ standard on the NAEP Civics Assessment. Factual textbook learning was not followed by engagement and relevant actions: ...factual book learning is not reinforced with experience-based learning opportunities like community service, guided debates, critical discussion of current events, and simulations of democratic processes. (Theobald, 2020)

In addition, the results provided by the NAEP Civics Assessment (2018), showed that ‘many students are struggling to understand and explain the importance of civic participation, how American government functions and the historical significance of events’ (National Assessment of Educational Progress report card: Civics, 2018).

Citizenship Education: Essential Characteristics and Qualities of Citizenship Education We can distinguish at least 5 different, yet complimentary dimensions, in citizenship education, which capture its essential knowledge, values, skills and action: 1) Critical Thinking and Problem Solving The use of critical thinking concerning the global issues is imperative, as problem solving is an important twenty-first century skill in addressing significant issues the world faces today. 2) Community and Collaboration Social media has already given us the opportunity to engage the world, and to experience a global citizenship education to varying degrees. An authentic and engaging

Citizenship Education: Essential Characteristics and Qualities …

81

global citizen may be able to use this sense of community to improve the world around them. 3) Technology Skills In the twenty-first century, technology is ubiquitous and we are surrounded by information—it’s at our fingertips 24/7, yet we must be able to use effectively, in order to promote desirable global change in values and attitudes concerning inequality, discriminations, poverty and sustainability. 4) Adaptability The ability to adapt to changing environment and circumstances and deal with new challenges and obstacles is both essential and invaluable. 5) Cross-Cultural Awareness Learning how to communicate with people from different cultures can be challenging, but it’s also necessary, in order to develop our understanding of cultural diversity, tolerance, peace and empathy. Global citizens are likely to possess crosscultural skills, which enable them to develop a better and deeper knowledge and understanding of different values, languages, religions and customs. Furthermore, global citizenship, according to Oxfam (2020), involves such topics as: 1. ‘Exploring local and global connections and our views, values and assumptions 2. Exploring issues of social justice locally and globally 3. Exploring the complexity of global issues and engaging with multiple perspectives 4. Applying learning to real-world issues and contexts 5. Opportunities to make informed, reflective action and be heard’ (What is global citizenship, 2020. Retrieved from https://www.oxfam.org.uk/education/who-weare/what-is-global-citizenship/) In short, Oxfam’s (2020) global citizenship policy document refers to the need to examine critically our values, beliefs, social justice and human rights, and the process of engaging in authentic learning of current global issues concerning global citizenship education. Oxfam’s (2020) global citizenship document is similar to the UNESCO (2021), UNESCO (2017), and the Council of Europe (2017) defining policy documents in the area of global citizenship education.

82

5 Active Citizenship Education

Global Trends in Citizenship and Civic Education for Democracy in Schools Global Trends in Citizenship and Civic Education In addition to noting the emergence of international networks and the cooperation among individual working in the field of citizenship education, I would like to comment upon curricular trends that appear to be global. One such global civic education program was developed by John Patrick (1997). According to Patrick (1997), civic knowledge ‘consists of fundamental ideas and information that learners must know and use to become effective and responsible citizens in a democratic society’, civic skills include ‘the intellectual skills needed to understand, explain, compare, and evaluate principles and practices of government and citizenship’, and civic virtues include ‘the traits of character, dispositions, and commitments necessary for the preservation and improvement of democratic governance and citizenship’. Examples of civic virtues include ‘respect for the worth and dignity of each person, civility, integrity, self-discipline, tolerance, compassion, and patriotism. Commitments include a dedication to human rights, the common good, equality, and a rule of law’ (Patrick, 1997). He had identified nine different trends that ‘have broad potential for influencing civic education in the constitutional democracies of the world’: Trend 1: Conceptualization of civic education in terms of three interrelated components. These are: . civic knowledge . civic skills . civic virtues. Trend 2: Systematic teaching of fundamental ideas or core concepts. Patrick (1997) believed that ‘civic educators are systematically teaching concepts of democratic governance and citizenship, such as popular sovereignty, individual rights, the common good, authority, justice, freedom, constitutionalism and rule of law, and representative democracy’. Research by Tourney-Purta et al. (1999), Saha (2006), and others suggested that there existed significant gaps in students’ general knowledge concerning democracy and active citizenship. While some civic pedagogues were attempting to teach the notion of citizenship, they were not necessarily successful. Saha (2006) questioned the existence of objective knowledge, concerning democracy and citizenship, necessary for meaningful understanding of ‘the rights and obligations of citizenship’ in schools (Saha, 2006, p. 8). Trends 3 to 9, addressed analysis of case studies, development of decision-making skills, comparative and international analysis of government and citizenship, development of participatory skills and civic virtues through cooperative learning activities, the use of literature to teach civic virtues, active learning of civic knowledge, skills, and virtues, and the conjoining of content and process in teaching and learning

Global Trends in Citizenship and Civic Education for Democracy …

83

of civic knowledge, skills, and virtues. All these trends for teaching citizenship education in schools, were characterised by conceptual diversity, and are informative and relevant for implementing citizenship education in schools. The above trends for teaching citizenship education programs were very informative and pragmatic at the time, as they offered diversity and variety of relevant pedagogical programs for teaching citizenship and democracy in schools. At that time, there existed a weakening of the students’ knowledge and skills of the civic culture, due to ineffective learning and teaching programs for citizenship education in schools (Tourney-Purta et al., 1999; Saha, 2006; Zajda etal., 2009). I wish to add Global Citizenship Education (GCED) as an additional innovative citizenship education program, as detailed below:

Global Citizenship Education Global Citizenship Education (GCED) policy program, developed by UNESCO (2017), aims at empowering all learners to ‘assume active roles, both locally and globally, in building more peaceful, tolerant, inclusive and secure societies’ (UNESCO, 2017). Consequently, GCED is based on the three domains of learning: cognitive, socio-emotional and behavioural: . ‘Cognitive: knowledge and thinking skills necessary to better understand the world and its complexities. . Socio-emotional: values, attitudes and social skills that enable learners to develop affectively, psychosocially, and physically and to enable them to live together with others respectfully and peacefully . Behavioural: conduct, performance, practical application and engagement’ (UNESCO, 2017). In addition, global citizenship for teaching citizenship and democracy in schools was analysed and discussed by Rapoport, 2009; Saha, 2006 and UNESCO, 2021. Global Citizenship Education (GCED) is UNESCO’s policy response to human rights violations, inequality and poverty, which continue to threaten peace and sustainability. The goal is to enhance the creation of a ‘more peaceful, tolerant, inclusive, secure and sustainable societies’ (UNESCO, 2021). GCED is, apparently, a strategic area of UNESCO’s Education Sector programme and builds on the work of Peace and Human Rights Education. Its goal is to transmit the values, attitudes and behaviours that support ‘responsible global citizenship: creativity, innovation, and commitment to peace, human rights and sustainable development’ (UNESCO, 2021). UNESCO’s Global Citizenship Education (GCED) was responding to conceptual and ideological controversies surrounding citizenship education in schools during the last two decades. The dichotomy between the traditional model of national citizenship education and the discourse of global citizenship had to be resolved and the solution was to offer global citizenship perspective. UNESCO’s work in this field is guided by the Education 2030 Agenda and Framework for Action, notably Target

84

5 Active Citizenship Education

4.7 of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 4 on Education), which calls on countries to promote global citizenship and the culture of peace, within sustainable development: to ensure that all learners are provided with the knowledge and skills to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and nonviolence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development’. (UNESCO, 2017)

Set in a larger commitment to promote inclusive and equitable quality education, UNESCO’s strategy to GCED in schools provided intersecting dimensions of global citizenship education, which focused on holistic, transformative, contextualized and value-based perspectives: . ‘Holistic: addressing learning content and outcomes, pedagogy and the learning environment in formal, non-formal and informal learning settings . Transformative: seeking to enable learners to transform themselves and society . Contextualized: adapted to local needs and cultural realities . Value based: promoting universally shared values such as non-discrimination, equality, respect and dialogue’ (UNESCO, 2017) Saha (2006) also argued that citizenship education is a form of ‘political empowerment which enables the individual to participate independently and intelligently in public debate and civic activity’ (p. 8). Rapoport (2009), on the other hand, in ‘A forgotten concept: Global citizenship education and state social studies’, analysed various ways of expanding students’ vision of the role of citizenship in developing a democratic understanding by adopting ‘multiple perspectives on citizenship’: Global citizenship education is becoming an important component in citizenship education in many countries. However, unlike their colleagues in Europe or Asia, US teachers are still less enthusiastic about incorporating global citizenship perspectives into their instruction...describes the obstacles that prevent social studies teachers from using global citizenship perspectives. It also explores whether state academic standards in social studies provide sufficient curricular guidance. (Rapoport, 2009)

Rapoport (2018) in his co-edited book, Competing Frameworks: Global and National in Citizenship Education, examines further the epistemological issues of theorizing citizenship education research in non-Western societies that have embarked on democratic development after the fall of authoritarianism and colonialism: Despite a proliferation of studies on citizenship and citizenship education in non-Western contexts, there has been limited theorization of this research and little discussion of the applicability to such contexts of Western theoretical frameworks. ..The contributors... call into question the uncritical application of Western theoretical frameworks to non-Western societies and advocate for the development and wider application of new paradigms rooted in local processes and indigenous knowledge to better understand and theorize citizenship and citizenship education in such societies. (Rapoport, 2018)

Global Trends in Citizenship and Civic Education for Democracy …

85

Veugelers (2009), in ‘Active student participation and citizenship education’, examined. citizenship education and active student participation in both schools and in out-of school learning activities: ... students’ own lessons, their own school, their own community, but also society beyond the school. The study shows that in particular participation in one’s own lessons and in society outside one’s own community is often disregarded by teachers when they consider citizenship education (Veugelers, 2009, p. 55)

Veugelers (2009) argued that for citizenship education to be effective, and authenitic, it had to involve students’ relevant activities in their society. To demonstrate his multi-level concept of citizenship education, Veugelers (2015), in his ‘Citizenship education and active student participation: The Netherlands’, examined in greater detail relevant activities for active student participation in citizenship education, and suggested three types of citizenship education: 1. ‘Active citizen 2. The individualistic citizen 3. The critical-democratic citizen’ (Veugelers, 2015). Active citizenship, as Veugelers (2015), explains, involves an ‘active contribution to society’: ...each individual makes an active contribution to society, in many domains and on many different levels. This active form of citizenship development can be conceptualised as an active, dialogical and participative way of learning as advocated in theories about meaningful social cultural learning in educational psychology. (Veugelers, 2015)

According to Veugelers (2015), both the individualistic citizen and the criticaldemocratic citizen are two variants of active citizenship: The individualistic citizen does this from a calculating perspective, and the criticaldemocratic citizen more from a social involvement perspective... The critical-democratic type of citizenship ...requires an active, dynamic, dialogical and reflective vision of education. (Veugelers, 2015)

Veugelers (2015) provided a multi-level concept of citizenship education, relevant to boththe schools and society. His emphasis on students’ dialogical and actionoriented learning in their society was an authentic model of citizenship education, which encouraged students to take action on the issues affecting their life and well being.

Digital Citizens Digital citizenship education is another area of citizenship education in schools. The importance of digital citizenship education for digital citizenship is stressed by both the OECD and the Council of Europe (CoE):

86

5 Active Citizenship Education The CoE defines digital citizenship as ‘the ability to engage positively, critically and competently in the digital environment, drawing on the skills of effective communication and creation, to practice forms of social participation that are respectful of human rights and dignity through the responsible use of technology’. (Council of Europe, 2021)

In the OECD (2019) policy document, dealing with children and digital literacy, ‘21st Century Children as Digital Citizens’, it is suggested that children, in the age of ICTs, need to develop their digital literacy skills, to ensure that they are engaging with ITCs in a safe and effective way. Accordingly, effective engagement with digital technology includes access and use: Access: the majority of children in OECD countries have home Internet access and the array of digital tools at their fingertips is unprecedented Use: Despite widespread access, there is a gap in the use of digital technology and corresponding skills, especially between advantaged and disadvantaged children. This gap is widening. (OECD, 2019)

OECD (2019) suggested that in order for children to use digital technology effectively and in an informed manner, they need to develop, among other things, digital literacy skills, social and emotional literacy and skills and become empowering digital citizens. In using digital technology meaningfully and safely, children also need to learn and enhance their social and emotional knowledge and skills: Social and emotional skills play a role in: addressing and preventing emotional well-being challenges, fostering positive child development, enhancing social interactions and making friends, building resilience in real world and digital environment. Key to promoting child well-being and pro-social development, social-emotional skills also form the foundation for digital citizenship and understanding/engaging in positive digital behaviours. Bolstering both sets of skills can foster inclusion for all children in digital and real world environments. (OECD, 2019)

With reference to empowering individuals to become empowering digital citizens, they need to engage, and act in a positive and responsible manner: Empowering an active and ethical digital generation means equipping children to actively, positively and responsibly engage in society, whether this takes place on or offline. Digital citizenship can be understood as norms of behaviour regarding the use of digital technologies. Digital citizenship involves: competent and positive engagement with digital technology (access and skills) active and responsible participation (empowerment and etiquette). (OECD, 2019)

OECD (2019) also noticed different pedagogical approaches in different countries in developing relevant citizenship education in schools, ranging from addressing emotional well-being challenges, navigating digital environments in an ethical and responsible way, to cyberbullying and threats to security and privacy (OECD, 2019). The above conceptualization of citizenship education in schools draws on fundamental principles of democracy, freedom, equality, human rights and social justice. At the same time, it reflects the global trend in the UNESCO’s, United Nations and the Council of Europe policies, advocating the teaching of human rights and social justice for all. Overall, relevant school policies, academic content and strategies for the teaching/learning process, including civic knowledge, virtues, and skills, need to

What Are Common Strengths and Weaknesses in Civic Education?

87

be taught, mastered, and learned, in order to develop individuals with the required knowledge of cultural diversity and relevant skills of critical thinking and critical literacy.

What Are Common Strengths and Weaknesses in Civic Education? Some of the findings from the most extensive international study of movements in civic education in the world by Tourney-Purta et al. (1999), indicated that there is a ‘common core of topics across countries in civic education’ and that there existed a consensus ‘among authors of the national case studies that civic education should be’: . . . . . . . .

‘based on important content that crosses disciplines participative interactive related to life conducted in a non-authoritarian environment cognizant of the challenges of social diversity, and constructed with the parents, the community, and non-governmental organizations constructed within the school’ (Tourney-Purta et al.,1999).

The authors also noted that, ‘Despite extensive efforts, there has not been universal success in any country in…achieving these goals for all students.’ This statement is also applicable to Australia, and other nations. Similarly, in the United States, National Assessment of Educational Progress in Civics (2018) revealed that only a small number of the students were competent in the subject. In this respect, Australian students have much in common with the other countries participating in the IEA study. The IEA study also identified a number of factors that affect the effective implementation of sound programs in civic education in the countries studied. They may sound familiar to many pedagogues teaching civics in schools globally. These included: . ‘Resistance from the older generation, including teachers who continue beliefs and practices of authoritarian political cultures or sub-cultures. . Slowness of institutional change in schools not only when content is changed, but also when new pedagogical methods are introduced. . Dealing with diversity and the gap between ideas and reality’. (National Assessment of Educational Progress in Civics, 2018). Effective and empowering civic education requires excellent knowledge, content and skills, taught with engaging, motivational, and interactive methodologies. To focus on either content or methodology alone is simply inadequate. I have also found it common both in Australia and in other countries, when teachers, who, at

88

5 Active Citizenship Education

times, do not possess adequate content knowledge, tend to stress interesting new interactive methodologies, at the expense of content. The students and their teachers often find the resulting activities enjoyable, but little is learned in terms education quality and academic standards. More importantly, citizenship education, informed by UNESCO’s Global Citizenship Education (GCED) attempted to overcome ideological controversies affecting civics education, ranging from instilling the values of patriotism, to global values of citizenship education. In addition, there is an urgent need, in order to overcome unacceptable racism and discrimination in a number of countries, to promote cultural diversity, as a necessary and relevant cultural perspective of multicultural education (Banks, 1997; Banks & McGee Banks, 2019; Dervin, 2012, 2016; Zajda, 2022).

Discussion Does civic education work? There has not been enough research on the impact of civic education on students in the United States, in particular. As mentioned earlier, Tourney-Purta, Scheille & Amadeo (1999), argued that there ‘has not been universal success in any country in teaching citizenship education’ and that there existed significant gaps in students’ knowledge and skills concerning such key constructs as democracy, and democratic citizenship (Tourney-Purta et al., 1999). This was also supported more recently by researchers like Hammer (2022), who in ‘What is civic education and why it is important?’ argues that the current state of civic education is ineffective and inadequate, as students have serious deficits in their knowledge of government: Only 56% of Americans can name all three branches of government, according to the 2021 Annenberg Civics Knowledge Survey, and that’s up from a mere 26% in 2016. A 2018 Johns Hopkins survey found that a third of Americans couldn’t name their governor and that 80% couldn’t name their state legislator, among other information about state government. (Hammer, 2022)

Whiteley (2014), on the other hand, argued that her research findings indicated that citizenship education was successful in secondary schools in England. In her work ‘Does citizenship education work? Evidence from a decade of citizenship education in secondary schools in England’, suggested that citizenship education does work in secondary schools and ‘had a positive impact on three key components of civic engagement: efficacy, political participation and political knowledge’ (Whiteley, 2014, p. 513). Much of critical discourses examining citizenship education tend to assert, as Saha (2006) noted, that one assumes that ‘there is an objective knowledge about the political assumptions…about a democratic society’ (Saha, 2006, p. 9). There may also exist a possible bias in interpreting citizenship education, in terms of dominant ideologies and values (Zajda, 2022). This is likely to affect the content and structure of citizenship education in schools, both locally and globally. The universal goal of

Conclusion

89

effective citizenship education in schools is to provide relevant knowledge, values, and skills, necessary for meaningful understanding of ‘the rights and obligations of citizenship’ in schools (Saha, 2006, p. 8). Authentic, effective and relevant citizenship education is to result in students’ empowerment, where they are able ‘to participate independently and intelligently in public debate and civic activity (Saha, 2006, p. 8). One of the most effective ways of teaching citizenship education meaningfully, is the use of constructivist pedagogy, particularly cognitive and social constructivism, which I discussed in my recent books Globalisation and education reforms: Overcoming discrimination (2022) and Globalisation and education reforms: Creating effective learning (2021, see Chapter 3). Students, involved regularly in collaborative groups, where social constructivist pedagogies are used, especially employing the meaning-making process, tend to develop such skills as conflict resolution (Kochoska, 2015; New Jersey Centre for Civic Education, 2021; Sanjaya, et al., 2021). In addition, students in citizenship education classes are likely to develop such positive and desirable values as tolerance, trust, empathy, and respect.

Conclusion Cultural diversity, democracy, dominant values and ideologies define and shape the content and approaches to citizenship education in schools. As demonstrated above, citizenship education evokes global principles of democracy, equality, freedom, human rights, and social justice. If we are to preserve our ideals and values of democracy, freedom, justice, and equality, we need an effective and engaging learning and teaching content and strategies that teach and promote desirable values of citizenship education in schools for all. Quality education, provided by informed and engaging pedagogues, is essential for promoting authentic and relevant citizenship education in schools globally.

