This article was downloaded by: [University of Boras]On: 06 October 2014, At: 01:30Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Intercultural EducationPublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceji20

Does complex instruction benefitintercultural education?Veerle ErnalsteenPublished online: 02 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: Veerle Ernalsteen (2002) Does complex instructionbenefit intercultural education?, Intercultural Education, 13:1, 69-80, DOI:10.1080/14675980120112959

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14675980120112959

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purposeof the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are theopinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed byTaylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever causedarising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out ofthe use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly

forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

oras

] at

01:

30 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Intercultural Education, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2002

Does complex instruction bene� tintercultural education?VEERLE ERNALSTEEN

ABSTRACT In this paper, I discuss some theoretical considerations regarding the use ofcomplex instruction (CI), and the extent to which it can bene� t the � eld of interculturaleducation (ICE), as it has been conceptualized by the so-called “pragmatic approach” toICE. We examine longitudinal ethnographic research from two schools in Flanders to helpaddress this issue. Our assessment is based on several key questions: Does CI address thediversity that is present in a classroom? Is this done via interaction? Can CI help us toobserve the kind of diversity that is present in the classroom and does it offer ways of dealingwith it? Can pupils and teachers learn to deal more actively and effectively with diversitythrough CI? Can it lead to changing interaction patterns? I conclude that, on the whole, CIhas the potential to be a powerful tool for change. However, it needs to take local diversitymore into consideration.

Introduction

In this paper, I discuss some theoretical considerations regarding the use of complexinstruction (CI), and the extent to which it can bene� t the � eld of interculturaleducation (ICE), as it has been conceptualized by the so-called “pragmatic ap-proach” to ICE. These � ndings do not refer to research in the classroom, but mayhelp to generate questions for further research on this topic.

When CI was � rst linked to ICE, it was done, among other reasons, out of aconcern for equal opportunities and equal access to educational processes. Inaddition, the attention that had been devoted to a multicultural curriculum shiftedtowards a focus on classroom organization that fosters interaction in heterogeneousgroups. From this point of view, the organization of group work and the establish-ment of cooperative rules and roles, in addition to status treatments within CI, arevery relevant to ICE (Batelaan & Van Hoof, 1996). If we adopt the pragmaticapproach, which aims to deal actively and effectively with diversity, we need to askwhether the link between CI and ICE still exists. If this is the case, we need to askif the emphasis should still be on these same CI strategies?

To answer these questions, we must ask ourselves what criteria the pragmaticapproach to ICE must adopt if we want to deal with diversity in an active andeffective way? And do these criteria match those of CI? First in this paper, we takea closer look at the pragmatic approach to ICE. These insights will help us develop

ISSN 1467-5986 print; ISSN 1469-8489 online/02/010069-12 Ó 2002 Taylor & Francis LtdDOI: 10.1080/14675980120112959

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

oras

] at

01:

30 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

70 V. Ernalsteen

some useful criteria. Secondly, with these criteria as a starting point, we assess towhat extent CI can bene� t ICE.

The Pragmatic Approach Towards Intercultural Education

Diversity and Interaction

Our society is becoming increasingly diverse, and this is an irreversible process.Diversity does not only refer to ethnic differences. Cultural, as well as social,personal and other differences play an important part in our daily life (Sierens,1999). The frequency of occasions during which we meet or deal with other personswho are different from us in one way or another is also increasing.

People actively participate in the interactions that take place in their socialenvironments (colleagues, family members, neighbors, teachers, peers, etc.), andthey construct their own social reality through these interactions. Through interac-tion, people acquire a broad repertoire of skills, experiences, knowledge, etc., andgive meaning to these. Quite often, this is done spontaneously. What is learned canbe something very novel, but former experiences and meanings can also be rein-forced or adapted (Soenen et al., 1999, p. 63).

This has consequences for differences and similarities between people and themeaning people attach to those differences and similarities. Their relevance is notconstant, but depends on the speci� c interactional situation. When one’s conversa-tional partners change, other differences or similarities can become salient. Intercul-tural education will have to take into account the meaning of diversity within thecontext of speci� c interactions (Verlot et al., 2000, p. 15).

