Teaching and Learning for Comprehensive Citizenship: Global Perspectives on Peace Education 9780367548049, 9781003090663

Ultimately concerned with how citizenship education for peace can be enriched through interdisciplinary learning, this e

170 13 3MB

English Pages [195] Year 2020

Report DMCA / Copyright


Polecaj historie

Teaching and Learning for Comprehensive Citizenship: Global Perspectives on Peace Education
 9780367548049, 9781003090663

Table of contents :
Half Title
Series Page
Title Page
Copyright Page
List of Figures
List of Tables
About the Contributors
1 Introduction: The Breadth of Comprehensive Citizenship
2 Bridging the Gap: Peace Education and the Ignatian Pedagogical Paradigm in Post-Conflict Timor-Leste
3 Slow Peace and Citizenship: The Experience of One Classroom Teacher in Canada
4 Children’s Views on Citizenship Education and Peace in Catalan
5 Beyond Violence and Abuse: Science Education as a Site for the Construction of Peace
6 Using the Capability Approach to Assess the Value of Ubuntu: Comprehensive Citizenship in Zimbabwean Higher Education
7 Teaching Values for Comprehensive Just Peace? Teachers Curricula for Social Cohesion in Mexico, Bangladesh, and Canada
8 Healing the Korean Peninsula: Implementing Mindfulness as a Form of Peace Education for North Korean Defectors in South Korea
9 Conclusion
Name Index
Subject Index

Citation preview

Teaching and Learning for Comprehensive Citizenship

Ultimately concerned with how citizenship education for peace can be enriched through interdisciplinary learning, this edited volume reveals the role of peace education in global citizenship by illuminating instruction for comprehensive citizenship. A truly international collection, this volume offers timely insights from countries including Argentina, Mexico, Spain, Canada, Bangladesh, Korea, Zimbabwe, and Timor-Leste as it provides critical, in-depth analyses of peace-oriented instruction in formal and informal settings. The text illustrates how citizenship can be effectively developed on both a global and a local level and discusses the practical learning opportunities that can enact change through schools, nongovernmental organizations, and community-wide civic actions with children, youth, adults, and families. This text will appeal to academics and researchers involved in the feld of international and comparative education and will be of interest to educators and school leaders concerned with the role citizenship plays in the context of teaching and learning. Candice C. Carter is the Convener of the International Peace Research Association’s Peace Education Commission. In addition to being an administrator in universities, she founded and directed the Confict Transformation Program at the University of North Florida, USA.

Routledge Research in International and Comparative Education

This is a series that offers a global platform to engage scholars in continuous academic debate on key challenges and the latest thinking on issues in the fast-growing feld of International and Comparative Education. Titles in the series include: Japanese Schooling and Identity Investment Overseas Exploring the Cultural Politics of “Japaneseness” in Singapore Glenn Toh Considering Inclusive Development across Global Educational Contexts How Critical and Progressive Movements can Inform Education Christopher J. Johnstone Blended and Online Learning for Global Citizenship New Technologies and Opportunities for Intercultural Education Edited by William J. Hunter and Roger Austin The International Emergence of Educational Sciences in the Post-World War Two Years Quantifcation, Visualization, and Making Kinds of People Edited by Thomas S. Popkewitz, Daniel Pettersson, and Kai-Jung Hsiao Teaching and Learning for Comprehensive Citizenship Global Perspectives on Peace Education Edited by Candice C. Carter

For more information about this series, please visit: www.routledge. com/Routledge-Research-in-International-and-Comparative-Education/ book-series/RRICE

Teaching and Learning for Comprehensive Citizenship Global Perspectives on Peace Education Edited by Candice C. Carter

First published 2021 by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 and by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2021 selection and editorial matter, Candice C. Carter; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Candice C. Carter to be identifed as the author of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identifcation and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Carter, Candice C., 1953– editor.  Title: Teaching and learning for comprehensive citizenship : global perspectives on peace education / Edited by Candice C. Carter.  Description: New York, NY : Routledge, 2021. | Series: Routledge research in international comparative education | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifers: LCCN 2020027705 | ISBN 9780367548049 (hardback) | ISBN 9781003090663 (ebook)  Subjects: LCSH: Civics—Study and teaching—Cross cultural studies. | Peace—Study and teaching—Cross cultural studies. Classifcation: LCC LC1091 .T4162 2021 | DDC 372.83/044—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020027705 ISBN: 978-0-367-54804-9 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-09066-3 (ebk) Typeset in Sabon by Apex CoVantage, LLC


List of Figures List of Tables Acknowledgments About the Contributors 1

Introduction: The Breadth of Comprehensive Citizenship

vii viii ix x 1



Bridging the Gap: Peace Education and the Ignatian Pedagogical Paradigm in Post-Confict Timor-Leste




Slow Peace and Citizenship: The Experience of One Classroom Teacher in Canada




Children’s Views on Citizenship Education and Peace in Catalan




Beyond Violence and Abuse: Science Education as a Site for the Construction of Peace




Using the Capability Approach to Assess the Value of Ubuntu: Comprehensive Citizenship in Zimbabwean Higher Education TE N D AY I M ARO VAH





Teaching Values for Comprehensive Just Peace? Teachers Curricula for Social Cohesion in Mexico, Bangladesh, and Canada




Healing the Korean Peninsula: Implementing Mindfulness as a Form of Peace Education for North Korean Defectors in South Korea







Name Index Subject Index

166 173


2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 5.1 6.1 8.1

Swee-Hin Toh’s Flower Petal Model for Peace Education Relationship Among the Elements of the Ignatian Pedagogical Paradigm Peace Education and IPP Pedagogical Principle Matches Peace Education and IPP Characteristic Matches Subject Photograph Ubuntuistic, Human Development, and Capability-Based Citizenship Education Responses to Survey

28 31 33 37 79 108 151



Peace Education and IPP Pedagogical Principle Comparison 2.2 Peace Education and IPP Pedagogical Principle Comparison With Supporting Quotes 2.3 Key Commonalities Between Peace Education and IPP Pedagogical Principles at LJSS 2.4 Peace Education and IPP Characteristic Comparison With Supporting Quotes 2.5 Key Commonalities Between Peace Education and IPP Characteristics 4.1 Composition of Sample A (Schools) 4.2 Composition of Sample B (Pupils) 4.3 Schedule of Citizenship Education in Primary Education 4.4 School Projects Related to Citizenship Education 4.5 Reception of Citizenship Education in the School 4.6 Children’s Views on Citizenship Education (in Percentages) 4.7 Comparison of Means According to the Variable “Gender” 4.8 Comparison of Means According to the Variable “School Grade When Pupils Take Citizenship Education” 4.9 Comparison of Means According to the Variable “Type of School” 4.10 Percentages Within Each Category Identifed in Item 9 4.11 Percentages Within Each Category Identifed in Item 12

34 35 36 38 39 60 61 63 63 65 66 67 68 68 70 73


The contributors to this book worked during an exceptionally challenging time in the world that was gripped by a pandemic. While they provided care for many and sustained their pursuits in peace, education, and research, their work in completion of this book never ceased. There is much appreciation for the contributors and everyone who supported their work in the research and writing that they did for this book.

About the Contributors

Editor Candice C. Carter, an independent scholar, is a researcher of confict and peace processes. She has been an administrator for international, national, and regional peace, education, and policy organizations as well as in universities. At the University of California, she examined aspects of intercultural communication and confict while she taught peace education. In the University of North Florida, she cofounded and directed the interdisciplinary Confict Transformation Program, which students across fve colleges joined. Her experiences as a directress in Montessori academies, teacher, and district mentor in public schools of California, along with instruction of abandoned children she adopted, provided insights on student-centered education. Her research, development of study abroad, Fulbright leadership, and administration of organizations has occurred across several world regions that have been afficted with violence. In her lifelong service as well as her scholarship, she has worked to increase understanding and promote well-being among people and other members of their environment. Dr. Carter’s publications in journals and books include a multitude of topics related to confict and peace. The book she coedited, Chicken Soup for the Soul, Stories for a Better World (2005), illustrates how peace can be developed in many different contexts of confict. The book Peace Philosophy in Action (2010) that she co-edited with Ravindra Kumar provides information about applied theories in peace initiatives around the world. Confict Resolution and Peace Education: Transformations Across Disciplines (2010), which she edited, illustrates applications of peace education across organizations, including discipline-based courses in university programs. Youth Literature for Peace Education (2014), which she co-authored with Linda Pickett, explains development of language, social, and artistic literacy with peace competencies. In Social Education for Peace (2015), she describes transdisciplinary instruction for visionary learning.

About the Contributors


Authors Montserrat Alguacil de Nicolás, Lecturer, Ramon Llull University, Barcelona, Spain Montserrat Alguacil de Nicolás is a lecturer at Blanquerna Faculty of Psychology and Education, and Sports Sciences; she earned a PhD in pedagogy and is a member of the consolidated research group in Pedagogy, Society, and Innovation with Information and Communication Technologies (PSICT). She is the director of the offcial master’s degree on psychopedagogy that trains professionals to intervene in plural societies and schools and is a codirector of the master’s degree in hospital pedagogy. She teaches the core subject “Society, family and education” in the degree program for primary teacher’s training and the subject “Personal development, society and education” in the offcial master’s degree in teacher training for secondary education, which is compulsory to become a secondary school teacher. Among their research interests are values education, tutorial role and action, children in hospitals, participation, and peacebuilding. She has published books and articles related to all these topics and won two awards: the XIX and XXIII Joan Proftós Pedagogical Essay Prizes. She has collaborated in several competitive research projects and is an expert member of the Offcial Association of Pedagogues. She is also a presenter in national and international conferences. Kathy Bickmore, Professor and Director, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada Kathy Bickmore is Professor in Curriculum and Pedagogy and Comparative International and Development Education programs at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto. Her interests include confict, peacebuilding and democratic education, youth, and K–12 public schools, from international comparative perspectives. Her current research projects examine gaps and bridges between young people’s lived citizenship experiences in violent neighborhoods and their learning opportunities in Canadian, Mexican, Bangladeshi, and Colombian state-funded schools; youth leadership for anti-bias leadership in Ontario Indigenous First Nation communities; and the impact of budget cuts-based educational changes on peacemaking, peacebuilding, and students’ and teachers’ relationships in schools. She guest-edited “Peace-building (in) Education: Democratic Approaches to Confict in Schools and Classrooms” (Curriculum Inquiry 44:4 September 2014) and co-edited the book Comparative and International Education: Issues for Teachers (revised edition 2017, Canadian Scholars Press). Recent chapters appear in Building Democracy in Education on Diversity (Sense Publishers), Social Studies Today: Research and Practice, 2nd Edition (Routledge), and Restorative Approaches to Confict in Schools (Routledge); recent articles in Research in Comparative and International Education, Curriculum

xii About the Contributors Inquiry, Revista Española de Educación Comparada (in English), Journal of Peace Education, and Democracy and Education. Maria-Carme Boqué Torremorell, Lecturer, Ramon Llull University, Barcelona, Spain Maria-Carme Boqué Torremorell is a teacher, pedagogist, confict mediator, and PhD in education; a lecturer at University Ramon Llull, Barcelona, and invited professor in master’s degrees of several universities; A member of the consolidated research group on Pedagogy, Society and Innovation with ICTs at Blanquerna Faculty of Psychology and Education, and Sports Sciences, Barcelona. Her main areas of research are citizenship education, socioemotional skills, school violence and bullying, peace education, confict mediation, democracy and participation and children’s rights. She has had many books and articles published on these topics and being regularly invited as a lecturer in national and international conferences and obtained several research grants to do both fundamental and basic research. In 2020 she led a competitive research study on social polarization and another one about children’s participation in governance. Previously, she has worked for the Catalan government in the development and implementation of several programs on living together, citizenship education, and positive confict resolution. Also, she has collaborated with the government of Andalucía in implementing school mediation and peacebuilding strategies in the public educational system. She has been an active member of the Rosa Sensat Teachers Association for school innovation and in-service teacher training. Currently, she’s an expert member of the Catalan National Observatory on the Rights of the Child and of the editorial board of “Revista de Participación Educativa” of the Spanish Ministry of Education. Carolina Castano Rodriguez, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia State Coordinator, National Exceptional Teachers for Disadvantaged Schools Program, Victoria Science in Schools Program Coordinator; Lecturer | Education Victoria Carolina Castano Rodriguez is a biologist and a science and environmental educator. She is an internationally recognized scholar for her work with marginalized and socioeconomically disadvantaged communities in the feld of critical pedagogies, transformative learning, peace education, and pedagogies of care. She has a particular interest in the link between science education, social justice, and ecojustice. Carolina has led several projects in Australia, Ecuador, Argentina, and Colombia. She is currently working in two projects aiming at rethinking education for the construction of peaceful and sustainable societies. Brittany L. Fried, Georgetown University, Washington DC, USA Brittany L. Fried is the Manager of the Center for Jewish Civilization at Georgetown University. A recent graduate of Georgetown University’s Walsh

About the Contributors


especially interested in transformative education in post-confict settings, including peace education and the Ignatian pedagogical paradigm. Brittany has copublished a leadership curriculum that has been implemented at schools in India, South Africa, the Philippines, Hong Kong, China, and Cambodia; conducted research on the intersection of peace education and history teaching in Rwanda; and published research on education and social justice at a Jesuit organization in Zambia. She has interned for Freedom House’s Asia Programming offce and the Anti-Defamation League; served as a research assistant for former Ambassador-at-Large and Director of the Offce to Monitor and Combat Traffcking in Persons for the USA Mark Lagon and Father Patrick Desbois, a groundbreaking scholar and forensic investigator of the Holocaust; and worked as a DC Public School Global Curriculum Fellow and Paul F. Pelosi Public Service Scholar. In the future, she aspires to continue working in post-confict settings, especially at the intersection of religion and education. Laura García-Raga, Associated Instructor, Valencia University, Valencia, Spain Laura García-Raga is an associated teacher at Valencia University, Spain, where she has been Vice-Dean for Innovation and Quality of the Faculty of Philosophy and Education and chair of the Academic Committee on Pedagogy; she holds a PHD in pedagogy and is a member of a research group on Academic Pedagogy, Lifelong Learning, and Sustainable Development. She takes part in and leads competitive research projects; her main interests are living together, family, confict resolution and mediation, peacebuilding, and citizenship education. She is a teacher in education specialized in interculturality, ethics, democracy, values, educational policy, and mediation who regularly participates in scientifc conferences. She is the author of several books and articles. Many schools invite her to deliver in-service teacher training courses. Reva Joshee, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto Reva Joshee is an associate professor in the Department of Leadership, Higher and Adult Education, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto. She is also Research Advisor for the International Gandhian Institute for Nonviolence and Peace, Madurai, Tamil Nadu, India, and Co-Chair of the Mahatma Gandhi Canadian Foundation for World Peace based in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Ahmed Salehin Kaderi, Instructor, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada Ahmed Salehin Kaderi teaches as a sessional faculty at the Department of Linguistics and Languages at Ontario Canada’s McMaster University. His research centers on curriculum for encouraging citizen participation to affrm justice and peace by mitigating direct and indirect dimensions of violence in the Muslim majority context of Bangladesh, locating Bangladesh as a case of embedded curricular challenges

xiv About the Contributors and opportunities for such education within comparable international contexts. His interests in such research have grown as an English language educator in Bangladesh, especially as he began to theorize, in his MA in TESOL thesis, language educators’ roles in preparing young citizens for building peace in curriculum contexts that may both facilitate and impede such education. He further specialized in this area in his MEd and PhD thesis research. As a young scholar, his PhD research at the University of Toronto’s Ontario Institute for Studies in Education was funded from his thesis supervisor Professor Kathy Bickmore’s multi-year research project, “Peace-building Citizenship Learning in Comparable International Contexts of Violence: School Connections with Life Experience,” as it added an international comparator and reshaped her project. Ahmed Salehin had also won a Training Future Leaders scholarship, funded by the State Department of the United States, to do his MEd in Educational Leadership, Renewal and Change at Colorado State University, USA. Hyunji Lim, Columbia University, New York, USA Hyunji Lim is a Language Associate in the Department of East Asian Languages and Cultures of Columbia University. She graduated from Teachers College, Columbia University, with a master’s degree in international educational development. Her research focuses on mindfulness, spirituality, and identity in contemporary South Korean society. She also holds a bachelor’s degree in international relations from the University of Southern California and worked at Liberty in North Korea (LiNK), a nonproft organization with the objective of rescuing North Korean defectors between the border of China and North Korea. At LiNK, she initiated education programs and resettlement toolkits for North Korean youth in South Korea. Her mission is to help those who are powerless to defend against human rights violations and to provide a voice for those who are suffering from a lost sense of belonging. Tendayi Marovah, Lecturer in Education, Midlands State University, Gweru, Zimbabwe Tendayi Marovah is a research fellow at the University of the Free State under the SARCHi Chair in Higher Education and Human Development Research Group. He is also a lecturer and early career researcher in the Department of Applied Education at Midlands State University in Zimbabwe. His early educational qualifcations were obtained at the University of Zimbabwe and Midlands State University, while he did his doctoral studies at the University of the Free State. He is an experienced secondary school history teacher, citizenship education lecturer, and teacher educator. Tendayi’s studies use the capability approach as a normative analytical and evaluative tool to assess the contribution of education in Zimbabwe toward human development and social justice.

About the Contributors


Simone Shirvell, Elementary Teacher, Edmonton Public School Board, Edmonton, Canada Simone Shirvell, ECD, BEd, MEd, began her career in the nonproft child care feld at the University of Alberta and then moved on to a more formal educational setting with Edmonton Public Schools. She has now been teaching for over 25 years. Simone has spent the majority of her classroom time with kindergarten and grade one students, where she strives to connect them with the natural world. She also spent many years as an executive member of the Alberta Teachers Association Early Childhood Education Council. Presently, Simone is working to integrate Gandhian ideas into her classroom and school through a cooperatively developed school character education model based on Gandhian principles.


Introduction The Breadth of Comprehensive Citizenship Candice C. Carter

This book responds to the recognition that citizenship education includes more than local information and responsibilities. It describes personal and collective opportunities for understanding, expanding, and experiencing impactful interactions that may positively affect distant as well as local sites through citizenship education. In addition, the book shares research on approaches to citizenship education with a frame of peace education. This book’s focus is on the greater good as the goal for human interactions with themselves and other species. A widespread goal of peace education is learning avoidance of harm to oneself and others everywhere while proactively addressing needs. The contributors’ descriptions of and research on peace education that pertains to understanding of, preparation for, and action in citizenship enhances knowledge of initiatives worldwide. The book encourages and describes advancement of curriculum and instruction toward comprehensive citizenship. It advocates for inclusion of worldviews and underheard voices whose exclusions have constrained understanding, learning, intercultural cooperation, problem solving, well-being, and thriving in peace. The contents contribute to conversations about the potentiality of humanity and the role that education can have in the pursuit of peace through comprehensive citizenship.