Chapter 6

Values Education for Sustainability in a Global Culture

Teaching Values Education for Sustainability in Schools: Introduction To begin with, there is a need to focus on the nexus between globalisation and resultant powerful, diverse and complex impacts on nations and environment, both locally and globally. The term ‘globalisation’, as defined in Chapter 3, is a complex, and constantly evolving construct, as well as a euphemism, concealing numerous contested meanings, influenced by dominant ideologies, various cultural contexts, politico-economic priorities, and educational policies, meeting the challenges of globalisation and the market economy (Daun, 2021). The term globalisation, was informed and shaped by multiple perspectives, ranging from Wallerstein’s (1979, 1984, 1989) ambitious ‘world-systems’ model, to Giddens’ (1990) notion of ‘time– space distantiation’ highlighting the ‘disembeddedness’ of social relations—their effective removal from the immediacies of local contexts, and Castells’ (1989, 2000) perception of globalisation as way of networking, proposing that the power of flows of capital, technology, and information, constitutes the fundamental morphology of an emerging ‘network society’ (Castells, 2000). Furthermore, Jameson and Miyoshi (1998) stressed that globalisation represented a new mode in the transfer of capital, labour production, consumption, information and technology, resulting in significant qualitative change (Jameson & Miyoshi, 1998, p. 248). As such, the phenomenon of ‘globalisation’ also refers to people around the globe being more connected to each other than ever before, to a quantum-like pace of the international flow of communication, knowledge, technology, and finance, to consumer goods and services produced in one part of the world, and being increasingly available in all parts of the world (Zajda, 2021). All of these social, economic and technological changes affect people, their attitudes, values, behaviour, their environment and education for sustainability.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 J. Zajda, Discourses of Globalisation, Cultural Diversity and Values Education, Globalisation, Comparative Education and Policy Research 34, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-22852-0_6

91

92

6 Values Education for Sustainability in a Global Culture

Globalisation and Its Effects on Societies and Individuals Some critical theorists (Apple, 1996; Boyd-Barrett, 2018; Carnoy, 1977; McLaren & Farahmandpur, 2001) tended to refer to globalisation as a new form of cultural imperialism. This new ideology of cultural and economic imperialism is represented by a standardisation of commodities—the same designer labels appearing in shops around the world. Globalisation results in a global recomposition of the capitallabour relations or the subordination of social reproduction to the reproduction of capital. In addition, globalisation leads to the globalisation of liquid capital, the deregulation of the labour market, the outsourcing of production to cheap and more competitive labour markets, and the intensified competition among transnational corporations (Held & McGrew, 2000). This idea was also supported by Wallerstein (1990) and other social theorists (Gudova, 2018; McLaren & Farahmandpur, 2011; Sklair, 2002; Zajda & Majhanovich, 2022), who also argued that globalisation is the ultimate expression of the ideology of consumerism, driven by market expansion and profit maximisation. From a critical discourse analysis perspective, we could argue that the teleological purpose of the global economy is to consolidate, maintain, expand and protect wealth, power, and privilege. Some authors argued that globalisation is also propelled by a dominant neo-liberal and bourgeois hegemony, which legitimates an ‘exploitative system’ (Apple, 1999; Boyd-Barrett, 2018; Daun, 2021; Klees, 2002; Krishna, 2020; Mundy et al., 2016; Rizvi, 2017; Rizvi & Lingard, 2010). A number of factors, including neo-liberal ideology, with its logic of accountability, efficiency, performance indicators and profit-maximization have contributed to ‘high and rising inequality’, as reported in the 2019 Human Development Report. Growing economic inequality is causing ‘alarm in industrialized as well as developing countries’ (Krishna, 2020, p. 3). The above examined trends in globalisation, education and society, and their overall impact on individuals in different cultural settings, may also reflect both a growing social and cultural alienation, and a Durkheimian sense of anomie. It represents the world invaded by forces of globalisation, cultural imperialism, and global hegemonies that dictate the new economic, political and social imperatives and the regime of truth. These newly constructed global imperatives in social, and economic spheres and policy levels, tend to operate as global meta narratives, playing a hegemonic role within the framework of economic, political and cultural hybrids of globalisation. The above analysis of the nexus between globalisation, society and economy demonstrates that on one hand—democratisation and progressive policy reforms is equated with equality, inclusion, equity, tolerance and human rights, while on the other hand, globalisation is perceived to be propelled by a neo-liberal ideology, as a totalising force that is widening the socio-economic status (SES) gap and economic inequality (Krishna, 2020; McLaren & Farahmandpur, 2011; UNDP, 2019; Zajda, 2021; Zajda & Rust, 2021). The emerging cultural and economic capital divide between the rich and the poor, produces the resultant and increasing levels of power,

Education for Sustainability: Obvious Signs That Planet Earth Is …

93

domination and control by corporate bodies and powerful organisations. All of this is affecting individuals, societies, and sustainability, both locally and globally.

Education for Sustainability: Obvious Signs That Planet Earth Is Seriously Ill Modern man no longer regards Nature as in any sense divine, and feels perfectly free to behave toward her as an overweening conqueror and tyrant. (Aldous Huxley)

The most obvious signs that planet Earth is seriously ill are clearly visible from space. The astronaut Eileen Collins on board spaceship Discovery was shocked and deeply worried about the environment she observed: Sometimes you can see how there is erosion, and you can see how there is deforestation. It’s very widespread in some parts of the world. (National Review Online, 2005)

It was the astronauts who brought those extraordinary pictures of the Earth from space, and who talked of how ‘fragile was this tiny ball of blue and green, floating through the enormity of time and space, how this was our only home, and how important it was that we should take care of it’ (National Review Online, 2005). Thus, was born the idea of Spaceship Earth (see Survival of Spaceship Earth, 1972). The film ‘Survival of Spaceship Earth’, produced for the first ever United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, was at the time, the most significant environmental documentary ever produced. The film portrayed vividly Earth’s evolving environmental crisis, showing how uncontrolled technology, consumerism, and rapid progress, were endangering life on a global scale, through a set of complex and intertwined issues, collectively termed the global problematique (Meadows et al., 2004). Already in the early 1960s, one of the first writers, Rachel Carson (1962), in her classic book Silent Spring popularised the concept of ecology, as a critical perspective that went against the grain of political correctness. Carson (1962) critiqued the seemingly boundless dimensions of economic materialism, consumerism, the power of science, and the technologically engineered control of nature, and their overall impact on life on Earth. The most significant social and cultural influence of Silent Spring was a ‘new public awareness that nature was vulnerable to human intervention’: The most important legacy of Silent Spring, though, was a new public awareness that nature was vulnerable to human intervention. Rachel Carson had made a radical proposal: that, at times, technological progress is so fundamentally at odds with natural processes that it must be curtailed…The threats that Carson had outlined -- the contamination of the food chain, cancer, genetic damage, the deaths of entire species -- were too frightening to ignore. For the first time, the need to regulate industry in order to protect the environment became widely accepted, and environmentalism was born. (http://www.nrdc.org/health/pesticides/ hcarson.asp)

Already in the 1990s, Bowen (1994), in his innovative and timely book on sustainability, Environment Education (1994) advocated an urgent action for education for

94

6 Values Education for Sustainability in a Global Culture

sustainable future, which required ubiquitous presence of environmental literacy, and ecological understanding in schools and the curriculum (Bowen, 1994). Bowen (2006), in his book chapter ‘Environment education in schools’, argued that both science and technology, as used by economic systems, contributed to environmental problems (Bowen, 2006, p. 90). Our rapidly diminishing resource basis, due to our exploitation of Nature, to sustain our life style, contributed accentuated our environmental degradation, in terms of air pollution, and water and soil contamination. Bowen also noted the growing aspect of techno determinism, a perspective, where ‘everyday life becomes directed by technology’ (p. 94). He concluded that for education for sustainability to be realistic and relevant it had to reflect the ‘imperative of ecological understanding’, in a wider ecological framework, to understand the complexity of our interaction with Nature: ... the understanding of the multiplicity of human niches in relationship to the entire planet and aninal kingdom, as well as to the inanimate earth. In effect, concerns must be with Gaia itself, as a totality. (Bowen, 2006, p. 97)

Margaritta Bowen (2006) advanced the notion of sustainability further in her book chapter ‘Teaching green: Education as if the environment matters’, by suggesting the idea of education for green consciousness, which promotes our concern for ‘conservation and protection of the local and global environments’ (Bowen, p. 49). Bowen (2006) noticed the emergence of ‘a new environmental ethic: less human centred, more ecocentric’ (Bowen, p. 50). Elliot (2006), on the other hand, suggested that sustainability reflects dominant values, and environmental ethics. He discussed five types of environmental ethics: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

‘Human-centred ethics Animal-centred ethics Life-centred ethics The everything ethics Ecological holism’ (Elliot, 2006).

Human-centred ethics, evaluates environmental policies ‘solely in terms of their effects on humans’ (p. 68). The human-centred ethics may refer to a single principle of maximising ‘the happiness of humans, including future humans’ (p. 69). The animal-centred ethics focuses on the protection of species. The life-centred ethics, dealing with living things, requires that our action should take into account the impact on all living things (p. 71). The everything ethic, goes beyond human-centred and animal-centred ethics, by taking into account other elements in the environment. The ecological holism ethics focuses on the ‘biosphere as a whole and the large ecosystems which constitute it’ (Elliot, 2006, p. 73). With reference to the above mentioned environmental ethics, it could be argued that we are currently suffering, from what Hamilton and Denniss (2005) have aptly termed ‘affluenza’, or an insatiable and unsustainable addiction to economic and technological growth that manifests in ‘an epidemic of stress, overwork, waste and indebtedness caused by dogged pursuit of the Australian dream’ (Hamilton & Denniss, 2005, p. 3). The image of the earth in space noted earlier is itself co-opted into selling

Knowledge of Biodiversity and Ecoliteracy

95

anything from clothes, cars, fashion items, or overseas holidays. Furthermore, the role models young people are encouraged to copy are ‘celebrities’—various influential global pop stars, singers, movie stars, TV actors, and global fashion models.

Knowledge of Biodiversity and Ecoliteracy The Role of UNESCO Over the last few decades, UNESCO has emerged as a major policy making body in the area of education and education for sustainability. UNESCO (2021a) in its policy document on climate action for world heritage stated that ‘Climate change has become one of the most significant threats to World Heritage, impacting the Outstanding Universal Values (OUV), including integrity and authenticity, of many properties, as well as the economic and social development and quality of life of communities connected with World Heritage properties’ (UNESCO, 2021a, p. 17). The issue of the impacts of climate change on World Heritage was brought to the attention of the World Heritage Committee in 2005 by a group of concerned organisations and individuals. Subsequently, UNESCO has been at the ‘forefront of exploring and managing the impacts of climate change on World Heritage’ (p. 17). It was noted that World Heritage is immersed in ‘unprecedented global change: A rapidly changing climate and the progressive loss of global biodiversity…the most prominent indicators of how rapidly humans are negatively transforming the planet. Climate change accelerates the destruction of ecosystems, while the loss and unsustainable use of nature are in turn, key drivers of climate change’ (p. 18). UNESCO (2021b) policy document Education for Sustainable Development: Towards achieving the SDGs (ESD for 2030) framework is the overarching guiding framework on ESD under which climate change education is considered as one of the thematic focus areas. Berlin Declaration on Education for Sustainable Development adopted at the UNESCO World Conference on Education for Sustainable Development calls for climate action to be a core curriculum component. Furthermore, the ESD, as a global policy and educational process, focuses on achieving human development in an inclusive, equitable and holistic way. The main goal of ESD is to make certain that all learners acquire the necessary knowledge and skills needed of sustainable development, including sustainable lifestyles (UNESCO, 2016). At UNESCO (2021b) World Conference on Education for Sustainable Development, it was stated that education is a powerful agent of ‘positive change of mindsets and worldviews and that it can support the integration of all dimensions of sustainable development, of economy, society and the environment’ (UNESCO, 2021b). Furthermore, it was stressed that the focus of sustainable development is ‘the wellbeing of all within planetary boundaries’, and not dominated by economic growth to the detriment of the planet:

96

6 Values Education for Sustainability in a Global Culture We are convinced that urgent action is needed to address the dramatic interrelated challenges the world is facing, in particular, the climate crisis, mass loss of biodiversity, pollution, pandemic diseases, extreme poverty and inequalities, violent conflicts, and other environmental, social and economic crises that endanger life on our planet. We believe that the urgency of these challenges, exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic, requires a fundamental transformation that sets us on the path of sustainable development based on more just, inclusive, caring and peaceful relationships with each other and with nature. (p. 1)

UNESCO (2021b) World Conference on Education for Sustainable Development declared that education for sustainable development (ESD) required learners to acquire the necessary knowledge, skills, values and attitudes, in order to take actions to preserve the environment: Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), anchored in SDG 4.7 and as an enabler for all 17 SDGs, is the foundation for the required transformation, providing everyone with the knowledge, skills, values and attitudes to become change agents for sustainable development. ESD enables learners to develop their cognitive and non-cognitive skills, such as critical thinking and competences for collaboration, problem solving, coping with complexity and risk, building resilience, thinking systemically and creatively, and empowering them to take responsible action as citizens, fulfilling their right to quality education as defined in SDG 4 -Education 2030. (UNESCO, 2021b, p. 2)

Education for sustainability needs to be based on developing knowledge and values of respect for nature, as well as ‘human rights, democracy, the rule of law, nondiscrimination, equity and gender equality’ UNESCO (2021b, p. 2). In addition, education for sustainability should also promote such topics as ‘intercultural understanding, cultural diversity, a culture of peace and non-violence, inclusion and the notion of responsible and active global citizenship’ UNESCO (2021b, p. 2). UNESCO (2021b) also stressed that in order to implement ESD effectively, it needs to include the following four skills: 1. 2. 3. 4.

‘The cognitive skills Social skills Emotional learning, and Action competences’ (UNESCO, 2021b).

These skills are necessary for the individual and effective societal dimensions of transformation, where values of sustainable development, result in individual behavioural change, demonstrating equality and respect for nature, biodiversity, and human rights, as well as ‘fundamental structural and cultural changes at the systemic level of economies and societies’ (UNESCO, 2021b, p. 2). UNESCO (2021b) also focused on the global goal of recognizing climate change as a priority area of ESD, as well as harnessing the potential of new, digital and ‘green’ technologies to ‘ensure that the access, development and use of technologies is responsible, safe, equitable, inclusive and based on critical thinking and sustainability principles with a proper assessment of risks and benefits’ (p. 3).

Knowledge of Biodiversity and Ecoliteracy

97

Education for Sustainability Goals One of the main goals of education for sustainability is to empower young people as ‘change agents for sustainable development, by creating opportunities for learning and civic engagement, and providing them with the competencies and tools to participate in ESD as co-creators of individual and societal transformation (p. 3). Thus, for the notion of saving our environments, as part of transformative learning, can only be achieved if we act now: Transformative learning for people and the planet is a necessity for our survival and that of future generations. The time to learn and act for our planet is now. (UNESCO, 2021b, p. 4)

In examining critically major discourses of education for sustainability, we need to have an informed knowledge of the nexus between biodiversity and ecology. This interconnection offers a deeper understanding of how the interactions between humans and environment affect our health and well-being, and how everything is necessarily interconnected, and how it impacts of humans, affecting the quality of air, water and land: Understanding biodiversity and the efforts designed to conserve it requires first and foremost an understanding of ecology, the discipline that defines the Earth as the proverbial whole which is greater than the sum of its parts. Through the lens of ecology, the planet can better be appreciated as an intricate and dynamic interplay of living and non-living components, including the physical environment itself. (Ecology, 2014)

The Role of the Amazon Region in Affecting and Controlling Climate Change The Amazon region represents some ‘40 per cent of South America’s land mass’ (Villegas & Kaplan, 2022, p. 14). Some 60% of the rain forest is located in Brazil. It plays a significant part in controlling and regulating weather, as trees release vast quantities of moisture into the air. The Amazon region controls local and global weather patterns by releasing approximately some ‘20 billion ton of moisture into the atmosphere daily. Research has shown that in 50 years, one tree can recycle approximately $37,500 worth of water, create $62,000 worth of air pollution control, mitigate $31,250 worth of soil erosion and produce $31,250 worth of oxygen’ (https:// amazonaid.org/resources/about-the-amazon/facts-a/). The Amazon is the world’s biggest rainforest. Villegas and Kaplan (2022) note the Amazon’s significant role ‘in the fight against climate change can hardly be overstated’ (Villegas & Kaplan, 2022, p. 15). Trees, as such, are one of the world’s most valuable assets. However, recent satellite images revealed that the ecosystem, due to deforestation in the Amazon region has shrunk by some 17%, mostly due to forest conversion for cattle farming (Deforestation in the Amazon, 2021). In addition, some 14% of the rain forest has been replaced with pasture (Bloomberg, cited in the Age, 2023, p. 26). One needs to remember that Brazil is the only other country with

98

6 Values Education for Sustainability in a Global Culture

more than 10% of global forest cover. By comparison, the Russian Federation (RF) has the largest forest area, representing some 20% of global forest area. Overall, forests cover some 31% of the land area on our planet. Angelina Galang (2003) examined some of the ecological principles in her book Seven lenses, or environmental principles as if adults mattered, which focused on Nature, and stressing that ‘All forms of life are equally important’: . . . . . . .

‘Nature knows best. All forms of life are equally important. Everything is connected to everything else. Everything changes. Everything must go somewhere. Ours is a finite Earth. Nature is beautiful and we are stewards of God’s creation’. (Galang, 2003)

One of the key education policy organisations promoting ecoliteracy in schools globally is Capra’s (2005) California based Centre for Ecoliteracy (cited in Stone & Barlow, 2005). It regards values of sustainability as essentially a moral issue, in that it requires assuming responsibility for the health of the Earth. For Capra, a level of ecoliteracy is critical before sustainability can be considered, and responsibility for the Earth’s health be assumed. To be ecoliterate requires an understanding of at least 3 major ecological principles: 1. ‘A recognition and awareness that life’s basic pattern of organisation is the network; 2. Matter cycles continually through the web of life; and: 3. All ecological systems are sustained by the continual flow of energy from the sun’ (Capra, 2005, p. xiv). Sustainability education can be summarized as follows: . Aims to change the way we think, live and work for the development of a just society and healthy environment . It is values driven . It is more than environmental education . It encompasses the broader context of socio-cultural, economic, political and ecological issues . It is integrated and holistic . Whole school approach . Promotes global citizenship and social justice (Zajda, 2022)

UNESCO and Its Contribution to Education for Sustainability

99

UNESCO and Its Contribution to Education for Sustainability The Global Education 2030 Agenda UNESCO, as the United Nations’ major policy organization for education, has developed its Education 2030 Agenda, containing 17 Sustainable Development Goals by 2030. These are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

‘No poverty Zero hunger Good health and well-being Quality education Gender equality Clean water and sanitation Affordable and clean energy Decent work and economic growth Industry, innovation and infrastructure Reduced inequalities Sustainable cities and communities Responsible consumption and production Climate action Life below water Life on land Peace, justice and strong institutions Partnerships for the goals’ (UNESCO, 2022b).

The above Sustainable Development Goals reflect the principles of democracy, equality, freedom, human rights and social justice, and the overall commitment for improving the quality of life for human beings globally. As stated by UNESCO (2022b), the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is a ‘plan of action for people, planet, and prosperity that unites global development goals in one framework’. It comprises integrated 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that balance the ‘three dimensions of sustainable development: the economic, social, and environment’ (UNESCO, 2022b). UNESCO (2022c) in its report Youth demands for quality climate change education, points out the reality of the planetary crisis, associated with ‘climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution threatens the very survival of human beings’. Overall the top three aims of climate change education in schools, as identified by respondents, included: . to gain scientific knowledge about climate change and its consequences; . understand what human activities cause climate change; and . be able to take action and make a positive change (UNESCO, 2022c, p. 6).

100

6 Values Education for Sustainability in a Global Culture

However, according to UNESCO’s recent research findings, not enough is being done in schools, as climate change is neglected in the curriculum: Nearly half of the 100 countries reviewed had no climate change mentioned in their national curriculum frameworks. While most of the 58,000 teachers surveyed (95 per cent) believe that it is important to teach about climate change, only about 23 per cent can explain thoroughly how to take climate action. These stark findings echo the intensifying eco-anxiety of young people, who note that they are frightened about their future (UNESCO, 2022c, p. 4).

UNESCO’s (2022c) findings demonstrate that while most young people learn climate change in school, they still are unable to understand, or explain the concept climate change, due to poor quality of the climate change education in the classroom: Most young people (91 per cent) indicate they learnt about climate change at school. However, they expressed concerns about the quality of the climate change education that they received. Seventy per cent of young people surveyed said that they have heard about climate change but cannot explain what it is (27 per cent) or can only explain the broad principles (41 per cent), or do not know anything about it (2 per cent). (UNESCO, 2022c, p. 6).

It was clear that youth demanded, and needed a better quality of climate change education, in order to take the necessary action to save the Planet. Youth demand climate change education to understand and take better action on climate change and to help reconsider the human place within nature, through whole-school approaches (UNESCO, 2022c, p. 6).

Youth also wanted to know more regarding cognitive dimension of knowledge on climate education, and how to respond to natural disasters, and how to share knowledge and discussions on climate change: On the cognitive dimension of climate change education, young people expressed interest in knowing more about historical responsibilities for climate change, climate justice, and what climate change means in their own national and regional context. Also, there is noticeable interest to learn more about the latest discussions on climate solutions, ranging from how to respond to natural disasters and help restore nature to learning about alternative economic systems such as the circular economy so that young people can learn to find positive alternatives to tackle the crisis. (UNESCO, 2022c, p. 8)

Another finding in the 2022 UNESCO survey was that youth wished for more effective community engagement and activities on climate change. Currently, the most popular forms of community engagement activities on climate change that learners experience at school are through social media and TV, newspapers, and radio (33 per cent), and community events about climate change such as energy saving campaigns (29 per cent). Young people would like to see more partnership activities in the local community to strengthen relevance of climate change education, such as organized community events on climate change, joint projects with local organizations and other schools as well as tours showing their school’s action on climate change (UNESCO, 2022c, p. 12).