Diversity and Interaction at School

As is the case for adults, children are active participants in social interactions andconstruct their own social reality. Stimuli that are offered to them are not acceptedunthinkingly. Children themselves give meaning to them (Soenen, 1999, p. 53). Thelongitudinal ethnographic research1 being conducted in various schools in Flandershas provided us with some rich data, allowing us to explore interaction in classroomcontexts. In this research, researchers have been observing the daily interactions inschool. They have been examining the social and cultural diversity in the school andthe ways in which this diversity is dealt with.

Researchers have found that diversity in the school setting expresses itself, amongothers things, via different interaction modes. What is an interaction mode? Aninteraction mode stands for a more or less integrated whole of behaviors. Theseinteraction modes refer to different environments. We can distinguish three distinctinteraction modes: the peer interaction mode, the pupil interaction mode and thechild interaction mode. The peer interaction mode refers to the pupils’ relationswith their peers, the pupil interaction mode to relations with teachers, and the childinteraction mode relates to being a child in a family. During the interactions thattake place in these environments, pupils interpret and give meaning to events. Their

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

oras

] at

01:

30 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

CI and Intercultural Education 71

TABLE 1. Example of a possible outline of interaction modes

The peer interaction mode The pupil interaction mode The child interaction mode

Refers to the pupils’ relations Refers to pupil–teacher Relates to being a child in awith their peers relations familyInterests, e.g. exciting stories; Moving in the classroom Cultural/ethnical references,everyday life; commercial e.g. religioninterests (popular culture);private lifeWays of communicating: Ways of communicating Family habits: looking afterassociating; other style brothers and sisterselementsSpeci� c skills: negotiating Working attitudeskills; use of underestimating;dealing with punishments;combining activitiesDifferences in the peer group Practical tasks in the

classroom

Key notionsShared Shared DifferentDealing with forms Refers to school contents, Cultural or family-related

obedienceSpontaneous Passive, reserveRestricting activities Extending activities

experiences and meanings can lead to the development of the foregoing interactionmodes. The reverse is also true. The meanings and experiences of pupils can bederived from various interaction modes. These categories should not be appliedstrictly. However, they do offer a new and clarifying method by which to view theschool behavior of children (Soenen, 1999). This is necessary because pupils bringthe richness of experiences and skills that they have gained through differentinteraction modes into the classroom (Table 1).

Different School Contexts

At school, diversity expresses itself via, among others things, different interactionmodes. But these interaction modes do not occur with the same frequency, nor arethey given equal importance. Children give meaning to these interaction modesthemselves. Depending on the local importance of an interaction mode, children fromdifferent schools acquire different skills, knowledge and views. A certain interactionmode can, depending on the context, have a completely different signi� cance. Ofcourse, children are characterized by individual differences as well—different chil-dren in the same context will display different behavior (Soenen, 1999, p. 32).

For the purpose of my discussion, I use data from the Flemish report that is basedon the school ethnographic research (Soenen, 1999) referred to earlier. Two

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

oras

] at

01:

30 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

72 V. Ernalsteen

TABLE 2. Outline of the pupil’s skills and behavior in the two school contexts

Gaul context Manager context

Give extra meaning to the peer interaction Give extra meaning to the pupil interactionmode. mode.Whole of behaviors and manners that Whole of behaviors and behaviors thatrefer to the peer group refer to the school

Acquire skills such as:Seeing through the mechanisms of Structuringthe school and the teachers and takingadvantage of thisDealing with chaotic circumstances Taking initiativeNegotiating Organizing

Encouraging other pupils to adopta certain behavior

Differencesgender, own popularity ranking being a good pupil

AbstractSpontaneously combine different One behavior/interaction mode formanners/interaction modes in one each situationsituation

Con� ictPupils use elements from the peer Pupils compete with each other,interaction mode as a mechanism to force each other into a certain behaviorresist school; teachers attempt to opposethe peer interaction mode

different school contexts were described in this report: the context of the ‘Gauls’(named after the village where the cartoon characters Asterix and Obelix lived) andof the ‘Managers’. The contexts differ as to the local (situational) importance of thedifferent interaction modes, and the manner which the interaction modes can vary.We shall use these contexts to give an example of how various interaction modesin� uence the situation. They are not to be considered as types of contexts, however.

