Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice Vol. 14, No. 3, June 2008, 225–238
The impact of international programs on pedagogical practices of their participants: a Russian experience Anatoli Rapoport* College of Education, Purdue University, Beering Hall of Liberal Arts and Education, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA (Received 4 September 2007; final version received 15 March 2008) Taylor and Francis Ltd CTAT_A_300778.sgm
International exchange and training programs play a significant role in the development of international cooperation between educators from different nations. More and more teachers and school administrators participate in exchange programs and implement new curricular and instructional practices in their institutions. The objectives of this interpretive exploratory case study were (a) to investigate the impact of international exchange and training programs on pedagogical practices of Russian school teachers and administrators and (b) to find out how participants of international programs apply, implement, and transfer their experiences and knowledge that they obtain during their programs. The data were collected through personal interviews, observations, and materials from several debriefing sessions in 2005. The study demonstrated that the participation in international programs significantly impacts educators’ pedagogical practices, expands the range of their instructional approaches, makes program alumni more culturally sensitive and perceptive, and influences their interpersonal relations in schools, their professional growth, and social status. This research can be of interest to perspective participants of international programs and practitioners who develop and organize international programs for educators.
Teachers 10.1080/13540600802006129 1354-0602 Original Taylor 302008 14 Dr
[email protected] 000002008 AnatoliRapoport &Article and Francis (print)/1470-1278 Teaching: theory(online) and practice
Keywords: international educational exchange; teacher exchange programs; teacher experience; action research; teaching practices
Introduction International programs in education have been growing in importance since World War I as a result of major cultural and political transformations in the world (Bu, 2003; Thomson & Laves, 1963; Vestal, 1994). They gained an additional momentum after the Fulbright Act of 1946 and the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and soon became an important aspect of American foreign policy (Coombs, 1964; Richmond, 1987; Thomson & Laves, 1963). The dramatic political changes in the 1980s and 1990s in the Soviet Union and in the countries of Eastern Europe resulted in the intensifying of exchange and training programs involving educators at both primary and secondary levels. New conditions and new leaders in these countries needed new approaches to education in general and civic education in particular (Quigley & Hoar, 1997). Both educators and government officials ‘have increasingly sought the assistance of American civic education organizations in creating educational programs conducive to the development of responsible and effective citizens in a free society’ (Quigley & Hoar, 1997, p.12). In response, numerous programs and projects were developed by centers and universities in the United States specifically for the new democracies (Bahmueller, 1997; Craddock & Harf, 2004; *Email:
[email protected] ISSN 1354-0602 print/ISSN 1470-1278 online © 2008 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/13540600802006129 http://www.informaworld.com
226
A. Rapoport
Hamot, 2003; Leming & Vontz, 1997; Patrick, 1994a, 1994b; Patrick, Vontz, & Metcalf, 2002– 2003; Polozhevets, Schechter, & Perelmutter, 1997; Polechova, Valkova, Dostalova, Bahmueller, & Farnbach, 1997; Remy & Strzemieczny, 1997; Ridley, Hidveghi, & Pitts, 1997; Shinew & Fisher, 1997). The implementation of these programs required exchange visits for the observation of methods and classrooms, professional development workshops, and training sessions. Such visits, workshops, programs and seminars eventually resulted in new curricula, curriculum materials, instructional practices, lessons, units, stable partnerships, and publications (Lupoyadov, 2005; Pakhomov & Schechter, 2003; Shinew & Fisher, 1997; Zelentsova, Spensly, & Schechter, 2005). Although some authors expressed skepticism regarding the general effect of international exchanges particularly in the area of democracy promotion (National Endowment for Democracy, 2006; Ottaway & Carothers, 2000), the overall positive effect of the new programs and curricula on civic knowledge, civic skills, and civic dispositions of students in the new democracies was recorded by a number of evaluative and descriptive studies (Craddock & Harf, 2004; Finkel, Pérez-Liñán, & Seligson, 2006; Kupchan, 2000; Marx, 2005; Pakhomov, 2002; Patrick et al., 2002–2003). A significant part of the research on the impact of international programs on educators is the studies and observations concerning pre-service teachers and teacher instructors (Begler, 1993; Merryfield, 1993a, 1993b; Schukar, 1993; Stachowski & Brantmeier, 2002; Stachowski, Visconti, & Dimmett, 2000). Although faculty who develop curricula, influence curricular modification, motivate students and evaluate colleagues’ work (Begler, 1993; Ladson-Billings, 2000; Larsen, 2004; Merryfield, 1998; Schneider, 2003;Tye & Tye, 1993) are the key to a successful international education project, studies that specifically explore international exchange or training programs for educators are rare (Merryfield, 1993b, 2000; Wilson, 1984, 1986). In 1973, Leestma wrote about the lack of understanding of the value of international teacher exchange. Eight years later, Hayden (1981) complained: ‘Very little is systematically known about the immediate let alone longer-term educational and personal impact of an international exchange experience’ (p.2). Quite recently, Craddock and Harf (2004) contended: ‘Without research and assessment, those who are involved in both the support and practice of promoting democratic education [through international programs] rely on anecdotal and intuitive analysis to inform their activities and planning’ (p. 2). In this study, I researched the impact of international exchange and training programs on the pedagogical practices of international program alumni who teach social studies courses in Russia. The questions that directed this research were the following: ●
●
What knowledge and experiences did participants of international exchange and training programs acquire in the course of their programs? What factors facilitate the practical implementation of newly acquired experiences and knowledge, and what factors, on the contrary, impede this process?