UNESCO’s (2022c) policy recommendations, concerning addressing the quality of climate education in schools, included improving a deeper knowledge of climate change, that climate change schooling needs to be interdisciplinary, that it needs to be action-oriented, so that young people would be able to tackle the climate

Our Continuing Dependence of Fossil Fuels

101

crises, that teachers need to have access to relevant resources on climate change, and that the climate change content should be ‘both global and contextualized to local realities’ (UNESCO, 2022c). In addition, it was recommended the ‘gaps found in different experiences of young people across regions, gender and age should be addressed’ when designing and implementing quality climate change education curricula globally (UNESCO, 2022c). At UNESCO (2022) meeting, on 8th and 9th December, 2022, world education leaders called for environment education and digital access to be part of learning for all. At the meeting was held at UNESCO Headquarters in New York, it was decided that countries will need to adopt new indicators measuring the implementation of green education and digital access to learning for all, specifically addressing the following goals: the green and digital transitions, advancing gender equality, foundational learning, education in crisis contexts, and equitable and efficient education financing. One of the UNESCO’s overarching goals, was to ensure that ‘all children and youth are climate ready, improving schools’ digital connectivity and students’ access to online learning contents are critical goals’ (UNESCO, 2022): Ensuring that all children and youth are climate ready, improving schools’ digital connectivity and students’ access to online learning contents are critical goals. we appeal to world leaders to accelerate progress in these areas, according to the agreements reached at the transforming education summit. (UNESCO, 2022)

The UNESCO’s (2010a) model of interlocking dimensions of sustainability below represented a concept map, of various inter-related dimensions of democracy, conservation, peace, equality and human rights, and appropriate development, affecting individuals, their life-styles and environment (Fig. 6.1). Meaningful, effective and relevant sustainability education in educational settings involves: . Developing an understanding, knowledge and skills in how the world is interconnected, especially our relationship with nature . Reflecting critically on social, cultural and political relationships, which influence human activity . Looking at ways to change unsustainable practices, both locally and globally . Designed to educate the present concerning the need to become more sustainable with the use of energy, and finite resources . It promotes values-based learning, critical thinking, and cross-curricular approaches in education for sustainability.

Our Continuing Dependence of Fossil Fuels We continue to depend on traditional fossil fuels, such as oil, gas and coal, even though they are running out. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) International Energy Outlook 2021 (IEO2021), ‘the global supply of crude oil, other liquid hydrocarbons, and bio-fuels is expected to be adequate to meet the

102

6 Values Education for Sustainability in a Global Culture

Fig. 6.1 UNESCO’s (2010a) model of interlocking dimensions of sustainability

world’s demand for liquid fuels through 2050’ (International Energy Outlook, 2021). We continue to use conventional fuels to maintain our quality of life: supporting our life styles, and providing electricity and gas for our homes, using fuel in our cars, and powering the industries.

Carbon Twins’—Climate Change and Peak Oil Since the end of the nineteenth century, modern life was and continues to be almost entirely dependent on cheap and abundant fossil fuels, especially oil, coal and gas. Thanks to oil we have. . . . . . . .

The capacity to travel and fly cheaply Build huge buildings and factories Pharmaceuticals Plastics Paints and dyes Cosmetics Synthetic fibres (e.g. nylon, rayon)

Our Continuing Dependence of Fossil Fuels

103

. Pesticides, fertilisers, herbicides . Cheap imported commodities . Commodification of the self.

On-going Environmental Issues Fresh water is a scarce commodity globally. While 71% of the Earth’s surface is covered with water, and the oceans, containing some 70% of all Earth’s water, only 0.5% of the Earth’s water is available as fresh water, the other 2.5% of fresh water ‘is unavailable: locked up in glaciers, polar ice caps…’ (Water Facts—Worldwide Water Supply, 2020). Today, some 1.1 billion people, or one in six, do not have access to a safe and adequate water supply. This number is likely to increase to 2.3 billion by 2025. Most of our freshwater is used to grow food and other agricultural crops. Worldwide, agriculture accounts for 80% of global water consumption, and in Africa and Asia it accounts for 90%. To feed a growing world population, it is estimated that 14–17% more fresh water will be needed for irrigation by 2030 (United Nations Environment Programme, 2006).

Water Contaminations As Sterling (1993) wrote, we occupy rather than inhabit the land, losing the ability to read the land, to recognise the signals of ecological distress. This is particularly relevant to the Hinkley groundwater contamination incident during the 1960s. It was later depicted in the film Erin Brockovich (2000), based on the true story, detailing the Hinkley groundwater contamination incident. The groundwater in Hinkley was seriously contaminated with carcinogenic hexavalent chromium. In the film, Erin Brockovich, and her legal firm, fought successfully against the energy corporation Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) regarding its culpability for the Hinkley groundwater contamination incident during the 1960s. The judge ordered the Pacific Gas and Electric Companyto pay a settlement amount of $333 million, to be distributed among 634 plaintiffs. Even as the toxic chemical horror of Silent Spring (Carson, 1962, 1994) was popularised by Carson (1962), ecological illiteracy, which still exists in some countries, prevents the recognition of Nature’s telling signs and signals, let alone having the capacity and the means of individuals to respond appropriately.

104

6 Values Education for Sustainability in a Global Culture

Concepts and Principles in School Sustainability Programs The spiritual dimension of ecoliteracy includes: . Finding meaning: Students need to rediscover their sense of awe in nature, wonder at the beauty and mystery of the natural world, and develop aesthetic qualities of Nature. . Some children and families, for whatever reasons, tend to be isolated from Nature, and largely disconnected. . There is a need to develop philosophical discussions of intrinsic value of nature, compared to its use, as a resource for humans to exploit. . ‘One of the greatest gifts educators can give children is to learn to respect, to tread lightly, and to be re-enchanted by the Earth. Eco-literacy is at heart, spiritual’. (Smith, 2007) Four major sustainability aspects: Ecological Sustainability . Respects Indigenous flora, fauna . Produces food/aesthetic appeal in an environmentally safe manner. Social Sustainability . Groups with shared interests in (e.g.) gardening Cultural Sustainability . Provides a sense of meaning . Makes a point of honouring Indigenous and other cultural influences Economic Sustainability, . R&D of green technologies and practices. (Woolerton & Marinova, 2006)

The Role of Critical Thinking in Sustainability Education in Schools We need to use analytical and critical thinking approach in teaching and learning sustainability education in schools. Unless teaching is grounded in critical thinking and critical literacy, our students are likely to internalize a very superficial and uncritical understanding of education for sustainability. If educators are serious about preparing children to survive, they need to provide their students with relevant knowledge and skills to explore more positive futures on Earth, especially in a rapidly changing and increasingly disconnected world. Ecoliteracy needs to become an essential literacy. While Capra’s 3 sustainability principles are fundamental to ecoliteracy, they can be interpreted and experienced in many ways in schools in education for sustainability programs.

The Role of Critical Thinking in Sustainability Education in Schools

105

Teaching and Learning Ecoliteracy and Education for Sustainability in the Classroom The goal of education for sustainability (EfS) program is help students in developing and acquiring necessary knowledge, skills and values, in order to respond to current ecological crises affecting us all. Some of the critical issues affecting our life and our Nature include: . . . . . .

Global warming and climate change Pollution affecting our air, water and land Flora and fauna loss Deforestation in some countries, particularly in Brazil Increasing levels of salinity Rising carbon emission globally.

The most effective way of teaching ecoliteracy and EfS is by using the whole school approach to the topic. Sustainability is best experienced, learned, and applied, when it becomes a part of a whole school approach. Schools that are successful in teaching sustainability are likely to promote some of the following values: . ‘A clear ethos of care for the self, for others, and for environments . A rigorous and engaging curriculum that focuses on vital issues of democracy, social justice, peace and sustainability. . Sustainable policies and practices throughout the school . Specific sustainability projects in the school . Reciprocal engagement with the wider community’. (Brent, 2020, p. 466)

KWL as a Pedagogical Strategy for Teaching Ecoliteracy and EfS One could start teaching ecolitracy and EfS, using a popular KWL approach. KWL, as a pedagogical strategy, consists of three parts: What I know, what I want to know and what I have learnt? What I know?

What I want to know?

What I have learnt?

Students write down what they Students write down what they Students write down what they already know about the topic want to know about the topic have learnt about the topic

106

6 Values Education for Sustainability in a Global Culture

Why Ecoliteracy and Sustainability Are Important for Student to Know? The topic teaches us learn effective ways to reduce water and energy use. It offers ways to deal with such things as compost food and garden waste, to recycle and reuse paper, plastic and glass waste. It provides effective strategies for protecting the natural environment and endangered plants and animals. A number of schools work in partnership with schools locally and globally in solving environmental issues, such as waste disposal etc. The overall goal of ecoliteracy and sustainability in schools it to ensure that ultimately the world is more sustainable in the future than it is now.

Discussion In terms of dominant discourse analysis, it is timely and significant to integrate economic, social and environmental dimensions, to promote a more meaningful dialogue of sustainable development. We could also add cultural diversity and ICTs to expand our knowledge and skill in education for sustainability. Originally, the concept of sustainable development was named after the Brundtland (1987) policy document ‘Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future’, which analysed sustainable consumption in developed countries. According to this report, sustainable development is based on three fundamental pillars: social, economic and environmental. Sustainable development, as defined in Bruntland’s (1987) report, refers to ‘that which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.’ (Bruntland, 1987, p. 16). Bruntland (1987) also noted that sustainable development, in terms of action, had certain limitations, due to constraints, dictated by governments, organizations and technology: The concept of sustainable development does imply limits - not absolute limits but limitations imposed by the present state of technology and social organization on environmental resources and by the ability of the biosphere to absorb the effects of human activities. (Bruntland, 1987, p. 16)

The Brundtland (1987) report was a significant policy statement, urging nations to implement relevant strategies to prevent environmental degradation, and to demonstrate ‘how environmental limits impact energy efficiency, the global economy, economic resources, and overall sustainable industrialization and development’ (What are the three pillars of sustainable development? 2022). According to UNESCO (2021a), the principle of a long-term sustainable development can be achieved only if individuals and societies change the way they think and act, where education is the key to achieving this transformation. Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) helps individuals and groups to find solutions for sustainability challenges. Essentially, ESD means ‘integrating priority sustainable development issues into teaching and learning; for example, climate change,

Discussion

107

disaster risk reduction, biodiversity, poverty reduction, and sustainable consumption’ (UNESCO, 2021a; UNESCO, 2021b; UNESCO, 2022a; UNESCO, 2022b). As already discussed above, the UNESCO (2022c) report, Youth demands for quality climate change education, contains a number of key findings, including, that some 70% of the youth surveyed revealed that they lacked knowledge to explain climate change: The quality of the current climate change education is in question...the youth surveyed say that they ‘cannot explain climate change, or can only explain its broad principles, or do not know anything about it, putting into question the quality of climate change education in our schools today’ The younger the respondents, the higher the level of satisfaction of their learning experiences on climate change education. Girls have less confidence in dealing with climate change based on what they learnt in school compared to boys. (UNESCO, 2022c)

What youth also needed, in order to acquire a better understanding and knowledge of on-going climate change, was the following: ‘Climate change education that helps them to understand, to take better action on climate change and to recognize the human place within nature. Diverse aspects of climate change taught across subjects in an interdisciplinary manner to address complexity and interlinkages. Learner-centred, experiential and reflective ways of learning making climate change education more fun, solutions-based and action-oriented. That their teachers are well supported to become ready to teach climate change. They are concerned that teachers are not confident enough and have limited resources to teach about climate change. That schools be important learning spaces for climate change. More say in decision-making on climate change action in school. That schools be important learning spaces for climate change. More say in decision-making on climate change action in school. Contextualized climate change education through engagement with the local community. Specificities of their geographic and demographic contexts be addressed. Youth coming from Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and Least Developed Countries (LDCs) in particular demand more climate change education than is currently offered’. (UNESCO, 2022c) The above points concerning education for climate change demonstrates that youth wish to take action on climate change, that they wish for more diverse aspects of climate to be taught in the classroom, and that they wish to experience more experiential, reflective, and learner-centred pedagogy in their climate change classes. Metacognition, experiential learning and constructivist pedagogy, employed in cognitive and social constructivist classrooms are likely to be more effective in achieving these goals regarding climate change education (Zajda, 2021b; Zajda, 2023). Pedagogical questions concerning the intrinsic value of nature, as opposed to its use as a mere resource for humans can be explored and critiqued. The extent to which

108

6 Values Education for Sustainability in a Global Culture

human actions impact on our environment, be it global warming, floods, destruction of forests, needs to be examined critically. But ecoliteracy also includes the spiritual and metaphysical dimensions. It means re-discovering the sense of awe, wonder, beauty and mystery of the world, of the sky and stars at night, of the changing of the seasons etc. In this ultra-modern world there is a profound loss of a sense of enchantment with nature, and the sense that the natural world is unique. Below are some principles that might guide the inclusion of an ecoliteracy framework. According to Smith (2007), an ecoliterate curriculum would need to be based on the following principles of education for sustainability: . ‘Be socially transformative rather than socially productive, where the assumptions, worldviews, myths and metaphors underpinning education and its contribution to unsustainability through over-consumption are examined and critiqued. . assist students to understand the way in which ecosystems function and the nature of human dependency on them—their health and ours are inseparable. . be holistic and interconnected, modelling the networks that are fundamental to life’s basic pattern of organisation. The fragmented curriculum that served the industrial world well is not able to help students develop the patterns of thinking needed to be pro-active and creative about their future… . recognise that environmental responsibility takes place everywhere; planet care and should be as taken for granted as cleaning teeth or brushing one’s hair. . encourage children to ‘read’ nature—observe the seasons of the year, the life cycles of plants and animals, the sun and moon so that they may experience the deep joy and sense of wonder that immersion in nature can bring… . have animals at school. Many children bond very easily with animals, and caring for them may develop a sense of responsibility to others. Develop a sense of place and build knowledge of the local environment as children learn to recognise the symptoms of ecological degradation being involved with authentic local monitoring program such as water watch, stream watch, salt watch, frog watch… . use tools and concepts from Futures Education, which enables students to imagine a range of possible futures, including their preferable futures’. (Smith, 2007) These ideas and principles were also developed further in ‘Teaching Green: Education as if the Environment Matters’, where Margarita Bowen (2010) proposed her 7 principles in striving for an ecological, peaceful, and non-exploitative society— social responsibility, ecology, grassroots democracy, non-violence, decentralisation, post-patriarchal power structures, and spirituality (see Zajda, 2022; Zajda et al., 2022). All these principles of education for sustainability are even more relevant now. In our critical discourse analysis, we need to examine critically the nexus between three fundamental pillars affecting all societies and their development: social, economic and environmental. This is likely to offer a more balanced and informed critique of social, economic and technological dimensions affecting discourses of sustainability. Already, the Brundtland (1987) report argued that development of human resources should address ‘reducing extreme poverty, global gender equity, and wealth redistribution’ (What are the three pillars of sustainable development?, 2022). At the heart

Conclusion

109

of social and economic dimensions defining societies, we have unacceptable levels of inequality and poverty, especially wealth inequality and intergenerational inequality (Krishna, 2020; Milanovic, 2018). Milanovic (2018) examined global inequality in his book Global inequality: A new approach for the age of globalization. He demonstrated, using World Bank data and other sources that economic inequality was raising within nations. On the topic of inequality between countries Milanovic estimated that an American, simply by ‘virtue of being born in the United States, will earn 93 times more than a person born in the world’s poorest country’ (Wellisz, 2019). Milanovic clarified this further, by using his concept of the ‘citizenship premium’, and argued that this economic inequality compels individuals to migrate ‘it gives rise to pressure for migration as people born in poor countries seek their fortunes in richer ones’ (Wellisz, 2019; see also Milanovic, 2018).

Conclusion The future of the Spaceship Earth demands a completely new, immediate and radical approach to classroom pedagogy, where the key issue is ecoliteracy, health, wellbeing, and education for sustainability. The future of this planet is, without a doubt, everyone’s business and ecological literacy must become central to education for all, and at all levels of schooling. Education for sustainability, necessitates a difficult, radical and complex transition from current ruthless materialism, consumerism, scientism, and the technologically and profit driven control of nature and humanity, if a change to ecological sustainability, is to take place. One of the key roles of empowering and moral pedagogues is to enable all students, whatever their age, to become active participants in creating and learning about sustainability, and to generate a more relevant, yet authentic perception and knowledge of sustainability. Students have the power to generate a renewed sense of knowledge, skills, hope and purpose for a sustainable future that is worth living and fighting for.

Chapter 7

Values Education for Human Rights and Social Justice

Values Education for Human Rights and Social Justice: Introduction Having discussed cultural diversity and values education, with reference to multicultural education, citizenship education, and education for sustainability, there is a compelling reason to examine dominant discourses of values education for human rights and social justice in schools. In analysing major discourses of values education, I have used critical discourse analysis, in order to analyse both the ideologies and the power of text. I have argued in my recent books that learning and teaching human rights and social justice in schools is not always very effective, due to existing deficit of both knowledge and skills, as well as various biases, prejudice, stereotypes and discrimination, perpetuated by some teachers and students against other students (Zajda, 2022). Furthermore, implementing effective and relevant human rights and social justice policies and curricula are most likely to reduce and eliminate discrimination and discriminatory practices in schools, both locally and globally. The nexus between human rights and social justice was discussed by a number of scholars (Bailey, 2022; Stronks, 2016; Turnbull, 2020; Zajda & Ozdowski, 2017). It has been argued that human rights can contribute substantially to social justice discourses and values education in societies and schools: Social justice is all about working towards a more equal society. Part of this is ensuring that people are treated with dignity and respect by those with public power, also the main goal of human rights. (Bailey, 2022)

Similarly, Stronks, et al. (2016) in their significant policy document Social justice and human rights as a framework for addressing social determinants of health, commissioned for WHO, argued that the central principle defining human rights law is ‘human dignity: meaning that human beings have an inherent right to respect and should always be treated as an end in itself (Stronks et al., 2016, p. 26). © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 J. Zajda, Discourses of Globalisation, Cultural Diversity and Values Education, Globalisation, Comparative Education and Policy Research 34, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-22852-0_7

111

112

7 Values Education for Human Rights and Social Justice

Research on Human Rights Education: History Human rights education is essential to the full realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms and contributes significantly to promoting equality, respect for human dignity, preventing discrimination and enhancing participation in all democratic processes. As such, human rights education reflects societal standards that need to be learned by each generation and transferred to the next. The United Nations produced two important policy reports on human rights in 1966: The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (1966), and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (drafted in 1954 and signed in 1966). The later declared that all humans have the rights to health, food and employment. The United Nations’ (2015) Millennium Development Goals Report focused on poverty eradication as the greatest global challenge facing the world, and economic rights, such as food, health, and education (United Nations, 2015). Its first goal was to ‘Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger’ (p. 14). However, what is also missing in the discourse of human rights education is the politics of human rights. It has to be accepted that human rights policy documents are not neutral, but are inherently political in their origin, development and application. There is a great deal of empirical evidence on the occurrence of different types of human rights violations in many countries today. In its 2015 Human Rights Risk Atlas, global analytics firm Maplecroft revealed that in the past six years, the number of countries with an ‘extreme risk’ of human rights offenses has risen dramatically to 34 (The Human Rights Risk Atlas, 2015. See also Human Rights Risk Atlas, 2022). Human rights education research has grown in its significance since 1948, when the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which established and legitimized the right to education by declaring in its Preamble that we all should ‘strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms’ and in Article 26 directing us to work for ‘the full development of the human personality and to strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.’ (UDHR, 1948). During the last seventy odd years human rights policies and standards were defined and a range of education programs, curricula and best practices in schools were developed, both globally and locally, to advance human rights education. Initially, UNESCO took the UDHR challenge and become the first major human rights education world advocate. However, only after the end of Cold War, human rights education became a core activity for the United Nations and its agencies. The 1993 World Conference on Human Rights was a significant policy generation event. The resulting Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action acknowledged that human rights education is ‘essential for the promotion and achievement of stable and harmonious relations among communities and for fostering mutual understanding, tolerance and peace.’ (Part II. D, para. 78). The key advancements in human rights education followed with the announcement of the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education (1995–2004) and establishment of the 2005 World Program for Human

Social and Cultural Dimension of Human Rights Education

113

Rights Education of which the third phase continued to 2019. Added to this was the integration of human rights into the framework of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) for 2001–2015. The Millennium Declaration recognized the ‘interdependence of social development, human rights and global peace’ (MacNaughton & Koutsioumpas, 2016). As a result, the human rights education was not only about UN policy pronouncements, and officially endorsed education quality, standards and pedagogy, but it also became a significant social movement, with many diverse and relevant people’s activities, aiming to make a difference by making human rights accessible to all.

