F
or the purpose of our research, a community is deemed “multicultural” when it comprises
people of varied nationalities, diverse cultures and differing
religious backgrounds—a community of people that possesses divergent experiences,
abilities, and skills; “multiculturalism” is the ideology that regards such a community
as desirable and worth fostering. A
self-aware multicultural community recognises the specificity of its cultural circumstances,
a specificity which arises for its citizens’ diverse values, expressions, attitudes,
and lifestyles. For such a community to succeed everyone within it, not just the immigrant
students and their families, must recognize the nature of that community. Banks claims
that a multicultural community recognizes and defends the rights of its constituent
groups and expects its citizens to preserve relationships and commitments within their
own ethnic groups while participating actively in the broader community. According
to Banks, multicultural teaching is marked by three characteristic features: (1) a
theoretical teaching approach that aims to create an equal learning opportunity for
all students; (2) an ideology that aims to actualize democratic ideas, such as equality,
justice, and human rights; and (3) a recognition that the process will have no end,
because there will always be inconsistencies between democratic ideals and that which
is advanced in schools and in the community (123). In the western world, multiculturalism
is held up as an ideal in most countries;
and many communities within these countries are indeed multicultural, so we may expect
to find the pedagogic practice in these countries to reflect the features just mentioned.
Our own study focuses on three such countries and their teaching practices: Canada,
Norway and Iceland. In terms of their multiculturalism policies, these three countries
are historically unalike. Ethnic and racial pluralism are prime characteristics of
Canada’s inhabitants (Canadian Multiculturalism Act; McLeod). Multi-ethnic communities
have existed in Canada for centuries, and many approaches
to resolving the issue of unity have been tried — from persecution and even annihilation
of minorities to full integration (Canadian Multiculturalism Act; Stephan). Currently
Canadian multiculturalism policies embrace a variety of goals. The fundamental
principles are to preserve human rights, increase the participation of citizens, emphasize
Canadian identity, reinforce Canadian unity, encourage cultural diversity, and eliminate
discrimination. Furthermore, this policy affirms the principle of individual freedom
of choice and stresses that membership in an ethnic group should not place constraints
on such choices (Mallea; McLeod). Interestingly, Mallea notes that “the policy also
reflects a belief that confidence in one’s individual identity, strengthened
by a sense of belonging, provides an acceptable and necessary base for national unity”
(9).
Norway’s multicultural experience is much shorter, but in the last four decades, Norway
has become a fast-growing multicultural society. Norwegian authorities have set a
clear course of action on issues regarding immigrants, with the twin goals of securing
economic stability and social development (Ministry of Labour and Social Inclusion,
Norway). In Iceland, the authorities had yet to address directly the issue of immigrants’
particular needs at the time of our data collection, but in the fall of 2005 an immigration
plan was established, the main goal of which is to help foreigners to adjust to the
Icelandic community. Both Norway and Iceland are becoming more culturally diverse,
and therefore may benefit from the experiences of a country like Canada, which, as
was just noted, has been wrestling with the issue of multiculturalism for centuries.
Stephan claims that, in making multiculturalism a principle of federal policy in Canada,
the government appears to have set a precedent for other countries that find themselves
in a similar historical situation. A brief historical overview of policies regarding
multiculturalism in the three countries follows.
Just over 33 million people live in Canada. In the past most immigrants to Canada
came from Europe, but in the last few decades, immigration has come from around the
world. In the first third of 2005, 75,951 immigrants received Canadian citizenship,
which is a 16% increase over the same period in the previous year—the first time that
an increase of this magnitude has occurred in recent years. The majority of these
immigrants came from China (11,161 people), India (9,142 people), the Philippines
(5,353 people), and Pakistan (4,188 people) (Citizenship and Immigration Canada).
Very few immigrants are now coming from Europe.
Following Canadian confederation in 1867, emphasis was placed on assimilation as a
primary strategy for building the nation, and Anglo-Canadians came to view themselves
as the host society (McLeod). In 1971, however, a change took place in federal policy,
and assimilation, which
had come to be regarded as both an undesirable and an unacceptable goal, was explicitly
rejected (Mallea). On October 8, 1971, the government under Prime Minister Trudeau
embraced multiculturalism,
defining it as the new ideal for Canadian society. Although Canada was to accept two
official languages (English and French), it was the view of the Trudeau administration
that no single culture should dominate the country and that no ethnic group should
have precedence over any other. Canada was to be considered a bilingual nation and
a multicultural society, a model deemed best able to assure the cultural freedom of
Canadians. Trudeau stated that every ethnic group had the right to preserve and develop
its own culture and values within the Canadian context (McLeod; Mallea).
Since 1971 all Canadian political parties have lent their support to the ideal of
multiculturalism, though with varying degrees of enthusiasm, recognizing that it contributes
richness to the lives of all Canadians (Mallea). J.C. Young (2006) claims, however,
that some ethnic groups, especially those of visible minorities
(i.e. non-whites), have received fewer benefits from this policy than others. The
position of indigenous Canadians in particular is difficult, he argues, and their
unique needs and contributions have yet to be recognized. The treaties that govern
the living conditions of this last group work against perfect multiculturalism. But
in general the policy is relatively effective and pragmatic.
In 1988, the federal multiculturalism policy was confirmed with the passing of the
Multiculturalism Act. While the phrase “within a bilingual framework” was dropped
from the title of the act, Canadian multiculturalism remained positioned
within the framework of two official languages (Young 2006). Linguistic groups such
as Germans, Italians, and Ukrainians, who comprise a significant
portion of the Canadian mosaic, receive no comparable language recognition (Aoki
et al.), but there is no historical reason why they should. It may be said that the
goal
of the Canadian government over the past several years has been to encourage immigrants
to adjust to the dominant conditions, customs, and mentality.
After the multicultural policy was made official in Canada, the provinces (which bear
the responsibility for public education) responded in various ways and at different
times to this changing social model. These different approaches reflected their diverse
immigration histories. Some provinces, such as Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, and
Alberta, implemented extensive changes in strategy, but development was slower in
other provinces because, among other things, fewer immigrants were living there (Young
1995).
Young (2006) claims that Canadian teachers are not prepared to teach students of
diverse ethnicities.