In Table 2, a limited and simpli� ed outline of the pupil’s skills and behavior in thetwo school contexts illustrates how different they can be.

The power of peer interaction is again demonstrated in the description givenabove (Soenen, 1999, p. 53). The pupils in the Gaul context place a heavy emphasison the peer interaction mode. They acquire speci� c skills and ways to communicatethrough this interaction mode. The pupils’ behavior in the Managers’ context canalso be interpreted in this way. Their behavior may be school focused, but it is thechildren themselves who give extra meaning to it. They, and not their teachers,determine the importance of ‘being a good pupil’ as a status criterion. Theythemselves manage the boundaries and, therefore, encourage each other to staywithin the boundaries of what they deem to be appropriate pupil behavior. Inbehavior such as this, one can recognize the power of the peer group.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

oras

] at

01:

30 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

CI and Intercultural Education 73

Actively Dealing with Diversity by Addressing Local Daily Intercourse

People interact in their social environments. As a consequence, they already sponta-neously deal with different kinds of diversity. There are also different ways of dealingwith diversity, such as denying the existence of diversity, or trying to homogenize itand present it as problematic whenever one’s coping strategy does not seem to work.The pragmatic approach to ICE opts for another strategy, namely taking advantageof diversity as it manifests itself in social interactions and knowledge within a certaincontext. Dealing with diversity in an active and effective way can be enriching forevery participant (Soenen et al., 1999, pp. 62–63).

The school ethnographic researchers observed that both the Gauls and theManagers had a speci� c way of dealing with diversity. The Gauls combined differentinteraction modes within one situation. They were � exible and creative, and leftopen different possibilities from which they could choose on different occasions.Unfortunately, consciously or unconsciously, they often chose the possibility thatwas socially undesirable. The Managers, on the other hand, dealt with diversity bymanifesting a certain interaction mode in one situation and another interactionmode in another situation. They displayed a kind of standardized behavior. In acertain situation, they would often prefer the most socially desirable possibility; theydid not change their ways or impose their will on the others. Unfortunately, theyoften excluded other kinds of behavior within this situation (Soenen, 1999, p. 55).In this manner, they sometimes missed learning opportunities.

The foregoing also applies to teachers. Teachers, as well as pupils, have more orless ef� cient ways of dealing with diversity. In the Gaul school context, a teacherwho did not acknowledge the existence of diversity could create con� icts betweenpupils and teachers. According to Soenen (1999, p. 90): “The teacher adopts oneperspective: she wants to maneuver the children into one kind of pupil behavior, toorganize and structure them. The pupils use elements from the peer interactionmode as a resistance mechanism. As a result, the teacher tries to combat the peerinteraction mode as a whole, and not only certain elements of this interaction mode,or to use it in speci� c situations (for instance when con� icts take place).” Thesecon� icts threaten learning that takes place from and with each other in the class-room. This concerns both learning the curriculum and learning to deal actively andeffectively with diversity.

From a pragmatic point of view it is important to let the local ways of dealing withdiversity direct the local goals of ICE. Without this link to reality, learning to dealwith diversity in an active way will not be very effective or useful. This is all the morethe case since the local ways of dealing with diversity do not only have consequencesfor ICE. “The local ways of dealing with the diversity of behaviors, interests, skills,… determine to an important degree the daily school life of pupils and teachers. Forexample, the possibilities to implement new pedagogical actions are in� uenced bydaily school life. Educational strategies, methods, contents, … that move beyond thediversity as it manifests itself at school can easily miss their aim, no matter howpleasant, interesting and successful they are in other classrooms or schools” (Soe-nen, 1999, p. 11). Group work, for instance, can fail if the teacher does not take the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

oras

] at

01:

30 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

74 V. Ernalsteen

mutual relations among the children into account when he or she determines groupcomposition, or if speci� c individual skills are ignored.