Comprehensive Citizenship and the Pursuit of Peace Comprehensive citizenship includes knowledge of and experiential learning throughout domains that an individual and group can infuence in and beyond their region. These domains can be found throughout the infuential accesses of humanity. Starting in the culture of one’s childhood, citizenship responsibilities extend to all of the areas that thoughts and actions affect. People, regardless of their identities and characteristics, have rights and responsibilities that they learn through multiple sources of education. Informal education derived from families, observations during early childhood through adulthood, interactions with affliates, and the informal curriculum in schools, if there are opportunities for study, comprise sources of citizenship education (Myers-Walls & Somlai, 2001). From their frst encounters


Candice C. Carter

after birth, young people discover that their interactions with others have an impact. Hence, citizenship education starts in early childhood, and caregivers are the frst citizenship educators (Luff, Kanyal, Shehu, & Brewis, 2016; Montessori, 1972; White & Mistry, 2016). Humans learn from observations of what occurs around them, as well as during their direct relations with family, care providers, peers, community members, and instructors. Therefore, everyone in a society teaches citizenship, especially to the young, who adopt observed behaviors without critical thinking about how those actions match with their personal and cultural values, as well as the needs of all species. Education for comprehensive citizenship encompasses personal and collective responsibilities for impactful interactions. Identifcation of the greater good as the goal for human interactions with themselves, their world, and beyond characterizes the breadth of peace education. Contexts for peaceful interactions that peace education addresses extend from intrapersonal management of oneself, interpersonal interactions with all life forms as well as people, spiritual development, response to structural conficts, and stewardship of environments. This book identifes contexts of citizenship that constitute learning sites as well as spheres of infuence for individual and collective wellbeing. These spheres of infuence comprise the foundation for peace development. The condition of peace is a universal characteristic of well-being that has been described and pursued throughout the time that humans have been writing about their goals and ethical codes. While notions of peace are contextually infuenced, peace has been clearly valued as a condition of personal and collective well-being. Spirituality traditions and religions have incorporated peace as a goal that spans from personal to cosmic interactions. Peace is a topic in education and the pursuit of peace has been characterized as a goal throughout geographic and cultural regions. Worldwide, the condition of peace has been a curricular component of informal as well as formal education. The advent of citizenship identity infuenced education about peace in that it constrained notions of collective well-being to geographic, cultural, and political contexts. Before mass communications enabled awareness of circumstances that other regions currently had, the notion of citizenship focused members of a region on their ability to survive and thrive. Spiritual connections and processes have also focused on cooperation for problem solving in the pursuit of peace. The web of interdependence, which Indigenous cultures have been enacting through interspecies as well as intercultural communication, was a precursor to rapid-communication technology of humans that facilitated awareness-raising. While electronic technology has not achieved what Thomas Edison hoped it could provide for transcommunication with spirits, it has spread information about conditions on and beyond the planet that living people experience. This broadened awareness enhanced the spheres of infuence that humans



have. With this knowledge, the pursuit of peace has expanded, as the term global citizenship characterizes. Citizenship education has been in a period of transformation. Education for citizenship initially focused on preparation of the young for participation in their culture and society. It imparted knowledge of power structures along with what roles and rights citizens had in their society. Education for democratic citizenship has included a component of civic expression and other actions for addressing evident needs (Westheimer, 2015; Wood, Taylor, Atkins, & Johnston, 2018). Global citizenship education has expanded the realm of responsibility to the entire planet that humans occupy (Goren & Yemini, 2017; United Nations Educational, Scientifc and Cultural Organization, 2015). Cosmopolitan citizenship troubles the notion of location in which the rights of people should be provided (Starkey, 2017). Identities and diversity in regards to region and culture are factors that cosmopolitan citizenship addresses, with a focus on human rights everywhere (Starkey, 2017). Comprehensive citizenship encompasses the advancement of humans into their solar system. It identifes domains that exist on planet Earth and beyond in which young people as well as adults can apply their thoughts and actions. Whether or not they live in a democratic society, learners can take responsible actions in each of the domains that comprehensive citizenship includes. Citizenship education has expanded beyond a focus on cultural and regional identities to rights and responsibilities for galactic as well as local interactions between species.

Domains of Comprehensive Citizenship A description of domains that comprehensive citizenship illuminates reveals opportunities for impacting several areas and aspects of life, besides the political regions in which people live. The list of domains serves as a thoroughness checklist for use with offcial and unoffcial curriculum provided by schools, universities, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). There are extensive learning opportunities for peace development in formal as well as informal education (Bar-Tal & Rosen, 2009). As Galtung and Udayakumar (2013) point out, curriculum that limits learning about peace in a juxtaposition with war does not facilitate understanding of personal, interspecies, planetary, cosmic, and spiritual peace. Education that facilitates learning about peaceful-oriented citizenship is value-based (United Nations Educational, Scientifc and Cultural Organization, 2015). Inclusion and clarifcation of multiple values, in addition to cultural universals such as peace, is an aspect of powerful education (Carter, 2015; National Council for the Social Studies, 2008). When equipped with expression skills, along with inclusive permission to use them, students can convey values in each of the domains of comprehensive citizenship. Those citizenship domains are social, environmental, ethical, geographic, economic, and political.


Candice C. Carter

Social Citizenship Social realms of citizenship include thoughts about and interactions with all forms of life, matter, and spirit. Starting with the self as an aspect of individualism or responsible member of a collective, social citizenship involves self-care and self-management. As Mohandas Gandhi described and demonstrated, peace work happens with deep self-management as well as civic engagement. The self-control of civic engagement that avoids a violent response to violence demonstrates knowledge of and skill with social citizenship while it expresses the value of nonviolence for the pursuit of well-being. Mohandas Gandhi’s observation and comment on the exemplary life of Buddha as a model of civic action points out the crucial role of modeling self-management. He stated, “The best propaganda is not pamphleteering, but for each one of us to try to live the life we would have the world live” (Johnson, 2006, p. 106). An analysis of education across nations for peace at the individual level, which emphasized transforming negative thoughts and emotions, featured Buddhist strategies for improved mindfulness (Sommerfelt & Vambheim, 2008). The Local and Global Citizenship curriculum that was taught directly in schools and nonformally by NGOs of Northern Ireland “prepared young people to manage their own lives, relationships and lifestyles through offering pupils sustained opportunities for personal development” (O’Connor, 2012, p. 34). When people who experience structural or interpersonal violence avoid harm as a confict response, they demonstrate the skills that education for social citizenship cultivates (Carter, 2005; Kabasakal, Sağ kal, & Türnüklü, 2015). In addition to skills for personal management, peace-oriented citizenship education has competencies for interpersonal skills of “peacemaking, confict resolution, healing, reconciliation, and reconstruction” (Shugarensky & Myers, 2003, p. 5). Those accomplishments depend on careful communication in every context but especially where structural conficts have destabilized communities and members have been harmed. Critical thinking that identifes sources of confict, such as power differences that sustain inequities, is another skill of peace-oriented citizenship education (Verma, 2017). Such analysis, which is crucial in each domain of comprehensive citizenship, facilitates problemsolving communication and actions for prevention as well as resolution and transformation of conficts (Carter, 2010). Cross-cultural communication that includes deep listening for identifcation of needs as well as awareness of different norms is another aspect of the social domain. The need for social equality is a key focus of social citizenship that cross-cultural and cross-division collaborations can address. Community-building interactions with those whose lives are different, and typically under-valued due to ethnocentrism or intergroup violence, has been insuffcient for the development of positive and sustained regard (Rosen & Salomon, 2011). Rather, hearing the stories and acknowledging the perspectives of the new contacts with mutual legitimation while working together for problem solving with



continual contact are processes that have advanced collaborative work (Kupermintz & Salomon, 2005). These processes have characterized collaboration for projects that incorporated traditional ecological knowledge with current management of natural resources (Menzies, 2006). Environmental Citizenship Human knowledge, beliefs, and actions affect much of the natural world, in reciprocal relations. Consequently, humanity has much responsibility for its impact on nature. Purposeful actions for preservation and repair of nature’s ecosystems constitute environmental citizenship. Acquisition of knowledge about how nature works is one crucial aspect of this lifesustaining strand of citizenship. Another aspect is behaviors that result from attitudes. Environmental literacy describes cultivation of cognitive and affective development that can support care of the natural world. Research has identifed factors, such as amount and type of education, that are related to dispositions toward and interactions which can affect the natural environment (Kurtdede Fidan, 2016). Whereas increased environmental literacy has been recognized as a factor in human actions for sustainability, Mayer (2013) found in his study of international data that regions with increased access to education consumed more fossil fuel, which produces carbon dioxide emissions. Similarly, students with increased sensitivity to the human-environmental relationship showed limited support for environmental protection that included an economic tradeoff (Goldman, Ben-Zvi Assaraf, & Shaharabani, 2013). Needed conversion of lifestyles for care of the natural world is a citizenship action of individuals and groups that the pursuit of peace has stimulated since recognition of humanity’s impact during the Anthropocene.“Natural balance” is one of three theoretical areas in Brenes-Castro’s (2004) model of peaceful selfhood. It includes ecological consciousness with a sustainability ethic. Along with peace in the mind (knowledge) and peace in the heart (disposition), Brenes-Castro includes peace in the body (physical contact). While direct experiences in nature through formal and nonformal education have been used to promote environmental literacy, a future or immediate orientation toward impact on the environment is a behavioral factor. Traditional ecological knowledge of Indigenous populations has included perception of immediate effects from interactions with nature, such as expressed respect toward and gratitude for other species as well as conservation (Hrynkow & Westlund, 2015; Turner, 2015). The solely future orientation toward behaviors such as sacrifce of comfort for sustainability were found in research to be less common if there was no immediate beneft to the acting student (Carmi, 2013). Inclusion of different worldviews with culturally responsive environmental education includes preparation for action toward ‘green citizenship’ (Beckford, Jacobs, Williams, & Nahdee, 2010; Blanhet-Cohen & Reilly, 2013; Wood & Kallio, 2020) while it provides inclusion of diverse voices and ethics.


Candice C. Carter

Ethical Citizenship Ethical values and moral capacities comprise the foundation on which people take personal and collective action. Communities and societies have ethical codes and values that enable their continuation. Established rules for how to live within situated cultures sustains their structures until conficts stimulate change. Moral sensibilities, visions of improved relations and rights, knowledge of successful transformations that previously occurred somewhere, and dispositions such as courage have stimulated civic action for new ethical values and codes. With a focus on the good, “the Unity” (Farid, Ghaffer, & Bilial, 2020), as a goal for ethical interactions, the value of peace emerged. Although peace with all species expresses a value in an ecocentric worldview, that inclusive aspect of the good has resulted in democratic and legal representation of nature (Minteer & Taylor, 2002). The International Center for the Rights of Nature (2017) lists The Rights of Nature Principles, which resulted from a global collaboration. The cooperation between world regions in the protection of rights demonstrates the broad community that humans can form for problem solving and other aspects of having peace. “Morality without Borders,” which Hester and Killian (2019) describe, forefronts dialogue among humanity’s diverse populations. They know that an ethic of community does not limit concepts that the predominance of Western philosophy and science has caused (Dreamson, 2018). Enacting the ethic of community facilitates respect for local traditions while it emphasizes core human values and interdependence. This ethic does not facilitate cultural relativism in light of core values that the global community upholds. The contextual nature of peace education has operated this way through identifcation of cultural and regional needs to be met in the pursuit of peace. One universal need recognized throughout peace education’s contextual methods around the world is protection and recovery from violence. The value of nonviolence is core regardless of the learning situation. Consequently, students must learn strategies for responding to oppression, as well as inter- and intrapersonal conficts, with constructive acts for accomplishing change. In reference to traditional Jewish education for nonviolence, Alexander (2014) points out that, “Sacred study is not a source of aggression against those who are different, but a path to transform the self in order to receive and accept responsibility for the other” (p. 61). In their analysis of Muslim peacebuilding during 2005, Abu-Nimer and Kadayifci-Orellana (2017) explained that “the Quran impels Muslims to work for coexistence, mutual understanding, and cooperation with Muslims and non-Muslims alike” (p. 560). Johan Galtung (2020) shared tables to show differences and similarities of contemporary yet historical religions and belief systems before he emphasized the need for dialog within as well as between religions about the pursuit of peace. A focus in citizenship education on spirituality as an aid to ethical decisions eclipses religious identities across species, regions, and time



frames (Erdreich, 2016). Inclusion in the curriculum of the similar visions and ideals that the students’ faiths and spiritualities hold forefronts diverse pathways to the same civic goal of advancing well-being (Bekerman & Zembylas, 2017). To support instruction about ethics across traditions and contexts, Wenden (2014) provided several types of questions that can be used to stimulate learner engagement with morality issues. The incorporation of liberation ethics and praxis of Buddhism, Christianity, and feminism as multiple belonging exemplifes constructive responses to different types of structural confict that sustain oppression (Pontoriero, 2019). The moral of caring for the oppressed, for example, is a core value of spiritual and nonreligious ethics (Zhu, 2018). From early childhood through all levels of education, learners need opportunities for observation of and engagement in acts of caring (Montessori, 1972; Noddings, 2008). Awareness of contexts for ethical citizenship have expanded. Geographic Citizenship Geographic knowledge affects understanding of citizenship. One needs knowledge of what is and has happened in a space to think thoroughly about it, then respond with civic action. Acquisition of information from more than one source aids analysis and consideration of factors that may shape the knowledge, such as limited perspectives and incomplete information. In learning about a place, information about the progression of changes in that location and the sources of that catalyst, such as competition for occupation and ownership, are tools for needed analysis. Students need opportunities in geography education for analysis of information factors that limit understanding, which sustains structural confict through nonresponse to those causes. Ahistoricism and ethnocentrism, along with Eurocentric perspectives of knowledge, science, modernity, cartography, and progress, have shaped geographic and citizenship education (Andreotti, 2011). Geographic inquiry, that powerful questions can stimulate (Maddox, Howell, & Saye, 2018), must involve identifcation and analysis of what may be infuencing the inquirers’ understandings. The contextual conditions of the instruction, perceptions of the curriculum and instructor, affective state of the inquirer, cultural responsiveness of the instruction, and access to inquiry tools are determinants of student engagement in the inquiry process. The revived initiatives in this century for geography education have generated terms such as spatial citizenship and critical geography (Shin & Bednarz, 2019). The recent terminology and emphasis on geographic citizenship addresses advancements in technology. Expanded access to geographic data through technology has heightened social responsibility as well as political use of the new tools, where the technology use is available. Such is not the case throughout world regions and the economic levels of populations in them. The digital divide affects identities, information acquisition, and citizenship behaviors through access to new technologies.


Candice C. Carter

Place and the lifestyle within it infuence self- as well as group identity, which is an aspect of citizenship. Nonformal education in a place shapes citizenship interactions (Brown, 2018). In her research on place of residence, identity construction, and citizenship, Schmidt (2011) found that the Malawian students had a sense of how their attention to the common good affected their local community, especially in the economic sense with the effects of recent decolonization. While exploring how African American teens in a depressed urban area explained what “giving back to the community” meant to them, Charles (2005) found that their voluntary form of civic action was learned in the community, but not specifcally taught. It was an outcome of experience, refection, and self-discovery. Harold Coward (2000) observes that in traditional Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Chinese and Aboriginal societies self-identity is constructed not by individual choices but by participating in a “family” that may extend out to include caste, tribe, and all humans as well as plants, animals and the cosmos. (as cited in Hrynkow & Westlund, 2015, p. 28) Richard Rohr, a friar and director of the Center for Action and Contemplation, points out how people can become more loving and engaged with awareness of the universal spirit of the Cosmic Christ and their interconnection with the divine (2019). In her advancement of Cosmic Education, Montessori prepared for student exploration the interdependence of Earth’s components as part of the universe in which they live. Montessori’s goal was stimulation of learners’ pursuits of peace through their understanding of themselves as responsible members of an interdependent universe (Cunningham, 2017). Readable disagreements with the proliferation of weapons on earth and in its atmosphere are resources for critical analysis and citizenship action to address peace throughout the cosmos (Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, 2020; Johnson-Freese & Burbach, 2019). The economic impact of nuclearization on earth and in outer space is a major factor for citizen analysis of confict antecedents. Economic Citizenship Economic awareness developed in comprehensive citizenship includes identifcation of values and corresponding interactions related to being, doing, and having. Students need opportunities for clarifcation of the economic values that they have learned. Critical examination of the learning sources demonstrates what has shaped their economic thinking and behaviors (Sandlin, Kahn, Darts, & Tavin, 2009). Exposure to images or the presence of consumption with positive emotions promotes consumerism and work for the purpose of acquisition (Marshall & Sensoy, 2016; Shor, 2004). Education that frames political goals as economic development conveys the



importance of product development and marketing for regional well-being. Curricular emphasis in postcolonial Ghana on economic development of the nation without incorporation of local values and norms has been a focus of citizenship education that does not address local socioeconomic inequalities (Arnot, Casely-Haford, & Yeboah, 2018). In their analysis of themes that they identifed in research on global citizenship education, Goren and Yemini found that economics was core. The social and cultural aspects, if included, were less emphasized than economic participation in a global economy. Socioeconomic class emerged as a “positional good” in citizenship curriculum that emphasized upward mobility (Schattle, 2008). Competition between nations has been another value that global citizenship education in nations with larger economies have promoted (Engel & Siczek, 2018). In postcolonial contexts, even the nations with larger economies need curriculum and instruction that develops analysis of opportunities for and response to local inequities (Au, Bigelow, & Karp, 2007). Carlos Torres observed that “Neoliberalism has utterly failed as a viable model of economic development, yet the politics of culture associated with neoliberalism is still in force, and has become the new common sense shaping the role of government and education” (2015, p. 22). Education that prepares students for economic citizenships facilitates knowledge of how human interactions have—and might—respond to economic challenges near and far. Once they identify their participation possibilities in local and global economics, their actions may include resistance to consumerism, prosocial consumption focused on benefts to the producers, such as a focus on fair trade certifcation of products, the environmental impact of their consumption, and the ecological value of using nature’s local resources. Participation in giftivism, which generous acts that have social impact in their community evidence, is a simple yet transformative learning experience for those who gift and the receivers (Amster, 2015; Mehta, 2012). Student knowledge of approaches to economic transformation, such as societal well-being, and carbon reduction, as progress indicators prepares them for the transformations that will occur (Cohen, Brown, & Vergragt, 2013; Verhagen, 2012). Additionally, they can learn about traditions of their region that produced products from the local ecosystem and trade in the community. The traditional knowledge of Indigenous populations in the region is an important resource for economic as well as social, ethical, and environmental citizenship. It also has political implications for empowerment of all identity groups in a region. Political Citizenship Political citizenship involves interactions with power. Goals of peace education are empowerment of the individual and the collective for accomplishing change without the use of violence. There are hundreds of nonviolent


Candice C. Carter

methods which have been used for that accomplishment (Sharp, 1999; Sharp & Paulson, 2005). Textbooks and media created for citizenship education, on which educators have increasingly relied as instructional aids, need to include this information. Instructional use of textbooks for provision of information along with development of dispositions and skills has limited comprehensive citizenship. In their content analysis of textbooks used for nationwide peace education Baltork, Mansoori, and Azad (2015) found that a sense of solidarity was the primary component of peacebuilding education in postwar Iran. Similarly, promotion of social cohesion as a civic virtue was a theme of textbooks used during the civil war in Sri Lanka (Bentrovato & Nissanka, 2018). While there is a need for social well-being in all societies, the means to it necessitate more than dispositions of acceptance, tolerance, and pluralism. Well-being is a result of work for equitable inclusion, rights, opportunities, and recognition for particular as well as broad contributions. When textbooks do not advance analysis of that immediate need, the crucial learning must be promoted by instructors or self-directed learners in activities such as project- and community-based learning. Dialogic methods of peace education, which have occasionally been promoted by textbook exercises, help learners cross cultural borders to discuss conficts (Bickmore & Parker, 2014). Use of dialogue between contesting groups has been carefully managed through balancing of multiple perspectives without domination of only one, among other strategies for communication. One strategy has included removal from the confict discussion the immediate context, which lessens the entrenchment and controversy (Pollak, Segal, Lefstein, & Meshulam, 2018). While their connection and hearing of diverse perspectives is a precursor to civic action, the decontextualization is a work-around of the conficts in their present lives and community. The depoliticization (Expósito, 2014) that occurs through instructional avoidance of controversial conficts refects the lack of learning facilitation by teachers who are unprepared for or uncomfortable with such instruction. It also occurs when they have fexibility with use of controversial curriculum or they are not supported for that use by their school administration or students’ families (Niens, O’Connor, & Smith, 2013). Teachers and school administrators need preparation and support for power-sharing strategies of peace education as well as instruction about current change efforts in their society (Santamaría-Cárdaba, 2019; Worden & Smith, 2017). The Standards for Peace Education offer a partial list of competencies for teaching and administrating peace education (Carter, 2015). Strategies for learning about peace include provision of curriculum and instruction that responds to current civic and other issues. Peace education is a pedagogy that promotes student inquiry and experiential learning with topics of interest and concern to them. Due to the omnipresence of confict, peace education inevitably involves exploration of confict responses, along with other aspects of having peace. The avoidance of



harm as a confict response has examples from cultures throughout her/ history. Hence, learning peace-oriented stories from multiple cultures and sources is key curriculum (Carter & Pickett, 2014). Dialogue for broadening of awareness through appreciative inquiry and collaborative creation of problem solutions has been through community organizations as well as in formal education (Akar, 2016). Another strategy for such engagement has been a Peace Day or Peace Week in which educators and community activists collaborate for student awareness of and opportunities for involvement in several aspects of peace development (Behr, Megoran, & Carnaffan, 2018). Community-engaged learning that involves students taking action is a form of experiential learning, which is an orientation to political citizenship (Jones, Warnaar, Bench, & Stroup, 2014). Lived citizenship describes the political agency that young people have within spaces, especially transnational, where they interact (Kallio, Häkli, & Bäcklund, 2015). Learning about the philosophical roots of nonviolence that led to nonviolent dissent by people worldwide, who cross many types of borders, fortifes the knowledge base that supports transformation of structural conficts (Carter & Kumar, 2010; Morrison, 2015). Explanations and examples of nonviolence as citizen action across regions and time periods are crucial components of citizenship curriculum (Mayton II, 2009). The contents of this book review distinct as well as common strategies of citizenship preparation that related to peace development.