Defining Human Rights There are numerous definitions and conceptions of human rights. However, there exists a global consensus that human rights refer essentially to freedom, justice, and equality: the rights that are considered by most societies to belong automatically to everyone. Ozdowski (2015) stressed that human rights help us to recognise that every person has ‘inherent dignity and value’ and that in this sense human rights are global—they are the same for all people. This is what makes human rights truly ‘universal’ and global. Furthermore, human rights, from a cultural perspective, are global mores, and norms that help to protect all people everywhere from unacceptable political, legal, and social abuses. Human rights include the right to freedom, diversity, privacy, due process, and property rights. The right to freedom of religion, the right to a fair trial, and the right to engage in political activity, are all significant principles of a pluralist democracy. These rights exist in morality and in law, at both the national and global levels. The main sources of the contemporary conception of human rights can be traced to the Universal Declaration of Human Right (United Nations, 1948). The 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights defined the fundamental rights of people, including: . . . . . .

‘The right to life Freedom of thought, opinion, and religion The right to a fair trial and equality before the law The right to work and education Freedom from torture and arbitrary arrest The right to participate in the social, political and cultural life of one’s country’. (UN, 1948).

Social and Cultural Dimension of Human Rights Education The creation of a more equitable, respectful, inclusive, and just society for everyone is a dream for all concerned citizens everywhere, be they democratic policy makers, empowering and egalitarian pedagogues, and informed and active citizens, who

114

7 Values Education for Human Rights and Social Justice

believe in human rights education and the much needed policy reforms to address and eradicate an endemic culture of rigid and ubiquitous social stratification that legitimizes unacceptable economic, social and political inequalities in societies. The United Nations declared 1995–2004, as the Decade of Human Rights Education. It stressed that the human rights education was a powerful tool to fight racism and discrimination in all spheres of education and in society. Social and cultural dimensions of human rights education include ideology, power, inequality, education, gender, ethnicity, race, religion, and social justice. Major discourses of human rights education tend to remain at a policy rhetoric level. As such, they tend to be uncritical of the existing status quo of legitimized social and economic inequality. From a critical discourse analysis, we need to ask the following questions: What social action is needed to move from proclaiming the rights and obligations of people in a given country, towards effective and empowering implementation of those rights and obligations? How can we best ensure that the rhetoric of human rights is matched by reality? We need to recognise that the ideology and the politics of human rights play a significant part in the discourse of human rights education. Furthermore, there is an ambivalent nexus between social stratification, inequality and human rights. From a critical discourse analysis, one could argue that the greater the social inequality, the less one finds human rights and social justice. Research findings have demonstrated that the prospect of widening inequalities in societies and education, due to market-oriented schooling, and substantial tolerance of inequalities and exclusion, are more than real (Milanovic, 2012, 2016). Access and equity continue to be enduring concerns in education. This was confirmed in the OECD (2009) study: Across OECD countries, over 40% with less than an upper secondary qualification are not even employed...Even those with higher levels of education are vulnerable if they become unemployed. Around half of the unemployed young adults aged 25-34 with lower and upper secondary attainments are long-term unemployed. (OECD, 2009, p. 13)

Children’s Rights Human rights education is particularly relevant to teaching children’s rights. Ozdowski (2009) in his significant policy report to the Australian Government An absence of human rights: Children in Detention, argued that ‘The imprisonment of children under mandatory detention policy in Australia’s detention camps was one of the worst, if not the worst, human rights violations in the Australia’s post World War II history’ (Ozdowski, 2009). Children have the right to special protection because of their defencelessness against mistreatment. The first United Nations statement devoted exclusively to the rights of children was the Declaration on the Rights of the Child, adopted in 1959. This was a moral rather than a legally binding document. In 1989 the legally binding Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted by the United Nations. In its 54 articles, the Convention incorporates the whole spectrum

Conceptualising Human Rights Education

115

of human rights—civil, political, economic, social and cultural—and sets out the specific ways these should be ensured for children and young people. . Around 11 million children die each year from largely preventable diseases caused by lack of clean water and inadequate health care (Madamombe, 2006). Through improved access to clean water, food and immunisation, the lives of many children can be saved. . Some ‘129 million girls are out of school, including 32 million of primary school age’ (UNICEF, 2020) . A total of ‘93,236 children have been killed or maimed in conflicts in the last ten years in the past decade… The report also reveals that in 2019 some 426 million children lived in a conflict-affected area—a slight increase on the year before’ (Save the Children, 2020) . Some 196 nations in the world have signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), and committed themselves to promoting, protecting and fulfilling the rights of children (World Vision, 2021).

Conceptualising Human Rights Education Fundamentally, human rights education movement refers to the acquisition of knowledge concerning human rights and the necessary skills of how to apply them. Human rights education focuses on the adoption of universal values and behaviours that are respectful of others and compliant with such universal standards. This is especially important in a globalised world, where many different cultures and religions meet and need to interact peacefully (Zajda, 2015). The UDHR in particular, and other relevant policies treaties, provide us with universally agreed basic standards of decent behaviour; and standards that are cross-cultural and trans-national. Thus, human rights education provides us with an all-important nexus between universal and therefore global human rights standards, and local values and practices. As such, human rights education encourages intercultural dialogue, reduces conflict, and builds mutual respect around universal values. It delivers an important peace building capacity, as it develops the relevant knowledge, skills, understanding and attitudes: all necessary for a peaceful and harmonious co-existence. It also empowers individuals to participate in a broader community and in authentic democratic processes, which promote inclusive citizenship, equality, and advancement of the rule of law (Ozdowski, 2021). Some recent research suggests that human rights education does not address our growing diversity and interdependence, which is needed to help all of us to address meaningfully global complexities affecting our lives (Spreen & Monaghan, 2015; Zajda, 2022). We need to explore research dealing with the recent shift from HRE to Global Citizenship Education (GCE) (Dill, 2013; Rapoport, 2020; Spreen & Monaghan, 2015).

116

7 Values Education for Human Rights and Social Justice

There are a number of major models of human rights education. Tibbitts (2002) for example, identified three predominant models that are ‘linked implicitly with particular target groups and a strategy for social change and human development’ (Tibbitts, 2002, p. 163). These included the Values and Awareness Model, which focuses on HRE in school curricula and public awareness campaigns as a primary vehicle of transmitting basic knowledge of human rights issues and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR); the Accountability Model which targets professionals directly involved in public or civil service (e.g. lawyers, policemen) and focuses on knowledge related to specific rights instruments and mechanisms of protection; and the Transformational Model which seeks to empower vulnerable populations to recognize human rights abuses and to commit to their prevention (see also Tibbitts, 2008). Other major models of human rights education include the Progressivist perspective in education was developed to stress the individual and experiential learning, best captured by John Dewey and his child-centred pedagogy. Dewey focused on the child’s personal experience in learning in his book Democracy and Education (1916), which became a guide for progressivist and experiential pedagogy during the twentieth century. This was, at the time, a new progressivism in thinking in education, in contrast to the traditional education of the nineteenth century, which was based on preparation for the university. Learning by doing, or experiential learning, is the key principle of progressivist, and student-centred pedagogy. Experiential learning, as opposed to traditional and rote learning, denotes knowledge acquired from experience, rather than formal schooling (Dewey, 1938). Experiential learning theory (ELT) defines learning as ‘the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience. Knowledge results from the combination of grasping and transforming experience’ (Kolb, 1984). ELT offers a pragmatic and holistic perspective of the learning process. Experiential learning can be traced to the experimental pedagogy of John Dewey, Jean Piaget, Carl Rogers, Ivan Illich, Paulo Freire and others. Experiential learning is relevant to other major educational theories, ‘including: critical pedagogy, progressive pedagogy, empowerment-based pedagogy, and transformational pedagogy’ (Zajda, 2008). Reconstructionist perspective in human rights education focuses on improving people’s lives in their cultural settings. Since culture is ubiquitous in our society, with its core elements of ideology, organizations, language, values and technology, it is most relevant to human rights education. By examining the existing economic and social conditions, defining inequality, individuals become more aware of factors responsible for it, and engage in social actions to change the conditions perpetuating economic and social inequality. The Transformational Model of human rights education of Tibbitts (2008) is an excellent example of this.

Current Research on Human Rights Education

117

Current Research on Human Rights Education Contemporary research questions in human rights education can be summarized as follows: 1. How can researchers and educators better understand and analyse human rights education within specific cultural contexts 2. How are human rights conceptualised in different nations globally? 3. Will a better knowledge and critical understanding of human rights produce better pedagogical outcomes in schools? 4. Are there ideological differences in implementing human rights education in developed and developing countries? 5. What is the development and impact of human rights education on nations, characterised by neo-colonialism, dictatorship, totalitarianism, oppression, violence, wars and conflicts? 6. How can we use comparative education research in promoting a more balanced and effective human rights education globally? (Adapted from Contemporary issues in human rights education, 2011) In general, human rights education research globally, can be divided into three broad categories: humanism, progressivism, and reconstructionism. These correspond to curriculum theorising and curriculum design models over the last five decades. Humanistic perspective in education and human rights education focuses on knowledge, the enhancement of human development, autonomy, and values. According to Aloni (2014), humanistic education is grounded in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Rights of the Child: ...humanistic education, designates a variety of educational theories and practices that are committed to the world-view and ethical code of Humanism; that is, positing the enhancement of human development, well-being, and dignity as the ultimate end of all human thought and action – beyond religious, ideological, or national ideals and values. Based on a long philosophical and moral tradition and manifested in the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Rights of the Child. (Aloni, 2014)

In the re-envisioning of the human rights education, as a social action platform for social justice, peace and tolerance, we need to re-examine: . current evidence concerning the nexus between social justice, cultural transferability and human rights . competing and contested democracy models . language issues in cross-cultural research, intercultural dialogue and education . issues of race and ethnicity in the discourses surrounding regional and global cultures . the unresolved tensions between religion, politics, and values education . gender research in the global culture . citizenship education and life-long learning . globalisation, economic and social change and the implications for equity, access and democracy.

118

7 Values Education for Human Rights and Social Justice

As above demonstrates, in order to address inequality of access to quality education for all, and equal participation in democratic processes, we need for more human rights education at every level—beginning with teaching human rights to children. A strong emphasis on human rights, freedom, democracy, inclusivity and the values of social and economic justice in the classroom will ensure that children have a meaningful and well-grounded approach to their own rights and responsibilities, as they mature into adulthood. Both families and schools are powerful shapers and agencies of socialisation and the best places to begin nurturing and teaching an understanding of cultural diversity, human rights and democracy. We need to make human rights education our top priority, if we are to preserve our democracy, our freedom, and our rights as autonomous and active citizens in an authentic democratic state.

Research on Education for Social Justice Historical Background of Social Justice Social justice has fascinated many thinkers around the world, including Plato (427 BC–347 BC). In The Republic, he argued that an ideal state would rest on the following four virtues: wisdom, justice, courage, and moderation. When Thomas Aquinas (1225–74), influenced by Aristotle, wrote that “Justice is a certain rectitude of mind whereby a man does what he ought to do in the circumstances confronting him” (quoted in Kirk, 1993), he believed that justice was a form of natural duty owed by one person to another. Similarly, Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) maintained that actions are morally right if they are motivated by duty without regard to any personal motive, or self-interest. Kant’s theory of social justice is based on the concept of selflessness and moral duty. His moral theory based on duty is also known as deontology. In his view, the only relevant feature of moral law is its universalizability, and any rational being understands the categorical imperative, namely ‘Act only on that maxim which you can at the same time will to become a universal law’ (Flew, 1979, p. 191).

Social Justice as an Ideal Construct The word social distinguishes social justice from the concept of justice as applied in the law, and from more informal concepts of justice embedded in systems of public policy and morality, which differ from culture to culture and therefore lack a global dimension. Social justice refers to the overall fairness of a society in its divisions and distributions of rewards and burdens. Hayek (1976) points out a major defect of twentieth century theories of social justice. Most authors assert that they use it to designate a virtue (a moral virtue). But most of their descriptions ascribed to social

Social Justice as an Ideal Construct

119

justice refer to impersonal states of affairs—high unemployment, or inequality of incomes, or lack of a living wage are cited as instances of social injustice. Hayek argues that social justice is either a virtue or it is not. If it is, it can properly be ascribed only to the reflective and deliberate acts of individual persons. Some scholars who use the term, however, ascribe it not to individuals but to social systems. They use social justice to denote a regulative principle of order, especially the redistribution of wealth, income and power. Their focus is not virtue but political economy and power (see Novak, 2000). There are at least three conceptual and methodological issues that are relevant to current discourses of education and social justice. Firstly, there exists an assumption that the term social justice is perceived in the same way globally, and its monocultural and linear definition is uncontested. However, the term ‘social justice’ is a multilayered ideal construct and refers to a contested and contentious concept (Troyna & Vincent, 1995). Sharon Gewirtz (1998, p. 469), for instance, found very little explicit discussion of what social justice means or ought to mean. Fazal Rizvi (1998) has also noted a semantic ambiguity concerning social justice: … the immediate difficulty one confronts when examining the idea of social justice is the fact that it does not have a single essential meaning – it is embedded within discourses that are historically constituted and that are sites of conflicting and divergent political endeavours. (Rizvi, 1998, p. 47)

Secondly, it is assumed, as one of the many taken-for-granted assumptions, that social justice is attainable in any society, and at any time. Some scholars have argued that social justice is incompatible in capitalist economies. Glenn Rikowski (2000) in his paper ‘Education and social justice within the social universe of capital’ argued that social justice cannot exist in a capitalist society: Social justice is a latent social form within capitalist society that cannot attain real existence. As sustainable social justice is impossible on the basis of capitalist social forms, the drive to create social justice in capitalist society – fired by the anger of shocking social inequality – pushes at the boundaries of capitalist social relations, and against the limits of capital itself. The struggle for social justice in capitalist society is, therefore, an aspect of a struggle for a form of life where social justice is possible. (Rikowski, 2000)

Thirdly, there is an ambivalent nexus between the State, social stratification and social justice. The greater the social inequality, the less one finds social justice. From a critical discourse analysis, the existing and ubiquitous social stratification continues to generate economic, social and political inequalities, reflecting the unequal distribution of socially valued commodities, such as wealth, income, power, occupation, class, status and education (Apple, 2002; Bowles & Farahmandpur & McLaren, 2005; Gintis, 1977; Global inequality, 2020; Klees, 2002; OECD, 2018; UNDESA World Social Report, 2020; Zajda, 2021). The unequal distribution of economic, social, and political capital is likely to make it difficult for pedagogues to address differences and oppressions in schools and society globally. In recent years the concept of social justice has been associated with the moral and political philosopher, John Rawls, particularly in his works A Theory of Social Justice (1971) and Political Liberalism (1993). He draws on the

120

7 Values Education for Human Rights and Social Justice

utilitarian principles of Bentham and Mill, the social contract ideas of Locke, and the categorical imperative ideas of Kant. His reference to social justice was made in A Theory of Justice (1971), where he proposed that ‘Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For this reason justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others’ (Rawls 1971, p. 3). Social justice, as defined by Rawls, is an abstraction, which is humanistic in essence. As Maxine Greene (1998) has noted regarding Rawls’ conception of social justice, although he follows in the Kantian tradition of moral reason, his view of justice is ‘not necessarily universal, nor does it reflect some higher order’ (Greene 1998, p. xxxv). While Greene finds Rawls’ theory of ‘justice providing a regulative framework for what individuals think and do in a free society’ laudable (Greene 1998, p. xxxvi), she cautions that Rawls has in mind a self-determining citizen as an individual not necessarily as a participant member of society (Greene 1998, p. xxxvi). For Greene, community and its responsible interactions is the key. For this reason she finds that Jürgen Habermas (1979) has provided a more promising alternative for educating for justice in his theory of ‘communicative democracy’, whereby members of a community come together voluntarily to discuss matters of significance and must justify their preferences through arguments, explanations, and different modes of persuasion (Greene 1998, p. xxxvii). Greene also reminds us that when the requirements for justice are addressed that distinctions have to be made: ‘Equitable or fair treatment... does not mean equal treatment—certainly when that means treating people with widely disparate needs in the same way’ (Greene 1998, p. xxxviii). When Maxine Greene speaks about social justice, and more specifically about ways we can teach for social justice, she embraces that interpretation of social justice that is concerned with basic human rights that all people are entitled to, regardless of conditions of economic disparity or of class, gender, race, ethnicity, citizenship, religion, age, sexual orientation, disability or health. She advocates that teachers become activists in raising their students’ consciousness (à la Freirean ‘conscientisation’ of 1970), to conditions of oppression and to ways to work for the eradication of injustices and disparities in society. She wishes teachers of conscience to take up the challenge of effective social activism: To teach for social justice is to teach for enhanced perception and imaginative explorations, for the recognition of social wrongs, of sufferings, of pestilences wherever and whenever they arise. It is to find models in literature and in history of the indignant ones who have taken the side of the victims of pestilences, whatever their names or places of origin. It is to teach so that the young may be awakened to the joy of working for transformation in the smallest places, so that they may become healers and change their worlds. (Greene, 1998, p. xlv)

In presenting this notion of social justice and recommending ways to teach to bring about positive social change, Greene is clearly endorsing an articulation of the concept as it is understood by those who stand on the left of the political spectrum. Her understanding of the concept parallels the work of such critical theorists of Bowles and Gintis, Levin, Carnoy, Torres, Giroux, Apple, Shapiro, and McLaren among others. Of course, people of other political persuasions have also claimed

Social Justice and Inequality

121

social justice as an ideal to be sought after, but in their interpretation, social justice will be realized by the individual efforts of free citizens to ‘exercise self-government by doing for themselves, and without turning to government, what needs to be done’ (see Novak 2000.) Such interpretations reject any notions of a social safety net to assist the disadvantaged, or social contracts where those privileged with power and means voluntarily support those in need, or government regulations to bring about a gradual end to inequalities and disparities. For people of this political standpoint such actions would be considered as misguided efforts in social engineering. Naturally, this group would support the free market economy, deregulation and privatization. On the surface the need for social justice in the world is self-evident. But we must explore and resolve the questions that John Rawls (1971) asked: ‘What makes a society just? How is social justice connected to an individual’s pursuit of the good life?’ (Nussbaum, 2001). Is social justice simply achieved through the moral acts of autonomous citizens in a free society who of their own volition and with good will and by consensus meet the ethical obligations of their community? But what if the moral norms of the society include reprehensible practices? What then are the responsibilities of citizens with regard to norms of morality of their community when the norms contravene basic human rights? In a just society the citizens understand that results of their acts are incumbent not only on themselves but are universally applicable.

Examining Social Justice The nexus between social justice and education indicates the problematic relationship between society and the State, against the background of comparative education research. Social justice as a construct is an attempt to answer the following question: How can we contribute to the creation of a more equitable, respectful, and just society for everyone? Some researchers in the field of social justice have expressed concerns that that some terms commonly used as synonyms for the term social justice are in fact misleading and even ‘dangerous’ (Dunkwu & Griffiths, 2001, p. 11), as they could denote a monocultural interpretation, or other limiting perspective, rather than connotate the contested and competing interpretations of the term in a culturally and ideologically diverse world.