They need to learn how to do so. For example, he suggests that teachers need to know
the cultural backgrounds of their students, but more importantly, must learn to know
themselves and their own cultures, mentalities, and attitudes. In addition, Orlikow
and Young argue that education departments in Canadian universities have shown little
initiative in the struggle to achieve equality within the educational system and that
scholarly discussion has not sufficiently focused on the issue of multiculturalism.
Besides, claims Young (2006), many education departments at universities do not have
specialists capable of preparing
student teachers to address the needs of international students. To be sure, exceptions
exist, for example at the Universities of British Columbia and Toronto, where courses
in multicultural education have been a part of the curricula for the last three decades.
But Young (2006) speaks of the need for other universities to develop education programs
in multiculturalism
that will provide specific, accessible teacher training courses in the area.
In 1991, 5,050 immigrants received Norwegian citizenship. By 2005 that annual intake
had increased to 12,655, in a country 4.7 million inhabitants. In the same year 8.3%
of the population (387,000 people) held citizenship in another country (Statistics
Norway).
Norwegian authorities have followed a clear path in their approach to immigrants,
principally aiming at the economic stability and social development of the country.
This policy recognizes the absolute need of foreign workers, but seeks to improve
their entry into Norwegian society by openly addressing educational and cultural issues
that affect them. At the same time, authorities aim to maintain harmony in international
relations (Ministry of Labour and Social Inclusion, Norway). The authorities have
affirmed that everyone, whatever their origin or sex, shall
have the same possibilities and rights in the community in order to develop their
strengths. In order to achieve this goal, one needs to work against sexism and racial
and ethnic discrimination in the country (NOU).
The educational system in Norway as a whole has undergone many changes in the last
decade, including the extension of professional teacher education from three years
to four. In a recent resolution relating to changes and challenges in teacher education,
the Norwegian parliament determined that the role of teachers is to tend to each and
every student so that he/she can reach his/her potential. This policy requires that
teachers be capable of taking children seriously and of communicating effectively
with them as students; furthermore they must achieve good communications with co-workers
and parents. In order to attain this goal, teachers must be mature, responsible individuals
who accept the necessity that they be accountable for their actions. Such teachers
will possess intuition and knowledge of the learning capacities of students, their
culture, and the influence of their culture on their learning ability and on all aspects
of their lives (Ministry of Education and Research).
Student teachers in Norway are taught to make an effort to incorporate multicultural
awareness into their teaching, and to do this in a variety of ways. In the national
curriculum, emphasis is placed on the many changes that have occurred in society and
the fact that teacher training needs to tackle those changes. In elementary education,
such preparation is addressed in the overall curriculum rather than in specific courses.
The University of Oslo offers a Master’s program with an emphasis on the multicultural
school and on education and development in an international context. Such learning
ought to prepare teachers to tackle developmental jobs both at home and abroad, promote
their knowledge of a different community, and teach them how they can respond to international
and multicultural issues from the viewpoint of pedagogy and teaching theory (Oslo
University College).
Iceland is one of the least populated countries in the world, with approximately 300,000
inhabitants. The nation has long been unusually homogeneous, but in recent years the
number of immigrants has increased rapidly, and the culture has become more diverse.
According to Statistics Iceland (2006a), 726 people received Icelandic citizenship
in 2005, compared to 161 people in 1991.
In 2005, 4.6% of the population was made up of citizens of another country. Since
1981, 13,778 people have received citizenship in Iceland, 3,221 of them from Poland.
The annual number of immigrants has been similar in the last few years. In 2005, 903
came from Denmark, 781 from Germany, 771 from the Philippines, and 703 from the former
Yugoslavia (Statistics Iceland 2006b).
Icelandic authorities had developed no clear policy on the issue of immigrants at
the time of our data collection in 2006. However in the fall of 2005, an immigration
plan was established, the main goal of which is to help foreigners adjust to the Icelandic
community. The plan recommends priorities and measures to be carried out. In the laws
pertaining to kindergarten, compulsory school attendance, and college, it has been
emphasized that the role of the school is to reinforce the well-rounded development
of students so that they become as prepared as possible to take an active part in
a democratic society that is continually evolving (Preschool Act; Compulsory School
Act; College Act). With respect to the relationship between teachers and students,
the acts say, among
other things, that teachers shall develop students’ tolerance and reinforce their
understanding of the conditions of people and the environment. Furthermore, the intention
of the Compulsory School Act is to ensure that every student receives an equal opportunity
to study, and to prevent discrimination based on country of origin, sex, residence,
profession, religion, or disability.
Until recently, institutions for teacher education in Iceland have not systematically
prepared their students for multicultural teaching. But, in the fall of 2002, even
before the government’s immigration plan came into effect, teaching about multiculturalism
had begun, with specific courses in the graduate department of the Iceland University
of Education. The multiculturalism program, at the university starts with 15 credits
(=30 ECTS [European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System] credits). In the fall
of 2004, the university offered a 30 credit (=60 ECTS credits) course. Currently,
the course is a special program within the M.Ed. program in pedagogical and educational
studies. Courses like these indicate real progress, but they reach relatively few
students, since only a minority of education students go on to do graduate work.
In the Department of Primary and Lower Secondary Education at the Iceland University
of Education, there are specific programs focusing on the multicultural community
for all the students, and it is also possible to specialize by choosing individual
courses. Specific courses on multiculturalism are not currently offered in the Faculty
of Education at the University of Akureyri, but issues of multiculturalism are dealt
with in various courses, such as those in the Modern Studies program.
Embracing the concept of inclusive education may involve a review of thinking and
practice within a school. A change of values and aims for the school may be necessary,
including a commitment to broad and balanced curriculum opportunities for all children
and systematic procedures for monitoring and reviewing progress in achieving these
curricular goals. For these changes to occur, effective leadership is needed (Aðalsteinsdóttir
1992; Ainscow 1991; Ainscow and Hart; Ramasut).
All children have characteristics that distinguish them from other children; they
all possess individual abilities and traits. It is not only their abilities and aptitudes
that differ, but also their experiences, interests, and attitudes. All children have
the same basic needs, but develop in different ways and pick up expertise at different
rates (Boland et al.; Tomlinson). Learners teach themselves their individual study
habits, depending on their origins
and culture (Davidman and Davidman). In the discussion of inclusive schooling, it
has been emphasized that all children
should be given equal opportunity to grow according to their own competences and abilities,
which involves great commitment on the part of their teachers.