Overview of Chapters The contributors to this book describe approaches to citizenship education that pertain to peace, especially through social well-being. The description in each chapter of the strategies used for citizenship and peace education illuminates the widespread hope for and work toward that goal. In efforts for violence prevention and confict management through formal and nonformal education, curriculum and instruction featured values and skills for peace-oriented citizenship. The theoretical foundations of those pursuits that the contributors describe comprises the bedrock where peace construction and its retroftting have happened in education. In Chapter 2, Brittany L. Fried describes and compares two pedagogical approaches to preparation of citizens in Timor-Leste of Southeast Asia. The comparison of a regionally developed model of peace education by Swee-Hin Toh and the Ignatian Pedagogical Paradigm (IPP) used in the newly independent nation revealed common themes as well as distinctive goals for learners. The Jesuit concept of formation, through full development of mind, heart, and spirit, for instance, was a distinctive goal in the IPP, while the theme Living in Harmony with the Earth was an all-embracing goal in peace education. The research demonstrates that education for comprehensive citizenship can be more in-depth through the incorporation of instructional frameworks. Chapter 3 combines the notion of slow violence and

12 Candice C. Carter Gandhian principles as frameworks for enacting slow peace. It provides vignettes of one Canadian teacher’s citizenship education through demonstration of slow peace with a class of primary students. Reva Joshee and Simone Shirvell demonstrate with their students how sustained action in diverse forms and practices is a core component of comprehensive citizenship. They remind the readers that Gandhi emphasized the importance of using every moment of one’s life usefully as (nonformal) citizenship education. In Chapter 4, Maria-Carme Boqué Torremorell, Montserrat Alguacil de Nicolás, and Laura García-Raga share the fndings of their research on thoughts that upper primary students in Catalan in northeastern Spain had about citizenship education and peace. The authors also analyzed the citizenship instruction in Catalan while the government’s learning competencies for it were decentralized, thereby allowing implementation adaptations by regions. Their analysis showed girls valued the citizenship instruction more than the boys, except during group-building activities. Both genders appreciated learning about confict management, and there were several categories for their notions of peace. Chapter 5 features analysis by Carolina Castano Rodriguez of how children healed and learned citizenship strategies for peace through their caring for abused and sanctuaried animals. Their citizenship education embedded in science lessons brought attention to and action for the well-being of all species. The chapter highlights the caring inclination and capabilities of children who fourish through learning and caring opportunities in their society, as well as their schools. It forefronts the centrality of knowledge with action for transformative citizenship as well as the interdependence of ecological and social well-being. Tendayi Marovah explores in Chapter 6 the African philosophy of Ubuntu in a tri-part framework that includes Ubuntu’s values for advancement of comprehensive citizenship in higher education. He lays out how this can be done through expansion of citizenship education from an economic model to a comprehensive model wherein several domains of civic responsibilities can be developed. The multidimensional framework for that accomplishment incorporates the values of Ubuntu with human development and capabilities. Values of human development include personal and collective empowerment, participation, equity, and sustainability. Education that enhances learner capabilities readies them for enactment of their values in meaningful, versus mere functioning, lives. Chapter 7 describes a comparison of citizenship education in Mexico, Bangladesh, and Canada. Kathy Bickmore and Ahmed Salehin Kaderi analyzed teacher-enacted curriculum with young adolescents in each nation. They found inculcation of values was a common approach for democratic and peace-oriented citizenship. The researchers identifed a few cases in each nation’s curriculum where inclusion of justice conficts as learning topics were characterized by several domains of comprehensive citizenship. However, student engagement with the conficts did not extend beyond analysis of them and knowledge about adult responses to them. The curriculum in



these nations resonated with the same found in prior research that student learning focused on the psycho-cultural aspects of confict and not on the structural problems that sustain social in-cohesion. In Chapter 8, Hyunji Lim describes Buddhist education for citizenship in South Korea of North Korean defectors. The focus of her study was on the mindfulness component of Korean Buddhism that, among other resilience strategies of the program, promoted harmony with self and members of their community. It also had the aims of building forgiveness, self-esteem, and a sense of agency with their new liberation. She describes the required resettlement facility Public Institution (pseudonym), which offered weekly spirituality engagement in Catholicism, Christianity, or Buddhism, along with the perceptions of the Buddhist monks who provided the mindfulness instruction. Hyunji Lim ultimately points out the role that the training in Public Institution had in orienting new citizens to peacefully accept their new government and its actions. The contributors provide examples of peace-oriented citizenship education in several world regions. Although some of the contributors describe recent or ongoing war in the contexts of their studies, the structural conficts in those sites were much the same as other nations have, regardless of their economic and political conditions. Citizenship education in the pursuit of peace on and beyond this planet has global relevance. The challenges and successes in facilitation of that goal that this book describes indicate worldwide opportunities for visionary and contextually relevant instruction. Well-being characterizes visions of living in peace. Maintenance of societal as well as personal well-being, along with its pursuit where it does not exist, is a goal of education. Current conceptions of well-being that hark of Indigenous traditions include human and ecological conditions that fulfll both needs (Dluzewska, 2015; Four Arrows, 2010). Individuals, families, and societies need a state of affairs that strengthens their well-being and ability to advance their development as well as survive. Formal and nonformal education has a crucial role in facilitation of those accomplishments. Education is the foundation of well-being when it increases a sense of purpose and human capabilities for engagement in meaningful pursuits (Sen, 1999). John Dewey advocated experiential learning as education for addressing needs in society and noted that such education is meaningful if learners subsequently continue those authentic pursuits (Dewey, 1947, 1990). In a similar vein, peace education encourages student analysis of and active response to problems that they recognize as threats to any well-being. Social action as a component of citizenship education demonstrates experiential learning (Wade, 1993). It represents Montessori’s goal of promoting peace and practical-life learning through direct experience in pursuit of societal well-being. Recognition of well-being’s importance has advanced analyses of its nature, including citizen input for designing measures of well-being (Hogan et al., 2015). This book addresses the need for education that


Candice C. Carter

prepares learners for their roles as citizens who construe and promote well-being and other aspects of peace. Each chapter in this book describes examined and construed possibilities for advancement of well-being through education. Instruction promoted across the world regions pertained to well-being with psychological, ethical, social, economic, political, and environmental foci. Instruction that promoted emotional healing from trauma occurred in multiple world regions. Spiritual well-being was a focus of faith-based instruction. Critical examination of curriculum, instruction, and education policy highlighted impediments to learning comprehensive citizenship. Eurocentric and neoliberal perspectives evident in citizenship instruction demonstrated emphasis on the welfare of the global North. Postcolonial analysis, for example, illuminated neocolonialism that was evident with the instructional emphasis on economic development as the goal for national well-being and political success. On the other hand, feminist standpoint theory responded to the less empowered by inclusion of their voices as agents of change. The use of portraiture (Lawrence-Lightfoot, 2005) enabled illustration of experiences by participating species in the research. The promotion of values as the foundation for building social cohesion characterized instruction that envisioned societal well-being. Political success was emphasized in citizenship education that promoted one model of regional administration as superior to all others. The breadth of the emphases across cases of citizenship education demonstrated the importance of comprehensiveness in planning instruction for peace. Betty Reardon’s (1988) term “comprehensive peace education” applies to citizenship instruction. She did not delimit the term to citizenship education because there are many disciplines that can support learning about and for peace. Teaching about the structural roots of violence and transformative as well as traditional paradigms for the advancement of peace, everywhere for everyone, occurs within as well as across disciplines (Carter, 2010). The breadth of peace education and its contextual responsiveness to current needs that extant conficts reveal infuence the types of research used for examination of the dynamic feld. Comprehensive citizenship education for peace and studies of it correspondingly vary. Additionally, access to and the stability in regions characterized by structural confict and violence also infuences research facilitation. The researchers who shared their analyses in this book collected data as members of universities and as participant observers in cases where they had that access. Their analyses were shaped by their methodological approaches, accessible information, cultural insights, and the resources that they had, such as funding to support their inquiry. Their interests centered on teaching and learning for advancement of well-being through peace-oriented citizenship education. Through qualitative as well as quantitative analyses, the researchers identifed needs of learners that were variably met. The contributor’s curriculum analyses inform curricular



redesign for comprehensive citizenship. The recommendations for culturally relevant content in the curriculum as well as its design that responds to students’ perceptions have value in pedagogy worldwide. Teaching and learning about how citizens can, from early childhood through adulthood, pursue the greater good will always need to be responsive to learners and their contextual conditions, as well as research. Beyond avoidance of harm and pursuits of well-being, humanity’s quest for peace endures. Comprehensive citizenship for success in that pursuit is an instructional concept for use by everyone because of our universal opportunities for education through modeling action throughout our lives in each of its domains.

References Abu-Nimer, M., & Kadayifci-Orellana, S. A. (2017). Muslim peace-building actors in Africa and the Balkan context: Challenges and needs. Peace & Change, 33(4), 549–581. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0130.2008.00518 Akar, B. (2016). Dialogic pedagogies in educational settings for active citizenship, social cohesion and peacebuilding in Lebanon. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 11(1), 44–62. https://doi.org/10.177/174619791562081 Alexander, H. (2014). Education in nonviolence: Levinas’ Talmudic readings and the study of sacred texts. Ethics and Education, 9(1), 58–68. https://doi.org/10. 1080/17449642.2014.890273 Amster, R. (2015). Peace ecology. New York: Routledge. Andreotti, V. (2011). (Towards) decoloniality and diversality in global citizenship education. Globalization, Societies and Education, 9(3–4), 381–397. https:// doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2011.605323 Arnot, M., Casely-Haford, L, & Yeboah, T. (2018, July). Post-colonial dilemmas in the construction of Ghanaian citizenship education: National unity, human rights, and social inequalities. International Journal of Educational Development, 61, 117–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2017.12.008 Au, W., Bigelow, B., & Karp, S. (2007). Rethinking our classrooms: Teaching for equity and justice (Vol. 1, 2nd ed.). Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools. Baltork, M. A., Mansoori, S., & Azad, Y. (2015). Content analysis of peace education as one component of global citizenship education in elementary textbooks. International Journal of Educational and Psychological Researches, 1(1), 28–35. https://doi.org/10.4103/2395-2296.147463 Bar-Tal, D., & Rosen, Y. (2009). Direct and indirect models of peace education. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 557–575. https://doi.org/10.3102/ 0034654308330969 Beckford, C. L., Jacobs, C., Williams, N., & Nahdee, R. (2010). Aboriginal environmental wisdom, stewardship, and sustainability: Lessons from the Walpole Island First Nations, Ontario, Canada. The Journal of Environmental Education, 41(4), 239–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958961003676314 Behr, H., Megoran, N., & Carnaffan, J. (2018). Peace education, militarism and neo-liberalism: Conceptual refections with empirical fndings from the UK. Journal of Peace Education, 15(1), 76–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/17400201.2 017.1394283


Candice C. Carter

Bekerman, Z., & Zembylas, M. (2017). Engaging with religious epistemologies in the classroom: Implications for civic education. Research in Comparative and International Education, 12(1), 127–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745499917698311 Bentrovato, D., & Nissanka, M. (2018). Teaching peace in the midst of civil war: Tensions between global and local discourses in Sri Lankan civics textbooks. Global Change, Peace & Security, 30(3), 353–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/14 781158.2018.1505716 Bickmore, K., & Parker, C. (2014). Constructive confict talk in classrooms: Divergent approaches to addressing divergent perspectives. Theory and Research in Social Education, 42(3), 291–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/009331 04.2014.901199 Blanhet-Cohen, N., & Reilly, R. (2013). Teacher’s perspectives on environmental education in multicultural contexts: Towards culturally-responsive environmental education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36, 12–22. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.07.001 Brenes-Castro, A. (2004). An integral model of peace education. In A. Wenden (Ed.), Educating for a culture of social and ecological peace (pp.  77–98). Albany, NY: State University of New York. Brown, E. J. (2018). Practitioner perspectives on learning for social changes through non-formal global citizenship education. Education, Citizenship, and Social Justice, 13(1), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/1746197917723629 Carmi, N. (2013). Caring about tomorrow: Future orientation, environmental attitudes and behaviors. Environmental Education Research, 19(4), 430–444. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2012.700697 Carter, C. C. (2005). Reaching out for “the other”. In J. Canfeld, M. V. Hansen, C. C. Carter, S. Palomares, L. K. Williams, & B. L. Winch (Eds.), Chicken soup for the soul: Stories for a better world (pp. 326–329). New York: Simon & Schuster. Carter, C. C. (Ed.). (2010). Confict resolution and peace education: Transformations across disciplines. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi. org/10.1057/9780230107830 Carter, C. C. (2015). Social education for peace: Foundations, curriculum, and instruction for visionary learning. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi. org/10.1057/9781137534057 Carter, C. C., & Kumar, R. (Eds.). (2010). Peace philosophy in action. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230112995 Carter, C. C., & Pickett, L. (2014). Youth literature for peace education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137359377 Charles, M. M. (2005). Giving back to the community: African American inner city teens and civic engagement. College Park, MD: The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement. Retrieved from https://eric. ed.gov/?id=ED491122 Cohen, M. J., Brown, H. S., & Vergragt, P. J. (Eds.). (2013). Innovations in sustainable consumption: New Economics, socio-technical transitions and social practices. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781001349. Coward, H. (Ed.). (2000). Experiencing scripture in world religions. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis. Cunningham, J. (2017). From cosmic education to civic responsibility. The North American Montessori Teacher’s Association Journal, 42(3), 19–28. ERIC EJ1183091. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1183091



Dewey, J. (1947). Experience and education. New York: The MacMillan Company. Dewey, J. (1990). The school and the society: The child and the curriculum. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. Dluzewska, A. (2015). Wellbeing—Conceptual background and research practices. Drustvena Istrazivanja (Journal for General Social Issues), 25(4), 547–567. https://doi.org/10.5559/di.25.4.06 Dreamson, N. (2018). Culturally inclusive global citizenship education: Metaphysical and nonwestern approaches. Multicultural Education Review, 10(2), 75–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/2005615X.2018.1460896 Engel, L. C., & Siczek, M. M. (2018). A cross-national comparison of international strategies: Global citizenship and the advancement of national competitiveness. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 48(5), 749–767. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2017.1353408 Erdreich, L. (2016). Spirituality in teacher training at an Islamic college in Israel. Diaspora, Indigenous, and Minority Education, 10(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10. 1080/15595692.2015.1084921 Expósito, L. P. (2014). Rethinking political participation: A pedagogical approach for citizenship education. Theory and Research in Education, 12(2), 229–251. Farid, S., Ghaffer, A., & Bilial, M. Z. (2020). Syncretic analysis of the theological mystic epistemologies. Hamdard Islamicus, XLIII(1), 373–386. Four Arrows (aka Jacobs, D. T.). (2010). Indigenous spirituality as a source for peaceful relations. In E. J. Brantmeier, J. Lin, & J. P. Miller (Eds.), Spirituality, religion, and peace education (pp.  133–146). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Galtung, J. (2020, February 3). Faith, religions, and peace. TRANSCEND Media Service, 624. Retrieved from www.transcend.org/tms/2020/02/faiths-religionsand-peace/ Galtung, J., & Udayakumar, S. P. (2013). More than a curriculum: Education for peace and development. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Global Network against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space. (2020). Retrieved from www.space4peace.org Goldman, D., Ben-Zvi Assaraf, O., & Shaharabani, D. (2013). Infuence of a nonformal environmental education programme on junior high-school students’ environmental literacy. Journal of Science Education, 35(3), 515–545. https:// doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.749545 Goren, H., & Yemini, M. (2017). Global citizenship education redefned—A systematic review of empirical studies on global citizenship education. International Journal of Educational Research, 82(2017), 170–183. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017.02.004 Hester, J. P., & Killian, D. R. (2019). Morality without borders: A vision of humanity as community. The Journal of Values-Based Leadership, 12(2), Article 15, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.22543/0733.122.1284 Hogan, M. J., Johnston, H., Broome, B., McMoreland, C., Walsh, J., Smale, B., . . . Groarke, A. M. (2015). Consulting with citizens in the design of wellbeing measures and policies: Lessons from a system science application. Social Indicators Research, 123(3), 857–877. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0764-x Hrynkow, C., & Westlund, S. (2015). Wisdom traditions, peace and ecology: Mapping some wellsprings of integral connectivity. Journal for the Study of Peace and Confict, 2015, 26–48.