Education in the Russian Federation Secondary education in Russia is free and compulsory until the 9th grade. Children start school at the age of 6 or 7. After the 9th grade, students can choose between educations in vocational schools or continue for two more years in secondary school (grades 10 and 11). Although electives are still rare in Russian schools, students in grades 10 and 11 have a choice between at least two curricula: (a) mathematics, science, and physics and (b) social sciences and languages. Unlike in the Soviet Union where the curriculum was dictated by the central government, the National Curriculum in Russia covers about 75% of instructional time; the rest is so called regional and local components of the curriculum. Today, there is an increasing number of public
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice
227
and private schools that teach classical curricula (gymnasia or lyceum). Within the last couple of years, as a result of the ongoing reform, school principals have obtained more rights and responsibilities pertinent to school funding. Traditionally, school principals and their deputies also worked part-time as classroom teachers. Teachers’ salaries varied: Moscow teachers earned twice as much as the average teacher in the country, while teachers in rural areas or small towns earned two times less than the average. The average salary of a Russian teacher is approximately 8% that of an average teacher in the United States. After the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991, all former Soviet Republics, now independent states, declared the need for an urgent reformation of their national school systems. However, very few were able and willing to launch real changes. Russia inherited all the advantages and disadvantages of the former Soviet education: high value placed on knowledge in society, but a heavily centralized and hierarchical system, highly dedicated but underpaid teachers, a never-ending lack of funding, and an old-fashioned teacher- and book-centered system of instruction based on rote memorization. Interestingly enough, the Soviet school of the 1920s was a dynamic system open to new ideas, new projects, bold experiments, and innovative techniques and approaches. Western observers were fascinated with what they saw in Soviet schools (Counts, 1957; Dewey, 1929, Nearing, 1926). But everything changed in the early 1930s when the Stalinist regime successfully weeded out all progressive movements in education and imposed a system of indoctrination and brainwashing. This system survived practically intact until 1991. The rare attempts to transform it proved futile. However, democratic reforms in education during the perestroika period in the late 1980s were supported by the reformers in the new government of democratic Russia. Structural and institutional changes resulted in more independent schools, a more flexible curriculum, variability of courses and textbooks, and new public schools almost independent of local and federal governments. Systemic reform in education required curricular and instructional changes. Therefore, the introduction and dissemination of new pedagogies, classroom practices, and extracurricular practices became an important step in educational reform in Russia. Professional international exchanges of educators and training programs in this situation became critically important. Method For this research, an interpretive case study design was used where ‘regardless of the number of sites or participants… the data analysis focuses on one phenomenon,’ (McMillan & Schumacher, 2001) namely, the impact of international programs for educators on their participants. Consequently, the rationale of the study was to make sense of the knowledge and experiences obtained by international program alumni as well as their endeavors to convert the latter into pedagogical content knowledge and skills by providing the participants an opportunity to voice their beliefs, judgments, and sensations regarding the impact of their respective programs. It should be specifically noted that the study was not aimed at evaluating the programs but solely at describing the impact of international exchange and training programs as participants perceived it themselves. For the purpose of this study, the term informants (Rubin & Rubin, 1995) was chosen to avoid confusion with the terms participant of an international program or respondent, which were used in reference to participants of a pilot study that preceded the current investigation. Selection of informants followed the four-goal strategy suggested by Maxwell (1996), filtered through common sense and my personal connections with the organizers, developers and participants of international programs for educators. Based on the purpose of this study, the following criteria for the selection of the informants were established:
228
A. Rapoport