Research shows that students who are well aware of their familial origins have greater
self-respect and are less prejudiced than those who do not. Knowledge of one’s origins
increases tolerance for others and inhibits the emergence of prejudice and hatred;
such knowledge also enhances students’ ability to participate in a multicultural,
democratic society (Davidman and Davidman; Tiedt and Tiedt). Gay argue that the goals
of good teaching will only be reached if teachers consider
what culturally diverse learners bring with them, and the circumstances of learners
as they interact with each other. Only teachers who know their students’ home circumstances
and who respect individuals and the groups to which they belong can bring such considerations
to bear (Davidman and Davidman). Pollard and Tann argue that such knowledge increases
teachers’ sense of security
by giving them a choice of what issues and concerns they address; furthermore it encourages
a supportive relationship between home and school.
As will be evident, in all of this the attitude of teachers and the environment that
they create for learners are of great importance. Teachers are in a key position to
help shape the educational paths of their learners. They can minimize prejudice with
multicultural teaching that includes systematic methods, good models, the choice of
appropriate subjects, equal opportunity for all learners, and relationships that are
recognized in a democratic society (Ainscow 1999; Banks; Davidman and Davidman; Lawrence-Brown).
The goal of multicultural teaching is to encourage all children to be attentive, responsible,
active members of the society in which they live (Banks). Multicultural education
includes the inculcation of certain thoughts and attitudes,
of which the most important issue is the acceptance of diversity. Teachers must continually
ask themselves if teaching and the thought behind it is multicultural. This applies
to teaching methods, ideology, and the process used to meet the learning needs of
students; teachers must stimulate learners to develop within themselves the attitudes
and understandings that make them capable of taking part in a multicultural, democratic
society (Davidman and Davidman). Education includes helping each individual to develop
positive self-respect as well
as positive beliefs about solidarity with others and fair opportunities for all (Tiedt
and Tiedt).
Learning functions well when it takes place in a supportive yet suitably challenging
environment. Children need provocative subjects, but when learning involves obstacles
that seem insurmountable to them, it becomes intimidating. A hostile learning environment—or
one in which overly difficult subject matter makes children to feel unsafe—causes
them to experience rejection and to focus on self-defence, retreating into themselves
rather than reaching out to learn (Tomlinson). To avoid this students need an environment
in which they are exposed to learning
that interweaves the educational and the social, and that supports well-rounded development.
If it is to achieve its social as well as pedagogical goals, multicultural teaching
must be collaborative, for the ethos of collaboration coincides with and enhances
a multicultural vision. Collaborative learning seems to contribute to the overall
success of study groups and to support all learners. Such learning contributes to
positive relationships and communication between learners and often leads to greater
recognition of their various needs. Collaborative learning appears to increase the
social, psychological, and intellectual development of all learners (Johnson, Johnson,
and Holubec; Davidman and Davidman).
A good relationship between school and home can be a key to successful schoolwork.
Epstein claims that good relationships between home and school improve support both
at home and at school. Not surprisingly involving parents in their children’s learning
has a visible positive influence on their studies (Hoover, Otto, and Brissie; Fullan
and Stiegelbauer).
Research points to the fact that parents want to take part in their children’s learning
but are uncertain about how to go about it. Epstein and Janshorn stress that it is
the role of teachers to clarify for parents the goals of learning, the role of parents
in this learning process, and the best ways to organize a relationship between home
and school. Davidman and Davidman emphasize that teachers must take the initiative
in demonstrating the benefits of a strong relationship with parents, especially with
the parents of international children, and they must work at cultivating this relationship.
If such a tradition does not exist in the culture of international students, it may
be difficult to establish rapport between the parents of these students and their
teachers. Nevertheless every effort must be made to create this collaborative relationship.
Nor will students be the only beneficiaries; teachers who cultivate such a connection
can connect international parents better to the community and culture in which they
live.
The goal of the research was to procure information on the following subjects: 1.
how qualified and prepared teachers are to teach culturally diverse learners; 2. how
teachers meet the individual needs of culturally diverse learners; and 3. what are
teachers’ perceptions of how their culturally diverse learners adapt to a new cultural
community.
Having determined the countries in which the research should be conducted—for the
reasons set out above—the actual research began in Akureyri, Iceland, by carrying
out a pre-survey, in which two focus groups were interviewed. The structure and questions
for the pre-survey were based on the literature review. For the main study, information
was collected on teachers’ beliefs and actions through structured interviews and field
notes. The interview themes and questions were based on the literature review and
on the results from this pre-survey.
Eighteen teachers were interviewed—six each in Iceland, Norway, and Canada. The teachers
had common characteristics. In each country, two of the teachers had taught less than
five years, two had taught eleven years or just over eleven years, and two of the
teachers in each country had more than twenty years of teaching experience. All the
teachers taught primary grades (one through five, that is, six- to eleven-year-olds).
The number of culturally diverse children in each class varied. The children in Manitoba
came from five to seven countries; in Norway and Iceland they came from one to three
countries. In the interviews, the teachers were asked about their education, their
teaching experience, and in what ways they were qualified and prepared to teach culturally
diverse learners. They were also asked about the cultural variability within the classes
they taught, about equal opportunity, the particular needs of learners, their language
abilities, the relationship between teachers and the learners’ families, and homework.
The interviews, which took about 45 minutes each, were recorded and transcribed by
the interviewers. Field notes and events were recorded in the classrooms after the
interviews had been carried out. Different sets of events were distinguished, and
the researchers tried not to overlook details and to be specific. Descriptive information
was written down, such as teacher-pupil dialogues as well as physical situations and
explanations of certain events. Reflective information was also included, such as
the researcher’s personal account of the course of inquiry (Gall, Borg, and Gall).
The research was conducted by Associate Professor Kristín Aðalsteinsdóttir; Adjunct
Professor Guðmundur Engilbertsson; and Ragnheiður Gunnbjörnsdóttir, special education
teacher. The latter two were pursuing Master’s degrees at the University of Akureyri
at the time the research took place. The list of questions for the interviews was
designed after a thorough discussion of the objectives of the research and the theoretical
background as well as a pre-survey with a focus group. The question list was reviewed
by Dr. Nina Colwill, who was a Guest Professor at the University of Akureyri at the
time.