Candice C. Carter

The International Center for the Rights of Nature. (2017). The rights of nature principles. Retrieved from https://celdf.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ RIGHTS-OF-NATURE-PRINCIPLES-FOR-CELDF-WEBSITE.pdf Johnson, R. L. (Ed.). (2006). Gandhi’s experiments with truth: Essential writings by and about Mahatma Gandhi. Lanham, MD: Lexington. Johnson-Freese, J., & Burbach, D. (2019). The Outer Space Treaty and the weaponization of space. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 75(4), 137–141. https:// doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2019.1628458 Jones, J. N., Warnaar, B. L., Bench, J. H., & Stroup, J. (2014). Promoting the development of moral identity, behavior, and commitment in a social action program. Journal of Peace Education, 11(2), 225–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 17400201.2014.898626 Kabasakal, Z. T., Sağ kal, A. S., & Türnüklü, A. (2015). Effects of peace education program on the violence tendencies and social problem solving skills of students. Education and Science, 40(182), 43–62. https://doi.org/10.15390/ EB.2015.4704 Kallio, K. P., Häkli, J., & Bäcklund, P. (2015). Lived citizenship as the locus of political agency in participatory policy. Citizenship Studies, 19(1), 101–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/13621025.2014.982447 Kupermintz, H., & Salomon, G. (2005). Lessons to be learned from research on peace education in the context of intractable confict. Theory Into Practice, 44(4), 293–302. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4404_3 Kurtdede Fidan, N. (2016). Sensitivity of students to the natural environments, animals, social problems, and cultural heritage. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 8(3), 403–424. Lawrence-Lightfoot, S. (2005). Refections on portraiture: A dialogue between art and science. Qualitative Inquiry, 11(3), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1077800404270955 Luff, P., Kanyal, M., Shehu, M., & Brewis, N. (2016). Educating the youngest citizens: Possibilities for early childhood education and care, in England. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 14(3), 197–219. ERIC EJ1123695. Maddox, L. E., Howell, J. B., & Saye, J. W. (2018). Designing geographic inquiry: Preparing secondary students for citizenship. Journal of Geography, 117(6), 253–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221341.2018.1495249 Marshall, E., & Sensoy, O. (2016). Rethinking popular culture and media (2nd ed.). Milwaukee: Rethinking Schools. Mayer, A. (2013). Education and the environment: An international study. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 20(6), 512–519. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2013.830994 Mayton II, D. M. (2009). Nonviolence and peace psychology: Intrapersonal, interpersonal, societal, and world peace. Lewiston, ID: Springer. Mehta, N. (2012). Designing for generosity. Retrieved from www.youtube.com/ watch?v=kpyc84kamhw&feature=youtu.be Menzies, C. (2006). Traditional ecological knowledge and natural resource management. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska. Minteer, B. A., & Taylor, B. P. (Eds.). (2002). Democracy and the claims of nature: Critical perspectives for a new century. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefeld. Mohamed, N. (2014). Islamic education, eco-ethics and community. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 33(3), 315–328. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11217-013-9387-y



Montessori, M. (1972). Education and peace (H. R. Lane, Trans.). Chicago, IL: Regnery. Morrison, M. L. (2015). Peacelearning and its relationship to the teaching of nonviolence. Democracy and Education, 23(1), 1–6. Retrieved from https:// democracyeducationjournal.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1180&context= home Myers-Walls, J. A., & Somlai, P. (Eds.). (2001). Families as educators for global citizenship. Aldershot: Ashgate. National Council for the Social Studies. (2008). A vision of powerful teaching and learning in the social studies: Building social understanding and civic effcacy [Position statement]. Retrieved from www.socialstudies.org/positions/ powerful Niens, U., O’Connor, U., & Smith, A. (2013). Citizenship education in divided societies: Teachers’ perspectives in Northern Ireland. Citizenship Studies, 17(1), 128–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/13621025.2012.716214 Noddings, N. (2008). Caring and peace education. In M. Bajaj (Ed.), Encyclopedia of peace education (pp. 87–91). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. O’Connor, U. (2012). Schools together: Enhancing the citizenship curriculum through a non formal education programme. Journal of Peace Education, 2(1), 31–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/17400201.2012.657357 Pollak, I., Segal, A., Lefstein, A., & Meshulam, A. (2018). Teaching controversial issues in a fragile democracy: Defusing deliberation in Israeli primary classrooms. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 50(3), 387–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00220272.2017.1397757 Pontoriero, E. (2019). On multiple belonging: Engaging human rights from a Buddhist-Christian, and feminist liberative praxis. Buddhist-Christian Studies, 39, 181–202. https://doi.org/10.1353/bcs.2019.0014 Reardon, B. A. (1988). Comprehensive peace education. New York: Teachers College. Rohr, R. (2019). The universal Christ: How a forgotten reality can change everything we see, hope for, and believe. New York: Convergent. Rosen, Y., & Salomon, G. (2011). Durability of peace education effects in the shadow of confict. Social Psychology of Education, 14, 135–147. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11218-010-9134-y Sandlin, J. A., Kahn, R., Darts, D., & Tavin, K. (2009). To fnd the cost of freedom. Theorizing and practicing a critical pedagogy of consumption. Journal of Critical Education Policy Studies, 7(2), 98–125. Retrieved from www.jceps.com/ wp-content/uploads/PDFs/07-2-05.pdf Santamaría-Cárdaba, N. (2019). ¿ Cuál es el estatus de la educación para la paz en el åmbito científco actual? (What is the status of education for peace in today’s scientifc environment?). Modulema, 3, 63–77. Retrieved from https:// digibug.ugr.es/handle/10481/55895 Schattle, H. (2008). Education for global citizenship: Illustrations of ideological pluralism and adaptation. Journal of Political Ideologies, 13(1), 73–94. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13569310701822263 Schmidt, S. J. (2011). Making space for the citizen in geographic education. Journal of Geography, 110(3), 107–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221341.2011.537671 Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sharp, G. (1999). Nonviolent action. In L. Kurtz (Ed.), Encyclopedia of violence, peace, and confict (Vol. 2, pp. 567–574). New York: Academic.


Candice C. Carter

Sharp, G., & Paulson, J. (2005). Waging nonviolent struggle: 20th century practice and 21st century potential. Manchester, NH: Extending Horizons Books. Shin, E. E., & Bednarz, S. W. (Eds.). (2019). Spatial citizenship education: Citizenship through geography. New York: Routledge. Shor, J. (2004). Born to buy: The commercialized child and the new consumer culture. New York: Scribner. Shugarensky, D., & Myers, J. P. (2003, Fall). Citizenship education: Theory, research, and practice. Encounters on Education, 4, 1–9. https://doi. org/10.24908/eoe-ese-rse.v4i0.655 Sommerfelt, O. H., & Vambheim, V. (2008). “The dream of the good”—a peace education project exploring the potential to educate for peace at an individual level. Journal of Peace Education, 5(1), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 17400200701859445 Starkey, H. (2017). Globalization and education for cosmopolitan citizenship. In J. Banks (Ed.), Citizenship education and global migration: Implications for theory, research, and practice (pp. 41–62). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Torres, C. A. (2015). Solidarity and competitiveness in a global context: Comparable concepts in global citizenship education. The International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 14(2), 22–29. Retrieved from https://fles. eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1081607.pdf Turner, N. J. (2015). The earth’s blanket: Traditional teachings for sustainable living. Seattle, WA: University of Washington. United Nations Educational, Scientifc and Cultural Organization. (2015). Global citizenship education: Topics and learning objectives. Retrieved from http:// unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002329/232993e.pdf Verhagen, F. C. (2012). The tierra solution: Resolving climate change through monetary transformation. New York: Cosimo. Verma, R. (2017). Critical peace education and global citizenship: Narratives from the unoffcial curriculum. New York: Routledge. Wade, R. C. (1993). Social action: Expanding the role of citizenship in the social studies curriculum. Inquiry in Social Studies: Curriculum, Research, and Instruction, 29(1), 2–18. Wenden, A. L. (2014). Raising the bar for peace and sustainability educators: An educational response to the implementation gap. Journal of Peace Education, 11(3), 334–351. Westheimer, J. (2015). What kind of citizen?: Educating our children for the common good. New York: Teachers College Press. White, E. S., & Mistry, R. S. (2016). Parent civic beliefs, civic participation, socialization practices and child civic engagement. Applied Developmental Science, 20(1), 44–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2015.1049346 Wood, B. E., & Kallio, K. P. (2020). Green citizenship: Towards spatial and lived perspectives. In S. Davoudi, R. Cowell, I. White, & H. Blanco (Eds.), The Routledge companion to environmental planning (pp.  171–180). London: Routledge. Wood, B. E., Taylor, R., Atkins, R., & Johnston, M. (2018). Pedagogies for active citizenship: Learning through affective and cognitive domains for deeper democratic engagement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 75, 259–267. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.07.007



Worden, E. A., & Smith, A. (2017). Teaching for democracy in the absence of transitional justice: The case of Northern Ireland. Comparative Education, 53(3), 379–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2017.1334426 Zhu, Q. (2018). Engineering ethics education, ethical leadership and Confucian ethics. International Journal of Ethics Education, 3, 169–179.


Bridging the Gap Peace Education and the Ignatian Pedagogical Paradigm in Post-Confict Timor-Leste Brittany L. Fried

In the span of 24 years, approximately one-third of Timor-Leste’s population perished (The Nobel Peace Prize, 1996). Their deaths resulted from starvation, epidemics, war, and terror under Indonesian occupation (The Nobel Peace Prize, 1996). Upon gaining independence in 2002, Timor-Leste entered the process of post-confict peacebuilding. Core to effective peacebuilding is the education of youth to pursue peace-oriented citizenship, which fosters long-term healing, reconciliation, solidarity, and stability. This chapter examines the intersection of peace education and the Ignatian pedagogical paradigm (IPP) at a Jesuit school in post-confict Timor-Leste. Analysis is based on feld data including interviews and focus groups with administrators, educators, and students at the case study school, Loyola Jesuit Secondary School (LJSS) (pseudonym), and interviews with other education stakeholders in Timor-Leste. The research sheds light on how IPP is implemented at LJSS and where IPP and peace education overlap and diverge at the school. Altogether, this chapter brings two unique and infuential educational frameworks into dialogue to further the formation of Timorese youth as leaders for peace and development in their healing community. The research opens the door to explore how the intersection of IPP and peace education may be examined and applied to comprehensive citizenship programming in diverse post-confict settings.

Historiography The Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste, often referred to as “East Timor,” is a country on the eastern side of the island of Timor, located next to Indonesia and Australia in Southeast Asia. European involvement on the island of Timor began in the early 1500s, following the Treaty of Tordesillas (1494), when Portugal gained control of the area from the Atlantic Ocean to the China Sea. Catholic contact emerged in 1556, when members of the Dominican Order settled on Solor, an island neighboring Timor. In 1658, the arrival of João Nogueira and Pero Francisco marked the frst appearance of Jesuits on Timor (Gunn, 1999).

Bridging the Gap


In the late-17th century, Lifau—on the western side of Timor—became the regional seat of power for Portugal, initiating 250 years of increased colonial presence on the island. Timorese rebellions against the Portuguese greatly expanded in the mid-19th century. During this time, Catholic education increased dramatically, in part to create a social elite to mediate relations between natives and their colonizers (Gunn, 1999).1 In 1910, the Jesuits were expelled from the island. It was not until 1935 that religious groups were legally recognized again and the Jesuits resumed their educational work on Timor. On the eve of World War II, “Portuguese Timor stood out among colonialisms . . . for its seeming non-interventionism in matters of culture and tradition. In this sense Timor was run more like a protectorate than a colony” (Gunn, 1999, p. 221). The Japanese Empire controlled Timor from 1942 to 1945. Following the war, Portuguese control was reestablished and remained intact until 1975. In August 1975, the Timorese political party Frente Revolucionária do Timor-Leste Independente (Fretilin) led an armed insurrection to gain control of the territory (Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation, 2003a). On November 28, 1975, Fretilin made a unilateral declaration of independence for Timor-Leste. A mere nine days later, Indonesia launched a full-scale military invasion of the new country. Despite pushback from the United Nations (UN), Timor-Leste was incorporated into Indonesia on July 17, 1976 (Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation, 2003a).2 An estimated 200,000 East Timorese—or one third of the population—perished “as the direct or indirect result of the [Indonesian] invasion” (Dunn, 2003, p. 278; The Nobel Peace Prize, 1996). While a large proportion of these deaths are attributable to disease, starvation, and forced displacement from the occupation, many others occurred through massacre.3 4 A signifcant demographic transition occurred during the occupation. At the onset of Indonesian rule in 1975, only 25–30% of the Timorese population was baptized Catholic (Hodge, 2013). By the end of the occupation in the 1990s, over 90% of Timorese people were Catholic (Hodge, 2013). Reasons for this increase include Timorese connection to the spirituality of resistance, martyrdom, and advocacy for the persecuted demonstrated in the Catholic faith and a need to adhere to the Indonesian state philosophy of Pancasila, which demands faith in one God (Pancasila, 2013).5 One of the three primary pro-independence leaders was a man of the Catholic Church. Bishop Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo, who was respected for “his fearless defence of the rights of his people,” was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize with future Timor-Leste president Jośe Ramos-Horta in 1996 for their work “towards a just and peaceful solution to the confict in East Timor” (Dunn, 2003, p. 340; The Nobel Peace Prize, 1996). The Indonesian occupation of Timor-Leste lasted nearly 24 years, until October 1999, when the territory became a UN mandate called the United


Brittany L. Fried

Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor or “UNTAET” (Dunn, 2003). With the Constituent Assembly (renamed the National Parliament) and Council of Ministers in place, UNTAET passed authority to the elected Timorese government on May 20, 2002. The Jesuits continued their educational work on the island through the UN mandate (Who we are, 2016). In 2011, the Jesuits launched Projeto Educação Jesuíta, which serves as the central case study of this chapter. Upon gaining independence, Timor-Leste began work on post-confict peacebuilding—a process “focus[ed] on the root causes of the confict with a view to establishing a sustainable peace” (Chetail, 2009, p. 1). Post-confict peacebuilding can take generations to achieve. Conceptually, the process can be broken into four primary timeframes: crisis intervention (immediate action), preparation and training (short-range planning), design of social change (decade thinking), and desired future (generation vision) (Lederach, 1997). Today, Timor-Leste is an independent democratic republic with a population of approximately 1.3 million people (World Population Review, 2020). As of 2015, an estimated 97.6% of the population identifes as Catholic (Central Intelligence Agency, n.d.). In terms of post-confict development, Timor-Leste is currently in the middle-range time dimension, “design of social change.” This period is when communities “put into place mechanisms that make the transition [to lasting peace] possible and create a sustainable process that will carry [them] towards [their] ultimate goals” (Lederach, 1997, p. 78). One arena in which this transition is underway is the education system. Approximately 150,000 pupils are currently enrolled in Timor-Leste’s secondary education system (Education Policy and Data Center, 2018). This encompasses around 63% of the country’s secondary-age population (The World Bank, n.d.). Although most of these students were born after Timor-Leste gained independence, they have been exposed to the residual trauma, development challenges, and search for justice that resulted from the occupation. It is for this reason that integrating peacebuilding mechanisms into the education system is essential for establishing long-term social change and peace-oriented citizenship within Timor-Leste.

Methodology This chapter analyzes the intersection of the Ignatian pedagogical paradigm (IPP) and peace education at Loyola Jesuit Secondary School (LJSS) (pseudonym), a Jesuit secondary school in Timor-Leste. The country of Timor-Leste was selected because of its history of confict, the researcher’s past experience visiting the island, and the country’s underrepresentation in post-confict literature. While several methodologies were applicable, a single-school case study was chosen due to the lack of existing case studies on the topic and also in order to provide the deepest possible analysis of the context and to accentuate participant voices in the research.

Bridging the Gap


LJSS, the case study school, was inaugurated in January 2014 and now provides classes from year 7 to year 12 for 681 students (Boholst, 2019). LJSS was created as a part of an education project called Projeto Educação Jesuíta, which consists of LJSS and its partner teacher-training institute, St. John Training Institute (SJTI) (pseudonym). LJSS aims to “promote the spiritual, academic, social, emotional, psychological and physical development of its students” (Loyola Jesuit Secondary School, 2016). Qualitative data collection at LJSS occurred through interviews and focus groups, as approved by Georgetown University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB). The sample population encompassed students over age 18, educators in diverse felds, and administrators involved in curricular and pedagogical affairs. Ten interviews were conducted with LJSS educators and two with LJSS administrators. Two focus groups were carried out with LJSS students over age 18. A total of nine students participated in these focus groups. Interviews were additionally conducted with two LJSS student teachers from SJTI, one student at SJTI, and the director of SJTI. Each interviewee expressed willingness to participate. Following the interviews, study subjects provided curricular and institutional resources to assist in data collection. To contextualize LJSS’s curriculum, further interviews were conducted with education stakeholders in Timor-Leste. These include staff members from the international association g7+,6 World Bank consultants, representatives and the director of the Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in East Timor (CAVR), and Ministry of Education employees. Topical experts provided guidance through the preparation, data collection, coding, and analysis processes. These include the executive director of Georgetown University’s Center for Social Justice Research, Teaching, and Service and Jesuits from Georgetown University. Additionally, regional experts such as the deputy chief of mission of the Timor-Leste Embassy in Washington, DC, and regional Jesuits provided insight into the Timor-Leste context. There were a number of limitations to the study. First, the case study was conducted at only one school due to geographic and time restrictions. Research including multiple schools could provide broader insight into IPP implementation and intersections with peace education in post-confict settings. Second, interview participation was voluntary, meaning not all educator voices were accounted for in the research. Third, students under age 18 were not included in the study due to their minor status. As a result, most students attending LJSS were excluded from study participation. Fourth, certain interviews had to be conducted with a translator, resulting in indirect questioning and response collection from interviewees. Fifth, classroom observation, which could have enhanced conversation about IPP implementation at LJSS, was constrained due to language barriers. This chapter is not large or comprehensive enough to extrapolate its fndings to all schools in Timor-Leste, Jesuit schools, or educational


Brittany L. Fried

institutions in post-confict settings. However, analysis of the situation at this Jesuit school in Timor-Leste intends to provide insight into the intersection of peace education and IPP in a post-confict setting that can be further studied or replicated in other locations or contexts.