(Re)using diversity has advantages, not only for learning how to deal with diversityin an active and effective way, but also if we wish to foster all kinds of learning atschool. Pupils and teachers both bene� t from learning with and from each other, aprocess during which all involved can use, exchange, change, adapt, renew, rein-force, etc. his or her experiences, meanings, different ways of learning, etc. andconnect them with learning at school, no matter what source they spring from. Theoutcome of this process cannot be controlled, but by offering a large number ofopportunities for such a process to take place, a school can create a powerful(intercultural) learning environment for its pupils.

Observation of daily encounters and what we learn from such observation aboutthe ways people deal with diversity is therefore the � rst condition for ICE. Theseobservations provide us with new insights and strategies.

Criteria for Methods to Further Actively and Effectively Dealing with Diversity

How does CI measure up if our focus is ICE? We need to answer the followingquestions to help us with this query:

· Does CI address the diversity that is present in a classroom?· Is this done via interaction?· Can CI help us to observe the kind of diversity that is present in the classroom and

does it offer ways of dealing with it?· Can pupils and teachers learn to deal more actively and effectively with diversity

through CI? Can it lead to changing interaction patterns?

Can CI Bene� t Intercultural Education?

We shall deal with the above questions one by one. To answer each question, weshall examine CI and then deal with possible links between ICE and CI. These linkscan lead to answers, adaptations or new questions.

CI: a very short description

CI2 targets all pupils in the classroom. It aims to help pupils develop their higher-or-der cognitive skills and to improve their social skills and relations in the classroom.The CI method consists of three main features of the learning process. The � rstfeature is the CI curriculum, which contains open-ended tasks that revolve arounda central concept (the Big Idea). These tasks are structured around multipleintelligences [Elizabeth Cohen (1994) prefers to speak of multiple abilities], asdescribed by Howard Gardner (1993). The second feature deals with the delegationof authority through differentiation, cooperative rules and roles. In this context, therole of the teacher is to observe, stimulate, and provide feedback. The third feature

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

oras

] at

01:

30 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

CI and Intercultural Education 75

relates to status treatments, in order to bene� t pupils with a low status. Statustreatment occurs especially by assigning competence based on observations.

Does CI Address the Available Diversity?

CI posits that pupils are competent across a wide spectrum of knowledge, experi-ences, strategies and skills, gained inside or outside the classroom. Depending on thecomposition of the classroom or the group, we are always dealing with a different setof pupil potential. Addressing and stimulating this potential to foster learning is theaim.

First of all, CI taps into the wide range of potential through the way thecurriculum is structured. The open-ended tasks and the use of multiple abilitiesstimulate the children to interact with each other as a source for learning. Thecentral concept in each learning module is a broad one (the Big Idea): it can beapproached in many ways. The manner in which pupils do this depends on theirown potential. It also offers them possibilities to connect learning at school to theireveryday life. Secondly, the groups in CI are composed heterogeneously. Thedifferences among the participants lead to a greater pool of different experiences andcan therefore increase the number of opportunities to learn from each other.Thirdly, the delegation of authority from the teacher to the pupils stimulates thepupils to address each other’s experiences, skills and qualities actively and intenselyin order to ful� ll successfully the requirements of the tasks. The group result largelydepends on the speci� c group composition and on the particular experiences,knowledge, skills, and attitudes that the participants bring into the situation.

This feature of CI is bene� cial to intercultural learning. First, because it addressesthe broad range of experiences that pupils have and that can be used as a resourcefor learning. It offers the possibility of using the experiences from different environ-ments and interaction modes to foster learning at school. Elements of interactionmodes which are always present are now made productive for learning and do notlead to con� ict. For example, the use of the mother tongue can lead to learning andproblem solving instead of leading to con� ict. Of course there are limits. Childrenautonomously decide whether or not they will respond to the tasks and whatelements they will use. Therefore tasks will have to be as appealing and as daring tothem as possible. This can differ from one classroom to another. Prior observationof the particular interests of the children can lead to appropriate choices by theteacher.