The pre-survey progressed with the help of two focus groups. The first comprised four
culturally diverse women who had children in schools in Akureyri: three of them had
two children, and one of them had three children. They were asked about their language
ability, their ability to help their children with homework, and their experience
in the school environment in Iceland and in the country from which they came. They
discussed prejudice and the strategies they thought were needed to effect change in
schools for culturally diverse children. The second focus group comprised five teachers
from a school that had a special division to help immigrants adapt. They discussed
how their school accommodates culturally diverse children—specifically, about collaboration,
the importance of language skills, the method of learning, school subjects, homework,
social circumstances, and culture.
A question list was created for structured interviews to be held with teachers in
three schools in Akureyri, Iceland; in six schools in Gjøvik, Norway; and in two schools
in Manitoba, Canada. Head teachers in Akureyri assisted in finding interlocutors.
In Norway, Jan Tambs-Lyche, a principal in the town of Gjøvik, requested head teachers
to approve the research in their schools. In Canada, the ethics committee of the University
of Manitoba granted permission for our research on the condition that informed consent
be obtained from the interviewees. In the three countries, we sought interlocutors
who had taught in classrooms where there was at least one international student who
had been in the classroom less than one year. The interviews took 30-45 minutes and
were recorded and typed by the interviewers. At the University of Manitoba, an interview
was also conducted with Dr. Jonathan Young, who had been planning multicultural teaching
for the Canadian government for many years.
The data from the interviews were analysed according to a method known as meaning interpretation (Kvale). Kvale describes five possible ways of proceeding with this method: categorization
of meaning, condensation of meaning, structuring of meaning through narratives, interpretation
of meaning, and ad hoc methods for generating meaning. We decided to employ the strategy
he calls “interpretation of meaning.” We searched individually for the main components
in all of the interviews, analyzed
the data, and inferred their meaning. Thus, each researcher deduced an overall picture
of each part. All conclusions were compared and discussed, and mutual resolutions
were determined. The goal was to insure the highest level of credibility for the analyses
(Kvale 201-04). Our individual conclusions were, in most cases, in agreement. When
analyzing our
field notes, we decided to apply interpretational analysis; inferences were needed,
and the data were closely examined in order to find constructs, themes, and patterns
that might describe the discourse and events in the classrooms (Gall, Borg, and Gall).
The data were presented in the structure of the questionnaire.
It must be kept in mind that this was exploratory research, and the level of validity
that it achieved needs to be spelled out. To begin with we should note the limited
number of teachers involved: for reasons noted below, six teachers were interviewed
in each of the three countries. The process of obtaining official permission was complicated
in Manitoba (Canada), where it was only possible to access two schools and to interview
three teachers in each school. Access was also restricted in Norway. Fortunately,
however, we were able to work in each country with teachers who shared similar teaching
experience, as was noted above. Furthermore our interviews with these eighteen teachers
were extensive, which allowed for greater depth than is the case with other methods
(Kvale). Cohen and Manion claim that although the direct interaction during an interview
allows for a greater depth than is the case with other methods of data collection,
it is prone to subjectivity and bias on the part of the interviewer, because of the
human element that is inevitably part of the interview situation. One way to avoid
the biases that distort the researcher’s picture of the particular reality is to employ
more than one method. The more dissimilar the methods, the greater the researcher’s
confidence in the findings. Therefore, we used field notes to record details of and
concerns about the particular interview, as well as the researcher’s personal account
of the course of inquiry. For the purpose of this research, the researchers kept in
mind that the objectivity and credibility of the researcher is essential. “Validity
is not only a matter of the method used; the person of the researcher, including
her moral integrity, is critical for evaluation of the quality of the scientific knowledge
produced” (Kvale 241-42, citing Salner and also Smith.)
Virtually none of the eighteen teachers in the three countries claimed that they had
been taught about multiculturalism or multicultural teaching in their teacher training,
but all the Canadian teachers, three of the Norwegian teachers, and two of the Icelandic
teachers considered themselves to have obtained knowledge of the matter through their
own experience.
In Manitoba, two teachers out of six had attended courses about First Nations people
and multiculturalism, and all the six teachers were unanimous that they had learned
most of what they knew about these culturally diverse groups from working and living
in a multicultural environment. Three of these teachers were immigrants themselves
and claimed that their experience of belonging to a minority made them better able
to understand and meet children’s needs, whatever their cultural identity. Although
both English and French are official languages in Canada, the teachers interviewed
for this study all taught in English.
In Norway, two of the teachers had studied special education, which they believed
would come in handy for multicultural teaching, and one of them had attended courses
on pedagogy for immigrants. In Iceland, two of the teachers had attended a course
that they considered to be beneficial in their multicultural teaching. Both the Norwegian
and Icelandic teachers thought that their life experiences and the experience of working
with children of diverse origins had provided the greatest benefit to them in meeting
the needs of all learners; and they were unanimous that they should have been required
to learn about multiculturalism in their compulsory-school years.
The responses of the Manitoban teachers indicated unmistakable signs of a sense of
responsibility. All six were in agreement that the existence of diverse cultural worlds
constitutes a special reality in Canada. It was clear from their answers that they
considered international origins to be as normal as native birth. Nevertheless, they
differentiated between learners who were born in Canada and those who had recently
moved to the country. They claimed that those born in Canada lived an easier life:
language did not hold them back, and they often had more disposable income. They agreed,
however, that culturally diverse children had great assimilative potential and were
ambitious and able, despite language difficulties in the beginning. Any differences
that did arise in the school were connected to ethnic traditions: food, holidays,
and attire.
These teachers in Manitoba agreed that it was necessary to encourage a sharing of
cultures, so that each child could be proud of his/her origin. Teachers need to know
about different cultures, and the school needs to make a point of meeting the needs
of all children. The course of study has to appeal to everyone, but with particular
emphasis on the language learning of students who are not thoroughly grounded in one
of the official languages. “Children of different nationalities have the same emotions,
and all need moral pedagogy,” said one of the teachers. Thus, the classroom atmosphere
needs to be characterized
by recognition, respect, and helpfulness. As was manifested both in the interviews
and the observations, the teachers were unanimous that the teaching of ethics should
be incorporated in a variety of ways and with many kinds of lessons, but without an
exclusively religious basis.