(1) All informants must be participants of international exchange or training programs for educators who had already completed their trips by the time of the interviews. (2) All informants had to teach in any type or level of school at the time of participation in their respective programs and at least for one year after their return from the trip. (3) The informants must be from different parts of Russia. (4) Although teachers of all subjects were welcomed, the majority of informants must teach subjects related to social studies. Informants were selected through a purposeful selecting procedure among (a) participants of an ongoing international program in civic education and (b) participants in one of the Russian national conferences in civics who had previously participated in various international programs. The majority of the programs that had alumni participating in this study were exchange or international training programs in civic education supported by grants from the US government (namely, the US Department of State and the US Department of Education). Several informants also participated in international exchanges with Canada, China and Finland. Only one informant participated in an educational program funded by the Russian side – in this case a big Russian corporation. Almost 40% of the informants participated in more than one program. As a result, 26 informants from 10 regions of Russia were interviewed. Information about the informants’ experiences in education, region of residence, and job at the time of data collection is presented in Table 1. Data were collected from (a) interviews with informants and (b) observations of debriefing sessions. To enhance the validity and avoid personal biases, the study was pre-empted with a preliminary mini-study that helped in better recognizing the issues that international program alumni might face and in developing a research instrument for on-site interviews. Prearranged semi-structured life-history type interviews (Rubin & Rubin, 1995) with open-ended items served two purposes: as a means of collecting experiential material and also as a channel for establishing a rapport with the informant about the meaning of the experience (Van Manen, 1990). Normally, the interviews lasted from 45 to 60 minutes, but several interviews lasted up to 90 minutes. The interviews were recorded, translated into English verbatim, then the translation of each interview was transcribed. The data collected were processed with the help of the inductive analysis method. This meant that the data were organized into categories, patterns, and themes, most of which emerged from the data, rather than being imposed on the data prior to their collection (McMillan & Schumacher, 2001; Patton, 1980). To identify patterns, the transcripts of 26 interviews were read twice to identify ‘recurring regularities’ (Patton, 1980, p. 311) in the data. In the search for patterns, two factors played a main role: key words or phrases in texts, and my memories and records of the interviews. The patterns were determined by the ‘convergence–divergence’ dichotomy (Guba, 1978), where convergence is finding two or more linguistic devices that fit together and convey a similar idea. Among the themes that emerged, the following were most critical for understanding the impact that international programs have on the pedagogical practices of their participants: (1) The program gave an opportunity to get acquainted with a new culture. (2) The program encourages instructional and curricular changes. Findings Following the methodology of descriptive interpretive case study, the data that support the findings were organized in this section around the major themes that emerged in the course of the data analysis.
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice
229
Table 1.
Informants’ general profiles.
Name
Number of Regional years in Region of national University Educational School education official instructor center administrators Teacher education Russia
Alexis Angela Cathy Christy Claudia Cleo Courtney Fred Gene Helga Helen Henna Irene Jane Jessica Lilia Lori Margo Mary Nicky Polly Rosy Tammy Tricia Vladimir Xenia
+
+ +
+
+ + +
+ + + +
+ + + + + + +
+
+ + +
+ + + + + + + + + +
+ + +
+ + +
+ +
+ + + +
+
+ + +
+ + +
32 11 20+ 7 18 21 26 15 45 6 15 20 18 10 23 15 19 19 15 29 28 19 24 26 20+ 6
North Volga Moscow Center Siberia Volga Volga Moscow Siberia Far East St Petersburg Volga St Petersburg Volga Center Center Center Center Volga Moscow Urals Volga St Petersburg St Petersburg Center St Petersburg
Program gave an opportunity to get acquainted with a new culture Almost every interview contains a story of an encounter with a new culture and an emotional state that followed that encounter. For many informants, the acquaintance with a new culture was among the personal goals that they pursued during the program. Jessica, as well as many other informants, used her cultural experience for instructional purposes. She admitted that from time to time she recalled new facts from her program and immediately incorporated those facts in her instruction. Fear of the new A number of informants admitted they were afraid of the encounter with the new and unknown. This fear was caused by various factors: tenacious stereotypes, prejudices, language deficiency, and lack of exposure to a different culture among them. Henna, for example, even found an unusual analogy to explain her ignorance of American culture: I was absolutely unaware … and, to tell honestly, I was scared a little. Because I had never been abroad before that. The United States has always been for me something very remote. You could even
230
A. Rapoport
compare it … during the Russ-Japanese war, Japan was for Russian peasants and workers something very remote.