Social Justice and Inequality Despite the seemingly egalitarian spirit of the reformers and policy makers promoting social justice, and in view of the market forces dictating privatisation, and marketisation in education and society, ambivalent legacies of the past, and unresolved critical education and policy issues continue, by and large, to remain the same, and are ‘still on the policy agenda’ (Zajda, 2002, p. 87). They include, among other things, the

122

7 Values Education for Human Rights and Social Justice

‘stubborn issue of inequality’ (Coombs, 1982, p. 153), first examined in a comparative context in 1957 by (Kandel, 1957, p. 2) with reference to schooling in the West. Similarly Carnoy (1999) argues that while decentralisation and school autonomy may result in some educational improvement, decentralisation reforms tended to increase inequality in educational performance between ‘the poorer states (municipalities) and the richer ones’ (Carnoy, 1999, pp. 55–56). Privatisation, decentralisation and marketisation in education and society have a direct impact on the implementation of the principles of social justice in schools. However, as I have argued elsewhere: …the principle of providing quality education for all, in view of the presently widening gap of wealth, power, income, SES disadvantage and inequity between the rich and the poor locally and globally continues to remain a myth. To solve the inequalities requires an ideological and radical policy shift in current models of governance, and an authentic and equal partnership between the state, multi-national corporations, policy-makers and educators, all working together towards the eradication of inequality and poverty locally and globally – for the common good of humanity. (Zajda, 2021)

Some critics argued (Weiler & Maher, 2002) that social justice is difficult to achieve in a society where social inequality debate is dormant: …examples of transformative pedagogy, the need to respect and encourage the voices of students, curriculum which critiques popular culture and analyzes social inequality are invaluable to prospective teachers. Moreover, progressive programs educating prospective teachers need to include both models of progressive pedagogy and curriculum and courses exploring the historical and contemporary politics of education, to give prospective teachers tools of analysis and action. On the other hand, calls for liberatory teaching can appear to ring hollow notes in underfunded and inequitable public schools, where knowledge and teaching practices are increasingly standardized and monitored through high stakes testing… (Weiler & Maher, 2002)

The creation of an egalitarian and just society for everyone is an ultimate goal for all empowering and egalitarian pedagogues. But it will remain but a dream, and mere hollow rhetoric, or magic words in policy, unless we debate more vigorously existing social and economic inequality in the global culture. We also need to act, not just talk. We need to critique vigorously the existing status quo of stratified societies and school systems. We need to focus our debate on the ‘dialectic of the global and the local and the unequal distribution of socially valued commodities’ (Zajda, 2021). Weiler & Maher (2002) also argued that inequalities in education, together with privatisation and marketisation had a profound effect on social justice: As numerous educational researchers have documented, existing schools are profoundly unequal, stratified by race and class, and increasingly driven by the standardized testing of students and teachers and the deskilling of teachers through the introduction of packaged curricula geared to standardized tests. The ‘marketization’ of education is dominant at both the federal and state levels, with free-market educators calling for the privatization of schooling through a variety of means – vouchers, for-profit charter schools, the commercialization of school spaces and forced dependence on advertising. (Weiler & Maher, 2002)

Social justice as a social policy is the natural aspiration of all democratic societies and remains the only long-term guarantee for developing and sustaining peace, tolerance

The Relevance of Intercultural Dialogue in Values Education for Human …

123

and harmony in the world. The article by focusing on social justice globally, there is an attempt to answer one of the most pressing global questions: Are social, economic and cultural divisions between the nations, between school sectors, between schools and between student numbers growing or declining? There is a lack of emphasis in comparative education research on the relationship between poverty, inequality and education and the ‘withdrawal of the state as a major provider in the field of education in many parts of the world’ (Soudien & Kallaway, 1999, p. 378). This has serious implications for global discourses surrounding democracy, human rights and social justice.

The Relevance of Intercultural Dialogue in Values Education for Human Rights and Social Justice There is an increasing and urgent need to re-assert the relevance of intercultural dialogue in an increasingly interdependent world. In Understanding Others, Education Ourselves (National Research Council, 2002, p. 9), it is argued that comparative and international discourses surrounding other cultures, can often lead us to ‘identify and question beliefs and assumptions that are taken for granted’, by ‘making the familiar strange’ and the strange familiar’, and questioning the ‘universality’ of our beliefs and assumptions. Informed and balanced intercultural dialogue can help us to define, explain and critique what is achievable, especially within the current imperatives of globalisation. By focusing on intercultural dialogue globally, I wish to answer one of the most pressing global questions: Are social, economic and cultural divisions between the nations, between school sectors, between schools and between students growing or declining? To answer this question we need to re-examine and re-assess current evidence concerning the nexus between intercultural dialogue, cultural transferability and human rights, and democracy models (Zajda, 2004, 2022a). We need to examine such topics as inclusive education for all, language issues in cross-cultural research and education, and issues of race and ethnicity in the regional and global cultures. We also need to focus more on the unresolved tensions between religion, politics, and values education, and the implications for equity, access and democracy. Recent global events depicting violence, conflicts, and war, demonstrate the need for a more visible paradigm of intercultural dialogue in global comparative education research (Zajda & Rust, 2021). Such a paradigm needs to focus more on emerging significant issues in intercultural and cross-cultural understanding globally, affecting identity politics, liberty and democracy. Informed and balanced intercultural dialogue can help us to define, explain and critique what is achievable, especially within the current imperatives of globalisation, the politics of change and education reforms. One of the epistemological problems in researching the nexus between pedagogy and intercultural dialogue deals with the use of terminology, the meanings attached

124

7 Values Education for Human Rights and Social Justice

to it, and the resultant interpretations and behaviour patterns. Like many other intercultural researchers, Béatrice Rafoni (2003) explained that intercultural research has many definitions in multidisciplinary approaches, and a very ‘rich variety in works, approaches and definitions’. In France, Rafone argues, the term intercultural is ‘not a set notion, neither in the terminology nor in the items’. The ambiguities surrounding terminology and approaches in cross-cultural and intercultural dialogue have been addressed by Stephan Dahl (2000, 2004) in his overview of the main concepts and theories in intercultural communication in the works of Hall, Hofstede, Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, Schwartz, and others. He argued that the term ‘culture’, within the domain of intercultural communication, was often used ‘loosely’ in everyday language, and as such it affects one’s identity, and national boundary and ‘there is no commonly acknowledged ‘correct’ concept of culture’ (Dahl, 2004). The other epistemological problem, surrounding the nature of debate in education and intercultural dialogue, is understanding the nature of the intercultural implications of ‘Learning to Be’, one of the pillars of education for the twenty-first century. The Delors Report (1996) stated, that ‘Individual development is a dialectical process which starts with knowing oneself and then opens out to relationships with others. In this sense, intercultural pedagogy becomes an ‘inner journey’ (Delors Report, 1996, p. 95). At the epistemological level, ‘Learning to Be’, as applied to intercultural dialogue, has cross-cultural implications (Zajda, 2004, p. 84). It can be argued that, in a dialectical and existentialist sense, that ‘Learning to Be’ is between, across and beyond cultures. In the context of such a transdisciplinary action research, ‘Learning to Be’ offers an authentic and worthwhile trans-cultural dimension, which enables the individuals to develop an authentic and empowering vision on the meaning of life, peace, and tolerance. Some scholars, like Maureen Guirdham (2004), and Jerzy Smolicz (2005) believed that authentic and dialogical intercultural communication skills held the key to resolve global political, social and religious conflicts. Smolicz argued that effective intercultural communication, cross-cultural values education and intercultural transformation can influence people’s perceptions and their views of the world, and may be reflected in increased metacognitive, reflective and critical thinking domains, affecting their thinking, values and action (Smolicz, 2005). Similarly, Rosita Albert (2006) observed that in order to address interethnic conflict, intercultural research should focus more on interethnic relations, prejudice reduction, and conflict resolution. Majhanovich (2006), on the other hand, with reference to intercultural dialogue, focused on the impact of neo-liberal economy and globalisation on education and immigrant/minority students (see also Zajda & Majhanovich, 2022). As Gillian Khoo (1994) pointed out it is not sufficient to know cultural differences in intercultural research. There is also a need to discover to what degree such culturally differences could be ‘generalised’ across culture. In particular, the issues to be addressed in future research include: ‘What kinds of roles do perceptions, expectations, and self-fulfilling prophecies about particular out-groups play in intercultural conflict style’, and the relationship between gender socialization and cultural values:

Conclusion

125

As intercultural researchers, it is simply not enough for us to know how and why people differ culturally. We also need to know to what extent such differences can be generalized across situations, and especially to interactions with culturally different individuals. The need for a more global understanding of people, organizations, attitudes, norms, group processes, values, and ways of operating can be enhanced by examining how people interact and transact both among themselves as well as with culturally different individuals. (Khoo, 1994)

The nexus between globalisation, cultural identity, and intercultural dialogue was developed earlier by Jensen (1998). He argued that the globalisation process had made the notion of ‘cultural identity’, as one of the most important constructs in intercultural research. Hence, according to him, the real challenge for intercultural research was to provide ‘analytical tools for the practitioners—tools which are developed in relation to the complexity in multiethnic societies’. He also rejected Hall’s definition of the primary cultural identity, because it had an important epistemological weakness in relation to intercultural communication, which he described as follows: It assumes that national identity always will be the primary identity. This means that we have not dissociated ourselves from the intercultural research’s underlying reducing way of seeing national culture as the most important explanation in a communication situation. (Jensen, 1998, pp. 16–19)

The issues to be addressed in future research dealing with intercultural dialogue should include: . The role of our perceptions of different cultures in understanding and critiquing intercultural dialogue and conflict analysis . How do our perceptions, knowledge, and values shape and define the nexus between globalisation, education and emerging cultural identity . The nature of politico-economic and social dimensions affecting one’s selfesteem, self-efficacy and well-being. Finally, as a cross-cultural perspective, intercultural dialogue could be seen as a means for delivering an authentic and empowering paradigm of peace, tolerance and harmony in the world, and provide a more informed and compelling critique of the place of the Other in the Western-driven models of intercultural dialogue, surrounding identity politics, liberty, equality, and democracy.

Conclusion Effective implementation of human rights and social justice education in educational settings has the potential to create a more equitable, just, tolerant, and peaceful society for everyone for all in the global culture. But it will remain a mere hollow policy rhetoric, or magic words, unless we debate more vigorously social, cultural and economic inequality in the global culture, within the legal framework of human rights education, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Millennium

126

7 Values Education for Human Rights and Social Justice

Development Goals Report. A new understanding and a more effective use of intercultural dialogue could be seen as a means for delivering an authentic and empowering paradigm of peace, tolerance and harmony in the world. It is likely to offer a more informed and compelling critique of the place of the Other in the Western-driven models of intercultural dialogue, surrounding identity politics, liberty and democracy. We need to critique the existing status quo of stratified societies and nations, neoliberal economic imperatives, and forces of globalisation, which have affected all levels of society, reinforcing cultural and economic social stratification. This has serious implications for a genuine and empowering human rights education and social justice in the future. Human rights education will need to become an integral part of progressive and critical pedagogies for social justice and pluralist democracy.

References

Adak, S. (2017). Effectiveness of constructivist approach on academic achievement in science at secondary level. Educational Research and Reviews, 12(22), 1074–1079. Albert, R. (2006, December 19). Violent interethnic conflict and human dignity: Major issues in intercultural research and knowledge utilization. Paper presented at the Workshop on Humiliation and Violent Conflict Conference, Columbia University. Aloni, N. (2014). Humanistic education. In M. Peters, T. Besley, A. Gibbons, B. Žarni´c, & P. Ghiraldelli (Eds.), The encyclopaedia of educational philosophy and theory. Retrieved from: http://eepat.net/doku.php?id=humanistic_education Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Allyn & Bacon. Apple, M. (1996). Cultural politics and education. Teachers College Press. Apple, M. (2002). Between neoliberalism and neoconservatism: education and conservatism in a global context. In N. Burbules & C. Torres (Eds.), Globalization and education: Critical perspectives. Routledge. Apple, M. (2004). Ideology and curriculum (3rd ed.). Routledge Falmer. Arenas, A., Reyes, I., & Wyman, L. (2009). When indigenous and modern education collide. In J. Zajda (Ed.), Race, ethnicity and gender in education: cross-cultural understandings. Springer. Bailey, M. (2022). Comparing human rights and social justice for the world day of social justice. Retrieved from https://sites.uab.edu/humanrights/2022/02/21/comparing-human-rights-and-soc ial-justice-for-the-world-day-of-social-justice/ Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. PrenticeHall, Inc. Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of personality. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 154–196). The Guilford Press. Banks, J. A. (1984). Multicultural education and its critics: Britain and the United States. In J.A. Banks (Ed.), Race, culture, and education: The selected works of James A. Banks (pp. 181–190). Routledge. Banks, J. A. (1995a). Multicultural education: Historical development, dimensions, and practice. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 3–24). Macmillan. Banks, J. A. (1995b). Multicultural education: Its effects on students’ racial and gender role attitudes. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 617–627). Macmillan. Banks, J. (1997). Educating citizens in a multicultural society. Teachers College Press. Banks, J. A. (Ed.). (2004). Diversity and citizenship education: Global perspectives. Jossey-Bass.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 J. Zajda, Discourses of Globalisation, Cultural Diversity and Values Education, Globalisation, Comparative Education and Policy Research 34, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-22852-0

127

128

References

Banks, J. A. (2008). Diversity, group identity, and citizenship education in a global age. Educational Researcher, 37(3), 129–139. Banks, J. (2012). Encyclopedia of diversity in education (4 Vols.). Sage. Banks, J., & Banks McGee, C. (2015). Multicultural education; issues and perspectives (9th ed.). Wiley. Banks, J. A. (Ed.). (2017). Citizenship education and global migration: Implications for theory, research, and teaching. American Educational Research Association. Banks, J. (2019). Cultural diversity and education foundations, curriculum, and teaching (10th ed.). Wiley. Banks, J., & McGee Banks, C. (2019). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (10th ed.). Wiley. Barbieri, C., & Ferede, M. (2020). A future we can all live with: How education can address and eradicate racism. UNESCO. Retrieved from https://en.unesco.org/futuresofeducation/ideas-lab/ barbieri-ferede-education-eradicate-racism Barr, H. (2005). Towards a model of citizenship education: Coping with differences in definition. In C. White & R. Openshaw (Eds.), Democracy at the crossroads. International perspectives on critical global citizenship education (pp. 55–76). Lexington Books. Barrow, R. (1977). Moral philosophy for education. George, Allen & Unwin. Berkowitz, M. (2011). What works in values education. International Journal of Educational Research, 50(3), 153–158. Beyer, B. (1995). Critical thinking. Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. Bindé, J. (2000). Toward an ethics of the future. Public Culture, 12(1), 51–72. Bindé, J. (2002). What education for the twenty-first century? Prospects, 32(4), 391–403. Blake, C. (2020). Teaching social justice in theory and practice. Retrieved from https://resilientedu cator.com/classroom-resources/teaching-social-justice/ Bloom, B. (1984). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Allyn and Bacon. Bloom’s Thinking & Learning. (2022). Retrieved from https://www.virtuallibrary.info/blooms-tax onomy.html Boase, D., et al. (2016). Global education project. Presented at the School of Education, Australian Catholic University, M.Teach unit EDSS503. Boyd-Barrett, O. (2018). Cultural imperialism and communication. Retrieved from https://doi.org/ 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.678 Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2000). Index for inclusion: Developing learning and participation in schools. Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education. http://www.csie.org.uk/resources/inclusionindex-explained.shtml Bowen, J. (1994). Environment education. James Nicholas Publishers. Bowen, J. (2006). Environment education in schools. In J. Zajda (Ed.), Society and the environment. James Nicholas Publishers. Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1977). Schooling in capitalist America. Routledge & Kegan Paul. Brady, L. (2005). Dimensions of teaching. Curriculum and Teaching, 20(1), 5–14. Brady, L. (2009). Values education in Australian schools. Learning and Teaching, 2(1), 12–24. Brady, L. (2011a). Assessing values education: A tentative exploration. Curriculum Perspective, 31(3), 49–55. Brady, L. (2011b). Teacher values and relationship: Factors in values education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(2), 56–66. Brandenburg. (2011). Top ten ways to teach values to your kids. Retrieved from Power to change: http://powertochange.com/family/teachvalues/ Branson, M. (1999). Project citizen: An introduction. Retrieved from https://www.civiced.org/pap ers/articles_branson99.html Brett, P. (2020). Sustainability. In R. Gilbert, L. Tudball, & P. Brett (Eds.), Teaching humanities and social sciences (7th ed., pp. 457–484). Cengage Learning. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1970). Two worlds of childhood: US and USSR. Russell Sage Foundation.

References

129

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental perspectives: A bioecological model. Psychological Review, 101, 568–586. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. (1998). The Ecology of developmental process. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 993–1028). Wiley. Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on human development. Sage. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In R. M. Lerner & W. Damon (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical models of human development (pp. 793–828). Wiley. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. (2007). The bioecological model of human development. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470147658.chpsy0114 Building Respectful and Safe Schools. Retrieved from https://www.goodschools.com.au/insights/ education-updates/how-bullying-is-being-eliminated-in-australian-schools Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Harvard University Press. Burns, T., & Gottschalk, F. (Eds.). (2019). Educating 21st century children: Emotional well-being in the digital age. educational research and innovation. OECD Publishing. Butts, R. F. (1988). The morality of democratic citizenship. Center for Civic Education. Butts, R. F. (1989). The civic mission in educational reform: Perspectives for the public and the profession. Hoover Institution Press. Butzlaff, F. (2022). Emancipatory struggles and their political organisation: How political parties and social movements respond to changing notions of emancipation. European Journal of Social Theory, 25(1). Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/13684310211027111 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. (1982). Toronto. Capra, F. (2005). How nature sustains the web of life. In M. Stone & Z. Barlow (Eds.), Ecological Literacy. Sierra Club Books. Carnoy, M. (1977). Education as cultural imperialism. Longman. Carnoy, M. (1999). Globalization and educational reform: What planners need to know? UNESCO, International Institute for Educational Planning. Carr, D. (1993). Moral values and the teacher: Beyond the paternal and the permissive. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 27(2), 193–207. Carr, D. (2010). The philosophy of education and educational theory. In R. Bailey (Ed.), The Sage handbook of philosophy of education (pp. 37–53). Sage. Carr, P., et al. (2017). The dimensions of, and connections between multicultural social justice education and education for democracy: What are the roles and perspectives of future educators? Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320536440_The_Dimens ions_of_and_Connections Carson, R. (1962/1994). Silent spring. Houghton Mifflin. Castells, M. (1989). The informational city information technology, economic restructuring, and the urban-regional process. Blackwell. Castells, M. (2000). Toward a sociology of the network society. Contemporary Sociology, 29(5), 693–699. https://doi.org/10.2307/2655234 Chisholm, H. (Ed.). (1911). Liegnitz. In Encyclopædia Britannica (Vol. 16, 11th ed., p. 594). Cambridge University Press. Churchill, W. (1940). Never in the field of human conflict. Retrieved from https://www.parliament. uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/private-lives/yourcountry/collections/churchillexh ibition/churchill-the-orator/human-conflict/ Churchland, P. (2018). Braintrust: What neuroscience tells us about morality. Princeton University Press. Cogan, J., & Morris, P. (2001a). The development of civics values: An overview. International Journal of Educational Research, 35(1), 1–9.