During their interviews the Norwegian teachers provided different feedback to the
questions about diverse cultures in school, and there were suggestions that teachers
fail to take responsibility for culturally diverse children. Certain contradictions
occurred in the answers of the teachers and also between teachers: while one teacher
claimed that he saw it as a matter of course that learners came from other countries,
another claimed not to see the value of people of different origins living together.
The latter teacher was unconcerned about meeting the needs of culturally diverse learners
and claimed that it was just one more thing to do within the school. He added that
these learners ought to adjust to Norwegian culture.
Four teachers agreed that a division existed between “these people” and Norwegians.
When the relative economic situations of different groups were considered,
all the teachers agreed that people of culturally diverse origin lived in greater
poverty than Norwegians. A teacher who considered culturally diverse children to have
a positive influence on other learners thought it was beneficial to discuss cultural
differences based on different religions and customs, since this widened students’
perspectives.
Amongst the Norwegian interlocutors there was some agreement that the educational
system did not manage well enough in relation to culturally diverse children. Although
most of them sensed that culturally diverse learners had adjusted well to life in
Norway, half of the teachers spoke of the importance of better recognizing the needs
of these students’ culture and position. Two of the teachers understood this to mean
discussions about cultural differences and setting learning requirements in accordance
with learners’ abilities.
Each of the Icelandic teachers considered culturally diverse children to have adapted
well to life in Iceland, by which they largely meant that their families had achieved
economic success. If the parents of the children had a house and car, it was considered
that adjustment had taken place. One of the teachers claimed that this process of
adjustment was going remarkably well, indeed immigrants seem better able to improve
their circumstances in a short time than Icelandic families do. Three of the teachers
claimed to discuss the customs and traditions of the countries that the learners came
from. In contrast, insecurity and a lack of understanding among these three teachers
toward diverse cultures were apparent in that they did not answer questions, they
seemed not to connect the circumstances of the children with their learning, and their
communication with parents seemed to be bordering on irresponsible, as has been recounted
above.
The teachers in Manitoba (Canada) seemed to be very aware that a key issue was to
strengthen the self-image of culturally diverse children as much as possible. “When
there is a lack of confidence, they are less likely to participate in study or
social activities, they communicate less, and they withdraw,” said one of the teachers,
“and it often takes many years for them to recover if they lose out in this respect.”
It was mentioned that culturally diverse children seek the company of children of
the same origin, thereby isolating themselves from others. All of these teachers claimed
that they try to establish a learning environment that is characterized by respect,
and three of the teachers deal with diversity by using special study materials for
the whole school, called PEACE: P = politeness, E = empathy, A = acts of kindness,
C = co-operation, E = everyone counts (see, for example, Gordon). In the field notes,
it was obvious that, through teaching, the children were encouraged in various ways
to share with others; efforts were made to improve communication, self-awareness,
and the self-image of the children.
Four of the Norwegian teachers agreed that the self-image of international children
was not good and that this also applied to their parents. They consider it important
to learn co-operation in order to strengthen students’ social abilities. Yet, one
can find contradictions in various issues that surfaced in the interviews. It is difficult,
for example, to agree with one teacher who on the one hand described an international
student as increasingly given to clowning around, but on the other considered the
student’s self-image to be good. Five of the teachers offered the opinion that discipline
and regularity were necessary conditions for the classroom atmosphere. Reactions to
the difficulties experienced by the children sometimes indicated an attempt to create
disengagement rather than to strengthen social relationships and activity. Culturally
diverse learners appear to participate in daily activities, but are reserved. Poor
language skills create both learning and social hurdles. These results were also recorded
in the field notes.
When the Icelandic teachers were asked about equal opportunity for all students to
learn, they appeared not to be sufficiently aware of the status of culturally diverse
learners. Three teachers indicated difficulties in the class, and four teachers acknowledged
a lack of action: nothing was done, although the need was apparent. The Icelandic
teachers often used the concepts of self-confidence and self-image but appeared to
be referring to self-control. Most of the teachers’ answers indicated that they ignore
the difficulties of these learners rather than working with them. A good example of
this was a teacher who claimed that a culturally diverse child under her supervision
had difficulty following the material, acted immaturely, and asked inappropriate questions.
The teacher thought that the student lacked the normal self-control to be able to
keep quiet in class, but clearly there could be other explanations for the student’s
behaviour.
The views of the teachers in the three countries are noticeably different. The Manitoban
teachers appeared both in the interviews and the class observations to be aware of
the status of their learners and they worked hard to maintain equality among them—not
by expecting everyone to adapt to a particular culture, but by encouraging everyone
to share and to be proud of their origins and thus to make a contribution to Canadian
culture. In Norway and in Iceland we noted at once an emphasis on having the children
adapt to the school and to the community, and also a failure to initiate any process
that might bring this about.
In Manitoba, the teachers typically did not develop an individualized curriculum for
children with language difficulties. However, these learners received support, usually
within the classroom. All the teachers thought that because of the difficulty in learning
a new language, culturally diverse students had different needs than other learners
in the class. They needed assistance in learning about predominant customs and traditions,
for example, and the best way to assist learners was with various collaborative projects
and diverse options. Learners with limited knowledge of English occasionally received
special language teaching at the beginning of their schooling, requiring them occasionally
to leave the classroom for separate language instruction. Unfortunately that strategy
delivered a contradictory message in a school where the emphasis is on unity and respect
for individual differences.
In Norway, a great deal of emphasis is placed on encouraging culturally diverse students
to learn Norwegian. Teaching most often occurs within the classroom, but sometimes
learners are taken from the class for special education. There were different views
among the teachers about what was better for the student. Two of the teachers claimed
that an individualized curriculum was developed for the learners and that they initially
applied lower standards to culturally diverse children and adapted the subject matter
and their standards. As recorded in the field notes, the children often work together
in groups, although there is not a specific emphasis on collaborative learning; other
teaching methods were also mentioned. One of the teachers considered it better for
one of his learners to work alone until he had grasped the language, but this approach
resulted in the student withdrawing socially. All the teachers said that culturally
diverse learners often suffered from a poor self-image, felt that they knew nothing,
and were afraid of making mistakes. Yet none of our findings indicated a systematic
approach to tackling such difficulties.