Stereotypes References to stereotypes and particularly to attempts to challenge or to confirm personal stereotypes about the host country and culture were commonplace in many interviews. In most cases, the encounter with the new ruined old stereotypes, or as Christy acknowledged, ‘turned the image of America upside down.’ Interestingly enough, some informants admitted that their image of Americans was based on the movies and cartoons they saw in Russia. Many informants were fascinated by the level of tolerance in Western countries, particularly in the United States. Several informants were surprised at the role of ethnic minorities in American society. Alexis recalled her meeting with an African-American in Albany. She was astounded that an African-American public organization was successful in its struggle to protect the environment. The culture shock experienced by Alexis was very powerful. What she had seen in the United States was so unexpected and so far from the images that had been imposed on her during the Cold War that she was depressed for two months after her first visit. ‘I thought I was the only one. I could not share anything with anybody. For two months people called, asked me questions. I said, “Everything was fine,” and did not say anything else.’ The encounter with a new cultural reality was not always positive. Tricia, who had been raised on heroic stories about American Indians and Soviet-era movies that glorified Native American warriors, was literally shocked by ‘the problems, alcoholism, obesity, poverty, diabetes’ that she saw in one of the reservations. Margo, an experienced traveler who had visited the United States several times, still could hardly comprehend the ‘cold’ relationships in American families. Program encourages instructional and curricular changes All informants, regardless of the program, reported that acquaintance with and study of a new system of education and new instructional practices were either among their general or personal primary goals. Even those who did not clearly understand the goals of their programs knew that they were invited with the purpose of learning something new and bringing it back for further consideration and implementation. Pioneering effect The participation in international programs made several informants realize the uniqueness of their experiences. They reported being first in practices that, in their opinion, no one had used before. I call this the ‘pioneering effect.’ Helen contended that she was one of the first to start civic education in Russia because no one had known about it before: At that time we in Russia did not have civic education and we had no idea what it was whatsoever. And civic education on the basis of other values, different mentality, not Soviet-like but all-human, and human values and other things that were not clear to us.
Lori was sure that nobody before her trip knew about civic education in her hometown. Vladimir assumed that it was easy to implement new methods because everything was new and his school was the first to start civic education in his city. Eyewitness effect In many accounts, particularly when informants told me how convinced they were that new pedagogical practices were doable and could be implemented in their schools, they used the phrase, ‘I
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice
231
saw it with my own eyes,’ or simply, ‘I saw it.’ Lori, for example, referred to herself as a primary source, ‘They [her colleagues and school administration] got the information from the primary source. They have a person as a primary source, as a document. I saw it and I could tell them about it.’ The witness effect, as well as pioneering, has become a motivational factor for informants themselves in using new techniques and methods and also in encouraging colleagues to use new methods. New methods and techniques Sometimes informants indicated what techniques they observed or brought although the majority used a general term, ‘active methods’ or ‘interactive methods.’ Helen brought information about simulations, mock trials, and Project Citizen. Not only did she bring these techniques to her school, but she also worked on them herself to make them applicable in a new environment: First, I saw those strategies and methods, how they are used, organized, interactive interaction, what was new for us then. Not only did I see that but also received some materials that helped me replicate it here. I studied. I did it myself … When I came back I worked with school students and I used all strategies and methods of civic education that I learned.
Helga told me about her Canadian experience and work on lessons and units on human rights. After her program, she became more skillful in interactive games and ‘energizers’ (warming up activities) that she had never used before. Margo described where and how she observed and studied new methods. She complained of time shortage during the program, but this was a minor problem because she knew exactly what she was looking for: During the first weeks we were in (name of university) where we were introduced to the problem; we emerged into the learning process. Later, having seen the methods that American professors used, we and the people who were interested discussed [educational] technology [method] ‘The Civic Forum,’ in particular. We were working independently a lot and under the guidance of American professors as well. We chose the topic, not only I but also the researcher who had worked in the program before me to study the problem of tolerance and to compare the approaches in both countries. We also investigated the problem by ‘torturing’ the interpreters and our American colleagues, asking them questions about the implementation of tolerance in different types of educational institutions. We could observe different age groups. Moreover, we exchanged the techniques that we used in both countries. Besides, we had an idea to do the sociological research about tolerance. Everything was professionally organized and interesting.
New teaching techniques encouraged Irene to change her pedagogy. She was no longer afraid ‘to move away from lesson plans,’ she introduced more ‘country study materials’ (artifacts about history, geography, or culture of the country visited) that she had brought from the trip, and she used as much as possible additional materials that were not part of a mandatory program. She also described in detail how she applied in her classroom one of the activities that she had observed during her international program: In general I am satisfied with what I did. First I prepared my fifth graders. So, I told them how they do it in America. We read texts that were appropriate for them, we translated something, we discussed something. It was the wish of the children themselves; I did not impose this program. After I told them how it was, showed them some pictures, the children were willing to try. We chose the topic together, they suggested their topics, discussed all suggestions and variants, chose one. It was, I don’t remember it word for word, something like ‘How can we stop drug abuse among adolescent students?’ We developed a plan, visited a hospital for drug addicts, met a doctor who presented a lecture. The children were looking for material in media, and those who could afford – in the Internet. They made a big wall-newspaper that later was admitted to a district competition. We videotaped their stories, how they accomplished that work. It was in English. The work was being done in both Russian and English but later it was recorded in English. We exchanged cassettes with our American partners.
232
A. Rapoport
Angela used the visit of her American counterparts to her school to promote and implement new pedagogical experiences that she saw in the USA. ‘We tried to do the Future Problem Solving project. We saw that project in America and we organized it in one school. We saw how American students go to museums; it is absolutely different from how we do it. We showed how to do it. Teachers were happy.’ Like many other teachers, Henna tried to use new approaches in her pedagogy based on what she had read in books. The participation in an international program helped her observe what she had read about. She assumed this determined the success of her pedagogical practice. Lilia described her experience in America and her first encounter with new educational practices: I was initially method-oriented and (name of a university professor) was a well of wisdom for us. It was a new experience for me to see how he worked with moral dilemmas. It was a discovery for me. Now it seems simple but when you see it first time, it is different.