130

References

Cogan, J., & Morris, P. (2001b). A comparative overview: Civic education across six societies. International Journal of Educational Research, 35(1), 109–123. Cogan, J., Morris, P., & Print, M. (2002). Civic education in the Asia-Pacific region. Routledge. Coombs, P. (1982). Critical world educational issues of the next two decades. International Review of Education, 28(1), 143–158. Cotton, K. (1996). Educating for citizenship. School improvement research series. Retrieved from http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/10/c019.html Council of Europe. (2016). Competences for democratic culture: living together as equals in culturally diverse democratic societies. Council of Europe. Council of Europe. (2017a). Education for democratic citizenship and human rights education. Retrieved from https://www.coe.int/en/web/edc/charter-on-education-for-democratic-citize nship-and-human-rights-education Council of Europe. (2017b). Citizenship education at school in Europe. Council of Europe. Council of Europe. (2018). Reference framework for competencies for democratic culture (3 Vols.). Council of Europe. Council of Europe. (2019). Digital citizenship education handbook. Council of Europe Publishing. Council of Europe. (2020). Tackling discrimination. Retrieved from https://www.coe.int/en/web/ campaign-free-to-speak-safe-to-learn/tackling-discrimination Council of Europe. (2021). Digital citizenship and digital citizenship education. Council of Europe. Cummings, W. (2001). The future of values education in the pacific basin. In W. Cummings, J. Hawkins, & M. Tatto (Eds.), Values education for dynamic societies: Individualism or collectivism (pp.285–298). CERC Studies in Comparative Education 11. Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong. Cummings, W. (2008). How education systems form and reform. World Studies in Education, 9(1), 5–29. Dahl, S. (2000). Communications and culture transformation. ECE. Dahl, S. (2004). Intercultural research: The current state of knowledge (Middlesex University Discussion Paper No. 26). Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Unequal opportunity: Race and education. Retrieved from https:// www.brookings.edu/articles/unequal-opportunity-race-and-education/ Daun, H. (2021). Globalizations, meta-ideological hegemony and challenges from populism in education. In J. Zajda (Ed.), 3rd international handbook of globalisation, education and policy research. Springer. ISBN 978-3-030-66002-4 Deforestation in the Amazon. (2021). Retrieved from https://www.amazonconservation.org/the-cha llenge/threats/ Department of Education, Science and Training. (2005). National framework for values education in Australian schools. Commonwealth of Australia. Delors Report. (1996). Learning: the treasure within. UNESCO. Derrida, J. (1976). Of grammatology. John Hopkins University Press. Dervin, F. (2016). Interculturality in education: A theoretical and methodological toolbox. Springer. Dervin, F., et al. (2012). Multicultural education in Finland: Renewed intercultural competences to the rescue. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 14(3), 1–13. Desrochers, M., & Jessica Murray, J. (2021). Applying critical discourse analysis in the classroom: A guide for educators. Retrieved from https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/cice/art icle/view/8486 Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. Macmillan. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Macmillan. Dill, J. S. (2013). The Longings and limits of global citizenship education: The moral pedagogy of schooling in a cosmopolitan age (Vol. 109). Routledge. Dunkwu, K., & Griffiths, M. (2001). Social justice in education: Approaches and processes (Review). British Educational Research Association. http://www.bera.ac.uk Ecology. (2014). Starting with the basics: Ecology defined. Retrieved from https://fpe.ph/ecology. html

References

131

Ellis, A. (2001). Cooperative learning. In A. Ellis (Ed.), Research on educational innovations. Eye on Education. Equal Opportunity and Human Rights — Students, Victoria (Retrieved from https://www2.educat ion.vic.gov.au/pal/equal-opportunity-human-rights-students/policy Eredics, N. (2018). Inclusion in action: Practical strategies to modify your curriculum (5th ed.). Brookes Publishing Company. Eysenck, H. (1982). Inheritance of intelligence. New Education, 4(1), 1–8. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and text: Linguistic and intertextual analysis within discourse analysis. Discourse and Society, 3(2), 193–217. Fairclough, N. (1993). Critical discourse analysis and the marketization of public discourse: The universities. Discourse and Society, 4(2), 133–168. Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis (2nd ed.). Longman. Farahmandpur, R., & McLaren, P. (2005). Teaching against global capitalism and the new imperialism. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Flew, A. (1979). A dictionary of philosophy. Pan Books/Macmillan. Foucault, M. (1967a). On a genealogy of morals. Tavistock. Foucault, M. (1967b). Madness and civilization. Tavistock. Foucault, M. (1969). The archaeology of knowledge. Routledge. Foucault, M. (1970). The order of things. Tavistock. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish. Penguin. Freakley, M. (2008). Values education and character development. In J. Zajda (Ed.), Society and environment (pp. 10–12). James Nicholas Publishers. Galang, A. (2003). Seven lenses or environmental principles as if adults mattered. The Bookmark Inc. Gamage, K., Dehideniya, D., & Ekanayake, S. (2021). The role of personal values in learning approaches and student achievements. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art icles/PMC8301052/ Gewirtz, S. (1998). Conceptualizing social justice in education: Mapping the territory. Journal of Education Policy, 13(4), 469–484. Global Inequality. (2020). Inequality. Retrieved from https://inequality.org/facts/global-inequality/ Greene, M. (1998). Introduction: Teaching for social justice. In W. Ayers et al. (Eds.), Teaching for social justice (pp. xxvii–xlvi). Teachers College Press. Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Stanford University Press. Giddens, A. (2009). Sociology (6th ed.). Polity Press. Giddens, A., & Sutton, P. (2021). Sociology (9th ed.). Polity Press. Gilbert, R. (1996). Studying society and environment. A handbook for teachers. Macmillan Gilbert, R. (2018). Working with values and contoversial issues. In R. Gilbert & B. Hoepper (Eds.), Teaching society and environment. Cengage Learning. Gilbert, R. (2020). Working with values and contoversial issues. In R. Gilbert, & B. Hoepper (Eds.), Teaching society and environment. Cengage Learning. Gillies, R. (2016). Cooperative learning: review of research and practice. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3). Retrieved from https://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article= 2902&context=ajte Gilmore, G., Margrain, V., & Bourke, R. (2022). Internationalisation and interculturality in early childhood teacher education. World Studies in Education, 23(1), 3–154. Global Education Project. (2014). Global perspectives: A statement on global education for Australian schools. Curriculum Corporation. Goodman, J. (1994). Circles of democracy: School’s internal governance. New Education, 16(2), 3–24. Goodman, J. (1995). Circles of democracy: A school internal governance. In J. Zajda, M. K. Bacchus, & N. Kach (Eds.), Excellence and quality in education. James Nicholas Publishers.

132

References

Gorski, P. (2010). Unlearning deficit ideology and the scornful gaze: Thoughts on authenticating the class discourse in education. Retrieved from http://www.edchange.org/publications/deficitideology-scornful-gaze.pdf Gökçe, A. (2021). Core values in education from the perspective of future educators. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/21582440211014485 Gudova, I. V. (2018). Cultural imperialism: A concept and a phenomenon. Retrieved from https:// knepublishing.com/index.php/KnE-Engineering/article/view/3601/7516 Guirdham, M. (2004). Conflict, culture and communication, an address delivered at the Luton intercultural forum. Retrieved from http://ic.intermundo.net, accessed 18 December 2006. Habermas, J. (1979). Communication and the evolution of society. Beacon Press. Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action (C. Lenhardt & S. Nicholson, Trans.). Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Halstead, J., Taylor, J., & Taylor, M. (2000). Learning and teaching about values: A review of recent research. Cambridge Journal of Education, 30(2), 169–202. Hammer, B. (2022). What is civic education and why is it important? Retrieved from https://carsey. unh.edu/blog/2022/04/what-is-civic-education-why-its-important Hamilton, C., & Denniss, R. (2005). Affluenza. When too much is never enough. Allen & Unwin. Hare, R. M. (1989). Essays in ethical theory. Oxford University Press. Haste, H. (2018). Attitudes and values and the OECD learning framework 2030: A critical review of definitions, concepts and data. OECD. https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/contact/ Draft_Papers_supporting_the_OECD_Learning_Framework_2030.pdf Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence? Invited address at the Australian Council for Educational Research conference, Melbourne. Retrieved from https://res earch.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=research_conference_2003 Hattie, J. (2004). It’s official: Teachers make a difference. Educare News, 144, 24–31. Hare, R. M. (1981). Moral thinking: its levels, method, and point. Clarendon Press and Oxford University Press. Heick, T. (2021). Empathy is an elevated form of understanding. Retrieved from https://www.tea chthought.com/learning/role-of-empathy-in-learning/ Held, D., & McGrew, A. (Eds.). (2000). The global transformations reader. Polity Press. Hébert, Y., & Sears, A. (2001). Citizenship education. Retrieved 30 May 2005, from http://www. cea-ace.ca/res.cfm?subsection=rep Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviours, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage. Huntington, S. P. (1996). The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. Simon & Schuster. International Energy Outlook. (2021). Retrieved from https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/ Jameson, F., & Miyoshi, M. (Eds.). (1998). The cultures of globalization. Duke University Press. Jenks, C. (2020). Applying critical discourse analysis to classrooms. Classroom Discourse, 11(2), 99–106. Jensen, I. (2000). The practice of intercultural communication. Retrieved from http://www.immi. se/intercultural/nr6/jensen.rtf Johnson, L. (1999, June). A preliminary report of a study of civic education. The University of Texas at Austin. Jones, S., et al., (2018). How to build empathy and strengthen your school community. Retrieved from https://mcc.gse.harvard.edu/resources-for-educators/how-build-empathy-streng then-school-community Kandel, I. (1957). Equalizing educational opportunities and its problems. International Review of Education, 3(1), 1–10. Kennedy, K. (2004). Searching for citizenship values in an uncertain global environment. In W. Lee, D. Grossman, K. Kennedy, & G. Fairbrother (Eds.), Citizenship education in Asia and the Pacific. Concepts and issues (pp. 9–24). Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong.

References

133

Kant, I. (1790). The science of right (1952). In R. Hutchins (Ed.), Great books of the Western world (Vol. 42, pp. 395–458). Encyclopaedia Britannica. Kerr, D. (1999). Citizenship education: An international comparison across 16 countries. Retrieved from https://www.seameo.org/img/Programmes_Projects/Competition/SEAMEOJap anESD_Award/2013_SEAMEOJapanESD_Award/pub/citizenship_no_intro.pdf Khoo, G. (1994, November 10). The role of assumptions in intercultural research and consulting: Examining the interplay of culture and conflict at work. Paper Presented at Simon Fraser University at Harbour Centre. Kirk, R. (1993). The meaning of justice. Heritage Lecture #457. http://www.heritage.org/Research/ PoliticalPhilosophy/HL457.cfm Klees, S. (2002). World Bank education policy, new rhetoric, old ideology. International Journal of Educational Development, 22(5), 451–474. Kochoska, J. (2015). The role of civic education in overcoming conflict situations. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311913954_the_role_of_civic_educ ation_in_overcoming_conflict_situations Kohlberg, L. (1975, June). The cognitive developmental approach to moral education. Phi Delta Kappan, 670–677. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall. Koscielniak, M., & Bojanowska, A. (2019). The problem of academic dishonesty and possibilities for its prevention. Retrieved from https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019. 01887/full Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212–218. Krishna, A. (2020). Inequality, social mobility and career ladders UNDP Human Development Report (Background paper no. 5-2020). New York: UN. Leavens, M. (2017). Do food miles really matter? Retrieved from: https://green.harvard.edu/news/ do-food-miles-really-matter Lowe, D. (2009). Helping children cope through literature. Forum on Public Policy Online, 1. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ864819 Lovat, T., Toomey, R., & Clement, N. (Eds.). (2010). International research handbook on values education and student wellbeing. Springer. Lovat, T., Clement, N., Dally, K., & Toomey, R. (2011). The impact of values education on school ambience and academic diligence. International Journal of Educational Research, 50(3), 166– 170. Lovat, T. (2017). Values education as good practice pedagogy: Evidence from Australian empirical research. Journal of Moral Education, 46(1), 88–96. Lowe, D. (2018). Helping children cope through literature. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/ fulltext/EJ864819.pdf Luo, A. (2022). Critical discourse analysis. Definition, guide and example. Retrieved from https:// www.scribbr.com/methodology/discourse-analysis/ Lusek, J., & Goetze, A. (2011). Stalag VIII A Görlitz. Historia – tera´zniejszo´sc´ – przyszło´sc´ . Łambinowicki rocznik muzealny, p. 27, volume 3. Opole (in Polish). Madamombe, I. (2006). Children just do not have to die. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/africa renewal/magazine/january-2006/%E2%80%98children-just-do-not-have-die Majhanovich, S. (2006). Immigrant students and Canadian education: Compromised hopes. Education and Society, 24(1), 5–26. Marsh, C. (2011). Studies of society and environment. Pearson Education. Martin, S. N. (2009). Education in values through children’s literature. A reflection on some empirical data. In J. Zajda & D. Holger (Eds.), Global values education (pp. 65–81). Springer Netherlands. MacIntyre, A. (1981). After virtue a study in moral theory. Gerald Duckworth & Co.

134

References

MacNaughton, G., & Koutsioumpas, K. (2016). Universal human rights education in the post-2015 development agenda Gillian. In J. Zajda & S. Ozdowski (Eds.), Globalisation and human rights education. Springer. Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians. (2008). Melbourne: The Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. Retrieved from http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/national_declaration_on_the_ educational_goals_for_young_australians.pdf Meadows, D., Randers, J., & Meadows, D. (2004). The limits to growth: The 30-year update. Chelsea Green Publishers. McLaren, P., & Farahmandpur, R. (2011). Teaching against global capitalism and the new imperialism. Rowman & Littlefield. McLuhan, M. (1967). The medium is the message. Penguin Books. Milanovic, B. (2012). Global income inequality by the numbers: In history and now an overview. World Bank. Retrieved from: http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/book/10.1596/1813-9450-6259 Milanovic, M. (2016). Global inequality: A new approach for the age of globalization. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Milanovic, B. (2018). Global inequality: A new approach for the age of globalization. Harvard University Press. Mundy, K., Green, A., Lingard, B., & Verger, A. (Eds.). (2016). Global education policy. Wiley Black. Murray, J., & Desrochers, M. (2021). Applying critical discourse analysis in the classroom: A guide for educators. Current Issues in Comparative Education (CICE), 23(2), 113–126. Mutch, C. (2005). Citizenship education: does it have a place in the curriculum? Curriculum Matters, 1. Retrieved from https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA180748221&sid=google Scholar&v=2.1&it=r Narvaez, D., & Rest, J. (1995). The four components of acting morally. In W. Kurtines & J. Gewirtz (Eds.), Moral behaviour and moral development: An introduction (pp. 385–400). McGraw-Hill. Narvaez, D. (2014). Neurobiology and the development of human morality: Evolution, culture, and wisdom. W. W. Norton. National Curriculum Standards for Social Studies: A Framework for Teaching, Learning, and Assessment. (2010). Silver Spring, Maryland: National Council for the Social Studies. http:// www.ncss.org/standards/strands National Assessment of Educational Progress in Civics. (2017). Forgotten purpose: Civics education in public schools. Retrieved from https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/for gotten-purpose-civics-education-public-schools National Assessment of Educational Progress Report Card: Civics. (2018). See how eighth-grade students performed in civics. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/highlights/civics/2018/ National Framework for Values Education in Australian Schools. (2005). Values for Australian schooling. Canberra. National Research Council. . (2002). Understanding others, education ourselves: Getting more from international comparative studies in education. The National Academies Press. National Safe Schools Framework. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_ resources/NSSFramework.pdf New Jersey Center for Civic Education. (2021). How can conflicts be resolve peacefully? Retrieved from https://civiced.rutgers.edu/documents/civics/middle-school-civics/civicconcepts/101-teaching-conflict-resolution-skills/file Niemi, R., & Junn, J. (1998). Civic education: What makes students learn. Yale University Press. Nietzsche. (1883/1954). Thus spoke Zarathustra (W. Kaufmann, Trans.). Random House. Noguchi, F., Roberto, J., & Yorozu, G. (2015). Communities in action lifelong learning for sustainable development. UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning: Hamburg. Novak, M. (2000). Defining social justice. Retrieved from http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0 012/opinion/novak/html

References

135

Nussbaum, M. (2001, July 20). The enduring significance of John Rawls. In The Chronicle of Higher Education. The Chronicle Review. http://chronicle.com/free/v47/i45/45b00701.htm O’Brien, M., & Parry, L. (2002). From national identity to global citizenship: Challenges for citizenship education in Australia. The International Journal of Social Education, 17(1), 31–40. OECD. (2009). Education at a glance. OECD. OECD. (2018a). Preparing our youth for an inclusive and sustainable world: The OECD PISA global competence framework. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/education/Global-compet ency-for-aninclusive-world.pdf OECD. (2018). Inequality. OECD. OECD. (2019a). 21st Century children as digital citizens. OECD. OECD. (2019b). Conceptual learning framework: Attitudes and values. OECD. OECD. (2019c). Attitudes and values for 2030. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/education/ 2030-project/teaching-and-learning/learning/attitudes-and-values/Attitudes_and_Values_for_ 2030_concept_note.pdf OECD. (2019d). OECD future of education and skills 2030 concept note. In Attitudes and values for 2030. OECD. ORC Survey on-line at http://www.orc.co.uk/orcuk/businesssectors/retail/experts Ozdowski, S. (2009). An absence of human rights: Children in detention. Political Crossroads, 16(2), 39–72. Ozdowski, S. (2015). Human rights education in Australia. In J. Zajda (Ed.), Second international handbook on globalisation, education and policy research (pp. 537–555). Springer. Panev, V. (2020). Theoretical basis and models for developing students’ values in primary education. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science Engineering and Education, 8(1), 81–91. Patrick, J. (1997). Global trends in civic education for democracy. Retrieved from https://files.eric. ed.gov/fulltext/ Patrick, J., et al. (2002). Issue-centered education for democracy through ‘project citizen’. In W. C. Parker (Ed.), Education for democracy: Context, curricula, assessment. Information Age Publishing. Peters, R. S. (1966). Ethics and education. George Allen & Unwin. Phillips, D. (1979). Is moral education really necessary? British Journal of Educational Studies, 27(1), 42–68. PISA. (2018a). PISA worldwide ranking—Average score of math, science and reading. Retrieved from http://factsmaps.com/pisa-worldwide-ranking-average-score-of-math-science-reading/ PISA. (2018b). Preparing our youth for an inclusive and sustainable world the OECD PISA global competence framework. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/education/Global-compet ency-for-an-inclusive-world.pdf Pulimeno, M., Piscitelli, P., & Colazzo, S. (2020). Children’s literature to promote students’ global development and wellbeing. Health Promotion Perspective, 10(1), 13–23. Purpel, D. (1999). Moral outrage in education. Peter Lang. Queen Elizabeth I speech to the troops at Tilbury. (1588). Retrieved from https://speakola.com/pol itical/elizabeth-i-speech-to-the-troops-tilbury-1588 Quigley, C. (1999). Civic education: Recent history, current status and the future. Retrieved from https://www.civiced.org/papers/papers_quigley99.html Rafoni, B. (2003). Interculturalities: Intercultural Research. Balance Sheet in France. Question de Communication, 4, 13–26. Rapoport, A. (2009). A forgotten concept: Global citizenship education and state social studies. Journal of Social Studies Research, 33(1), 91–112. Rapoport, A. (Ed.). (2018).Competing frameworks: Global and national in citizenship education. Information Age Publishing. Rapoport, A. (2020). Editorial: Technologization of global citizenship education as response to challenges of globalization. Research in Social Sciences and Technology, 5(1), i–vii. Racial Discrimination Act. (1975). Canberra. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press.

136

References

Rawls, J. (1993). Political liberalism. Columbia University Press. Reynolds, R. (2021). Teaching studies of society and environment in the primary school. Oxford University Press. Rights. WHO Regional Office for Europe UN City: Copenhagen, Denmark. Rikowski, G. (2000). Education and social justice within the social universe of capital. http://www. leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001618.htm Rizvi, F. (1998). Some thoughts on contemporary theories of social justice. In B. Atweh, S. Kemmis, & P. Weeks (Eds.), Action research in practice: Partnerships for social justice in education (pp. 47–56). Routledge. Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing education policy. Routledge. Rizvi, F. (2017). Globalization and the neoliberal imaginary of educational reform. UNESCO. Rogers, R. (2011). An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education. Routledge. Ryle, G. (1976). Contemporary aspects of philosophy. Oriel Press. Saha, L. (2000). Education and active citizenship in Australia. Educational Practice and Theory, 22(1). Saha, L. (2006). Education for active citizenship: Prospects and issues. In J. Zajda (Ed.), Society and environment. James Nicholas Publishers. Sanjaya, D., et al. (2021). The effect of the conflict resolution learning model and portfolio assessment on the students’ learning outcomes of civic education. International Journal of Instruction, 15(1), 473–488. Save the Children. (2020). On average 25 children killed or injured in conflicts every day for the past decade: New report. Retrieved from https://www.savethechildren.org/us/about-us/mediaand-news/2020-press-releases/25-children-killed-injured-in-conflicts-every-day Scriven, M., & Paul, R. (2003). Defining critical thinking. Draft Statement for the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking. Foundation for Critical Thinking. 27. Retrieved from http:// www.criticalthinking.org/pages/definint-critical-thinking/766 Secombe, M. (2016). Core values and intercultural values in human space. Retrieved from https:// www.jstor.org/stable/24920306 Seland, I., et al. (2021). Aims of citizenship education across Nordic countries: Comparing school principals’ priorities in citizenship education 2009–2016. In H. Biseth, B. Hoskins, & L. Huang (Eds.), Northern lights on civic and citizenship education (Vol. 11). IEA Research for Education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66788-7_3 Shah, A. (2009). Poverty facts and statistics. http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-factsand-stats Slavin, R. (2018). Educational psychology: Theory and practice (12th ed.). Pearson. Shor, I. (1992). Empowering education. Critical teaching for social change. University of Chicago Press. Sklair, L. (2002). Globalization: Capitalism and its alternatives. Oxford University Press. Slavin, R. (1983). When does cooperative learning increase achievement? Psychological Bulletin, 94(3), 429–445. Slavin, R. (1995a). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Allyn & Bacon. Slavin, R. E. (1995b). Cooperative learning and intergroup relations. In J. Banks & C. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 628–634). Macmillan. Slavin. R. (2003). Educational psychology: Theory and practice. Pearson Education. Slavin, R. (2014). Cooperative learning and academic achievement: Why does group work? Anales De Psicologia., 30(3), 785–791. Smolicz, J. (2005). Globalisation, cultural diversity, and multiculturalism: Australia. In J. Zajda (Ed.), The international Handbook of globalisation and education policy research (pp. 207–220). Springer. Smith, C. (2007). Education and society: The case for ecoliteracy. Education and Society, 25(1), 25–37. Smith, S. (2020). Teaching children democratic citizenship. Retrieved from https://foreverfamilies. byu.edu/teaching-children-democratic-citizenship