All the Icelandic teachers claimed that they usually created an individualized curriculum
for culturally diverse learners, but when the learners received more specialized language
training with special education teachers, they followed that plan. However, the teachers
appeared not to be very knowledgeable about those plans. In partnership with another
teacher one teacher had developed an individualized curriculum with an emphasis on
language. Most of the teachers claimed that they often adapted assignments and applied
lower standards to culturally diverse learners. One teacher did not have information
about the performance of one such learner in subjects other than the ones he himself
taught; furthermore, although the child had homework difficulties, he had no information
from the parents. Teachers often did not appear to understand that these learners
had different needs than other learners. One teacher expressed the view that it was
good for such learners to experience extensive collaborative learning and communication,
thereby connecting with others and learning the language. Most of these teachers claimed
that they used diverse teaching methods and group work, but that it was often difficult
to form groups. It was not clear why this was so. The field notes recorded in Norway
and Iceland showed that work described as co-operative was often in fact individualized.
Although group work was mediated by several factors, for example the composition of
groups and task structures, the children seemed to work alone.
In the schools we visited in Manitoba, there was no formal evaluation of the learners’
abilities to speak English. Teachers themselves evaluate learners’ abilities if they
detect signs of study difficulties. However, the schools have skilled staff who are
capable of evaluating learners’ abilities. All the teachers were well aware that poor
language comprehension by culturally diverse children was a problem. Their literacy
was often less than that of native-born Canadians, and this was clearly reflected
in difficulties in “reading between the lines” and understanding the meaning of written
or spoken language, as one of the teachers
claimed. These individuals typically had difficulty understanding word games or humour
that challenged their language comprehension. All the teachers claimed that their
vocabulary was poor: they did not know the words or appreciate diverse meanings that
depended on context. Their vocabulary thus lacked breadth (number of words) and depth
(awareness of different possible meanings). The teachers also claimed that such learners
learned English in school and their native language either at home and at “Saturday
School,” a situation that is common in Canada.
All the Norwegian teachers claimed that the language comprehension of their culturally
diverse learners was poor. The children required considerable explanation and assistance
regarding words and concepts. They were often in the position of having to guess the
meaning of words or text, and awareness of their own abilities was lacking. The teachers
claimed that, for these reasons, there was an emphasis on vocabulary and concepts.
The interviews with the teachers revealed that, despite their awareness of poor vocabulary
and comprehension, the learners’ abilities had not been formally evaluated. It was
interesting that most of the teachers included various hesitancies in their assessment,
often using phrases such as “I consider” or “I think” instead of being sure. They
appeared to have weak backgrounds in systematic language
learning. Furthermore, because there was a lack of communication among the teachers
in the school, they did not appear to be aware of what other teachers did in particular
situations. These findings did not emerge among the Canadian teachers.
There were many similar patterns with the Icelandic and Norwegian teachers regarding
language. All the Icelandic teachers claimed that children’s comprehension was often
poor, that they lacked words to communicate their thoughts, and that their understanding
of concepts was typically poor. In one instance, vocabulary had been formally evaluated
by a language pathologist, but otherwise, the evaluation was based on the teacher’s
own opinion. One Icelandic teacher claimed that the vocabulary of a culturally diverse
learner was poor, and the teacher’s assessment was that the student was “borderline
dyslexic.” This assessment was not based on a careful diagnosis, and the teacher had
made no
arrangements for such a diagnosis. The interviews indicated a lack of communication
among most of the teachers—for example, the homeroom teacher, other teachers, and
special education teachers. The interviews did not indicate that the teachers’ work
was systematic.
Poor comprehension and limited vocabulary were observed among the culturally diverse
learners in all three countries, and provisions to deal with these problems were in
many ways similar in these countries. As noted above, the classes we collected data
from in Iceland and Norway had fewer (1-3) culturally diverse learners than the Manitoban
classrooms (5-7). Perhaps their relatively low numbers caused them to be regarded
as extraordinary and therefore requiring “special education” or special assistance.
Culturally diverse learners in the Manitoban schools, on the
other hand, might have been less conspicuous individually because their numbers were
greater and because the presence of culturally diverse learners in general is more
common in Canada.
The relationships of the teachers in the three countries with the families of culturally
diverse learners appeared to be rather different. The schools in Manitoba had fixed
consultation times, three times each year at the school. The relationships of teachers
with parents were also as dictated by convenience and often occurred, for example,
at the end of the school day. Occasionally, teachers would visit learners at home,
in the case of illness, for instance. Although the teachers demonstrated obvious understanding
of the parents of their learners, they claimed that it was not their role to address
difficulties like anxiety or isolation that may occur in the family; that was the
role of others within the school, such as school counselors. All of the teachers spoke
about the importance of relationships with parents. One teacher claimed that he enjoyed
working with parents and that this work was essential to ensure that the child was
comfortable in school.
All the Canadian teachers in Manitoba claimed that culturally diverse parents were
sensitive to majority attitudes towards their communities; they were often worried
that their child would be looked down upon. The teachers claimed that their culturally
diverse learners were often able and ambitious learners and that their families respected
learning and encouraged their children to learn. The parents had come to Canada willingly
in order to provide their children with better learning opportunities, but they faced
many kinds of difficulties in their new country. They were often unable to obtain
work that matched their education, lack of language being the greatest hindrance to
appropriate employment. This created difficult conditions for the families, in particular
for the mothers, who often suffered from isolation in their homes. However, it was
clear to us that people who move to Canada tend to have access to a community of people
from their own culture and to receive support, either from their extended family or
from others in the community.
The six schools in Norway have a specific plan for improving relationships with parents.
Four of the teachers mentioned regular fall meetings with all of the classroom parents
and private interviews. They have available to them a study that encourages reciprocal
communications. However, according to these four teachers, communication only takes
place through these formal channels, and it appears that the teachers maintain a certain
distance from the parents. It also appeared common that the parents did not place
demands on the school, although they placed demands on their children. Two of the
teachers claimed to have no communication with the parents.