Lori was very emotional during the interview, in particular when she remembered what new pedagogical practices she had observed in her program in the United States. She saw ‘how important the right, democratic style of communication with students’ was. She understood ‘it was the culture of communication in the United States. In class they could afford an informal talk that we [in Russia] do not have. The main thing in our schools is the subject.’ She said she started using the active approach in teaching after the trip and she learned it in the United States. Almost all informants said that the reports about their trips and stories about their new experiences were received in their schools favorably or neutrally. However, several informants said they encountered difficulties in communicating the ideas they brought from their respective programs. Irene said, ‘To tell the truth, after the trip I felt like I did not have enough room in school (meaning, she did not have enough freedom). I felt like I am tied up. After I saw how it was possible to work, I realized that I did not have enough room in school. I felt uncomfortable there.’ Skepticism Some informants, even those who were excited about their new experiences, expressed skepticism, sometimes indirectly and cautiously, sometimes directly and openly. Lori, despite her emotional story about the new active methods and democratic student–teacher relations that she had witnessed, said, ‘Sometimes it was over the edge.’ Genie told me the story about immigrant children from various parts of the former Soviet Union who complained about the superficial knowledge that they obtained in American schools. Tammy was sure that everything that she saw in American schools had already been used in the Soviet Union long before and then forgotten. Cathy could hardly disguise her disappointment and even agitation as she talked about the ‘messianic pilgrimage’ of foreign educators to Russia and the lack of knowledge about Russia in small towns in the United States. ‘Strict parent’ phenomenon Tricia was happy to implement new methods and approaches in her classroom. The only problem she mentioned was the transition period from the old teacher-centered pedagogy to the new active methods: Problems occur when I take a new class and begin to work with them with interactive methods. Here problems do occur because the children are used to working in traditional manner and when you start working with them in this free way, as it usually happens when a strict parent keeps children [under control] for a long time and then they get out of his or her supervision, they explode emotionally, physiologically, and they try to realize all [their abilities] that they see. This happened at first in
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice
233
interactive classes when I already knew that they would start working effectively when this first explosion had passed. They will get used to a new system. And this is how it happens. Someone does it faster, someone slower, in a month or two. But this change of environment was necessary for children. And it is efficient, I think.
Interestingly enough, other informants mentioned what I call the strict parent phenomenon: implementation of new active methods does not cause many problems if students are already used to this way of teaching, unlike in the transition period when students had to move quickly from a teacher- and textbook-centered pedagogy to a student centered one. Discussion The data collected demonstrate that international programs, particularly trips, are multi-component events with a long-term effect on several spheres of participant activities, particularly on informants’ pedagogical practices, their relations with colleagues and supervisors, their professional growth, and their personal outlook. This section is organized in the form of answers to the research questions of the present study. What knowledge and skills did participants acquire in the course of the international programs? The data demonstrate that informants acquired various degrees of new knowledge and experiences in the course of their respective international programs. The majority of informants reported acquiring knowledge in: ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
the structure and function of a foreign system of education; curriculum development; development of new courses; structure and functions of central, regional, and local government; history, traditions, and culture of host countries; the state of the economy and education in host countries; multiple ways of democratic development; development of civil, multicultural, and multiethnic societies.
Many informants reported that they became more aware or more appreciative of their own culture, democratic development, and system of education after participation in international programs. These international programs, with their pursuit of mutual goals, became a starting point for long-lasting friendships and professional bonds among participants. These connections in turn became instrumental in networking and in emergence of new professional institutions and centers. Many informants admitted that the encounter with a new educational system was a discovery; they had hardly known much about the system of education in the host country before the program. Almost all Russian teachers or school administrators specifically mentioned how surprised they were when they saw the level of technological equipment in foreign schools and classrooms, or the organization of an educational system, or the layout of a regular school building and building management. Obviously, this first emotional reaction was the result of informants’ re-conceptualization of the preconceived mental image of schools, particularly for those teachers who were novices in such programs. Probably the understanding of their deficiency in previous knowledge about other countries made many informants give similar advice in their interviews to future international program participants to learn more about the country they will visit.