References

137

Smolicz, J. (1999). Core values and cultural identity. In M. Secombe & J. Zajda (Eds.), Education and culture. James Nicholas Publishers. Snook, I. (2002, December 5–9). The ethical teacher. A paper presented at the annual conference of the New Zealand Association for Research in Education, Palmerston North. Snook, I. (2003). The ethical teacher. Dunmore Publishing. Soudien, C., & Kallaway, P. (1999). Education, equity and transformation. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Spreen, C.A. & Monaghan, C. (2015). Leveraging diversity to become a global citizen: Lessons for human rights education. In M. Bajaj (Ed.), Human rights education: Theory, research & praxis. Routledge. Starting with the Basics: Ecology Defined. (2022). Retrieved from https://fpe.ph/ecology.html/view/ starting-with-the-basics-ecology-defined/all/0 Sterling, S. (2001). Sustainable education. Green Books. Stone, M., & Barlow, Z. (2005). Ecological literacy: Educating our children for a sustainable world. Sierra Club/Counterpoint. Straughan, R. (1982). Can we teach children to be good. Routledge. Stromquist, N. (2009). Theorizing global citizenship: Discourses, challenges, and implications for education. Interamerican Journal of Education for Democracy, 2, 6–29. Stronks, K., et al. (2016). Social justice and human rights as a framework for addressing social determinants of health. Final report of the Task group on Equity, Equality and Human. Survival of Spaceship Earth. (1972). Retrieved from www.imdb.com/title/tt0278756/ Teaching Democracy in the Classroom. (2020). 5 things to teach about democracy in the classroom. Retrieved from https://galariousgoods.com/blog/5thingsaboutdemocracy The Millennium Development Goals Report. (2015). New York: United Nations. Retrieved from: http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/2015_MDG_Report/pdf/MDG%202015%20rev% 20(July%201).pdf Theobald, B. (2020). The National Assessment of Educational Progress report on civics education. Retrieved from https://thefulcrum.us/civic-ed/8th-graders-civics Tibbitts, F. (2008). Human rights education. In M. Bajaj (Ed.), Encyclopedia of peace education. Information Age Publishing. Retrieved from: http://www.tc.columbia.edu/centers/epe/ent ries.html Tibbitts, F. (2012). Understanding what we do: Emerging models for human rights education. Retrieved from: https://www.academia.edu/836925/Understanding_what_we_do_Emerging_ models_for_human_rights_education Tourney-Purta, J., Scheille, J., & Amadeo, J.-A. (1999). Civic education across countries: 24 national case studies. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED431705 Torney-Purta, J., Lehmann, R., Oswald, H., Schulz, W. (2001). Citizenship and education in twentyeight countries: Civic knowledge and engagement at age fourteen. IEA. Torney-Purta, J. (2002). What adolescents know about citizenship and democracy. Educational Leadership, 59(4), 45–50. Torney-Purta, J. (2002). The school’s role in developing civic engagement: a study of adolescents in twenty-eight countries. Applied Developmental Science, 6(4), 203–212. Tran, V. (2014). The effects of cooperative learning on the academic achievement and knowledge retention. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1067568.pdf Troyna, B., & Vincent, C. (1995). The discourses of social justice in education. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 16(2), 149–166. Turnbull, E. (2020). Social justice and human rights. Retrieved from https://www.bihr.org.uk/blog/ social-justice-and-human-rights Turner, T. N. (2011). What values do we want to teach? Retrieved from Education Website: http:// www.education.com/reference/article/values-we-teach/ UN. (1969). Convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination. UN. UN. (1993). World conference on human rights. Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/en/aboutus/history/vienna-declaration

138

References

UN. (2016). Paris Agreement. Retrieved from https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_a greement.pdf UN. (2020a). Universal, inclusive education ‘non-negotiable’. UN. UN. (2020b). Closing the inequalities gap to achieve social justice. Retrieved from https://www. un.org/development/desa/dspd/international-days/world-day-of-social-justice/2020-2.html UN. (2022). UN climate change conference. Retrieved from https://unfccc.int/?gclid=Cj0KCQiA4 uCcBhDdARIsAH5jyUmNn4n7TLs2l65c85COsqqij4A UNDESA World Social Report. (2020). Inequality in a rapidly changing world. United Nations. UNESCO. (1948). Universal declaration of human rights (1948). United Nations Office of Public Information. UNESCO. (2005). Education for shared values and for intercultural and interfaith understanding. Australian National Commission for UNESCO. UNESCO. (2000). Framework for action on values education in early childhood. UNESCO. UNESCO. (2010a). UNESCO’s model of interlocking dimensions of sustainability. Retrieved from https://whc.unesco.org/archive/2010a/whc10-34com-5De.pdf UNESCO. (2010b). Climate change education for sustainable development. UNESCO. UNESCO. (2011a). Contemporary issues in human rights education. UNESCO. Retrieved from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002108/210895e.pdf UNESCO. (2011b). National journeys towards education for sustainable Development (I. Mula & D. Tilbury, Eds.). UNESCO. UNESCO. (2014). Quality education. Retrieved from: http://www.unescobkk.org/education/efa/ efa-goals/quality-education/ UNESCO. (2015). Global citizenship education topics and learning objectives. UNESCO. UNESCO. (2016a). Unpacking sustainable development Goal 4 Education 2030. UNESCO. UNESCO. (2016b). UNESCO’s Education 2030. Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action. UNESCO. UNESCO. (2016c). Unpacking Sustainable Development Goal 4.Education 2030. UNESCO. UNESCO. (2021). Inclusive early childhood care and education: From commitment to action. UNESCO. UNESCO. (2021b). Global citizenship education. Retrieved from https://en.unesco.org/themes/ gced UNESCO. (2021c). UNESCO Chair: Global health and education. Values and principles. Retrieved from https://unescochair-ghe.org/the-unesco-chair-ghe/values-and-principles/ UNESCO. (2021d). UNESCO Competency Framework. Retrieved from https://en.unesco.org/sites/ default/files/competency_framework_e.pdf UNESCO. (2021e). Twenty-third session of the general assembly of states parties to the convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage. UNESCO. UNESCO. (2021f). Education for sustainable development. Retrieved from https://en.unesco.org/ partnerships/partnering/education-sustainable-development UNESCO. (2022a). Sustainable development goals. UNESCO. UNESCO. (2022b). Biodiversity. culture and values. Retrieved from https://www.unesco.org/en/ biodiversity/culture?hub=405 UNESCO. (2022c). Youth demands for quality climate change education. UNESCO. UNDP. (2007). Water rights and wrongs: A young people’s summary of the United Nations Human Development Report 2006. Peace Child International. United Nations Environment Programme: Global International Waters Assessment. GIWA (2006). Retrieved from http://www.unep.org/dewa/giwa/giwafact/giwa_in_depth.asp UNDP. (2019). Beyond income, beyond averages, beyond today: Inequalities in human development in the 21st century. UN. UNICEF. (2020). Girls’ education: Gender equality in education benefits every child. UNICEF. Vanderpool, A., & Robinson, T. (2017). Critical thinking: Multiple models for teaching and learning. Retrieved from https://blogs.oregonstate.edu/wicnews/2017/11/29/critical-thinkingmultiple-models-teaching-learning/

References

139

Vecchione, M., & Schwartz, S. (2022). Personal values and academic achievement. British Journal of Psychology, 113(4). Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357887665_Per sonal_values_and_academic_achievement Veugelers, W. (2009). Active student participation and citizenship education. Educational Practice and Theory, 31(2), 55–69. Veugelers, W. (2015). Citizenship education and active student participation: The Netherlands. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283653634_Citizenship_Educat ion_and_Active_Student_Participation_The_Netherlands Veugelers, W. (2021). Implementation of citizenship education actions in the EU. EU. Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (VCAA). (2019). The Victorian Curriculum F-10. Retrieved from https://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Pages/foundation10/f10index.aspx Villegas, P., & Kaplan, S. (2022, November 2). Now, the world holds its breath. The Age, pp. 14–15. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. MIT Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. Wallerstein, I. (1979). The capitalist world-economy. Cambridge University Press. Wallerstein, I. (1984). The politics of the world-economy: The states, the movements, and the civilizations. Cambridge University Press. Wallerstein, I. (1989). The modern world-system III: The second great expansion of the capitalist world-economy. Academic Press. Wallerstein, I. (1998). The rise and future demise of world-systems analysis. Review, 21, 103–112. Walters, K. (1984). Re-thinking reason: New perspectives in critical thinking. SUNY Press. Water Facts - Worldwide Water Supply. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.usbr.gov/mp/arwec/ water-facts-ww-water-sup.html Weiler, K., & Maher, F. (2002). Teacher education and social justice. Radical Teacher (Winter). Retrieved from http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JVP/is_2002_Winter/ai_97483138 Wellisz, C. (2019). Chris Wellisz profiles Branko Milanovic, a leading scholar of inequality. Retrieved from https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2019/03/profile-of-branko-mil anovic-on-inequality-wellisz What Are the Three Pillars of Sustainable Development? (2022). Retrieved from https://www.gre enly.earth/blog-en/3-pillars-of-sustainable-development What the Research Says: History and Civics Education. (2021). Retrieved from https://circle.tufts. edu/latest-research/what-research-says-history-and-civics-education What Is Global Citizenship? (2020). Retrieved from https://www.oxfam.org.uk/education/who-weare/what-is-global-citizenship/ Widdowson, H. (2007). Discourse analysis. OUP. Willms, J. (2003). Student engagement at school a sense of belonging and participation (2001). OECD. Whiteley, P. (2014). Does citizenship education work? Evidence from a decade of citizenship education in secondary schools in England. Parliamentary Affairs, 67(3), 513–535. Winch, C., & Gingell, J. (1999). Key concepts in the philosophy of education. Routledge. Wodak, R. (2008). Introduction: Discourse studies—Important concepts and terms. In J. Wodak & M. Krzyzanowski (Eds.), Qualitative discourse analysis in the social sciences. Palgrave Macmillan. Woods, R., & Barrow, R. (1995). An introduction to philosophy of education (4th ed.). Routledge. Woolorton, S., & Marinova, D. (2006). Overlay Mapping—A methodology for place-based sustainability education. World Bank. (2010). Learning for all investing in people’s knowledge and skills to promote development. World Bank. World Vision. (2021). Children’s rights and the convention on the rights of the child. Retrieved from https://www.worldvision.ca/stories/child-protection/child-rights-convention-on-the-rightsof-the-child

140

References

World Values Survey 2022 - WVS Database. (2022). Retrieved from https://www.worldvaluessurv ey.org Yamarik, S. (2007). Does cooperative learning improve student learning outcomes? The Journal of Economic Education, 38(3), 259–277. Zajda, R. (1988a). ‘The calculable woman’. Discourses of the self and sexuality in the Australian Women’s magazine Cleo (Major Thesis). Melbourne: University of Melbourne. Zajda, J. (1988b). The moral curriculum in the Soviet School. Comparative Education, 24(3), 389–404. Zajda, J. (2002). Education policy: Changing paradigms and issues. International Review of Education, 48(1–2), 67–91. Zajda, J. (2004). Cultural transferability and cross-cultural textbook development. Education and Society, 22(1), 83–95. Zajda, J. (2008a). Experiential learning. In G. McCulloch & D. Crook (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education. Routledge. Zajda, J. (2008b). Globalisation, education and social stratification. In J. Zajda, B. Biraimah, & W. Gaudelli (Eds.), Education and social inequality in the global culture (pp. 1–15). Springer. Zajda, J. (2009a). Current issues in race, ethnicity and gender in education. In J. Zajda & K. Freeman (Eds.), Race, ethnicity and gender in education: Cross-cultural understandings. Springer. Zajda, J. (2009b). Global pedagogies for democracy, tolerance and peace. In H. Daun, Y. Iram, & J. Zajda, (Eds.), Global values education: Teaching democracy and peace. Springer. Zajda, J. (2009c). Values education and multiculturalism. In J. Zajda & D. Holger (Eds.), Global values education (pp. 13–23). Springer Netherlands Zajda, J. (2009d). Globalisation, nation-building, and cultural identity: The role of intercultural dialogue. In J. Zajda, H. Daun, & L. Saha, L. (Eds.), Nation-building, identity and citizenship education: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 15–24). Springer. Zajda, J., & Daun, H. (Eds.). (2009). Global values education: Teaching democracy and peace. Springer. http://www.springer.com/education/comparative+education/book/978-90-481-2509-8 Zajda, J., Daun, H., & Saha, L. (Eds.). (2009). Nation-building, identity, and citizenship education: Cross cultural perspectives. Springer. Zajda, J., & Gibbs, D. (Eds.). (2009). Comparative information technology: Languages, societies and the Internet. Springer. http://www.springer.com/education/learning+%26+instruction/book/ 978-1-4020-9425-5 Zajda, J. (2010a). Society and the environment. James Nicholas Publishers. Zajda, J. (2010b). Globalisation, education and social justice: Introduction. In J. Zajda (Ed.), Globalisation, education and social justice. Springer. Zajda, J. (2010c). Globalisation and global pedagogy. In J. Zajda (Ed.), Global pedagogies. Springer. Zajda, J. (2014a). Values education. In D. Phillips (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of educational theory and philosophy (pp. 835–838). Sage. Zajda, J. (2014b). The Russian Revolution. In G. Ritzer & J. M. Ryan (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell encyclopedia of globalization online. Zajda, J. (2015a). (Ed.). Second international handbook of globalisation, education and policy research. Springer. http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789401794923 Zajda, J. (2015b). Globalisation and its impact on education and policy. In J. Zajda (Ed.), Second international handbook of globalisation, education and policy research (pp. 1–13). Springer. Zajda, J. (2017). Globalisation and national identity in history textbooks: The Russian Federation. Springer. http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789402409710 Zajda, J., & Ozdowski, S. (Eds.). (2017). Globalisation and human rights education. Springer. http://www.springer.com/generic/search/results?SGWID=5-40109-24-653415-0&submit=Sub mit&sortOrder=relevance&searchType=EASY_CDA&searchScope=editions&queryText=Jos eph+zajda Zajda, J. (2018a). Globalisation and education reforms: Paradigms and ideologies. Springer. http:// www.springer.com/gp/book/9789402412031

References

141

Zajda, J. (2018b). Researching values education in the classroom: A global perspective. Education & Society, 36(2), 29–47. https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/jnp/es/2018/00000036/ 00000002/art00004 Zajda, J. (2020a). Representing the Russian Revolution in prescribed Russian school history textbooks. Political Crossroads, 24(20), 47–71. Zajda, J. (2020b). Discourse analysis as a qualitative methodology. Educational Practice and Theory, 42(2), 5–21. Zajda, J. (Ed). (2021a). 3rd international handbook of globalisation, education and policy research. Springer. ISBN 978-3-030-66002-4 Zajda, J. (2021b). Globalisation and education reforms: Creating effective learning. Springer. ISBN 978-3-030-71574-8 Zajda, J., & Rust, V. (2021). Globalisation and comparative education. Springer. Zajda, J. (2022a). Globalisation and education reforms: Overcoming discrimination. Springer. Zajda, J. (2022b). Discourses of globalisation, and the politics of history school textbooks. Springer. Zajda, J. (2023). Discourses of globalisation, cultural diversity and values education. Springer.

Index

A Academic achievement, 17, 19, 43, 50, 58 Academic performance, 19, 69 Academic standards, 2, 88 Achievement, 9 Action competences, 96 Active citizenship education, 1, 38, 55, 73 Active citizenship, 54, 85 Active global citizenship, 96 Adak, S., 69 Age Discrimination Act 2004, 67 Ageism, 44 Agencies of socialization, 5, 21, 31, 80 Ainscow, M., 33, 69 Albert, Rosita, 124 Aloni, N., 117 Amadeo, J.-A., 88 Anderson, L., 29, 60, 64 Animal-centred ethics, 94 Anomie, 92 Anti-bullying guidelines, 67 Anti-bullying policy, 68 Anti-discrimination, 23 Apple, M., 16, 92, 119, 120 Aquinas, Thomas, 118 Archaeology of Knowledge, 59, 60 Arenas, A., 16 Aristotle, 18, 74, 118 Attitudes And Values For 2030, 8, 12 Australia, 39, 42

B BA (Hons), 42 Bailey, M., 111 Bakhtin, M., 61 Bandura, A., 31, 32

Bandura’s social learning theory, 45 Banks, J., 9, 10, 11, 34, 43, 44, 88 Barbieri, C., 11, 31 Barlow, Z., 98 Barrow, R., 13, 15 Battle of Britain, 70 Baudrillard, J., 65 Behaviour modification procedure, 35 Behavioural learning theories, 34 Bentham, J., 120 Berger, P., 64, 65 Berkowitz, M., 8, 17 Beyer, B., 27–29 Bias, 29, 30, 33, 45 Bindé, Jérôme, 8, 35 Biodiversity, 97 Bioecological model of development, 10, 34 Blake, C., 14 Bloom, B., 29 Bloom’s Thinking & Learning, 29 Boase, Diane, 38 Bojanowska, A., 58 Boleslaw IV, 41 Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 63 Booth, T., 33, 69 Bowen, J., 93, 94, 108 Bowles, S., 119, 120 Boyd-Barrett, O., 92 Brady, L., 7, 18, 36 Branson, M., 75, 76 Brent, P., 105 Bronfenbrenner, Urie, 9–11, 30, 32, 33, 34, 42, 45, 80 Brundtland, G., 106, 108 Bruner, Jerome, 26

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 J. Zajda, Discourses of Globalisation, Cultural Diversity and Values Education, Globalisation, Comparative Education and Policy Research 34, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-22852-0

143

144 Building Respectful and Safe Schools 2010, 67 Bullying, 67 Butts, R.F., 3 Butzlaff, F., 71

C Capra, F., 98, 104 Carnoy, M., 92, 120, 122 Carr, D., 12, 15, 18, 19 Carr, P., 52 Carson, R., 93, 103 Casimir the Great, 41 Castells, M., 91 Categorical imperative, 118, 120 Ceci, S.J., 10, 31 Character education, 52 Children’s literature, 68 Children’s rights, 8, 114 Chisholm, H., 41 Chronosystem, 11 Churchill, Winston, 70 Churchland, P., 18 Circles of democracy, 6 Citizenship, 54, 73, 74 Citizenship education, 4, 10, 21, 73, 74, 75, 77, 78, 79, 80, 82, 88, 89, 111, 117 Citizenship education at school in Europe, 79 Citizenship education in schools, 85, 86 Citizenship education research, 84 Civic action, 77 Civic culture, 79 Civic education, 73, 77, 80, 85, 87, 88 Civic knowledge, 74, 76, 82 Civics, 4, 73 Civic skills, 76, 82 Civic values, 12 Civic virtues, 76, 82 Civics in schools, 87 Classism, 44 Classroom peer groups, 33 Climate change, 95, 96, 101, 106 Climate change education, 99, 107 Climate education, 99 Close-reading, 62, 66 Cogan, J., 7, 8 Collaborative groups, 6, 14, 17, 69 Collins, Eileen, 93 Commodification of the self, 50 Communicative democracy, 120 Community engagement, 100

Index Conflict resolution, 36 Conscientisation, 120 Construction of the self, 59 Constructivism, 69, 70 Constructivist learning, 54 Constructivist pedagogy, 69 Consumerism, 109 Content integration, 11 Controversial issues, 6 Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICER), 25 Coombs, P., 122 Cooperative learning, 17, 47 Core values, 7, 8, 38 Cotton, K., 13, 14 Council of Europe (CoE), 7, 8, 13, 24, 25, 33, 51, 57, 58, 68, 69, 77, 78, 79, 81, 85 Cowen, R., 64 Credentialism, 9 Critical discourse analysis (CDA), 19, 21, 23, 32, 58, 65, 68, 71, 72, 92, 111, 114 Critical inquiry approach, 26 Critical literacy, 14, 19, 20, 27, 38, 55, 69, 72 Critical literacy skills, 71 Critical or Discourse Analysis, 59 Critical perspective, 71 Critical theory, 59, 65 Critical thinkers, 28 Critical thinking skills, 12, 14, 19, 27, 28, 29, 43, 47, 64, 69, 71, 78, 80, 104, 124 Cross-cultural perspective, 125 Cross-cultural values, 124 Cultural diversity, 10, 20, 24, 32, 38, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49, 54, 55, 57, 68, 72, 81, 88, 89, 106, 111, 118, 125 Cultural identities, 9, 21, 33, 49, 50, 66, 79, 80 Cultural imperialism, 92 Cultural pluralism, 8 Cultural sustainability, 104 Culturally diverse environments, 39, 46 Culturally responsive teaching, 47 Culture wars, 62 Culture, 124 Cummings, W., 7, 8, 18 Curriculum, 44 Cyberbullying, 67