The Icelandic teachers appeared to demonstrate a lack of responsibility in their communication
with the parents. Four of the teachers claimed that they never asked for information
about the learners from the parents, and three had no answers to questions regarding
relationships with parents. The schools appeared not to have any plans for how teachers
and parents should communicate, and relations between the school and the home were
limited, except for parent interviews twice a year. Four teachers claimed that they
did not initiate communication with the parents. All of the teachers had little information
about the parents’ expectations of the school, how parents thought their children
felt in school, or if they were worried about their children’s schooling.
In the two Manitoban schools, the intent is to assign the same homework for all learners
whether or not they are born in Canada. The teachers agreed that there was variation
in parental assistance with homework; in general, the teachers appeared not to rely
on such assistance. There did not appear to be much homework, and the teachers claimed
that there was no point in assigning homework that went beyond reading and easy assignments,
such as grammar or spelling exercises.
In Norway, considerable emphasis was placed on homework in the six schools that were
visited. In most instances, daily homework is expected, and often, homework is either
assigned to be due on certain days, or a work plan is made for a certain time period,
and the learners themselves plan when to finish their work. Some of the teachers expect
the parents to help their children, but others claim that they cannot insist on that.
It should be mentioned that the school provides assistance with homework. In some
cases, language teachers can be asked to go to the learners’ homes to assist with
the homework.
In the three Icelandic schools, a homework plan is usually issued. Learners have to
complete homework before the end of the week, and parents sign when the work is finished.
Children who are in daycare after school do some of their homework there and receive
assistance. In general, the teachers agreed that parents provided only limited assistance
with homework, and therefore it was difficult to expect homework to be completed.
In one instance, a teacher claimed that he tried to convince the parents to put their
child in daycare at the school to get some assistance with the homework.
The teachers from these three countries have similar experiences regarding homework.
Homework is limited by the assistance or encouragement given at home. The solution
appears to involve additional assistance from the school in the form of additional
lectures, additional school daycare, or even sending teachers to children’s homes.
The six Icelandic teachers did not appear to be as aware as the Manitoban or Norwegian
teachers of the circumstances or abilities of the parents in assisting their children
with homework. In the Icelandic schools, there appeared to be a lack of two-way communication
between home and school.
This work was an exploration of teachers’ pedagogy and their treatment of culturally
diverse learners. It is intended that it should serve as groundwork for future research
in the field. The aim of the research was to collect information about (a) how teachers
in Manitoba (Canada), Norway, and Iceland are prepared to teach culturally diverse
learners, (b) how these teachers meet students’ individual needs and (c) what are
the teachers’ perceptions of how their culturally diverse learners are adapting to
a new cultural community. For this purpose, we especially searched for an answer regarding
the teachers’ visions of different cultures, the learners’ positions in the classroom,
how learners learn language, the relationships between teachers and parents, and the
demands made for homework. The Icelandic and Norwegian schools that were visited had
one to three culturally diverse learners per class; in Manitoba (Canada), there were
five to seven such learners per class.
None of the eighteen teachers in the three countries said they had received training
in multicultural teaching as part of their teacher education. However, all the Canadian
teachers, three of the Norwegian teachers, and two of the Icelandic teachers claimed
that they had experience in multicultural education through their own teaching experience,
through formal education (for example, courses on special educational needs), or through
shorter in-service courses. There were considerable differences in the views, planning,
and abilities of the teachers in regard to multicultural teaching. There seemed to
be a crucial difference between the Canadian teachers and the teachers from the two
other countries. The teachers in Manitoba appeared to be better prepared, to have
more mature views, and to demonstrate greater responsibility in their teaching, compared
to the Norwegian and Icelandic teachers. One can conclude that the abilities of most
of the Norwegian and Icelandic teachers to teach culturally diverse children fall
short of the demands that are made by the government (Reports of the Storting; Compulsory
School Act). Wiest demonstrates the importance of addressing multiculturalism in teacher
education
and the importance of teachers learning about the culture of other nations in various
ways, such as through field trips, courses, and volunteer work and in active communication
with people of international origin.
The learning provisions for culturally diverse students in Manitoba involved general
teaching in the classroom. It was claimed that the best approach was to assist learners
within the classroom with collaboration and diverse tasks. In Norway, special education
was emphasized, both in and out of the classroom. The Icelandic teachers appeared
to avoid responsibility and to push learners’ difficulties away, claiming not know
what provisions were available. Both in Iceland and in Norway, lower standards are
applied to culturally diverse learners at the beginning of their schooling than in
the Canadian schools.
It may be said that learning enhances quality of life and serves as a key to the future.
Learning needs to be appropriately challenging (Tomlinson); therefore, lower standards
applied to culturally diverse learners will lower their
quality of life compared to that of native-born learners. Decisions about applying
lower standards appear to be based on learners’ poor language skills and on difficulties
in the relationship between the home and school. Instead of limiting students’ opportunities
for learning and quality of life, it is necessary to nurture these two factors more
enthusiastically. Scholars have demonstrated the necessity of schools and teachers
appreciating the wealth that diversity encompasses, in order to use it and to appreciate
the benefits of cultural pluralism. They speak of not destroying cultural diversity
or accepting it half-heartedly. Multicultural education should not be an addition
to or implementation of previous approaches to education. It should be both the necessary
condition and the main goal of education. The goal of multicultural teaching will
not be achieved by a piecemeal approach in which certain strategies are set aside
because of difficulties or cultural differences (Parekh; Tiedt and Tiedt).
In the schools in Manitoba, the learning environment is shaped by the purpose of strengthening
the self-concept of culturally diverse learners, and they are directly encouraged
to become participating partners. All these teachers were better aware of the position
of culturally diverse learners than their Icelandic and Norwegian counterparts and
they worked systematically to achieve a balanced approach, among other things by routine
planning (see, for example, Gordon). Most of the Icelandic and Norwegian teachers
were aware that international children
suffered from poor self-esteem. The Norwegian teachers considered it significant that
learners learned co-operation and worked with social programs. However, contradictions
may be discerned from their words; little emphasis seemed to be placed on co-operation
in the teaching, according to the classroom data. Ainscow (1999) has demonstrated
that students can make a strong contribution to their own learning
and social development by working together and helping each other. Learners helping
each other is often an unused strategy that can lessen obstacles and increase everyone’s
potential for better learning and heightened sympathy. Teachers should use their skills
to mobilize this unused energy, and they should plan their teaching so that it furthers
the social part of learning.