A second reason that this feature of CI is bene� cial to ICE is because CI opts forinteraction within a heterogeneous context. However, it seems that CI and ICEdiffer with respect to what kinds of differences matter. According to CI, differencesin gender, ethnic or social origin, academic results, multiple intelligences, status,etc., are relevant to learning in any classroom. These differences in� uence partici-pation in interaction and therefore affect learning. It seems that CI starts from apriori schemes: what divides children is independent of the classroom context. Infact, the relevance of differences is not constant, nor is it context independent. Thecriteria listed in CI do not necessarily correspond with the way pupils identify

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

oras

] at

01:

30 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

76 V. Ernalsteen

themselves, or they may be just one part of their multiple identity. For example, thechildren in the Gaul school context considered ethnic differences to be less import-ant than gender and their own popularity ranking. The pupils in the Managercontext considered ‘being a good pupil’ to be far more important than othercharacteristics. By using these a-priori criteria for group composition, the teachermay—unwillingly—categorize pupils according to a limited set of characteristics,introduce differences that may not have been (that) important to the group before,or put a too strong an emphasis on differences instead of on similarities. Pupils maystart to see each other as representatives of a certain group and its supposedcharacteristics, and no longer/not as an individual with particular interests andexperiences. This risk is a real one, since the teacher’s criteria are often transparentto the children. The pragmatic approach of ICE therefore suggests a varied use ofthe locally relevant differences between children to reinforce the heterogeneity of thegroups. Observing the relations between the children is then once more essential tobring CI in line with ICE. Only in this manner can relevant differences be identi� ed.This does not apply to multiple abilities (here mixed groups are necessary to solvethe tasks).

In an indirect way, CI often does seem to pay attention to the differences that arerelevant within the local context. The method attaches a great deal of importance tobehavior related to status differences among pupils. High- or low-status children,respectively, tend to exhibit high or low participation rates in group interactions. Bypaying attention to, for example, low-status behavior, CI can take relevant divisionswithin a speci� c context (e.g. the popularity criteria) into account and try todiminish their negative effects on learning. By observing status-related behavior,teachers can obtain a better view of the relations among the children.

Does the Interaction Address the Local (Situational) Diversity?

CI offers pupils the opportunity to interact intensively with each other. CI theoryemphasizes that more interaction among peers leads to more learning on theindividual level, as well as on the group level. However, not all interaction leads tomore conceptual learning. The CI interaction is therefore guided by open-endedtasks, a broad central concept and it is product oriented. To foster the developmentof higher-order thinking skills, small heterogeneous groups of peers work indepen-dently and autonomously. Cooperative behavior is expected from the pupils in orderto allow them to steer their interaction themselves. The management system of rulesand roles provides them with the tools to do this.

Intensive peer interaction enhances the chances that pupils will learn from andwith each other. Especially the quality of being a more or less non-directed kind ofinteraction leaves plenty of opportunities for the pupils to learn, for instance, via aspontaneous interactive learning process. We see that this often occurs within whatwe refer to as the peer interaction mode. It allows students to tackle abstractconcepts in their learning. To preserve these opportunities, one must beware of toostrong an emphasis on the structuring management system—especially in combi-nation with tasks that do not correspond to the characteristics of the CI curriculum.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

oras

] at

01:

30 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

CI and Intercultural Education 77

Such an application of the rules and roles might prevent some children from fullyparticipating in some contexts. It could even reinforce the existing (status) relationsbetween the pupils and their ways of dealing with diversity. By continually combin-ing the management system with open tasks and multiple abilities, CI can increasethe likelihood that diversity will be dealt with in an active and effective way.

CI and Learning to Deal Actively and Effectively with Diversity?

We have already mentioned that it is through interaction that CI offers opportunitiesto (re)use the diversity present in the classroom. Elements of different interactionpatterns can be introduced, and locally relevant differences can be taken intoaccount. But is this suf� cient if we want to deal with diversity in an active andeffective way? Can it change interaction patterns? The pragmatic approach towardsICE argues that is it impossible to answer these questions without addressing theway in which diversity variables are manifested locally. A closer look at the contextof the Gauls and the Managers will allow us address this issue further.