Index D Dahl, Stephan, 124 Das Capital, 65 Daun, H., 66, 91, 92 Deciphering metaphors, 62 Declaration on the Rights of the Child, 114 Deconstruction paradigm, 61 Deconstructionists, 66 Deconstructive reading, 59, 60, 61, 65, 71 Definition of discourse, 58 Delores, J., 7, 8 Delors Report, 124 Democracy, 13, 19, 118 Democracy and Education, 116 Democratic citizenship, 24 Democratic values, 13 Denniss, R., 94 Derrida, Jacques, 60–62, 66 Dervin, F., 88 Desirable values education, 71 Desrochers, Monica, 65 Dewey, John, 116 Dialogical intercultural communication, 124 Digital citizens, 86 Digital citizenship education, 85 Digital literacy, 86 Digital technology, 86 Dill, J.S., 115 Dimensions of eco literacy, 104 Dimensions of sustainability, 101 Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 67 Disciplinary knowledge, 72 Discourse analysis, 59–61, 63–65, 72 Discourse methodology, 72 Discourse of citizenship, 62 Discourse of national identity (DNI), 63 Discourse(s), 1, 58, 59, 61, 65, 66, 69, 71 Discourses of cultural identity, 50 Discourses of Globalisation, Cultural Diversity and Values Education, 57 Discourses of moral education, 14 Discourses of multicultural education, 46, 49 Discrimination and discriminatory practices, 32 Discrimination in schools, 43 Discriminations, 6, 11, 24, 25, 29, 30, 33, 34, 44, 45, 47, 68, 72, 81, 111, 112, 114 Discriminatory behaviour patterns, 31 Discriminatory practices, 30 Discriminatory practices in school, 29, 111

145 Discursive critique, 71 ´ ask (Lower Silesia), 41 Dolny Sl˛ Dominant agencies of socialization for values education, 66 Dominant discourse analysis, 106 Dominant discourses of values education, 111 Dominant ideologies, 57, 59, 65 Dominant values, 51, 58 Duke Henry II, the Pious, 41 Dunkwu, K., 121

E Early childhood, 23 East German border guards, 41 Eco-literacy, 104, 109 Ecological holism, 94 Ecological model, 10, 80 Ecological principles, 98 Ecological sustainability, 104, 109 Ecological Systems Model, 10, 31 Ecological understanding, 94 Ecology, 97, 108 Economic inequality, 114 Economic sustainability, 104 Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education, 77 Education for shared values and for intercultural and interfaith understanding, 57 Education for sustainability, 1, 91, 95, 96, 97, 106, 108, 109, 111 Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), 106 Education for Sustainable Development: Towards achieving the SDGs, 95 Effective critical thinker, 28 Efficiency driven reforms, 2 Elizabeth 1, 69 Elliot, J., 94 Ellis, A., 17 Emancipation, 71 Emotional development, 52 Emotional learning, 96 Emotional power of the language, 70 Emotions, 18 Empowering School Culture, 11 Engaging learning environments, 1 Environment, 10 Environment Education, 93 Environmental crisis, 93 Environmental dimensions, 106

146 Environmental ethic, 94 Environmental literacy, 94 Equal educational opportunities, 43 Equal Opportunity Act 2010, 67 Equality, 13, 19, 47, 112 Equality of opportunity, 68 Equity Pedagogy, 11 Eredics, N., 33, 69 Erin Brockovich, 103 Esbenshade, Richard, 63 Ethnicity, 45, 47 Ethnocentrism, 33 Experiential learning, 116 Eysenck, H., 10 F Fairclough, N., 59, 71 Farahmandpur, R., 92, 119 Ferede, M., 11, 31 Flew, A., 118 Forces of globalisation, 73, 79, 126 Fossil fuels, 101 Foucault, Michel, 58–63, 65, 71, 72 Foucault’s geneology, 72 France, 70 Freakley, M., 36 Freedom, 7, 16, 19 Freire, Paulo, 116 French Revolution, 70 Freud, S., 61 Future of education and skills 2030 Concept note. Attitudes and values for 2030, 22 G Galang, A., 98 Gamage, K., 58 Gender, 47 Gender identity, 63 Genealogy, 60, 63 Genealogy approach, 60 Genetics, 10 Genotype, 10 German Stalag VIII-A POW camp, 40 Gewirtz, Sharon, 119 Giddens, A., 91 Gilbert, R., 4, 29, 30, 54, 74 Gillies, R., 17 Gilmore, G., 23 Gingell, J., 8, 18, 19 Gintis, H., 119, 120 Giroux, H., 120

Index Global biodiversity, 95 Global citizenship, 73, 81, 83, 98 Global citizenship education (GCED), 80, 82, 83, 84, 88, 115 Global dominance, 52 Global education, 38, 43, 46 Global education perspective, 36, 38, 68 Global Education Project, 46 Global hegemonies, 92 Global imperatives, 92 Global inequality, 119 Global inequality: A new approach for the age of globalization, 109 Global marketing, 50 Global Pedagogies, 38 Global transformation, 69 Global warning, 108 Globalisation, 1, 46, 91, 92, 125 Globalisation and education reforms: Creating effective learning, 45, 47, 89 Globalisation and education reforms: Overcoming discrimination, 37, 45, 47, 57, 58, 68, 89 Globally, 75 Goal of education for sustainability (EfS), 105 Goetze, A., 41 Goffman, E., 61 Gökçe, A., 8 Goodman, J., 6 Görlitz, 40 Gramsci, A., 62 Gramscian notion of resistance, 63 Grand Narrative, 63 Greene, Maxine, 120 Griffiths, M., 121 Gudova, I.V., 92 Guirdham, Maureen, 124

H Habermas, Jürgen, 7, 120 Hall, E.T., 124, 125 Hall, Stuart, 62, 63 Hamilton, C., 94 Hammer, B., 88 Hampden-Turner, C., 124 Hare, R.M., 18 Harmony, 36 Hattie, J., 7 Hayek, F., 118, 119 Hébert, Y., 75

Index Hegemony, 62 Heidegger, Martin, 60, 61 Held, D., 92 Heterosexism, 44 Historical thinking, 15 Historical understanding, 60 History textbooks, 60 Hoepper, B., 4, 29, 30 Hofstede, G., 124 Hogan, R., 65 Holocaust, 6 Human-centred ethics, 94 Humanism, 117 Human rights, 1, 7, 13, 16, 19, 20, 21, 24, 32, 33, 38, 43, 46–48, 50, 53–55, 57, 65, 81, 82, 89, 92, 101, 111, 113, 115, 118, 125 Human rights discourses, 72 Human rights education, 112–118, 126 Human rights for all, 69 Human Rights Risk Atlas, 112 Human rights violations, 112 Huntington, S.P., 9, 52 Huxley, Aldous, 93

I ICTs, 106 Idea of signification, 65 Identity, 9, 38, 50, 59, 71, 124 Identity formation, 31 Identity politics, 125, 126 Ideology, 50, 55, 60 Ideology of consumerism, 92 Illich, Ivan, 116 Improved academic achievement, 58 Improved performance, 17 Inclusive classroom, 33 Inclusive education, 23, 33 Inclusive schooling, 43, 68 Inclusive schools policies, 67 Inequality(ies), 11, 15, 16, 32, 33, 37, 44, 45, 65, 70, 71, 72, 81, 83, 92, 109, 114, 118, 122, 123, 125 Information technology, 50 Inquiry based approach (IA), 54 Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL), 26, 27 Inquiry Based Learning Model, 29 Inquiry learning, 47 Intercultural communication, 124 Intercultural dialogue, 46, 123–126 Intercultural research, 125 Intercultural understanding, 54

147 Intermediate Certificate, 42 International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), 10, 76, 79 Iron Curtain, 39, 40 Israel, 40 Ivano-Frankivsk, 39, 40

J Jameson, Fredric, 60, 91 Jensen, I., 125 Jews, 40 Johnson, L., 76 Junn, J., 74 Justice, 16

K Kallaway, P., 123 Kandel, I., 122 Kant, Immanuel, 74, 118, 120 Kaplan, S., 97 Kazamias, A., 64 Kerenky’s Provisional Government, 70 Kerr, D., 75 Khoo, Gillian, 124 Kirk, R., 118 Klees, S., 92, 119 Knowledge, 62 Knowledge Construction, 11 Knowledge of sustainability, 109 Knowledge society, 2 Kochoska, J., 89 Kohlberg, L., 18 Kolb, D., 116 Konijn, 33 Koscielniak, M., 58 Koutsioumpas, K., 113 Krishna, A., 92, 109 Kristeva, Julia, 60 Kundera’s paradigm, 63

L Language, 71 Language development, 30 Learning to Be, 124 Learning: The Treasure Within, 7 Legnica, 41 Legnickie Pole, 41 Lenin, 70 Levin, H., 120 Lewin, Kurt, 30

148 Liceum ogólnokształc˛ace, 41 Life-centred ethics, 94 Lifelong learning for all, 2 Lingard, B., 92 Linguicism, 44 Locke, J., 120 Louis XVI, 70 Lovat, T., 8, 17, 18, 58 Lowe, D., 68 Luckmann, T., 64, 65 Luo, A., 59, 71 Lusek, J., 41

M Macintyre, A., 18 MacNaughton, G., 113 Macro-social perspective, 34 Maher, F., 122 Majhanovich, S., 66, 92, 124 Major agencies of socialisation, 9, 10, 30, 49 Marsh, C., 54 Marsh, C., 17 Marx, Karl, 61, 65 Mass media, 50 Materialistic culture, 50 McGee Banks, C., 10, 88 McGrew, A., 92 McLaren, P., 92, 119, 120 McLuhan, M., 79 Meadows, D., 93 Meaning-making process, 65 Melbourne, 40, 41 Melbourne Declaration On Educational Goals For Young Australians, 3 Metacognitive strategies, 33 Milanovic, B., 109, 114 Mill, J.S., 120 Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), 113 Millennium Development Goals Report focused on poverty, eradication as the greatest global challenge, 112, 125–126 Minority groups, 25 Miyoshi, M., 91 Monaghan, C., 115 Monash University, 42 Mongol invasion of Poland, 41 Mongols, 41 Moral crisis, 16 Moral dilemma, 18

Index Moral duty, 118 Moral education, 2, 13, 18, 19, 53 Moral judgment, 51 Morally good society, 55 Moral principles, 53 Moral standards, 66 Morris, P., 8, 10, 11, 31 Multicultural citizenship, 73 Multicultural classrooms, 11, 34, 47 Multicultural curriculum, 32, 48 Multicultural education, 1, 10, 32, 39, 43, 44, 47–49, 54, 55, 88, 111 Multicultural education model, 44 Multicultural education strategy, 44 Multicultural experiences, 42 Multiculturalism, 11, 43, 47, 54 Multicultural pedagogies, 47 Multimodal discourse analysis, 65 Mundy, K., 92 Murray, Jessica, 65 Museum approach, 49 N NAEP civics assessment, 6, 80 Narvaez, D., 16, 18 National Assessment of Educational Progress in Civics, 76, 87 National Assessment of Educational Progress report card, 80 National Council for the Social Studies, 12, 52 National Framework for Values Education in Australian Schools (2005), 4, 17 National identity, 50, 73, 78 National Research Council, 123 Nation-building, 21, 51, 66 Nation-building myth, 41 Neo-liberal ideology, 92 Neuroscience, 18, 19 Neuroscience research, 18 New Jersey Centre for Civic Education, 89 Nichomachaean Ethics, 18 Niemi, R., 74 Nietzsche, F., 6, 61, 63 NKVD (secret police), 40 Novak, M., 121 Nussbaum, M., 121 O O’Brien, M., 76 Observational learning, 32 October 1917 revolution, 70

Index OECD, 2, 8, 13, 51, 57, 58, 69, 85, 86, 114, 119 Outstanding Universal Values (OUV), 95 Overcoming inequality, 68 Oxfam, 81 Ozdowski, S., 111, 113–115

P Palimpsest, 62, 66 Panev, V., 8 Parry, L., 76 Patrick, John, 82 Paul, R., 27 Peace, 8 Personal goals, 32 Peters, R.S., 18 Ph.D. degree, 42 Phenotype, 10 Phillips, D., 18, 19 Piaget, Jean, 116 Piast castle, 41 Piast dynasty, 41 PISA, 51, 52 Plato, 74, 118 Pluim, G., 52 Podtekst (sub-text), 61 Poland, 39, 40, 42 Political dimensions of schooling, 16 Political Liberalism, 119 Politics, 74 Polysemic nature of discourse, 63 Post-structuralist paradigm, 64 Post-structuralist theories, 58 Power, 62 Power/Knowledge, 60 Power of knowledge, 72 Power of language, 59, 60, 69, 71 Power of text, 72, 111 Preferred knowledge, 61 Preferred reading, 62, 63 Prejudice, 11, 30, 31, 33, 45, 111 Prejudice Reduction, 11 Preparing Our Youth for an Inclusive and Sustainable World: The OECD PISA global competence framework, 8 Principles of democracy, 57 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), 2 Progressivism, 117 Progressivist perspective in education, 116 Protagoras, 74, 74 Pulimeno, M., 37, 68

149 Purpel, D., 8, 15, 16, 53

Q Quality education, 2, 23, 24, 32, 33, 84, 89, 99, 118 Quality learning, 49 Quality of air, 97 Quality of climate change education, 100 Quigley, C., 76

R Race/Racism, 44, 45, 47 Racial Discrimination Act 1975, 25, 67 Racial segregation in the USA, 3 Racial stratification, 45 Racism, 6, 11, 31, 35, 114 Racism and discrimination, 88 Rafoni, Béatrice, 124 Rapoport, A., 83, 84, 115 Rawls, John, 119–121 Reciprocal causation model, 34 Reconstructionism, 117 Reconstructionist perspective, 116 Reducing racism, 33 Reification, 64, 65, 72 Relationship, 62 Religion, 47 Religious intolerance, 44 Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future, 106 Rest, J., 16 Revolution of 1789, 70 Reynolds, R., 26 Rikowski, Glenn, 119 Rizvi, Fazal, 92, 119 Rogers, Carl, 116 Rogers, Rebecca, 59 Role models, 32 Rule of law, 82 Russian Revolution, 65 Rust, V., 9, 64, 92, 123 Ryle, G., 18, 19

S Saha, L., 74, 75, 82, 83, 84, 88, 89 Sanjaya, D.,, 89 Sarup, M., 59–62 Scheille, J., 88 Schriewer, 64 Schwartz, S., 58, 124

150 Scriven, M., 27 Sears, A., 75 Secombe, M., 58 Secondary groups, 11 Self-concept, 43, 454, 49 Self-efficacy, 32, 45, 125 Self-esteem, 45, 125 Sense of belonging, 69, 79 Sex Discrimination Act 1984, 67 Sexism, 44 Shapiro, Z., 120 Shor, I., 7 Significant others, 32 Signified, 60 Signifiers, 60, 63 Silent spring, 93, 103 Sklair, L., 92 Slavin, R., 17 Smith, C., 104, 108 Smolicz, Jerzy, 7, 124 Snook, I., 12, 15, 16, 19 Social and emotional learning (SEL), 34 Social class, 47 Social construction of meaning, 59 Social constructivist learning, 34, 34 Social constructivist pedagogy(ies), 6, 14, 17, 19, 36, 37, 54, 68–71, 72, 89 Social equality, 47 Social history of memory, 63 Social identity, 2, 10, 51, 66 Social inequalities globally, 58 Social inequality debate, 122 Social inequality(ies), 21, 34, 119 Social justice discourses, 20, 55 Social justice education, 125 Social justice, 1, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 32, 33, 38, 43, 46–48, 50, 53, 54, 57, 68, 69–72, 79, 81, 89, 98, 111, 114, 117–123, 126 Social learning theory, 31, 32, 34 Social production of meaning, 58 Social reconstructionist pedagogy, 47 Social skills, 96 Social stratification, 21, 32, 68, 71, 114, 119, 126 Social sustainability, 104, 108 Socialization in schools, 51, 66 Socially desirable commodities, 50 Soudien, C., 123 Sous rature (under erasure), 60, 61 Space ship Earthm, 36 Spaceship Earth, 93, 109 Spanish Armada, 69

Index Spreen, C.A., 115 Standardisation of commodities, 92 Stanisławów, 39 Stereotypes, 25, 33, 111 Sterling, S., 103 Stone, M., 98 Stratified societies, 126 Straughan, R., 18, 19 Stronks, K., 111 Student’s identity, 49, 50 Subjectivity, 64 Survival of Spaceship Earth, 93 Sustainability education, 98, 101, 104 Sustainability goals, 97 Sustainability, 36, 37, 81, 94, 105 Sustainable consumption, 107 Sustainable development (ESD), 95, 96, 97, 106 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), 84, 99 Sustainable future, 109 Symbiotic, 62

T Tackling discrimination, 24, 58 Teaching citizenship education, 83 Teaching democracy, 6 Teaching eco literacy, 105 Teaching Green: Education as if the Environment Matters, 108 Teaching values, 16 Teaching values education, 68 Ten Commandments, 7 The Amazon region, 97 The Arts Faculty, 42 The Clash Of Civilizations And The Remaking Of World Order, 9, 52 The everything ethics, 94 The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 112 The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 112 The Medium is the Message, 79 The Monash Graduate Scholarship for Master of Arts, 42 The National Safe Schools Framework 2011, 67, 67 The Octagon Model, 10 The Order of Things, 60 The Polish education system, 41 The Process of Education, 26 The Republic, 118

Index The science of Right, 74 The Self, 9 The Universal declaration of human rights, 57 Theobald, B., 17 Theory of Social Justice, 119, 120 Thesse, G., 52 Thought and Language, 34 3Ms of moral education, 19 Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 6 Tibbitts, F., 116 Tilbury, 69 Tolerance, 8, 13 Torney-Purta, J., 6, 17, 73–76, 79, 80, 82, 83, 87, 88 Torres, C., 120 Totalitarian societies, 57 Tran, V., 17 Transformational Model, 116 Transformational pedagogy, 32 Troyna, B., 119 Truth in memory, 63 Truth, 16 Turnbull, E., 111 Two Worlds of Childhood, 42 U UN, 13, 68 Understanding Others, Education Ourselves, 123 UNDESA World Social Report, 119 UNDP, 92 UNESCO, 2, 8, 13, 23, 24, 51, 57, 68, 81, 83, 84, 88, 95, 96, 99, 100, 101, 106, 107 UNESCO’s values perspective, 36, 69 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 113 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), 7, 21, 51, 66, 115, 116, 125 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Rights of the Child, 117 USSR, 39, 40, 42 Utilitarian principles, 120 V Value of inclusive schooling, 23 Values, 2, 5, 10, 12, 17, 50, 54, 57, 59, 65, 66 Values acquisition, 30 Values and Awareness Model, 116

151 Values education, 1, 3, 7–9, 12, 15, 16, 18–21, 33, 38, 49, 51–53, 55, 58, 59, 66, 69, 111, 117 Values education discourses, 69 Values education for sustainability, 38 Values education globally, 68 Values education in schools, 17, 38, 54, 67 Values education in the classroom, 35 Values education policies, 58 Values for Australian schooling, 4 Values in democratic nations, 22 Values in the classroom, 4, 13 Values of democracy, 20 Values of sustainability, 98 Vecchione, M., 58 Veugelers, W., 85 Vicarious leaning, 32 Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, 112 Villegas, P., 97 Vincent, C., 119 Virtue theory, 18 Virtues, 16 Volosinov, V., 63 Vorkuta, 40 Vygotsky, L.S., 10, 30, 34

W Wallerstein, I., 1, 91, 92 Water Facts - Worldwide Water Supply, 103 Water, 103 Weiler, K., 122 Wellisz, C., 109 Western Ukraine, 40 White Australia Policy, 3 Whitehouse, J., 34, 60, 64 Whiteley, P., 88 Widdowson, H., 71 Winch, C., 8, 18, 19 Wodak, R., 59 Woods, R., 13, 15 World Bank, 57 World Education Indicators (WEI), 2 World Vision, 115, 115

X Xenophobia, 44

Y Yamarik, S., 17

152 Youth demands for quality climate change education, 107

Z Zajda, J., 2, 7, 8–10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 25, 30, 32–35, 37, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49–54,

Index 57–62, 64–66, 68–72, 74, 76, 83, 88, 91, 92, 98, 107, 108, 111, 115, 116, 119, 121–124 Zajda, Rea, 42 Zemi Odzyskane, 41 Zgorzelec, 40, 41 Zielona Góra, 39