The teachers’ answers to questions about integrating culturally diverse learners into
a new culture seem to reveal that there are unsolved problems. This applies especially
to the Norwegian and Icelandic teachers. To many of their culturally diverse students,
language seems to be a real barrier, and the relationships between teachers and parents
are restricted or non-existent. The teachers in Manitoba appeared to understand how
culturally diverse learners adapt to a new society. They talk about a rich tradition
of immigrants who are proud of their culture and customs, in part because learners’
cultures are emphasized in school. The Norwegian and Icelandic teachers, conversely,
appeared to deny any responsibility toward the culturally diverse learners, and there
were even instances of prejudice. They talked about “these people” and “different
people” and about differences between Norwegians or Icelanders and immigrants. Such
remarks
can indicate prejudice or lack of knowledge and they can become a barrier to interaction
and communication (see, for example, Banks; Gay). These teachers did not consider
it their role to assist learners in adapting to
a new society, and they appeared not to know how it is that they adapt to Norwegian
or Icelandic society. One of the Norwegian teachers mentioned that he did not see
the value of people of different ethnic groups living in the same country. It appears
that these teachers lack understanding and intuition in this regard.
In all of the countries studied, it appeared that culturally diverse learners have
difficulty with the language; their ignorance of the meaning of written and spoken
language holds them back, especially in the first years after arriving in the country.
The teachers in Manitoba evaluate the abilities of their learners, but can also consult
specialists within the school. In Norway, the language ability of culturally diverse
learners is not evaluated formally in the schools that were visited, and therefore,
the basis for language learning is weak. The answers from the Icelandic teachers regarding
the evaluation of learners’ language skills and the provisions available were characterized
by uncertainty. It is noteworthy that the no Icelandic teacher appeared to realize
his or her responsibility regarding the children’s language ability, and there appears
to be a certain lack of connection between classroom teachers and other teachers.
The learning, the learning experience, and the knowledge that results are strongly
connected to words and vocabulary, and therefore it is important to work systematically
and with a sense of responsibility on strengthening language skills. Knowledge is
primarily tied to words, so systematic strengthening of vocabulary is a key to learning
(Marzano).
Much variation appears in the views of the teachers in the three countries in terms
of the significance of communication with parents. In Manitoba, communication appears
to be effortless but informal; without communication with parents, schoolwork would
not be actualized. The teachers consider working with parents to be the foundation
for the child doing well in school. In Norway, a formal relationship with parents
is in place; tools such as communication books and fixed meetings are part of school
work. Yet it appears that the Norwegian teachers cultivated a remoteness from parents
and that this happened, among other things, because “anyway, we can’t communicate
because of language difficulties,” as one of the teachers said. In the Icelandic schools,
there appears to be a tangible
irresponsibility in communication with parents. Four of the teachers claimed never
to have had a relationship with parents of the children in question, and three of
them had no answer concerning such associations. They did not know what worried parents,
how parents thought their children felt in the school, or what expectations parents
brought to the school experience. Yet scholars have found that the teacher’s commitment
to a relationship with parents is one of the prerequisites for multicultural teaching
(Davidman and Davidman). Epstein claims that good relationships between home and school
lead to yet better
relationships, providing support both at home and at school. The school is a part
of the community, and a good connection between school and home can help to open doors
into the wider community. Such a connection can at least increase reciprocal understanding
between teachers and parents.
In our interviews in Manitoba (Canada) and Norway, it appeared that the teachers viewed
the children’s mothers who stayed at home to be the most isolated; the mothers often
did not manage to speak the new language and had not found suitable work. This viewpoint
appeared in one of the focus groups we approached in Iceland in our pre-survey. Three
mothers out of four acknowledged their isolation, and all of them claimed that they
had difficulties assisting their children with their homework—even the two who had
university degrees. This view did not appear in a focus group with teachers in Iceland.
Epstein and Janshorn claim that research shows that parents of culturally diverse
learners want to take part in the learning of their children but cannot. Thus, it
is the role of the teachers to clarify the goals of homework, speak to parents about
their role, and assist them in fulfilling it.
The homework experience of the teachers in the three countries was similar. Homework
is often hindered because the parents cannot follow up on what is expected, and thus
it is difficult to make effective use of organized homework. This problem could be
solved at least partially by the learners doing homework at school—during school care,
for example, or by taking additional time, even providing help from the school in
the home. In comparison, the Icelandic teachers differ insofar as they seem not to
be as aware as the teachers in the other countries about prevailing conditions at
home. The Icelandic teachers have not cultivated the relationship with the home, and
interpersonal communication is lacking between the home and the teacher.
It may be concluded from our research that all of the participants lack the professional
preparation to teach culturally diverse learners, as all of the eighteen teachers
in the three countries said they had not received any multicultural education during
their teacher training. However, the crucial difference between the teachers lies
in the fact that the Manitoban teachers live in a well-established multicultural society,
where the rights and needs of immigrants were put into law sooner than they were in
Norway and in Iceland. Banks considers such legislation to be a necessary condition
for citizens to maintain relationships both within society and within their own ethnic
group.
Today, multiculturalism in Canada is about removing barriers of discrimination and
ignorance, which stand in the way of acceptance and respect (Weiner). Scholars (see,
for example, Gay; Hare; Aðalsteinsdóttir 2000) have shown that responsible teachers
have an unequivocal belief in human dignity
and student competence. In their view the different aspects of learning—intellectual
and moral, individual and social—need to develop in harmony. They work to support
learners and build bridges between learners of different origins. They safeguard good
learning by carefully considering the curriculum, the act of teaching itself, the
evaluation process, and their attitude towards and conduct with learners. They take
seriously differences of opinion and encourage interactive groups and participation
to facilitate learning for students. Obviously, they believe that every student can
succeed. In dealing with learners, these teachers are empathetic and supportive, personal,
interested, understanding, and tolerant, while insisting that learners take responsibility
for their own learning, achieve their own results, and provide support for other learners
as well.