Theoretically, CI offers the children in the Gaul context the opportunity to useelements from the three interaction modes in a socially accepted way to fosterlearning. In the open-ended tasks, pupils can use elements from the three interactionmodes in creative ways as resources for learning. They already do this spontaneouslyin other lessons, but now it is productive for learning. Through the managementsystem that is based on cooperative rules and roles, the children also experience amore socially accepted way of doing this. In this manner, they can learn to deal moreactively and effectively with diversity. Also, the teachers can learn to deal moreactively with diversity within the context of this method. They view the peerinteraction mode in a positive way, as something that actually contributes toacademic learning. Thus they will be much less inclined to inhibit such interactions.We might ask whether some qualities of CI interaction, e.g. the product orientationand the management system, might prevent children in this context from using theirdiverse experiences, skills and knowledge? During their observations of frontalteaching, used within this context, school ethnographic researchers often saw thechildren spontaneously use elements from different interaction modes to contributeto the lessons. If this behavior was taken into account by the teacher, e.g. bylaughing at it, by anticipating it, applying to it to the lesson context, it resulted in akind of “structured chaos”, which had a positive effect on the relation betweenteacher and pupils and the learning process. Therefore, one can assume that thequalities of CI interaction—being much more open and less structured than frontalteaching—will not necessarily prevent the children in this context from usingelements from different interaction modes. Furthermore, the teacher can pay extraattention to this aspect during his/her observations. Whenever roles and rules areseen as preventing the children from using experiences derived from differentinteraction modes, the teacher can decide to skip or postpone some aspects of theCI management system. Also, the choice of an appealing, and in the eyes of thepupils, interesting task, can, in addition to daily teacher–pupil relations that do notignore diversity, serve to stimulate tackling the task in a creative fashion. In this

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

oras

] at

01:

30 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

78 V. Ernalsteen

context, ICE may direct CI towards an emphasis on the curriculum and on thecooperative rules (and roles). Constant observation is required.

CI is probably appealing to children in the Manager context because the groupwork, rules and roles address their coordinating skills, their initiative-taking skills,and it also reinforces the children to display a certain desired behavior (by theirteacher, namely cooperative behavior). The presentation of a group product in frontof the whole classroom offers them the possibility to show their classmates howcompetent they are. But will the pupils be tempted to (re)use the diversity associatedwith the three interaction modes we have identi� ed?

The open-ended tasks and the broad central concept can stimulate the pupils inthe Manager context to use elements drawn from different interaction modes forlearning in the classroom. This is because the exclusive use of elements from thepupil interaction mode will probably not lead to a high-quality group product. Theexplicit use of multiple abilities and the explicit assignment of competent behaviorby the teacher (a teacher whom they value) to pupils with a low status in theirclassroom, can broaden their view of diversity. They can observe that different kindsof skills and behavior contribute to being a “good and competent pupil”. When thisworks well, the pupils in this context can start to reinforce the process themselves byusing their skills to stimulate each other to engage in a desired behavior. This new(desired) behavior now requires the use of elements from different interaction modesso that a contribution can be made to learning in the classroom. This may offer thechildren in this context the chance to learn to deal more actively with diversity.

On the other hand, some qualities of CI interaction—once more we refer mainlyto the management system—may prevent children in this context from using thefullness of their diversity, since it might reinforce their coordination and organizationqualities too strongly. In that case, their situational use of interaction modes may beconsolidated. Here as well, observations of the interactions between the children isrequired. Open, appealing and challenging tasks may reduce this risk. Any newdesired behavior should also be reinforced in other classroom situations. Within thiscontext, ICE may direct CI towards an emphasis on the curriculum and the explicitstatus treatments. The teacher will have to observe the application of the rules androles. We conclude that different features of CI can be emphasized by focusing(constantly) on the local manifestations of diversity.

The Importance of Observation

CI bene� ts ICE most extensively if one carefully observes the local diversity that ispresent in the classroom, and the ways in which this diversity can be dealt with.Such observation is required prior to the implementation of CI, or any method,during the activity phase and afterwards.

· Prior observation: By taking local diversity into account, local goals to furtherlearning can be set, and it becomes possible to deal actively with diversity.Differences found to be relevant in the local context can be used to composeheterogeneous groups. Insight into the diversity present in the classroom can

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

oras

] at

01:

30 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

CI and Intercultural Education 79

provide teachers with clues as to which tasks to choose, which concepts to use,etc.