Conceptual Framework Peace Education Peace education is a peacebuilding mechanism that can be integrated into the education system. It emerged as a pedagogy, process, and philosophy in the mid-17th century. Comenius, a prominent author at the time, “argued that universally-shared knowledge could provide a road to peace,” and create “a world in which men and women would live in harmony with acceptance of diverse cultures” (Harris, 2008, p.  16). Since then, the feld has grown, with pedagogues ranging from supranational organizations such as the United Nations to individuals including Betty Reardon, a 20th-century pioneer of peace education. Yet one goal remains in common: to achieve nonviolent resolution to confict. This chapter adheres to the micro approach exemplifed by prominent peace education theorist Swee-Hin Toh. Toh is a well-established fgure in the feld and awardee of the UNESCO Prize for Peace Education in the year 2000. He has led extensive peace education programming in the Philippines, especially working with Muslim and Christian individuals in post-confict contexts—which directly parallels the situation in Timor-Leste. In his work, Toh emphasizes the formation of specifc knowledge, skills, and capacities in learners. His peace education framework is broken into four pedagogical principles and six content-based themes. The principles guide teacher actions in the classroom in order to best facilitate student growth. Each principle has unique guidelines, which are described as follows: 1. Holistic understanding incorporates education for a culture of peace into all curricular and extracurricular learning. This principle allows students to obtain a comprehensive understanding of “confict, violence, unsustainable development and ways to peace and sustainability” (Toh, 2006, p. 12). It provides analysis of the intersectionality between problems of peacelessness and engages diverse sectors of society. 2. Dialogue focuses on a “horizontal teacher-learner relationship in which both dialogically educate and learn from each other” (Toh, 2006, p. 13). It asks teachers to provide multiple perspectives on problems and to engage students in learning beyond academics alone—including involvement with the community and spiritual

Bridging the Gap


leaders. The principle “encourages learners to talk about their realities, experiences, understandings, biases, commitments, hopes, despairs and dreams” (Toh, 2006, p. 13). 3. Values formation requires the explicit inclusion of values in learning. Examples are “compassion, justice, equity, gender-fairness, caring for life, sharing, reconciliation, integrity, sustainability . . . and active nonviolence” (Toh, 2006, p. 14). These values are intended to develop hope, courage, and commitment within students, as demonstrated by the educator delivering the lessons. 4. Critical empowerment challenges students to “engage in a personal struggle to develop a critical consciousness that actively seeks to transform prevailing realities of violence, injustice and unsustainability toward a culture of nonviolence, justice and sustainability” (Toh, 2006, p. 14). This principle incorporates interaction with the local community to move learners beyond academic knowledge, toward active peacebuilding. The six content-based themes of Toh’s framework outline content that should be incorporated into the classroom in order to holistically and effectively conduct education for a culture of peace. As with the pedagogical principles, each theme has unique guidelines: 1. Dismantling the culture of war incorporates both macro and micro instances of violence. It includes theories of nonviolence, confict resolution, and disarmament in order for learners to develop skills to transform violent situations into ones of peace (Toh, 2006). 2. Living with justice and compassion “seeks to build national, international and global relationships and structures that adequately meet the basic needs of all peoples based on values of dignity, freedom and justice” (Toh, 2006, p. 4). It encourages a transition from consumerism as a measure of “progress” to more holistic indicators. 3. Promoting human rights and responsibilities encourages students to become aware of and work toward the fulfllment of civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights, especially as outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Toh, 2006). It provides exposure to grassroots organizations and individuals working to uphold accountability for these rights. 4. Building cultural respect, reconciliation, and solidarity promotes “values, attitudes and social-cultural policies based on mutual respect, understanding, non-discrimination, and non-racism” (Toh, 2006, p. 8). It incorporates intercultural and interfaith learning to develop a nuanced understanding of confict and cultivate a sense of solidarity with people of different backgrounds. 5. Cultivating of inner peace “draws deeply [on] the insights and wisdom from the teachings of prophets, saints, and sages of diverse


Brittany L. Fried

faiths and spirituality traditions” (Toh, 2006, p. 9). Inner peace intends to serve as a catalyst for building a nonviolent world and to ensure peaceful aspects of faith traditions are put into practice. 6. Living in harmony with the Earth centers on sustainable development that benefts the global community, not just the learners’ home nation. It encourages sustainable living and “‘green theology’, whereby different faiths are examined as inspirational sources of environmental values toward the vision of a shared global ethic” (Toh, 2006, p. 10). These six themes—considered equal and complimentary in nature—can be visualized through the “Flower Petal Model” in Figure 2.1. Toh’s six themes address fundamental aspects of comprehensive citizenship and post-confict development, including: peaceful resolution of confict, development of reconciliatory cultural values, the pursuit of justice, and transformation of individual actions toward a culture of peace (Carter, 2015). The themes can also be compared and contrasted to the personal nature and value cultivation of the Ignatian pedagogical paradigm (IPP) as applied in the case study school.

Figure 2.1 Swee-Hin Toh’s Flower Petal Model for Peace Education

Bridging the Gap


The Ignatian Pedagogical Paradigm The Ignatian pedagogical paradigm is a way of learning and method of teaching implemented through the Society of Jesus, often referred to as the “Jesuits.” The Catholic Church approved the Society of Jesus as a religious order in 1540. Ignatius of Loyola (c. 1491–1556), a Spanish Catholic priest and theologian, founded the order. According to Catholic historian and Jesuit John W. O’Malley, S.J. (1999), the Society of Jesus is correctly described as “the frst teaching order in the Catholic Church.” Within the frst 350 years of the Society’s existence, the Jesuits operated more than 800 educational institutions around the globe, ranging from universities to seminaries to secondary schools (O’Malley, 1999). This is a scale the world “has never seen before, nor has it seen since” under a single patronage (O’Malley, 1999). In 1548, Ignatius of Loyola published what is now called the Spiritual Exercises of Saint Ignatius Loyola—a book of prayers, meditations, and refections to guide readers to fnd the presence of God in all aspects of life. The Spiritual Exercises was the primary basis of Jesuit education until 1599, when the Ratio Studiorum was offcially sanctioned by the order. The Ratio, called the “Magna Carta of Jesuit education,” outlined and standardized the delivery of Jesuit education (O’Malley, 1999). According to O’Malley (2017), “The Ratio is essentially a compilation of best practices in school administration and, especially, in pedagogy as developed by Jesuit institutions in previous decades” (p. 128). It is from this early codifcation that modern Jesuit education and Ignatian pedagogy emerged. Today, IPP is used all over the world, from business and law schools, to nursing programs and early education institutions (Bryce, 2007; Burkhart & Schmidt, 2012; Callahan, 2013). The Ignatian pedagogical paradigm has fve central elements. These elements serve a similar function to Toh’s four pedagogical principles in that they guide classroom management and teaching for student formation. Each element is uniquely defned and is broken down as follows: 1. Context, often associated with the Jesuit concept of cura personalis,7 insists teachers become as familiar as possible with the lived experiences of their students. This includes “ways in which family, friends, peers, youth culture and mores as well as social pressures, school life, politics, economics, religion, media, art, music, and other realities” impact each learners’ world (Ignatian Pedagogy, 1993, p. 12). This enhances trust and respect between the student and teacher, and allows the educator to better understand their students’ actions and attitudes (Ignatian Pedagogy, 2014). 2. Experience goes beyond traditional academic teaching to incorporate the mind, heart, and spirit into the learning process. “Through questioning, imagining, investigating . . . elements and relationships,


Brittany L. Fried

the student organizes information and knowledge into a whole,” building a more comprehensive understanding of what he or she is learning (Ignatian Pedagogy, 2014, p. 5). This includes education both inside and outside the classroom. 3. Refection is based on the discernment process of St. Ignatius, which served to “clarify his internal motivation, the reasons behind his judgments, to probe the causes and implications of what he experienced, [and] to weigh possible options and evaluate them in light of their likely consequences” (Ignatian Pedagogy, 1993, p. 16). In a classroom setting, refection prompts students to grapple with the content in order to comprehend the fundamental meaning of what they have learned (Ignatian Pedagogy, 1993). 4. Action comes out of the refection process and is based on “affective feelings [which] are motivational forces that move one’s understanding to action and commitment” (Ignatian Pedagogy, 1993, p. 18). Action and commitment are founded in the Jesuit concept of magis, which strives for “the more universal good” and is “For the Greater Glory of God” (Geger, 2012, p. 16). 5. Evaluation takes into consideration not only academic achievement but also how students have grown in mind, heart, and spirit. This development moves the learners toward becoming “men and womenfor-others,” and can be assessed through mentoring, self-evaluation, journals, and extracurricular engagement, among other methods (Ignatian Pedagogy, 1993, pp. 19–21). Educators are expected to encourage students regarding the progress they have made and facilitate refection and action for further growth. Together, these fve elements make up an ongoing process which learners and teachers alike should continue to engage with throughout their lifetime. It is intended that the repetition of this process creates well-rounded global citizens who actively make socially conscious, responsible choices (Ignatian Pedagogy, 1993). The relationship of these fve elements can be visualized in Figure 2.2 (Colacchio Wesley, 2019). Beyond the pedagogical framework, there are core characteristics of Jesuit education. In 1986, the International Commission on the Apostolate of Jesuit Education (ICAJE) published a list of 28 Jesuit characteristics that refect St. Ignatius’ vision and help Jesuit schools most effectively achieve their purpose (The characteristics of Jesuit education, 2017). The 28 characteristics can be grouped into nine schematic sections: “God,” “Human Freedom,” “Quest for Freedom,” “Christ the Model of Humanity,” “Action,” “In the Church,” “MAGIS,” “The Community,” and “Discernment” (The characteristics of Jesuit education, 2017, pp. 287–291).

Bridging the Gap


Figure 2.2 Relationship Among the Elements of the Ignatian Pedagogical Paradigm

In order to condense data analysis, one representative characteristic was chosen from each schematic section to construct a content-based framework for IPP: 1. Jesuit education is world-affrming 2. Jesuit education insists on individual care and concern for each person 3. Jesuit education is value-oriented 4. Jesuit education proposes Christ as the model of human life 5. Jesuit education serves the faith that does justice 6. Jesuit education is an apostolic instrument, in service of the church as it serves human society 7. Jesuit education pursues excellence in its work of formation


Brittany L. Fried

8. Jesuit education relies on spirit of community among teaching staff, administrators, Jesuit community, governing boards, parents, students, former students, and benefactors, and 9. Jesuit education is a system of schools with a common vision and common goals (The characteristics of Jesuit education, 2014, pp. 12–16) Collectively, these nine characteristics outline the nature of content that should be included when integrating IPP into classroom learning. Furthermore, they highlight characteristics of IPP with potential post-confict applicability. In a global context, there are currently 2,501 Jesuit secondary and pre-secondary schools and educational projects around the world (Jesuit global network of schools, 2019). Many of these exist in post-confict settings, such as Kigali, Rwanda, or Sereisophon City, Cambodia. Despite the operation of many Jesuit schools in post-confict areas, few to no studies have been published on the application of IPP in these settings. However, on the surface it is clear that the core characteristics of Jesuit education identifed by the ICAJE align IPP with the fundamental values of peace education and peace-oriented citizenship. For that reason, this chapter analyzes the two disciplines of peace education and IPP as complementary frameworks. The Knowledge Gap While peace education and IPP are both transformative forms of education, the two felds are rarely brought into conversation. Scholars from the Society of Jesus largely direct discussion of IPP. By contrast, many peace education theorists are reluctant to incorporate aspects from organized religion into their work. This chapter seeks to bridge the knowledge gap through analysis of the ways in which practices of peace education and IPP intersect and diverge at a Jesuit school in post-confict Timor-Leste. It furthermore proposes recommendations for how the two felds can be used in tandem in post-confict settings to promote comprehensive citizenship.

Case Study The case study directly compares Swee-Hin Toh’s peace education framework and the Ignatian pedagogical paradigm (IPP) as implemented at Loyola Jesuit Secondary School (LJSS) (pseudonym). The conversation between peace education and IPP in the research shows a strong relationship between the two frameworks in Timor-Leste’s post-confict context. This case study outlines the areas of similarity and difference and the subsequent implications of each with regards to peace-oriented citizenship. For simplicity of interpretation, both pedagogical principles (peace education)

Bridging the Gap


and elements (Ignatian pedagogical paradigm) will be referred to as “pedagogical principles” in this section. Themes (peace education) and characteristics (Ignatian pedagogical paradigm) will be called “characteristics.” Each specifc pedagogical principle and characteristic will be described as an “indicator.” Pedagogical Principles To conduct a comparison of the peace education and IPP frameworks, the pedagogical principles of each framework were matched. Pairs were decided through a comparison of descriptions (as outlined in the conceptual framework), intended outcomes, and implementation techniques between the indicators. Figure 2.3 illustrates the fnal pedagogical principle matches between the two frameworks. Within each pedagogical principle pair, areas of intersection and divergence were determined through a direct comparison of each indicator’s description. The comparison was organized in a three-column table, with the left column describing the unique aspects of the peace education indicator, the center column outlining the areas of overlap between the indicators, and the right column detailing the unique attributes of the IPP indicator. Table 2.1 demonstrates the comparison of pedagogical principles dialogue (peace education) and context (IPP). The center column of Table 2.1 shows both pedagogical principle indicators emphasize relationship development between the educator and learner, encourage discussion of lived experiences, and place those experiences into a larger societal context. In terms of unique attributes, dialogue explicitly requests that horizontal relationships are formed— placing greater emphasis on a “democratic” structure, while context has a heightened focus on cura personalis, or care for the entire person. The three-column tables demonstrate the intersections and divergences between the peace education and IPP pedagogies of this chapter. Peace Education




Holistic Understanding


Critical Empowerment Values Formation




Figure 2.3 Peace Education and IPP Pedagogical Principle Matches


Brittany L. Fried

Table 2.1 Peace Education and IPP Pedagogical Principle Comparison Pedagogical Principles Peace Education



Emphasize relationship development between teacher and student Encourage discussion about lived experiences of educator and learner Commit to learnercentered education that attempts to put personal experiences into a larger societal context

Has a heightened focus on cura personalis—care for the whole person

Dialogue—Context Places greater emphasis on horizontal relationships

To determine the extent to which these areas of similarity and difference are represented at LJSS, quotes from case study interviews that affrm the peace education-specifc, IPP-specifc, and overlapping attributes were selected. Table 2.2 provides an example pedagogical principle comparison table with corresponding quotes. Interview quotes are in the second row of the table and are numbered according to the attribute(s) they affrm. Table 2.2 demonstrates that case study interviewees discussed each peace education-specifc, IPP-specifc, and shared attribute of the pedagogical principles dialogue and context. The presence of quotes regarding each attribute asserts that both the unique and overlapping areas of the two pedagogical principles exist at LJSS. Five of the six pedagogical attributes unique to peace education are present in the case study data. The one peace education-specifc attribute absent from the data is “Intentional focus on mixing diverse cohorts of society in the learning process,” under the pedagogical principle of holistic understanding. Demographically, Timor-Leste is a diverse country, with ten ethnic groups and approximately 32 indigenous languages (Central Intelligence Agency, n.d.). Despite ethnic and linguistic diversity, TimorLeste has a GINI coeffcient of 28.7%, signifying relatively equal wealth distribution across the country (The World Bank, 2014).8 Most LJSS students live in the country’s urban center, Dili, and are exposed to individuals of diverse backgrounds and socioeconomic situations. Nevertheless, those who participated in case study interviews did not explicitly discuss topics of ethnicity, economic equality, or the impact diversity can have on the learning process. Overall, the key pedagogical commonalities between peace education and IPP at LJSS were determined by the overlapping attributes between

Bridging the Gap


Table 2.2 Peace Education and IPP Pedagogical Principle Comparison With Supporting Quotes Pedagogical Principles Peace Education



1. Emphasize relationship development between teacher and student 2. Encourage discussion about lived experiences of educator and learner 3. Commit to learnercentered education that attempts to put personal experiences into a larger societal context 1. “Also with the student she say[s] that some of the students are naughty, the problem is how we as a teacher try to condemn them because the success of the student depends on the teacher” —REC024 2. “My students, they are good . . . I just feel like it’s good to be with them, to share life with them and the experiences sometimes let us study ahead”— REC023 3. “For me, I really like the civic subject because in civic subject many times we talk about our social problems, what is happening in our country, so we share our opinions to know what others think about it”— S3, REC027

1. Has a heightened focus on cura personalis—care for the whole person

Dialogue—Context 1. Places greater emphasis on horizontal relationships

1. “In Catholic schools . . . people listen to each other, especially teachers and students” —REC032

1. “They don’t just teach us but actually most of the teachers there are like our parents, they’re like our friends—they share with us and we not only tell them about our diffculties in the subjects or in class but also we share with them what we feel. Sometimes not only in school we have a problem at home and they will give us advice”—S2, REC034

the two frameworks that had supporting quotes from case study interviews. Table 2.3 identifes the shared pedagogical components of the two frameworks as determined by the research. The similarities between the peace education and IPP pedagogies shown in Table 2.3 can be grouped into the central themes of relationship development,


Brittany L. Fried

Table 2.3 Key Commonalities Between Peace Education and IPP Pedagogical Principles at LJSS Intersection of Peace Education and IPP Pedagogy Emphasize relationship development between teacher and student Encourage discussion about lived experiences of educators and learners Are learner-centered and put personal experiences into a larger societal context Integrate classroom and extracurricular learning Focus on the interrelationship between and among different topic areas Require deep personal introspection regarding what has been learned Look for action for universal good as a result of new knowledge and refection Link refection and action as closely related processes Have a clear set of values focused on developing positive relationships with others Go beyond academics to examine how people view and act in the world Have ongoing processes of development without a real end point Require refection on the personal values of learners

placing personal experiences in a societal context, interrelationships within learning, and linking refection and action for societal good. Characteristics Characteristics of peace education and IPP were paired using the same methodology as for the pedagogical principles. Matches made between the characteristic indicators of the two frameworks are shown in Figure 2.4. Three peace education and IPP characteristics were not matched: (1) living in harmony with the Earth (peace education), (2) Jesuit education focuses on excellence in its work of formation (IPP), and (3) Jesuit education is a system of schools with a common vision and common goals (IPP). Each was determined unique to its own framework and thus not partnered with a characteristic from the other. Further discussion regarding the signifcance of the unmatched indicators takes place in the “Implications” portion of this chapter. Three-column tables enabled paired comparison of characteristics. Table 2.4 provides an example of those tables that aided analysis. The left column describes the unique aspects of dismantling the culture of war, the right column details unique attributes of Jesuit education is world-affrming, and the center column outlines areas of overlap between the two. As with the pedagogical indicators, quotes from case study interviews were selected that speak to the peace education-specifc, IPP-specifc and overlapping characteristic attributes. The quotes illuminate the extent to which areas of similarity and difference between the characteristics are represented at LJSS.