234
A. Rapoport
Regardless of the area of expertise or teaching of each informant, their exposure to a new culture and observation of the realities in foreign countries had a very strong impact on their future experiences including pedagogical practices. All informants reported that participation in international programs helped them overcome a number of prejudices, fears, or stereotypes. Although I noticed that there were a few cases where the encounter with foreign classrooms, schools, or institutions strengthened the stereotypical impression of the host country or left informants skeptical, the overwhelming majority of interviews reflected what many authors had described before (Merryfield, 1993b, 1998; Wilson, 1984, 1986): (1) International program alumni have become more culturally sensitive and perceptive. (2) International program alumni have become more aware and understanding of the indivisibility and interconnectedness of our world and the various economic, political, and educational systems that it comprises. (3) International program alumni emphasize in their practices multiple perspectives and multiple loyalties. (4) Diversity awareness has made program alumni more open to the sound advice and quality practices that they heard or observed during their programs. (5) Observations of foreign educational practices have made alumni value their own educational practices more. Most informants reported acquiring new educational experiences and developed skills in: (a) student-centered teaching, (b) active methods, (c) application of technology, (d) comparative methods, (e) incorporating new information into existing courses, and (f) developing new courses and programs. Informants contended that they had heard of such techniques or methods as simulations, public hearings, debates, research projects, projects concerning public policy issues, service learning, or various forms of student governance but they only managed to see them in real life in the course of their programs. When they were asked about new methods or techniques that they had observed and learned during their programs, many informants referred to active or interactive methods. Teachers and school administrators tried to implement active methods in their classrooms or schools, whereas district or educational center instructors (Russian term, methodologist) promoted active methods at their presentations, lectures, or individual conversations with teachers. The phrase active methods has become a generic term for almost all educational techniques that were traditionally avoided in teacher-centered classrooms, or rather, active methods were everything which was not lecturing. The informants who talked about active methods usually included the following techniques: frontal class discussions, group work, group discussion, debates, mock trials, projects, and reflective teaching. At times it was not clear if informants fully understood the roles of teachers, students, or other agents of education in what they referred to as active methods. For example, it was not clear if students in their schools had access to information that they might use in discussions and time to prepare informed discussion, or how projects fit into the present curriculum, or how the school administration solved the problem of very limited time allocated in a curriculum for Civics. Accordingly, it was not at all obvious if those separate innovative pedagogical practices became fully institutionalized or at least had a chance of being institutionalized in the future. Not all informants reported such positive experiences, however. A few informants were critical about active methods, referring to the fact that they are not traditional in Russian schools or that traditional Soviet and Russian schools achieved good results without them. One informant contended that active forms, projects, or debates were used in the Soviet school long ago and that Russian teachers simply had to recall what they were taught in college. She argued that although she did not learn any new forms or methods, the experience of foreign educational establishments
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice
235
encouraged her and her colleagues to revisit their own pedagogical experiences and include those ‘new old’ methods in their classroom practices. However, despite some criticism of studentcentered pedagogies, all informants were unanimous in acknowledging the important role of international programs in making them aware of, interested in, and enthusiastic about promoting new teaching methods and approaches. What factors facilitate or impede practical implementation of new skills and knowledge? Three groups of factors were identified as significant in facilitating or in hampering the implementation and application of the results of international programs. These are (a) classroom factors, (b) school factors, and (c) personal factors. The classroom is a place that teachers can easily control and where they can try to apply all the new knowledge and experiences that they brought from their programs. All informants were to a certain degree connected with teaching Social Studies courses (Russian equivalent – predmety obshchestvenno-politicheskogo tsikla). Many wanted to apply active methods that, in contrast to the old traditional teacher- or book-centered approaches employed in most Russian schools, would engage students in reflective, inquiry-oriented, and decision-making activities. Usually the transition from passive consumption of knowledge to active teaching and learning is a lengthy and complex process that requires considerable effort and patience on both sides. This transitional period of students’ adaptation to the new was the most challenging classroom factor. Support from administration and colleagues was the most frequently mentioned school factor that either facilitated the implementation of the new, or, in the absence thereof, became an impediment. Although, as the data suggest, informants saw school culture predominantly as an obstacle to the practical implementation of the results of their programs, they described the ways that could be helpful in minimizing the negative effect of ‘school traditions,’ ‘school systems,’ or ‘system of education.’ Among these measures, informants mentioned teaming up with individuals who wished for change; pursuing diligent and persistent work with students whose results could convince others of the correctness of the chosen approach; or simply using the traditions of school culture, for example searching for support among administrators and education officials. An analysis of the data revealed a paradoxical situation: on the one hand, traditional school culture prevented many alumni from implementing all their new knowledge and experiences in full; on the other hand, school culture motivated them to be more selective and specific in their choice of methods and techniques and also to be more particular in adjusting new teaching methods to existing conditions. Among the personal factors, two are the most significant. The first is skepticism. Almost all informants were to some degree doubtful either of the recruitment process, of the attainability of program objectives, of the program’s design or outcomes, or of the program’s sustainability. Although in several cases, informants’ skepticism was a result of reported flaws in their programs, in many instances the skeptical attitude was caused by (a) inadequate information about the system and state of civic education in the host country, (b) lack of information about existing teaching practices in foreign schools, (c) misunderstanding of the programs’ objectives, and (d) existing prejudices, biases, and stereotypes. International program developers should address these issues to enhance practical implementation of program results. The second is ‘pioneering effect.’ A number of informants reported that they became frontrunners in various activities after participation in these programs. I did not have an opportunity to verify the data, although some facts of such pioneering appeared to be true (one informant started contemporary civic education in his region), while some assertions were obviously exaggerated (one informant said she had the biggest collection of books in civic education in the country). Regardless of whether these assertions were true or false, they indicate that the
236
A. Rapoport
programs enabled participants to become or feel like pioneers in the activities that they considered significant. As in scientific discovery, the ‘pioneering effect’ encouraged international program alumni to promote program results and made them more persistent in the implementation of what they considered their own innovations. Conclusion This study confirmed important tendencies, both positive and negative, regarding the impact of international programs on participants’ pedagogies and their professional growth: (a) international exchange or training programs impact various spheres of the professional and social lives of their participants; (b) curricular outcomes of international programs (newly obtained information and skills pertinent to educational practices and pedagogies) and cultural outcomes (new information about culture, the economy, or the history of the country visited) are both equally important for program participants; (c) due to a number of specific experiences and impacts, such as ‘pioneering effect’ or ‘eyewitness effect,’ international program alumni become motivated to transfer their newly obtained knowledge and experiences and also expand them; (d) the ability to organize a team of like-minded supporters and promoters of the program outcomes and to find support from school administration and local officials are principal factors that can help institutionalize the results of a program and keep them sustainable; (e) the factors that decrease the efficacy and efficiency of curricular outcomes are participants’ lack of awareness of program goals, lack of knowledge of the host country’s system of education and teacher training system, inability to immediately reflect on the observed practices, inadequate translation or inappropriate language skills, confusion of terms particularly in civic education, and lack of administrative support for international programs and their results. This study revealed the growing role that international contacts among educators play in this era of globalization. Such contacts facilitate a better understanding of processes that occur on various levels of education, enhance cooperative and collaborative efforts among teachers from different countries, and eliminate stereotypes and barriers erected either by historical ignorance or by political and ideological prejudices. Most importantly, this study sheds light on participants’ personal perceptions of and attitudes to international programs. Thus, an element of educational policy and professional development, as exchange and training programs are usually seen as, becomes an event, and sometimes the event, that remarkably impacts the personal lives of the program participants and the people around them. References Bahmueller, C.F. (1997). A framework for teaching democratic citizenship: An international project. The International Journal of Social Education, 12(2), 101–112. Begler, E. (1993). Spinning wheels and straw: Balancing content, process, and context in global teacher education programs. Theory into Practice, 12(1), 14–20. Bu, L. (2003). Making the world like us: Education, cultural expansion, and the American century. Westport: Praeger. Coombs, P.H. (1964). The fourth dimension of foreign policy: Educational and cultural affairs. New York: Harper & Row. Counts, G.S. (1957). The challenge of Soviet education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Craddock, A.W., & Harf, J.E. (2004). Education for democracy in Ukraine: Student learning through a US-UA Civic Education Project. Paper presented at the Conference on Civic Education Research, Reno, NV. Dewey, J. (1929). Impressions of Soviet Russia and the revolutionary world Mexico-China-Turkey. New York: New Republic. Finkel, S.E., Pérez-Liñán, A., & Seligson, M.A. (2006). Effects of US foreign assistance on democracy building: Results of a cross-national quantitative study. A final report. Retrieved May 5, 2006, from http://
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice
237