· Observation during CI sessions: The CI method offers teachers the opportunity toobserve. There is time to look, since the teacher does not interfere in thecompletion of the tasks. CI can stimulate pupils to use elements from the differentinteraction modes for learning. As a consequence, for teachers who want to gaininsight into the local diversity that is present, there is a great deal to be seen (e.g.the interaction modes and their situational use). To bene� t ICE, these categoriesshould be added to the observation tasks contained in the CI method.

· Afterwards: The insights gained in previous sessions will in� uence the next CIsession (e.g. the choice of tasks and concepts), but also other lesson plans,learning moments, methods, etc. The transfer of these insights to other situationsis crucial. What is seen during CI can be used in other school situations to furtherintercultural learning.

Conclusions

From a theoretical point of view, CI has the potential to stimulate interculturallearning. It offers pupils the possibility to use the experiences they gain in a varietyof environments and interaction modes, in order to foster learning at school. CIaddresses this diversity via interaction. The pupils (and teachers) learn from andwith each other. In this manner CI can contribute to learning to deal with diversitymore actively and effectively. However, CI needs to devote more attention to localconditions and local diversity variables. Furthermore, in my view, CI, as is probablythe case with any method, is not a suf� cient condition to actually lead to newinteraction patterns and altered (local) ways of dealing with diversity. A more lastingchange requires the transfer of these new behaviors into other school situations.Diversity has to be (re)used in the daily interactions that take place in the classroom.To guide this process, constant observation needs to take place of the interactionpatterns and the diversity revealed within the interaction. On the whole, CI haspotential to be a powerful tool for change. The extent to which this actually worksin real-life school contexts, and under what conditions, can be the subject of furtherevaluative research in the classroom.

Address for correspondence: Veerle Ernalsteen, Centre for Intercultural Education, SintPietersnieuwstraat 49. B-9000 Gent; Belgium. E-mail: veerle.ernalsteen@rug.ac.be

Notes

1. This research took place in three Flemish primary schools from 1995 until 1998. In twoschools, most pupils belonged to an ethnic minority and to socio-economic weaker groups.The children had different ethnic backgrounds. In addition to these schools, researchersobserved a primary school with more middle-class children, of which 30% belonged to ethnicminorities. This setting differed from the � rst two schools. The composition of the pupilpopulation in these schools did explain possible differences between the two settings. The

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

oras

] at

01:

30 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

80 V. Ernalsteen

researchers observed daily interaction and con� icts among pupils and between the pupils andtheir teacher.

2. The information about CI is based on Cohen (1994) and Cohen and Lotan (Eds) (1997).

References

BATELAAN, P. & VAN HOOF, C. (1996) Cooperative learning in intercultural education. EuropeanJournal for Intercultural Education, 7(3).

COHEN, E. (1994) Designing Groupwork. Strategies for the Heterogeneous Classroom. New York:Teachers College Press.

COHEN, E. & LOTAN, R. (Eds) (1997) Working for Equity in Heterogeneous Classrooms. SociologicalTheory in Practice. Columbia University: Teachers College Press.

GARDINER, H. (1993) Frames of Mind: the theory of multiple intelligence, 10th Anniversary Edition(New York, Basil Books).

SIERENS, S. (1999) ICO-Scoop. Typescript, Ghent University, Centre for Intercultural Education.SOENEN, R. (1999) Over Galliers en Managers. Bouwstenen voor intercultureel leren. Ghent

University, Centre for Intercultural Education.SOENEN, R., SUIJS, S. & VERLOT, M. (1999) Approche Pragmatique de l’apprentissage intercul-

turel, Les Potiques Sociales, (3 & 4), pp. 62–73.VERLOT, M., SIERENS, S., SOENEN, R. & SUIJS, S. (2000) Intercultureel Onderwijs: Leren in

Verscheidenheid. Ghent University, Centre for Intercultural Education.VERSTRAETE, G. & SOENEN, R. (1998) Groepsinteracties, Perspectief van de leerlingen, Leg-

puzzel. Typescript, Ghent University, Centre for Intercultural Education.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

oras

] at

01:

30 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014