Bridging the Gap Peace Education



Dismantling the Culture of War

Jesuit Education Is World-Affirming

Living with Justice & Compassion

Jesuit Education Serves the Faith That Does Justice

Promoting Human Rights & Responsibilities

Jesuit Education Insists on Individual Care and Concern for Each Person

Building Cultural Respect, Reconciliation, & Solidarity

Jesuit Education Relies on a Spirit of Community

Jesuit Education Is Value-Oriented

Cultivation of Inner Peace

Jesuit Education Proposes Christ as the Model of Human Life

Jesuit Education Is an Apostolic Instrument

Figure 2.4 Peace Education and IPP Characteristic Matches

The center column of Table 2.4 shows that both characteristic indicators work toward reconciliation and should be incorporated into all areas of learning (not just classroom instruction). Whereas dismantling the culture of war focuses on transforming violent situations into nonviolent ones, Jesuit education is world affrming underscores the goodness of the world to encourage learners through diffcult situations. Furthermore, Table 2.4 confrms that the case study interviewees discussed each peace education-specifc, IPP-specifc and shared attribute of the two characteristics, thus confrming their presence at LJSS. Overall, the number of interview quotes that spoke to attributes of peace education-specifc characteristics was not as high as those for peace education-specifc pedagogical principles. Only fve of the eight characteristic attributes were present in case study interviews. Those absent were: “Focuses on the larger international system, including global relationships and structures being built or in place” (living with justice and compassion); “Specifcally focuses on the protection of human rights, as determined by international governing bodies” (promoting human rights and responsibilities); and “Draws on diverse faith traditions and promotes exploration of those diverse groups” (cultivation of inner peace). All three aforementioned attributes of peace education-specifc characteristics have a global perspective, focusing on institutions, rights, and religions within the international system. The absence of these attributes in case study


Brittany L. Fried

Table 2.4 Peace Education and IPP Characteristic Comparison With Supporting Quotes Characteristics Peace Education



Dismantling the Culture of War—Jesuit Education Is World-Affrming 1. Affrm human ability for reconciliation 2. Emphasize that reconciliatory and confict transformation-related learning should be integrated into all aspects of education 1. “Through that, we 1. “In the Jesuit can learn values education, they in history—things don’t only focus that will stay with [on] the academic us and they won’t because they also disappear. . . . We just give direction for learn that and we can the student in order expand our friendship to teach the student and our relationship to love. [They teach] with other countries, people how to because there are the maintain the justice, people that say that what is truth, [and] how can Indonesia defend the truth. I be our friend?”—S2, think the Ignatian REC034 paradigm forms the 2. “We offer the service student knowledge and we pay attention to stay frm in their to each individual. path and to avoid This is what I say confict. . . . I think because when I was the most important director at [LJSS], for this is the and even in the Examen process. . . . previous school . . . I think that’s really I started to establish important for the what we called house students in order to coordinators. This help them not get house coordinator also involved in confict they have required and that evil action. teachers who take care I think this is very of students to give a important in Jesuit report of each student education.”— that they identify REC030 having problems at home or having diffculty in learning. And then I ask them to write.”—REC041 1. Focuses on the transformation of violent situations to reach peace

1. Promotes a vision of far-reaching goodness in the world, which encourages learners through disaster

1. “The pedagogy that I have learned at the Jesuit school, through the teachers and some nuns and priests, . . . they are instill[ing] how to see the world in different situations, how to make the student encouraged through the . . . disasters. The pedagogy of the Jesuit education is trying to lead us as a young man [and woman] in Timor-Leste how to see the world with vision.”—REC030

Bridging the Gap


Table 2.5 Key Commonalities Between Peace Education and IPP Characteristics Intersection of Peace Education and IPP Characteristics Focus on engaging and respecting all cohorts of society Emphasize solidarity and respect between societal groups Place the values of compassion and conscience at the center of learning Promote responsibility for others in the community Emphasize care for the individual, including dignity and access to rights Align spiritual beliefs and daily practices Encourage holistic processes of spiritual growth that draw deeply on the insights of prophets Promote spiritual development as a mechanism to create good and improve the human condition Expect action for peace Engage with social issues to uphold the values of dignity, freedom, and justice Affrm human ability for reconciliation Integrate related learning into all facets of education

data indicates that IPP at LJSS has a predominantly domestic focus. While international topics may be taught in civics or history classes, they are not explicitly associated with IPP in the school. Key characteristic commonalities between peace education and IPP at LJSS were identifed from the overlapping attributes between the two frameworks that had supporting quotes from case study interviews. Table 2.5 highlights the shared characteristic attributes between the two frameworks as determined by the research. The similarities between the peace education and IPP characteristics in Table 2.5 can be grouped into central themes: engagement with topics of dignity, freedom, and justice; spiritual growth for societal growth; alignment of spiritual beliefs and lifestyle practices; and emphasis on values of respect, solidarity, compassion, and consciousness. Implications Peace education is designed to educate learners to fnd nonviolent resolutions to confict and therefore is often applied in post-confict settings. The data from LJSS shows that, at least in this case, IPP has the pedagogical and content-based attributes to promote comprehensive citizenship similarly to peace education in post-confict settings. Yet despite its demonstrated applicability to post-confict settings, IPP does not currently have the same defnitive intention of peace education to transform violent confict. IPP is applied in Jesuit secondary institutions around the world, not just at LJSS. Nevertheless, while this study was being prepared not a single


Brittany L. Fried

document was identifed regarding the intentional application of IPP in post-confict settings. Explicitly addressing the post-confict context of Timor-Leste in implementing IPP will bring education at LJSS closer in line with the Jesuit education tradition. One reason is it will better incorporate the Jesuit method of “accommodation,” or “the adaption of one’s message to one’s audience” (Prieto, 2017, p.  395). Jesuits have pursued accommodation in their engagement with international communities since the 16th century—St. Ignatius championed the concept himself (Prieto, 2017). Tailoring programming to more specifcally address the postconfict context of Timor-Leste will bring IPP at LJSS closer to the lived experience of the learners and educators, and better fulfll the Jesuit—and Ignatian—concept of accommodation. It will also provide the “purposeful interactions” needed to facilitate student engagement with comprehensive citizenship for peace (Carter, 2015). LJSS can better develop student capability to achieve nonviolent resolution to confict through incorporating aspects of the peace education framework absent from current teaching. As discussed in the previous section, those attributes are “Intentional focus on mixing diverse cohorts of society in the learning process” and discussion of global structures, diverse faith traditions, and human rights within the international system. Integrating these four peace education attributes into learning at LJSS will better allow students to place the situation in Timor-Leste into a global context and analyze domestic reconstruction through an international lens. This competence will facilitate student engagement with the political, ethical, and social domains of comprehensive citizenship (Carter, 2015). Educators at LJSS can also increasingly integrate pedagogical principles and themes of peace education that directly relate to post-confict reconstruction into their work. These include dismantling the culture of war, promoting human rights and responsibilities, and building cultural respect, reconciliation, and solidarity. While these three themes of peace education are currently present at LJSS, their heightened emphasis could expand IPP effcacy in Timor-Leste’s post-confict setting. That is because these themes directly speak to the development of peace-oriented citizenship and instill values and skills in students to mitigate violence and increase community-building efforts. Furthermore, educators and administrators at LJSS can focus on those three peace education and IPP characteristics not matched across disciplines. The peace education theme of living in harmony with the Earth did not directly correlate with any IPP characteristic, nor was it directly spoken to through interviews at LJSS. Yet one key component of peaceoriented citizenship is promotion of the well-being of all life on earth (Carter, 2015). A potential strategy to incorporate this theme into learning at LJSS is communal conversation about Pope Francis’ encyclical letter calling for respect and care for the environment, Laudato Si. Through Laudato Si (2015), or On Care for Our Common Home, Pope Francis

Bridging the Gap


“calls the Church and the world to acknowledge the urgency of our environmental challenges and join him in embarking on a new path.” Not only does this encyclical letter discuss the future of the physical planet, but it also calls for inclusive international dialogue—a skill relevant beyond the topic of environmental care for LJSS students developing comprehensive citizenship abilities. The two unmatched IPP characteristics were Jesuit education focuses on excellence in its work of formation and Jesuit education is a system of schools with a common vision and common goals. Formation is a unique focus of the Jesuit community that calls for the “full” development of students in terms of mind, heart, and spirit. Through excellence in formation, IPP aspires to cultivate students to their greatest capacity so that they are able to work as leaders and meet the needs of their region. This is paired with a personal faith commitment used to serve the needs of the community. Shaping student formation to refect the post-confict context in Timor-Leste both at Jesuit schools and those implementing peace education programming will deepen students’ ability to engage all three aspects of their person—mind, heart, and spirit—to further reconstruction and reconciliation efforts in the country. Another distinct aspect of IPP is it is implemented across a global network of schools. Jesuit secondary and pre-secondary schools span more than 70 countries and engage over 850,000 students (Jesuit global network of schools, 2019). Moreover, 186 Jesuit institutes of higher education exist around the globe (Jesuit schools, 2016). The international network of Jesuit schools provides an advantage to those implementing IPP that many in the world of peace education do not necessarily have: a large international community with a common vision and goals. While there is communication and coordination among schools looking to provide disarmament education, education for nonviolence, or education for confict resolution, it is hard to fnd a global network that matches the scope of the Jesuits. LJSS is not the only Jesuit school implementing IPP in a post-confict setting. Thus, it should take the opportunity to engage with other Jesuit schools working in post-confict contexts, such as Cambodia, Rwanda, or Bosnia and Herzegovina, to exchange best practices for developing current and future leaders in post-confict countries. LJSS can also maximize engagement with other Jesuit institutions within TimorLeste. For instance, the current system of student-teacher exchange with St. John’s Teaching Institute (pseudonym) is an extremely positive step toward increasing IPP effcacy and learning for comprehensive citizenship within LJSS and the country at large. Moreover, educational institutions implementing peace education programming can approach Jesuit networks to exchange resources or develop larger international networks to refect those of Jesuit schools. In all, this comparison does not aspire to bring IPP under the umbrella of peace education or dilute its theological foundations. Instead, it intends


Brittany L. Fried

to highlight the similarities between the two disciplines and thus emphasize the applicability of IPP in post-confict Timor-Leste, especially toward developing comprehensive citizenship. Discussion regarding areas of divergence between the two disciplines calls attention to topics that can be incorporated into the school’s delivery of IPP to best prepare students to achieve nonviolent solutions to confict. Moreover, acknowledgment of the unique characteristics of IPP, including its global network and focus on formation, highlights distinct ways in which IPP at LJSS can prepare students to serve as agents for change in their community. Altogether, increasing emphasis on unique attributes of IPP and expanding implementation to incorporate additional aspects of peace education will allow IPP at LJSS to come closer to its Jesuit roots in accommodation and better develop students as future leaders of post-confict Timor-Leste.

Going Forward This chapter brought peace education and the Ignatian pedagogical paradigm (IPP) into conversation regarding transformative education and comprehensive citizenship in post-confict settings. Through a case study of LJSS, the research highlights many intersections between Swee-Hin Toh’s peace education framework and IPP as implemented at LJSS. It demonstrates that IPP at LJSS has both the pedagogical and content-based capacity to facilitate peace-oriented citizenship similar to that of peace education in post-confict Timor-Leste. While IPP at LJSS did not provide the global perspective of the peace education framework, this aspect can be consciously integrated into IPP delivery going forward. In fact, IPP’s unique characteristics of a global network and emphasis on formation can enhance IPP’s impact even further. The fndings and implications of this research address a gap in research, analysis, and literature regarding the interaction of peace education and IPP, especially in post-confict settings. As this study was being prepared for, not a single document was identifed regarding the application of IPP in post-confict communities or about its potential overlaps with peace education for developing comprehensive citizenship. This chapter provides important analysis of this intersection for three reasons. First, it affrms that IPP has the potential to serve alongside peace education in teaching youth to fnd nonviolent resolution to confict. Second, it raises recommendations for how IPP can be more intentionally applied to postconfict settings. Third, it provides areas for both felds of IPP and peace education to learn from one another to best serve the needs of local students in transformation toward comprehensive citizenship. While this chapter opened new dialogue, it is a case study of a single school in one post-confict community. It is not comprehensive enough to be applied to all Jesuit schools or post-confict settings. Moving forward, the methods and intentions of this research can and should be replicated at other schools to expand the body of literature on the topic. As dialogue

Bridging the Gap


continues and is deepened between the felds of IPP and peace education, there is potential for new networks of schools, Jesuit and otherwise, to emerge. These can connect educators and learners in post-confict settings and facilitate the sharing of resources and best practices. Diversifed research, expanded analysis, and greater conversation at the intersection of peace education and IPP will further the goal of both felds to help local communities heal and expand post-confict peacebuilding and comprehensive citizenship. Together, peace education and IPP can drive forward the transformation of youth in post-confict settings to become engaged citizens that serve as the leaders and community builders of the future.

Notes 1. By 1910, there were 11 schools for boys, two schools for girls, two colleges for men, and two colleges for women run by the church on the island. The Jesuits, who were responsible for the southern half of the island, emerged as the centerpiece of the evangelical mission in Timor (Gunn, 1999). 2. The UN Security Council passed two resolutions in 1976 condemning the Indonesian military invasion of Timor-Leste and called for its immediate withdraw. Months later, the United Nations General Assembly rejected Indonesia’s annexation of the territory and called for an act of self-determination to be held. Indonesian President Suharto ignored these resolutions and requests (Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation, 2003a). 3. First-hand accounts of survivors of forced displacement, famine, and massacres can be read in the Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in Timor-Leste (CAVR, 2003b) National Public Hearing report Timor-Leste Forced Displacement and Famine: National Public Hearing, July 28–29, 2003. 4. Timor historian Geoffrey C. Gunn (1999) highlights that “while the technological means to exterminism had certainly arrived” under Portuguese colonization, “the fact of the matter is that the genocide of the Timorese was not a crime committed by the Latin conquistador but by post-colonial successors” (p. 27). 5. A deeper discussion of this topic can be read at: Hodge, J. (2013). The Catholic Church in Timor-Leste and the Indonesian Occupation. South East Asia Research 21, no. 1, 151–70. DOI:10.5367/sear.2013.0134 6. Established in 2010, the g7+ is an intergovernmental organization consisting of countries that are currently or have recently experienced confict or fragility. 7. Cura personalis is Latin for “care for the whole person.” More can be read at: Otto, A. (2013). Cura Personalis, In Ignatian Spirituality. Retrieved from www. ignatianspirituality.com/16996/cura-personalis 8. The GINI index is a commonly used statistical measure of economic equality that ranges from 0% to 100% with 0% signifying perfect equality and 100% perfect inequality.

References Boholst, R. S. J. (2019). Loyola Jesuit Secondary School year-end report. TimorLeste: Loyola Jesuit Secondary School. Bryce, C. M. (2007). Teaching justice to law students: The legacy of Ignatian education and commitment to justice and learning in 21st century clinical education. Gonzaga Law Review, 43(3), 577–606.


Brittany L. Fried

Burkhart, L., & Schmidt, W. (2012). Measuring effectiveness of a spiritual care pedagogy in nursing education. Journal of Professional Nursing, 28(5), 315– 321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2012.03.003 Callahan, R. F. (2013). Professional refections: The alignment of Ignatian Pedagogy principles with Jesuit business school education and business practices. Journal of Jesuit Business Education, 4(1), 25–35. https://doi.org/10.2139/ ssrn.2450862 Carter, C. C. (2015). Social education for peace: Foundations, curriculum, and instruction for visionary learning. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi. org/10.1057/9781137534057 Central Intelligence Agency. (n.d.). The world factbook: Timor-Leste. Retrieved from www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/print_tt.html The characteristics of Jesuit education, 1986. (2017). In J. A. Mesa (Ed.), Ignatian pedagogy: Classic and contemporary texts on Jesuit education from St. Ignatius to today (pp. 287–366). Chicago, IL: Loyola Press. The characteristics of Jesuit education: An abridged version. (2014). London: Jesuit Institute London. Chetail, V. (2009). Introduction: Post-confict peacebuilding: Ambiguity and identity. In V. Chetail (Ed.), Post-confict peacebuilding: A lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Colacchio Wesley, B. (2019). Ignatian Pedagogical Paradigm diagram [Online image]. Faculty Center for Ignatian Pedagogy at Loyola University Chicago. Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in Timor-Leste (CAVR). (2003a). Timor- Leste internal political confict 1974–1976: National public hearing, December 15–18, 2003. Dili, Timor-Leste: Author. Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in Timor-Leste (CAVR). (2003b). Timor-Leste forced displacement and famine: National public hearing, July 28–29, 2003. Dili, Timor-Leste: Author. Dunn, J. (2003). East Timor: A rough passage to independence (3rd ed.). Double Bay, NSW: Longueville Books. Education Policy and Data Center. (2018). Timor-Leste national education profle. Retrieved from www.epdc.org/ Geger, B. T., S. J. (2012). What magis really means and why it matters. Jesuit Higher Education: A Journal, 1(2), 16–31. Gunn, G. C. (1999). Timor Loro Sae: 500 years. Macau: Livros Do Oriente. Harris, I. M. (2008). History of peace education. In M. Bajaj (Ed.), Encyclopedia of peace education (pp. 15–24). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Hodge, J. (2013). The Catholic Church in Timor-Leste and the Indonesian occupation. South East Asia Research, 21(1), 151–70. https://doi.org/10.5367/ sear.2013.0134 Ignatian Pedagogy: An abridged version of the document on teaching and learning in a Jesuit school. (2014). London: Jesuit Institute London. Ignatian Pedagogy: A practical approach. (1993). Rome: The International Commission on the Apostolate of Jesuit Education. Jesuit global network of schools: Secondary and pre-secondary. (2019). Educate magis. Retrieved from www.educatemagis.org/printable-map/ Jesuit schools: A quick introduction. (2016). London: Jesuit Institute London. Laudato si: On care for our common home. (2015). In United States conference of Catholic Bishops. Retrieved from www.usccb.org/about/leadership/holy-see/ francis/pope-francis-encyclical-laudato-si-on-environment.cfm

Bridging the Gap


Lederach, J. P. (1997). Building peace: Sustainable reconciliation in divided societies. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace. Loyola Jesuit Secondary School (pseudonym). (2016). The Jesuits in Timor-Leste: Companions in mission. Timor-Leste: Loyola Jesuit Secondary School. The Nobel Peace Prize 1996. (1996, October 11). The Nobel Prize. Retrieved from www.nobelprize.org/prizes/uncategorized/the-nobel-peace-prize-1996/ O’Malley, J. W., S. J. (1999). Introduction: Ratio studiorum: Jesuit education, 1548–1773. In Ratio studiorum: Jesuit education, 1548–1773. Boston, MA: Boston College John J. Burns Library. Retrieved from www.bc.edu/sites/libraries/ ratio/ratiointro.html O’Malley, J. W., S. J. (2017). The ratio studiorum of 1599: A basic overview. In J. A. Mesa (Ed.), Ignatian pedagogy: Classic and contemporary texts on Jesuit education from St. Ignatius to today (pp. 128–136). Chicago, IL: Loyola Press. Otto, A. (2013). Cura personalis. Ignatian Spirituality. Retrieved from www.ignatian spirituality.com/16996/cura-personalis Pancasila: Indonesian political philosophy. (2013). Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved from www.britannica.com/topic/Pancasila Prieto, A. I. (2017). The perils of accommodation: Jesuit missionary strategies in the early modern world. Journal of Jesuit Studies, 4(3), 395–414. https://doi. org/10.1163/22141332-00403002 Toh, S. H. (2006, May). Education for sustainable development & the weaving of a culture of peace: Complementaries and synergies. Paper presented at the UNESCO Expert Meeting on Education for Sustainable Development (ESD): Reorienting Education to Address Sustainability, Kanchanaburi, Thailand. Who we are. (2016). The Jesuits in Timor-Leste: Companions in mission. Retrieved from https://timor-leste-jesuits.org/who-we-are/ The World Bank. (2014). Timor-Leste GINI index (World Bank estimate). Retrieved from https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI?locations= TL The World Bank. (n.d.). Education Timor-Leste. Retrieved from https://data. worldbank.org/topic/education?locations=TL World Population Review. (2020). Timor-Leste population 2020. Retrieved from http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/timor-leste-population/


Slow Peace and Citizenship The Experience of One Classroom Teacher in Canada Reva Joshee and Simone Shirvell

Situating Our Work In the early 2000s, The Mahatma Gandhi Canadian Foundation for World Peace began work with the Centre for Research in Teacher Education and Development of the University of Alberta to develop a summer institute, initially called Building Peaceful Communities and later renamed the Mahatma Gandhi Summer Institute for Building Peaceful Communities. In 2019, the 13th and last Gandhi Summer Institute was held at the University of Alberta. Reva (one of the authors of this chapter) was associated with the teaching team for the Summer Institute throughout its existence. For several years she taught a course called “Toward a Gandhian Pedagogy”. In 2013, Simone (the other chapter author) was a student in this course. She became one of about 12 students from several iterations of the course who decided to carry on meeting with Reva after the original course ended as a way of continuing to develop their peaceful practice and think collectively about how to teach through ahimsa. Over the years the work of the group became known as slow peace and the group became the Slow Peace Group. Simone is a grade one teacher in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. In this chapter we will discuss Simone’s teaching, demonstrate how this is an example of slow peace (Joshee, 2019; Joshee & Thomas, 2017), and link our notion of slow peace to Carter’s comprehensive citizenship (2015). Because Simone has been part of the Slow Peace Group since 2013, Reva has had several opportunities to visit her school and her classroom. Also, Simone has written on her work over the years as part of conference presentations (e.g. Joshee et al., 2016; Joshee, Shirvell, Ebrahim, Thomas, & Shane, 2015), and as part of the work we are doing in connection with Jai Jagat 2020, we have created a website to document our work (www.slowpeaceandthelongmarch.com). Finally, in preparation for writing this chapter, Reva visited Simone’s current classroom four times over three months. The information in this chapter comes from the notes from Reva’s visits, Simone’s notes and previous writing, and Simone’s contribution to the website. We discussed Reva’s observations and Simone’s ideas, intentions, and practices over several meetings. What we have written comes out of this process.