www.usaid.gov/our_work/democracy_and_governance/publications/pdfs/impact_of_democracy_ assistance.pdf Guba, E.G. (1978). Toward a methodology of naturalistic inquiry in educational evaluation. Los Angeles: University of California. Hamot, G.E. (2003). Civic education trends in post-Communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe (ERIC Digest). Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education. Hayden, R.L. (1981, April). Issues in international education: Exchange policy. Paper presented at a meeting of the National Council on Education Research, Washington, DC. Kupchan, C. (2000). US assistance for democratic reform in Russia: An assessment. The Harriman Review, 12, 46–49. Ladson-Billings, G. (2000). Introduction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 411–412. Larsen, D.C. (2004). The future of international education: What will it take? International Education, 34(1), 51–56. Leming, R.S., & Vontz, T.S. (1997). Implementing new civic education programs in Indiana and postCommunist countries. The International Journal of Social Education, 12(2), 126–133. Lupoyadov, V.N. (Ed.). (2005). Mozaika grazhdanovedeniya: Sravnitel’nye podhody k prepodavaniyu [Civics mosaic: Comparative approaches in teaching]. Bryansk: Kursiv. Marx, G. (2005). A programmatic evaluation of Civitas, an international civic education exchange program. 2004–2005. Calabasas: Center for Civic Education. Maxwell, J.A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (Thousands Oaks: Sage). McMillan, J.H., & Schumacher, S. (2001). Research in education: A conceptual introduction. New York: Longman. Merryfield, M.M. (1993a). This issue. Theory into Practice, 32(1), 2. Merryfield, M.M. (1993b). Reflective practice in global education: Strategies for teacher education. Theory into Practice, 32(1), 27–32. Merryfield M.M. (1998). Pedagogy for global perspectives in education: Studies for teachers’ thinking and practice. Theory and Research in Social Education, 26(3), 342–379. Merryfield, M.M. (2000). Why aren’t teachers being prepared to teach for diversity, equity, and global interconnectedness? A study of lived experiences in the making of multicultural and global educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 429–443. National Endowment for Democracy. (2006). The backlash against democracy assistance. Washington, DC: Author. Nearing, S. (1926). Education in Soviet Russia. New York: International Publishers. Ottaway, M., & Carothers, T. (Eds.). (2000). Funding virtue: Civil society aid and democracy promotion. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace). Pakhomov, V.P. (Ed.). (2002). Proekt “Grazhdanin”: Metodika I praktika realizatsii [Project Citizen: Methodology and practical application]. Samara: Samara Regional Center of Civic Education. Pakhomov, V.P., & Schechter, S. (Eds.). (2003). Osnovy grazhdanskogo obrazovaniya [Foundations of civic education]. Samara: NTTS. Patrick, J.J. (1994a) Civic education in former communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe (Tech. Rep. No. 143). Bloomington, IN: ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED374056. Patrick, J.J. (1994b, September). Core ideas of democratic civic education and the great transformation in Central and Eastern Europe. Paper presented at the International Conference on Civic Education, Columbus, OH: ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED380384. Patrick, J.J., Vontz, T.S., & Metcalf, K.K. (2002–2003). Learning democracy through Project Citizen in Lithuania, Latvia, and Indiana. The International Journal of Social Education, 17(2), 49–68. Patton, M.Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods. London: Sage. Polechova, P., Valkova, J., Dostalova, R., Bahmueller, C.F., & Farnbach, B. (1997). Civic education for democracy in the Czech Republic. The International Journal of Social Education, 12(2), 73–83. Polozhevets, P., Schechter, S., & Perelmuter, R. (1997). Civic education and the future of democracy in Russia. The International Journal of Social Education, 12(2), 84–100. Quigley, C.N., & Hoar, J.N. (1997). Civitas: An international civic education exchange program. The International Journal of Social Education, 12(2), 11–26. Remy, R., & Strzemieczny, J. (1997). Education for democratic citizenship in Poland. The International Journal of Social Education, 12(2), 38–61. Richmond, Y. (1987). US -Soviet cultural exchanges, 1958–1986: Who wins? Boulder: Westview Press. Ridley, H.S., Hidveghi, B., & Pitts, A. (1997). Civic education for democracy in Hungary. The International Journal of Social Education, 12(2), 62–72.
238
A. Rapoport
Rubin, H.J., & Rubin, I.S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Schneider, A.I. (2003, January). The state of teacher training for K-12 international education. Paper presented at the Conference on Global Challenges and U.S. Higher Education: National needs and policy implications, Duke University, Durham, NC. Schukar, R. (1993). Controversy in global education: Lessons for teacher educators. Theory into Practice 32(1), 52–57. Shinew, D.M., & Fisher, J.M. (1997). Comparative lessons for democracy: An international curriculum development project. The International Journal of Social Education, 12(2), 113–125. Stachowski, L.L., & Brantmeier, E.J. (2002). Understanding self through the other: Changes in student teacher perceptions of home culture from immersion in Navajoland and overseas. International Education 32(1), 5–18. Stachowski, L.L., Visconti, V.A., & Dimmett, D.L. (2000). US student teachers on overseas youth culture: Observations, reflections, and implications for teaching practice. International Education, 30(1), 5–16 Thomson, C.A., & Laves, W.H.C. (1963). Cultural relations and US foreign policy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Tye, K.A., & Tye, B.B. (1993). The realities of schooling: Overcoming teacher resistance to global education. Theory into Practice, 32(1), 58–63. Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. New York: State University of New York Press. Vestal, T.M. (1994). International education: Its history and promise for today. Westport: Praeger. Wilson, A.H. (1984). Teachers as short-term international sojourners: Opening windows on the world. The Social Studies, 75(4), 153–157. Wilson, A.H. (1986). Returned Peace Corps volunteers who teach Social Studies. The Social Studies, 77(3), 100–106. Zelentsova, A., Spensly, K., & Schechter, S. (Eds.). (2005). Aktivnaya shkola: Teoria, praktika, perspektivy [Active school: Theory, practice, perspectives]. Moscow: CIVITAS@Russia.
