Docstoc

citizenship

Document Sample
citizenship Powered By Docstoc
					         “CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION” SEMINAR by EAEA

                                       by Arzu ÖZYOL

A- INTRODUCTION
The Seminar, organized by the EAEA, focused on the idea of active citizenship. The aim of
the seminar was not only to share theoretical knowledge about citizenship education in
different European Countries but also to discuss models and curricula concerning citizenship
education as they have been developed. During the seminar, 11 invited participants became
actively involved during the seminar in order to share their specific approaches to citizenship
education, their teaching experiences and their visions as well.

The seminar was held on the dates 9th-13th October 2005 in Hanover-GERMANY. The
program of the seminar was as follows:

Sunday 09 Oct.

18.00-22.00           Dinner
                      Introduction of participants
                      Expectation about the seminar

Monday 10 Oct.

 09.00-10.00         Introduction of the seminar topic
 10.00- 10.30        Coffee Break
 10.30-12.30         Theoretical Frameworks of citizenship Education
 12.30-14.00          Lunch
 15.00-17.00         Guided Tour Hanover
 18.00                Dinner
20.00-21.30           Examples of citizenship education through documentaries and discussion

Tuesday 11 Oct.

 09.00-10.30        Transformative Learning as one aim of citizenship education
 10.30-11.00        Coffee Break
 11.00-12.30        Political Participation through Social Competence
 12.30-14.00        Lunch
 14.00-15.30        Identity Competence and Citizenship Education
 15.30-16.00        Coffee Break
16.00-18.00         Discussing Didactical Approaches
18.00               Dinner




 Environment Engineer, CEO and the Chairperson of The Executive Board- HYDRA International Project and
Consulting CO.
Wednesday 12 Oct.

 09.00-10.30       Ecological Competence and Citizenship Education
 10.30-11.00       Coffee Break
 11.00-12.30       Experiences of the Field
 12.30-14.00       Lunch
 14.00-15.30       Experiences of the Field
 15.30-16.00       Coffee Break
16.00-18.00        Experiences of the Field
18.00              Dinner


Thursday 13 Oct.

09.00-10.00       Globalisation and Global Citizenship
10.00-10.30       Coffee Break
10.30-11.45       Methodological Approaches to support active Citizenship and Impacts on
European Citizenship
11.45-12.30       Evaluation of the seminar
12.30              Lunch
15.00              Departure


The coordinator of the seminar was Christene Zeuner and assistant of the seminar was Silke
Schreiber-Barsh from Flensburg University. Participants of the seminar is listed as below:


NAMES        of          the
PARTICIPANTS                   NAMES of the ORGANISATIONS                    COUNTRIES

Arzu ÖZYOL                     HYDRA International Project and Consulting        TURKEY
Elisabetta CANNOVA             Speha Fresia                                      ITALY
William DEVLIN                 Belfast Institute of Further and Higher Education IRELAND
Jıll BEDFORD                   Home Office Civil Renewal Unit                    ENGLAND
Sue GORBING                    Home Office Civil Renewal Unit                    ENGLAND
Nini JETSMARK                  Copenhagen Adult Education Association            DENMARK
Pauline MAY                    Aberdeen College                                  SCOTHLAND
Bonnie DUDLEY                  Edinburgh University Settlement                   SCOTHLAND
Bo ESPERSEN                    Association of Folk High Schools                  DENMARK
Ivo EESMAA                     Estonian Non-Formal Adult Education Association ESTONIA
Merete SANDEM                  Norwegian Association of Adult Learning           NORWAY
B- EXCLUSIVE SUMMARY of the SEMINAR

Citizenship refers to the relationship between the individual and the state, and among
individuals within the state. This sense of what constitutes a good citizen varies across time,
cultures, genders, and political philosophies. Therefore we find a range of models on good
citizenship. These models offer different views of four components: national identity, social,
cultural and supranational belonging; an effective system if rights; and political and civic
participation.
However, the formal acknowledgement of the human rights does not mean that all
democracies are alike. Depending on how the question of checks and balances between the
political elite and the people are organized, which also refers to difference between republican
and liberal democracies. In a republican democracy the rights of the government are stressed,
while within the liberal one, ideally the rights of people are more important. This difference
leads to different roles of the citizens: in the first case, citizens are rather passive and
obedient. In the second, they are supposed to be more active, participating in shaping society
according to their needs and visions.

The purpose of the “Education for Democratic Citizenship” is to create active participation
of individuals to the community and the state through the courses in formal, informal and
non-formal educational settings. However, active citizenship does not merely involve access
to resources, it also involves social and political engagement, the capacity to critically
examine and debate, and ultimately the capacity to participate in changing their societies,
active citizenship is transformative at both individual and societal level.1
Active Citizenship has become a powerful concept by the empowerment of “Sustainable
Development” philosophy, which promotes democracy, justice, gender equity, scientific-
social-economic development with the aim of building a world in which violent conflict is
replaced by dialogue and a culture of peace based on justice. Therefore, it is respectful for the
richness of cultural diversity. By the strengthening of the “Sustainable Development”
philosophy, “Intercultural Education” has began to encourage minority groups, indigenous
people and nomadic people for placing them into educational systems by the help of adult
education courses. Adult Education is a key to the twenty-first century because it shapes
personal identity and gives meaning to life. What do we mean with “identity”? How would I
describe my identity? Is it always the same or does it vary? – In the attempt to find answers,
in becomes clear how multi and crucial the dimension of identity is for each individual. The
development of one‟s identity may be seen as a lifelong dialogue, full of tension between
her/himself and the surrounding environment that is with other human beings and with
general structures. Therefore, everyone is asked to find a harmonious balance for her/himself
in this continuing negotiation process between internal and external factors. However, the
current social situation shows that people are challenged to a high degree by this task and that
many of them are sometimes overstrained to continuously develop a new balance in their
identity. Identity is threatened by the loss of jobs, by lacking social recognition of one‟s own
lifestyle, by the state‟s withdrawal from public responsibility, and the simultaneous increase
of individual risk among others. The current social reality and its consequences for categories
central to the development of identity, such as work, gender, nationality, age make the
acquisition of identity competence a crucial need. Furthermore, the term “global” as similar