Slow Peace and Citizenship


A Typical Day in Simone’s Classroom I arrive at the school an hour before the students, open the blinds, and let the sunshine in (or the darkness, depending upon the season!), take the chairs off the desks, and ensure that the classroom is ready for the day. Check the snake and the plants, put out the materials that I will need for the day. Look at my email, connect with other early staff and get my head around the day. It’s 8:19 and I am out in front of the school greeting parents and students walking to the school and opening the doors for those students who are dropped off from vehicles. The air is brisk, but I’m moving and there is something about smiling and saying hello to so many people that sets a positive tone for the day. There is a connection and building of relationships before the day even begins. I joke around with the student who arrives in his specialized wheelchair accessible school bus. He is nonverbal, but I get a huge smile as I tease him about trying to stay on the bus by finging out his arms. I ask a parent when her baby is due and remind her to walk carefully on the icy sidewalks. One of my students shares a little piece of nature, a frosty leaf, that she has found on her walk to school and we spend a few minutes talking. By 8:34 I’m bringing the stragglers to the school door, ensuring that everybody is inside, and on the way to their classroom before O Canada and the morning announcements. I hurry to my classroom to take off my outside clothing and am met at the door by students who have something they need to share with me .  .  . a lost tooth, missing mittens, or a perceived injustice in the line-up on the way to class. But mainly, it is a desire to connect with an adult and share something about their lives. It can sometimes feel overwhelming to have so many children want my immediate attention, but I try to make eye contact and give them my full attention if only for a brief moment before I remind them to touch their names on the Smartboard, so I know who is here, and put their agenda pouches on their desk. To a visitor, it might appear chaotic, but these interactions have become part of our daily routine that also includes putting away coats and backpacks, greeting friends, and settling at desks. These beginning of the day connections can set the tone for the day for many students and myself. O Canada begins, we stand at attention to sing loudly and proudly and then sit at our desks for announcements. While the announcements are read, I send attendance to the offce and put the morning message up on the Smartboard. Together we read the classroom charts to determine which group is helping today and who is doing their book shopping. There are four learning groups determined by the color of their supply caddy. Students play “rock, paper, scissors” to determine who will read the message using the special pointer. It is a choice that I have made to have a group of helpers rather than an individual child. I want the children to develop decision-making and problem-solving skills as a necessary


Reva Joshee and Simone Shirvell

and expected part of being in a classroom community. When engaged in our routines, it is a give and take kind of learning. Conversations are happening among students and between students and me; sometimes we take detours when a teachable moment occurs. I listen to the children’s thoughts and ideas, and the students begin to understand that their contributions are valued. It is during this time that the principal peeks into the classroom to wish everybody a good morning and spends a few minutes watching what we are doing. He invariably leaves us with a positive message about our learning. Once the daily journal message is printed by the students in their agendas, it’s off to the “cozy corner” to update the calendar by adding the date and weather. The classroom calendar is a working document, and the students refer to it to help them understand regular and special events. We keep track of when to feed the classroom snake as well as classroom and school special events. While in the cozy corner we sing together, share a book, and learn strategies on how to become readers and writers. It’s time for another transition as the students collect their book bags and fnd a space to do their daily reading. Initially they read on their own, and I circulate through the class providing support as needed. Later they will read with a partner and practice some of the strategies that we are learning. Partner reading supports the building of community and the importance of the choices we made when given the opportunity to work with others. I ring a triangle; everybody freezes to listen for instructions, and we line up to go to music. The helping group has to negotiate who will lead the way. Sometimes there are arguments, but most times the students are able to negotiate and come to a decision that everybody can accept. Usually it is taking turns, but sometimes they will hold hands and lead together. As much as possible, I endeavor to let them determine their own solution to the need to be frst. After music it is recess, and everybody quickly gets dressed and goes outside for some fresh air and unstructured play. A favorite activity this year is to collect fallen tree branches and trunks and use them to create “forts”. Students cooperate, negotiate, and problem solve in an effort to build these structures. They are developing skills necessary for life using materials that connect them to the natural world and the past (the structures refect those made by Indigenous people). Although many positive things happen at recess, it is during this unstructured time that conficts can arise. Many days I am met at the door with complaints. We try to address these concerns as a class, creating charts illustrating strategies that students can use. As much as possible I work to give the students tools to resolve problems and interact positively with their classmates. Interestingly, it is not usually the fort builders who are having problems with their peers. This makes me wonder about the value of constructive, physical play where groups of children are working together to achieve a common goal.

Slow Peace and Citizenship


As a class we refer to our co-constructed charts about choices that can be made on the playground to resolve problems. If they come to me with complaints, I remind them of the strategies we talked about and ask them to share which ones they used. I want them to understand that they have a voice and the ability to resolve “small” problems on their own. I also expect them to take responsibility for their own actions. The students are quick to say that we follow “ahimsa” in the classroom, but their actions don’t necessarily refect this. Back in the classroom the children eat their snack while talking with each other. After snacking it is more “learning time”, a term I use to describe what is happening in the classroom. In my mind, there is no need to distinguish one subject area from another, except for physical education and music when we leave the class and travel to a different space. Our entire day is spent learning with each other. Lunch time is at 11:30. Most students stay and eat their lunch in the classroom, supervised by a lunchroom aide. These aides are generally parents of children who attend the school. I go to the staffroom to heat my lunch and enjoy some conversation with the other staff. I try to be back in class at least 10–15 minutes before the students come back inside from recess. Time to tidy up the class and prepare for the afternoon. Most afternoons begin with 15 minutes of the students reading with their reading buddies (the other class of grade one students). Partners are chosen randomly, and the expectation is that they will be reading with each other for 15 minutes. It is during this time that I can teach a small group in an area where they are struggling or excelling. Providing students with multiple opportunities to work with others underscores the value that I place on collaboration and learning together. Today, after the reading, we are planning to visit the pocket forest outside of our school. My student teacher has taught the children how animals prepare for winter, and we are heading outside with our stuffed animals to look for footprints, listen and watch for animals, and make a connection with the natural world. We watch two squirrels play tag for fve minutes on the edge of the forest and then follow the path into the woods. Some children are rough with the small trees, and I try to model respect and caring for all living things, explaining that we are visiting their home and need to practice ahimsa here, too. After 30 minutes of exploration and conversation, we head back inside. It always amazes me how much more focused the students are after time spent outside. Many of my students are disconnected from the natural world, spending the majority of their time inside. The cold months are especially hard because some lack the necessary warm clothes to spend extended amounts of time outside. At school we dive into the “Lost and Found” boxes to ensure that everybody is dressed for the weather. Observing how they interact with the forest helps me to understand how truly disconnected they are. They don’t recognize the animals that live there and see the forest


Reva Joshee and Simone Shirvell

as a scary place where wild animals may attack them. I want them to see this as a shared space, an important part of their community, and a place where they are safe. I would like them to introduce their family to our forest and teach them the value of this space. As a class, it is important that the students see themselves as part of the larger school community. Today my students are sharing some writing with the students in kindergarten, whom we call “kinders”. This experience serves multiple purposes. My students have the opportunity to share their work with an appreciative audience, the kinders learn what a grade one classroom looks like and feels like, and the students build relationships. Tomorrow when they are outside on the playground, they can recognize their “reading buddy” and feel more connected. I am striving to create a caring community through the development of relationships. The stronger the bonds between students, the less likely there is to be confict, and if there is confict, the students can be supported in resolving it on their own. The end of the day comes quickly. The classroom is tidied together because we are all responsible for our learning environment. We say goodbye and confrm that we will see each other tomorrow. It’s important for them to know that I will be back. If I do have to be away, I let the students know in advance so that they will be prepared. I think of it as a respectful thing to do. Once the classroom is clear, I begin preparations for tomorrow. I check my plans, make adjustments based on what happened today, reconnect with colleagues. If I have a student teacher, we debrief and refect on the day’s events. Tomorrow is a new day, and everybody starts fresh!

Introducing Slow Peace Following from others (e.g. Awad, 2019; Bickmore, 2006; Carter, 2015; Davies, 2012; Joshee & Thomas, 2017; Peterson, 2014), we approach education for peace as a particular form of education for democratic practice— slow peace as a form of education for democratic practice. Slow peace is a term that our group has coined to describe our approach to education. Slow peace is not a method based on a series of steps; it is an approach based on six precepts that members of the group take up in our own way. It is grounded in Gandhian principles such as equality, ahimsa, nonpossession, nonexploitation, and trusteeship. Equality for Gandhi was understood in terms of dignity and status. In particular, as William Dugger (1982) has explained, “struggle for status is predatory because one person acquires it only by taking it from someone else” (p. 442). Ahimsa speaks to the interconnectedness of all living things and the imperative to not do harm in thought, word, or deed. Aparigraha, or nonpossession, is an idea by which Gandhi meant that we should learn to live simply and to limit our need for material goods (Joshee, 2012). Gandhi believed that exploitation occurred because

Slow Peace and Citizenship


a set of integrated privileges existed for those at the top of the hierarchy in society. Diwan (2001) has identifed these privileges as non-accountability (or the reality that those in positions of power rarely have to account to those lower in the hierarchy), ease of opportunities (the reality that those who have more wealth and power are able to translate this into opportunities to extend or sustain their wealth and power), and higher levels of income and consumption. Finally, trusteeship refers to the idea that all material and cultural resources we have should be used for the betterment of the society as a whole (Joshee, 2006; for a fuller discussion of Gandhian principles, see, for example, Diwan, 2001; Nojeim, 2007; Sharma, 2018; Sihra, 2013). Our second precept is an analysis based on Rob Nixon’s (2011) understanding of slow violence. Like Nixon, we believe that violence comes in many forms and that we have been conditioned to pay attention to what he calls spectacular violence, things like school shootings, bomb blasts in public places, and wars between groups. Most of the violence in the world, meanwhile, goes unnoticed and unaddressed. Slow violence happens gradually and over a long period of time. In educational settings, spectacular violence is something like the fstfght between two students at recess. Slow violence is something like the gradual erosion of the sense of self-worth that happens when a child receives multiple subtle and not so subtle messages that tell them they are stupid, unclean, or lesser than others. A child who sees no evidence in the lived curriculum of the classroom that someone who looks like them can be valued or who constantly hears that someone who believes in the religion of their family is an evil outsider internalizes these messages. These eat away at the child, and this is as much a form of violence as the fstfght, perhaps more devastating because it may go unnoticed by others. Moreover, as Aviles and Heybach (2017) remind us, slow violence that happens in schools can continue to affect the lives of people long after they have left those institutions. Our third precept is that attention to any form of violence necessitates concomitant attention to a practice of nonviolence that would address it. Violence is not our starting point; slow peace is not simply a way to address slow violence. Instead we see violence as the thing (or things) that are keeping us from achieving peace, in other words, obstacles we must notice and address. We cannot live in a utopic state of believing if we promote love and ahimsa violence will simply melt away of its own accord. Therefore, as our fourth precept, we say slow peace must begin by stepping back to understand the taken-for-granted practices that contribute to various forms of violence, particularly slow violence. We pay special attention to the ways in which those practices are embodied in the work we do as educators and researchers. We live in this world and have unconsciously internalized many of the ideas and practices we decry. We must constantly work on rooting out signs of violence in ourselves and the classrooms we inhabit as we develop practices that promote more peaceful ways of being.


Reva Joshee and Simone Shirvell

Our ffth precept is that it is important to focus on a large goal such as promoting a particular vision of a good life. Many of us, for example, focus on understanding and living though ahimsa. At the same time, we focus on specifc forms of violence writ large, such as capitalism, colonialism, or racism, as well as thinking about day-to-day practices that sustain these types of violence. Reva, for example, is concerned about neoliberalism. When she begins to develop a course, she thinks about the content and the methods she is using. It is easy to think about how the content might be used to subvert neoliberalism and promote ahimsa, but it has been more diffcult to think about how the method might be used for this cause. When she realized that she was falling into the trap of believing that more readings meant the course was more rigorous she stepped back and began to cut the number of readings, opting instead for having students talk with each other or engage with poetry, music, or stories as part of their learning. Finally, to be effective, slow peace requires a commitment to sustained action through a variety of forms and practices. Our circle of educators, who now call ourselves the Slow Peace Group, began to work together in 2012. Not everyone who started in 2012 is still part of the group, and others joined the group more recently, but we try to honor the collective wisdom of the group and have discussions about what we have learned together over time. We are clear that each one of us has our own approach but that we amend and extend our approaches through our interactions with each other and our students, other colleagues, friends, family members, and others with whom we engage. In our conversations we have often commented that what we do today is different from what we did when we began our respective journeys. We also all agree that the journeys are far from over.

Comprehensive Citizenship, Slow Peace, and Simone’s Practice On the surface, Simone’s day may not seem that different from what many other teachers experience. However, as we contextualize this in her larger practice, we begin to see how what she described specifcally represents her work in slow peace. When we frst met and began to work together, Simone was at a different school than she is now. She was concerned that at that school, barriers had been created among people inside the building and between the school and its surrounding geographic community. For example, the administrators had had chains and concrete barriers installed in the parking lot to prevent community members from parking in the lot after hours and on weekends. She was told they were concerned about the safety and security of the property. How could she create a warm, caring classroom when her school was projecting an image of isolation, an “us” and “them”

Slow Peace and Citizenship


mentality, and a belief that school and community are separate, enemies not collaborators? She had her students paint pictures of themselves on the barriers to try to transform them into welcoming signs. This was one of the frst actions Simone and her students undertook to build their caring and inclusive community. While her current school is a warm and welcoming place, Simone is always concerned with the slow violence of the actual and symbolic barriers that are created and recreated in the world around us. Simone’s larger vision of a peaceful world is one of a series of nested caring communities. Everything she does in a day is meant to address this in some way. From greeting parents and students in the morning to feeding the snake in her classroom, to creating multiple opportunities for her students to work with each other and with other students in the school, her focus is on helping to create positive relationships. And this community building is not limited to the school. Through projects such as kindness boxes (boxes Simone constructed out of old greeting cards and the students flled with gifts of kindness such as candy hearts and positive messages) and kindness rocks (rocks painted with messages of kindness and distributed around the community for people to fnd), Simone has worked with her students to help to model caring for people in their geographic community and the city at large. More recently, the Slow Peace Group became involved in the Jai Jagat 2020 March, a global march for peace and justice. The aim of Jai Jagat 2020 is to link local actors and initiatives working to end poverty, eliminate social exclusion, reverse the climate crisis, and stop armed confict and violence.1 The march itself lasted from October 2019 to October 2020 and ends with an action forum that will bring together common people and offcials of international organizations like the United Nations to discuss a variety of approaches to addressing the four areas of concern. Simone helped to host a fundraiser in her school and involved her students in learning about the march. The class has talked about the issues the march is highlighting in their own community and in the larger world. And the students have taken action to support the goals of the march. They have been involved in efforts locally to support initiatives like the Food Bank and globally to connect with the march. On October 2, 2019, as the Jai Jagat 2020 March began in India, Simone’s students led the other students in the school in a march around the school culminating in a school assembly that celebrated Mahatma Gandhi’s birth and provided the whole school information about the march. In her description of her day we see Simone pay specifc attention to developing agency in her students. She gets them involved in making decisions that matter to the daily functioning of the classroom. She gives them opportunities to address disagreements and conficts based on principles they have established in their classroom (specifcally, ahimsa, caring, and respect). She provides them opportunities to lead and to follow. She is


Reva Joshee and Simone Shirvell

clearly helping them to develop the kinds of dispositions and skills Carter (2015) talks about as essential to comprehensive citizenship. In their visits to the forest, Simone extends the notion of community she is teaching her students by insisting that community is not just about people but about all living beings, and the Earth itself. She wants her students to be comfortable in the natural world and to respect it. She notes that the students take their stuffed animals with them out to the forest. The stuffed animals are kept in the classroom and stand in for the real animals, which the children will not be able to touch. While they are preparing to go out on a cold day, she has the students who do not have enough warm clothes pull things out of the lost and found box. She tells the students that the clothes that are there are for the community, for those who need them at that moment. It is one of the ways in which she begins to help her students think differently about possessions and ownership. While we were not explicitly engaged with Carter’s work on mindful and engaged citizenship as we formulated our understandings of education for peace, we see key points of contact that help us to think more deeply about both slow peace and comprehensive citizenship. Carter (2015) has postulated an understanding of comprehensive citizenship that goes beyond political engagement to thinking about the ethical, environmental, and social responsibility we carry as citizens of the world. “Mindful and engaged citizenship includes awareness of, involvement in, and a vision of peaceful interaction in several domains. Beyond the scope of political participation are the social, environmental, ethical, geographic, and economic realms of civic engagement” (Carter, 2015, p. 104). She challenges us to defne our visions of a peaceful world and to teach and learn in ways that help us to come closer to that vision. She notes that this means addressing attitudes, dispositions, and skills and working in transdisciplinary ways. As we think about Simone’s day, we note that she has clearly paid attention to the development of attitudes, skills, and dispositions. These are things we routinely do in our practices, but we have not talked explicitly about them as part of the framing of slow peace. We fnd this a very important and useful reminder. Additionally, in Simone’s day she talks about her approach to “learning time”. We note that during learning time work is often transdisciplinary, fusing science, art, language, and explorations of personal and collective peace. Again, we note that we had not included this in our conversation about slow peace until we engaged with comprehensive citizenship. A strong aspect of our work is based in Mahatma Gandhi’s idea that means and ends cannot be separated (Gandhi, 1927), and this is something we feel we can contribute to the on-going discussion of comprehensive citizenship. The visions we create of our desired world are built on Gandhian principles. These principles both form the basis of our goal and our ethical positions for action. For instance, Simone works to build a community in which a Gandhian version of humility is an important

Slow Peace and Citizenship


principle. Humility from this perspective means to be open to understanding that what we believe to be true is not the absolute truth, and therefore we must be open to listening to and learning from others (Sihra, 2013). This does not mean everything is equally valid, as there are still standards for thinking about facts and ethics. If someone were to present an argument that residential schools for aboriginal students were simply a benign attempt on the part of churches and governments to educate young people, we would contradict this based on existing historical evidence and on the basis of the harm that continues in the lives of residential school survivors and their descendants. Humility is also seen in Simone’s story of her day as she listens to each of the students and ensures they know their contributions are valued. Importantly, although she did not recount it in the story, we have talked often about how she has schooled herself to remember that she has much to learn from each of her students.

Closing Comments Mahatma Gandhi once said, Love requires that true education should be easily accessible to all and should be of use to every villager in daily life. This emphasis laid on the principle of spending every minute of one’s life usefully is the best education for citizenship.” (Gandhi, 1947) We believe that what he meant by this was what Simone demonstrates in her work; everything she does, no matter how small it seems, is in service of her vision of a just and peaceful world. She teaches her students as much through example as through direct instruction. She focuses on her responsibility to herself, her students, her community, the natural world, and the global community in all aspects of her work. She represents the best of the Slow Peace Group in her work and her being. Ultimately Simone’s work and the work of the other members of the Slow Peace Group are manifestations of our understandings of ahimsa in its many forms. Gandhi saw ahimsa as a philosophy for life, a way of being in the world. Ahimsa leads to the uplift of the whole community. Everyone’s work is valued and necessary. Gandhi also equated ahimsa with love and caring (Sihra, 2013). This is the aspect of ahimsa that Simone takes up most directly. She works constantly to create connections of caring through the school and outward to the community. She wants her students to understand the power of caring and to embody this through all they do. But it is not an apolitical caring; it is a caring that understands and insists on environmental stewardship, interdependence, and connection with others in the local, provincial, national, and global communities. It is caring linked to action for positive change.


Reva Joshee and Simone Shirvell

Slow peace is not just about one person or about creating hero teachers. It is an approach that allows each one of us to take what we are passionate about and make it the focus of our work. We ground our work in constantly striving to bring our own lives and practices closer to our ideals. Slow peace is a process and an approach that we believe holds promise for creating robust practices of citizenship and provides one avenue to think more deeply about comprehensive citizenship.

Note 1. For more information see www.jaijagat2020.org.

References Aviles, A. M., & Heybach, J. A. (2017). Seeking stability in Chicago: School actions: Overt forms of racial injustice, and the slow violence of neoliberal rationality. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25(58), 1–32. https://doi. org/10.14507/epaa.25. 2634 Awad, Y. R. (2019). Food for thought: The trajectories of democratic peace-building citizenship education. Citizenship Teaching & Learning, 14(3), 347–363. https://doi.org/10.1386/ctl_00014_1 Bickmore, K. (2006). Democratic social cohesion (assimilation)? Representations of social confict in Canadian public school curriculum. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue Canadienne de l’éducation, 359–386. https://doi. org/10.2307/20054168 Carter, C. C. (2015). Social education for peace: Foundations, teaching, and curriculum for visionary learning. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi. org/10.1057/9781137534057 Davies, L. (2012). Teaching about confict through citizenship education. In H. A. Alexander, H. Pinson, & Y. Yonah (Eds.), Citizenship, education and social confict (pp. 114–133). London: Routledge. Diwan, R. (2001). Gandhian economics: An empirical perspective. World Futures, 56(3), 279–317. Dugger, W. M. (1982). An Ayresian view of Gandhian economics. Journal of Economic Issues, 16(2), 441–444. Gandhi, M. K. (1924, July). Young India, p. 236. Gandhi, M. K. (1927, December 21). Harijan, p. 480. Joshee, R. (2006). Ahimsa and teaching. Connections, 29(1), 6 Joshee, R. (2012). Challenging neoliberalism through Gandhian trusteeship. Critical Studies in Education, 53(1), 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2012. 638026 Joshee, R. (2019). Democratic approaches to policy and education: Diversity, social justice and peace. In M. Drinkwater, F. Rizvi, & K. Edge (Eds.), Transnational perspectives on democracy, citizenship, human rights and peace education (pp. 95–112). London: Bloomsbury. Joshee, R., Shane, M., Shirvell, S., Knott, C., Mahood, K., Thomas, M., & Bowering, A. (2016). Slow peace in action: Starting a movement among educators. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.

Slow Peace and Citizenship


Joshee, R., Shirvell, S., Ebrahim, A., Thomas, M., & Shane, M. (2015). Taking Gandhi to School. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Joshee, R., & Thomas, M. (2017). Slow peace as an alternative to social cohesion. In J. A. Banks (Ed.), Citizenship education and global migration: Implications for theory, research, and teaching (pp. 91–106). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Nixon, R. (2011). Slow violence and the environmentalism of the poor. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Nojeim, M. J. (2007). A Gandhian blueprint for nonviolent change. Peace & Change, 32(4), 546–573. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0130.2007.00463.x Peterson, B. A. (2014). Nonviolent action as a necessary component in educating for democracy. Democracy and Education, 22(1), 1–7. Sharma, N. (2018). Value-creating global citizenship education: Engaging Gandhi, Makiguchi, and Ikeda as examples. New York: Springer. Sihra, K. (2013). Ahimsa and humility in/for philosophy of education Discourse. Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.


Children’s Views on Citizenship Education and Peace in Catalan Maria-Carme Boqué Torremorell, Montserrat Alguacil de Nicolás, and Laura García-Raga

The complexity of current societies turns peaceful coexistence into a priority. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations, 2015) included promoting peace and justice as one of its 17 global goals and reckoned education as a powerful strategy to reduce violence and achieve equality. Therefore, schools have the commitment to endow the youngest citizens with values, thoughts, feelings, and skills that contribute to build a fair world free of violence for everyone. The scope of peace education is dynamic and multidimensional (Bajaj & Chiu, 2009; Harris, 2004; Jares, 1991; Yablon, 2007). Many authors intertwine peace and citizenship education (CE): for instance, Tuvilla (2004) defned the human right to peace both as a culture of living together and as a culture of participation founded on the principles of freedom, justice, democracy, tolerance, and solidarity. Similarly, Johnson and Johnson (2006) advocated for the institutionalization of consensual peace in the school and proposed fve steps to achieve this goal: inclusive education, establishment of positive interdependence, training to make decisive decisions, constructive confict resolution, and development of civic values. Furthermore, Zembylas and Bekerman (2013) urged to focus CE on the construction of the world and not merely on studying it, because there are pedagogies that are not taught but lived (Tonucci, 2018). Hence, civil engagement (Hébert & Sears, 2001), civic participation (Jerome, 2012; Schulz, Ainley, Fraillon, Losito, & Agrusti, 2016), or active participation (Council of Europe, 2018) require children’s agency. Accordingly, a multidimensional, principled, comprehensive, and active peace-oriented CE needs a foundation of awareness, dispositions, and skills to deliver proactive, creative, and responsible answers in six domains: social, environmental, ethical, geographic, economic, and/or political (Carter, 2015). In Europe, CE was given a strong boost thanks to the European Council’s declaration of 2005 as the European year of citizenship through education (Eurydice, 2005). As a result, countries such as Spain introduced by law a new subject in the curriculum: “Citizenship Education and Human Rights” (LOE, 2006), which disappeared a few years later (LOMCE, 2013), mainly due to political disputes. Along with Fenton-Glyn (2019) and Mehta (2019), we wonder if this current CE should depend on policies that forget its moral obligations to future generations rather than on human rights.

Children’s Views on Citizenship Education


Thirty years after the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations, 1989), children’s voice is hardly present in most of the matters that affect them. Children’s point of view on CE is represented in some studies (Biesta, Lawy, & Kelly, 2009; Chiodo & Martin, 2005; Cordero & Aguado, 2015; Devine, 2002; Losito, Agrusti, Damiani, & Schulz, 2018; Howard & Gill, 2000). Still, further research is needed in order to nurture an education that takes into account children’s thoughts, feelings, and needs in an area that is supposed to place them as social actors. Studies on how children understand peace tend to fall into one of the three categories identifed in the book edited by Raviv, Oppenheimer, and Bar-Tal (1999): developmental perspectives, socialization and experience, and learning in schools. Usually, analyses compare visions on confict, war, and peace by drawing a progression in children’s defnitions, highlighting the importance of a contextualized examination. Also, they show an interest in identifying skills and didactic methodologies for peacebuilding. The meaning and signifcance of peace, from children’s perspective, is related to all these elements. The general aim of this research is to detect the opportunities for building a culture of peace through the curriculum of CE. To achieve this goal, we approached the Catalan context to analyze how primary schools put this curriculum into practice. It is worth mentioning that, in Spain, the competences in the feld of education are decentralized; therefore, each region has the capacity to adapt the regulations of the central government to its own territory. The study comprised a thorough examination of textbooks to appreciate the curriculum translated into lessons and an evaluation of the implementation of CE in schools. It encompassed the perception of school representatives (principals or assistant teachers), pupils, and teachers, as well as the direct observation of lessons. Here we present and discuss results from two of the aforementioned audiences, school representatives and children, with the aim of attaining the following specifc objectives: I. Contextualize the implementation of citizenship education in primary schools. II. Analyze children’s perception of citizenship education and their concept of peace.

Method Participants Twenty-eight schools, 12% of the total number of educational centers in the Autonomous Community of Catalonia (northeast of Spain), were intentionally selected for their accessibility (see Table 4.1). They represent a variety of characteristics that mirror the typology of schools existing

N ≤ 250 7








250  450. Section two posed four open-ended sentences that children had to complete in their own words. In that way, pupils could freely express their views on how this class helps them, what they like the most, what they miss, and how they would defne peace.


Maria-Carme Boqué Torremorell et al.

The frst eight items were statistically analyzed, and the last four were coded and grouped into emergent categories. Quantitative analysis was carried out through the IBM SPSS Statistics 19 program, and the analytical categories of qualitative analysis, once formulated, were agreed upon among the research team members according to the previous literature review. Both instruments were submitted for construct validation—content relevance, representativeness, and technical quality—to a panel of seven judges (three experts on research methodology, two experts on values education and democracy, one expert on peace education, and two school principals) and, when necessary, items were adapted. A pilot study was conducted in a group of 25 children for semantic validation and to calculate time to completion. Procedure We contacted the school and agreed on the date for the visit with the school principal. After signing the informed consent to participate in the research, in accordance with the ethical principles of responsible research and innovation (RRI) established by the European Union, we conducted the interview with the school representative, which was audio recorded. Then we distributed the paper questionnaires to pupils. At the end of the study, a synthesis of results was sent to the participating schools.

Citizenship Education Into Practice Ten principals and 18 assistant teachers answered both general questions about the school characteristics and specifc questions about CE. The predominance of assistant teachers could be explained because the main focus of the interview was on academic issues. Related to CE, the schools of the sample showed a variety of approaches: 82.2% of the schools said that they taught citizenship as a subject, and 17.8% did not because they considered that such competences were already embedded in the general curriculum. In Table 4.3, we can observe that nearly half of the schools teach CE at the end of primary (sixth grade). The presence of a subject gives visibility to CE in most schools, but it does not imply the existence of a school ethos based on peace and democracy. As we have already mentioned, such authors as Cordero and Aguado (2015) and Tonucci (2018), along with Zembylas and Bekerman (2013), stressed the importance of giving children the opportunity to envision themselves as active citizens through practice. CE is not restricted to a subject; thus, all schools engage in a wide range of activities, as Table 4.4 illustrates. It must be noted that the sum of projects totals to more than 100 because some schools indicated more than one activity. The annual celebration of January 30 as the School Day


Children’s Views on Citizenship Education Table 4.3 Schedule of Citizenship Education in Primary Education

Is citizenship education taught in the school? When?







1 hour, ffth grade 1 hour, sixth grade ½ hour, ffth and sixth grades 1 hour in all primary levels Cross-curricular (tutorial class and other subjects) Without specifcation

3.6% 42.9% 21.4% 7.1% 3.6% 3.6%

Table 4.4 School Projects Related to Citizenship Education Yes




Which projects? Does the school Workshops take part in projects Seminars related to peace or citizenship? Campaigns Celebrations School Day of Nonviolence and Peace Cooperation with NGOs UNESCO Associated Schools Network

Percentage 17.9% 35.7% 60.7% 10.7% 71.4% 14.3% 10.7%

of Nonviolence and Peace, present in 71.4% of the schools in the sample, and participation in campaigns, usually charity-oriented (60.7%), are the most common activities that schools join in. These activities enlarge the scope of CE by connecting the school with reality and promoting children’s commitment to real issues. As Carter (2015, p. 93) observed, “teaching and learning citizenship is wide ranging within school and beyond because it has many opportunities for experiential learning.” The proportion of teachers who taught CE was 67.9% by tutor and 14.3% by another teacher, and 17.8% did not answer. The predominance of the group’s tutor has a logical interpretation if we consider that tutors are a fgure of reference for the group and their families and are responsible for personal and vocational orientation as well. However, there is another side to this view that points out that CE is actually in “no man’s


Maria-Carme Boqué Torremorell et al.

land,” and then it is assumed by tutors, without any specifc capacitation, to have more time with their groups. We agree with Jares (2002), who considered that, to face the complexity of an education that embodies a global approach, all teachers must be trained. In the CE Longitudinal Study (CELS) conducted in Europe since 2001, the lack of teacher training is one of the elements that accounts for the weakness and regression that this subject seems to experience (Keating & Kerr, 2013). According to Cordero and Aguado (2015), this gives an idea of the laxity in the application of the offcial curriculum. It is relevant to consider the material resources that teachers use in class and how they choose them as a way to approach the contents of CE. There are two categories (undefned and no answer) that represent more than half of the answers (53.5%). Usually, it corresponds to the board of teachers of the third stage (ffth and sixth grades) to decide the materials to be used, and even though the textbook is the preferred resource, it was only present in 28.6% of schools. Such a lack of concretion is rather distressing and could be indicative of the novelty of the subject in the curriculum. The study of all the textbooks used to teach CE in primary education in Catalonia (Boqué, Pañellas, Alguacil, & García-Raga, 2014) revealed an advance from a passive to an active conception, but its connection to peacebuilding was not clear. In fact, the word peace was missing in 63% of textbooks. The incorporation of CE in the curriculum sparked a social debate in Spain. The controversy confronted families that thought that such education belonged to their private sphere with those who were convinced of the need for integral education in schools. As shown in Table 4.5, more than half of the schools in the sample (57.1%) noticed a positive response toward CE after a short period of initial caution. Other schools reckoned that it is an unnoticed subject (14.3%), attributing this lack of attention mainly to a cross-curricular approach that infuses the general curriculum with civic and democratic competences. Then there were 10.7% of schools that admitted having had some initial diffculties before reaching normality. Finally, in a few schools (3.6%) teachers felt that CE was an imposition, and in one single school one family openly rejected the subject. Among teachers,14.3% preferred not to give an answer. In their study, Gómez and García (2013) observed that the reason for the debate about CE in Spain is an ideological and political background that transcends educational reasons. This, in fact, destabilizes the entire education system whose mission is to prepare children as citizens. In summary, most of the participating schools in this study taught CE, usually one hour per week at the end of the primary level. The subject was mostly assumed by the group’s tutor, with the materials used not being clearly defned by half of the schools. According to principals and assistant teachers, the reception of CE had been quite positive in more than half of the schools.

How has citizenship education been received in the school?

No answer




• • • • • •

• • • • • • •

• •

• • • •


In general, everyone is happy about it. Positive, because we do not approach it from any particular ideology. Good; families rely upon the school. Students and parents are very pleased. Teachers think that it is very important and that more hours would be needed to teach it well. Students, very well. Families, initial caution, but once set up, it has been well received. Students and teachers, very good. Families needed a little boost. Good reception because we already did it and now the teachers have more support and resources. The contents are considered very important. Good reception in general. Well. Nothing negative from any sector. Acceptance. Good without attracting too much attention. As a subject, it goes unnoticed since it is a continuation of the schoolwork on emotional education, tutoring, social media, and so on, which are taught throughout the entire primary education. It does not have any specifc weight as a subject in the curriculum since all students are working transversally in the school throughout the entire school year. We believe that it should not be treated as a subject. The school educates in values transversally. It is not treated as a subject, because all the contents are already included in other areas (philosophy/tutoring/social). Families did not detect any change. Normal. Families see it normally. At frst, we encountered lots of diffculties, but now it is all right. Bad; for the teachers, it was like an imposition. We even had a complaint from a family, which was fnally dismissed.

Examples of answers


Table 4.5 Reception of Citizenship Education in the School







Children’s Views on Citizenship Education 65


Maria-Carme Boqué Torremorell et al.

Children’s Perception of Citizenship Education and Peace In the frst part of the questionnaire, children reported how they appraised citizenship education (see Table 4.6). The sum of percentages of “strongly agree” and “agree” answers exceeds 75% in six items, suggesting that students value what they do in CE and think it is a necessary class. Basically, they consider giving their opinion important because, in this item, the percentage reaches 90%. However, the percentage referring to group-building activities decreases, and the lowest score shows that they do not talk much about the topics Table 4.6 Children’s Views on Citizenship Education (in Percentages) Items (frst part of the questionnaire)

Arithmetic Standard % % % % mean deviation Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly agree disagree

1. In this class, we learn about real issues and problems that concern us. 2. I talk about the topics we deal with in this class at home or with friends. 3 The materials we use (book, worksheets, movies, etc.) are interesting. 4. We do groupbuilding activities. 5. We resolve the conficts through dialogue. 6. In this class, we, the students, learn to give our opinion. 7. What I learn in this class is useful to me outside the school. 8. Citizenship education is a necessary class.

















































Children’s Views on Citizenship Education


addressed in class with family or friends. In a study conducted with 75 secondary pupils in Spain, Cordero and Aguado (2015) found similar outcomes: Students consider that they learn how to be a better person and mention flms, debates, and texts as the main resources used in class. They also affrm that CE contributes to improving the social climate in class, and they perceive its applicability in their lives. To compare the results according to the variables studied, we used the t-test for two independent samples and also the Mann-Whitney nonparametric U-test, because in some items no equality of variances was reached by applying the Levene F-test. However, given the number of subjects in the sample, we found similar values in both tests. All the tests were studied with a level of signifcance of 0.05. In Table 4.7 we specify the results of comparing arithmetic means according to the variable “Gender.” We observe signifcant differences in the answers given by boys and girls with respect to talking about the topics addressed in CE outside the school (item 2); group-building activities (item 4); confict resolution (item 5); ability to give their own opinion (item 6); and the need for CE (item 8). In all these items, girls score higher than boys, except for doing group-building activities, where it is the opposite, thus indicating, somehow, that girls show more proximity to CE. Usually, gender is included in research on CE as a “topic” in pursuit of equality (Arnot, 2009; Gordon, 2006), but our results indicate that it could be interesting to comprehend the reasons why girls score higher than boys in their views on this subject and grasp if there is any kind of bias in their expectations. In order to compare the opinions of the students according to the variable “School year,” we considered the ffth or sixth grade of primary school. The results are shown in Table 4.8. From the results obtained, we infer that ffth-grade pupils talk about the topics addressed in CE with their peers and at home more than Table 4.7 Comparison of Means According to the Variable “Gender” Item number


Signifcance (bilateral) t-test

MannWhitney U-test

Signifcance (bilateral) U-test

Difference in means

Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6 Item 7 Item 8

−0.911 −2.330 −1.008 2.370 −3.647 −2.181 −1.524 −4.012

0.362 0.020 0.314 0.018