1
    Turner, B., and Ridden, J., ”Balancing Universalism and Diversity”, edit. Bron, A., and Schemmann, M.
(Civil Society, Citizenship and Learning), Munster, 2001, p.47-48
with “identity”, has gained more dynamic definition. Some define globalisation as a panacea
for any post modern challenges and the competitiveness in the global market, other ones
criticize it as a powerful threat or even speak about it as not much more than illusion. Due to
the reflective character of the globalisation, it should not only be based on the relevant
empirical facts, but examined with its great extend by the overall and widely used perception
as something called “globalisation”. Being able to reflect this above-mentioned global
dimension, engagement and participation of citizens at global and local level can be
determined as one of the most significant issue. However, some accept globalisation with only
its economic scope and they willing to get rid of responsibility for fostering social cohesion
and individual well being. Therefore, being able to eliminate this limited perspective, “global
learning” methodology has been used within the framework of “new education” approach.
Global learning aims to build a global culture of peace through the promotion of values,
attitudes and behaviour that enable the realisation of democracy, economical development,
human rights and cultural diversity. It is characterised by pedagogical approaches based on
human rights and a concern for social justice, which encourage critical thinking and
responsible participation. Learners are encouraged to make links between local, regional and
worldwide issues and to address inequality.2 For the success of global learning, theory of
“transformative learning” should be applied. Jack Mezirov has first discussed
transformative learning as a learning theory in the United States in the late 1970s, at that time
being professor of adult education at Columbia University in New York. “Transformative
learning refers to the process by which we transform our taken-for-granted frames of
reference (meaning perspectives, habits of mind, mind-sets) to make them more inclusive,
discriminating, open, emotionally capable of change, and reflective. By using the
transformative learning methodology in the “Education for Democratic Citizenship”,
beneficiaries may generate beliefs and opinions that will prove more true or justified to guide
action. However, they provide with a sense of stability, coherence, community, and identity.
Consequently they are emotionally charged and strongly defended and different points of
view are only reluctantly accepted since they threaten identity. This form of citizenship
involves access to educational resources, the possession of an appropriate „living‟ language,
the effective ownership of cultural identity and the capacity to hand on and transfer to future
generations the richness of their cultural heritage.

Personal Notes from Arzu ÖZYOL: I consider that the seminar was significantly contributive
for the participants by supplying the technical information on the new training methodologies
and the shared project experiences by the participants‟ presentations.

The focus point of the seminar, which was “the European Union upper-identity in parallel
with the “active citizenship” concept”, has shown its importance by the “Migrants Riot” in
France. According to my opinion, as well as Turkey, the all European Union Member Stats
should take lesson from this revolt experience. Seeing this problem as a simple street protest
that realized by handful pillagers would be only to sweep away the dirt under the carpet.
However, the lesson that should be taken from this experience is the unavoidable failure of
the politics, which is based on internal politic concerns by excluding “human being”
phenomena in the long run.

Besides that the “Migrant Riot” has created a fatal treat for Turkey, from the positive aspect
and in case of the good crisis management, this unfortunate experience can make strength the
situation of Turkey within the European Union during the accession process. At this stage, it
2
 Osler, Audrey; Vincent, Kerry, Citizenship and the Challenge of Global Education, Stoke on Trent,
2002, p.2
is extremely important that the Government should launch the initiative and call for the “good
sense” as soon as possible in the areas, where the Turkish citizens live. In addition, to support
the Turkish Associations and NGOs that based abroad or conducts their activities and to direct
their activities to the training programmes for their integration into the societies, where they
live, appear as the other important dimensions regarding the issue. In this regard, the decision-
makers should realize the difference between “integration” and “assimilation”, and they need
to reconsider the existing policies with this awareness. On the other hand, the individuals
living abroad; need to internalise the way of life that harmonized with the rules of society, and
to become a united whole with that society in the lights of universal true. Within this way, the
cultural mosaic will be more colourful, and through the established harmonization and
consistency among the all-individual members of the society; the quality of life will be
increased.

As HYDRA, we have received important feedback regarding to the “TEAM- Transnational
Education for Adult Migrants” under Socrates/ Grundtvig 2 Programme, and gained a new
perspective in terms of “didactic methods”, which were allocated for another project proposal
that submitted to Grundtvig 2 Programme as “STEAM- Socialization Through Education for
Adult Migrants”. The seminar contributed to the above- mentioned “STEAM” Project‟s
partnership profile, and the established friendships have transformed into the new
cooperation.

In this regard, I would like to heartfully congratulate the European Association for Education
of Adults (EAEA), which can be determined as a reference institution regarding to “adult
education”, for this pioneer action by defining “European Citizenship” subject as the 2006‟s
flash agenda. I am looking forward for the further training seminars and programmes that will
be held by EAEA.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:34
posted:7/24/2011
language:English
pages:5