Making sense of what lies behind: dialogic learning principles as guiding quality check points
The RDCP has been informed by how SEAs have been scaled up across contexts, as explained in the previous section, and in doing this, draws upon the know-how of the communicative methodology of research. Underlying this praxis and the whole co-creation process, in each project pilot site were introduced the seven principles of the Dialogic Learning (Flecha 2000), which have served as guiding quality check points for both content and meaning. These principles are egalitarian dialogue, cultural intelligence, transformation, instrumental dimension, creation of meaning, solidarity and equality of differences.
These principles have oriented the way in which those in charge of bringing the SEAs and MHPSS actions and approaches to the pilots (members of the REFUGE-ED team) and co-creating them with stakeholders have looked through the observed social reality being, thus amplifying the possibilities for transformation. Below we briefly explain each of the principles of Dialogic Learning, and how they are shaping the RDCP across pilots.
First, egalitarian dialogue happens when all contributions and interventions are considered based on the validity of the argument, not on power relationships and positions of those formulating that argument. In the RDCP this is being done in organised spaces created in the pilots, such as large group hall meetings in which participants are provided with the information to be discussed, or in small working committees. In turn, in REFUGE-ED, this process is being facilitated on the ground by consortium partners across the pilot-countries.
Second, cultural intelligence means that everybody no matter their educational background is recognised as capable of contributing to the development of the pilots, at different stages (from the detection of needs to the discussion and decision about the actions that should be prioritised for implementation). The concept of cultural intelligence goes beyond the limitations of academic intelligence and encompasses the comprehension of multiple dimensions of human interaction which include academic intelligence, practical intelligence as well as communicative intelligence (Flecha 2000). Thus, everybody has cultural intelligence regardless of their socio-demographic and cultural background. Ensuring cultural intelligence at the time of implementing, facilitates equal empowerment for all participants. For instance, consider a situation that has already happened at the time of implementing a Dialogic Literary Gathering (one of the SEAs) in a pilot in Spain, in Greece and in Bulgaria (prior to implementation) due to language barriers: some minors who were assigned to read a literary fragment have not yet mastered the language of the host country. However, strategies can be put in place by teachers or other stakeholders who are participating in the activity to make sure that children understand the text, like reading the text with audio-visual support, encouraging other children who already know the language to help those who have more difficulties, etc.
With respect to transformation, the development of all the pilots should be oriented to transforming barriers and difficulties into possibilities, as in the example provided above. Those doing research with refugees, asylum seekers and migrants are aware that this group is over-exposed to trauma, often experience adversity during their migratory journey and in the time prior to the departure of their country of origin and are subject to post-migration and resettlement problems. All of this must be taken into account when understanding psychological presentation and how to provide appropriate support (Im et al. 2021). As Paulo Freire states, we are transforming not adapting human beings (Freire 1996). Education can serve as the vehicle to achieve this transformation by equipping these children with further skills and competencies needed to resource them across the lifespan. In transformative learning actions difficulties become opportunities. By contrast, adaptive learning action responds to difficulties by reproducing and increasing them, thereby reducing the possibility of achieving at higher levels. Nevertheless, If the focus is placed on transformative interactions, both learning and development can be improved.
The fourth principle is the instrumental dimension. This refers to those key and foundational learnings and tools of the learning process that allow individuals to acquire other subsequent learnings. For instance, the development of adequate reading skills is one of these key mechanisms (Soler 2001; Valls, Soler & Flecha 2008; Vygotsky 1978). This instrumental approach in education is o important to overcome educational and social inequalities (Apple & Beane 1995; Ladson-Billings 1994), which is highly relevant in the case of refugee children. Through dialogic learning, conflict between humanist and instrumental dimensions of approaches in education are overcome due to the fostering of a curriculum in which all effort and resources are directed to ensure that everybody, refugees and non-refugees, reach standard instrumental learnings and abilities, which will allow them not only to read the word but also to read the world. The instrumental dimension is therefore based on Vygotsky’s understanding of learning, as that process occurring when people are presented with cognitive challenges, that is, when they answer to difficulty with effort (Vygotsky 1978).
The fifth principle is creation of meaning. Meaning is created when all contributions are treated equally regardless of individual, cultural, linguistic, or communicative differences and when children feel that the educational centre (or the reception centre, depending on the type of pilot) recognises and supports their personal identities and their projects for the future. When instrumental knowledge is promoted, children are confident that what they are learning is socially valuable. In such situations, meaning is created and reflected in interaction.
Another central aspect of dialogic learning and underpinning the whole RDCP is solidarity. Solidarity is based on offering the same learning opportunities and results to all children, regardless of their origins, socio-economic or legal status. In the RDCP this is as important as it is ensuring the participation of children themselves in the process. Promoting academic achievement, a sense of belonging, and wellbeing among children and minors who are benefiting from REFUGE-ED is the project’s main goal. For this reason, the research moves away from compensatory approaches of education, emphasising the duty of each society to ensure children’s fundamental rights. Thus, we are grounded in the value of solidarity as a core aspect that needs to be promoted and strengthened among receiving communities, and refugees themselves.
Finally, there is the principle of equality of differences. Offering the best possible education, mental health and psychosocial support implies that everybody, regardless of their origins, culture, and beliefs are considered and their voices are also included. The RDCP moves away from those models that foster a homogenised equality and unequal diversity, and focuses on offering identical outcomes for everyone, ensuring that cultural diversity is preserved.
The step by step on the ground
The RDCP has been conceptualised by the research team in a series of guiding steps for its implementation. These are not static steps but guiding steps for the implementation of the RDCP. The consortium agreed in the initial phase of the project that end-users and their respective communities are the ones who must decide anything related to the procedure: they are the ones who best know their needs, the available resources on the ground, as well as the technicalities that need to be considered for a successful implementation of both the SEAs and the MHPSS approaches.
This way, researchers have the duty to ensure that the content of the SEAs and the MHPSS approaches which are being implemented in the pilots is not altered, as these are supported by evidence of social impact. For instance, if a pilot decides to implement a Dialogic Literary Gathering (DLG), researchers need to ensure that these gatherings are done about a work that is universally considered one of the best human literary creation (e.g.: Homer’s The Odyssey; The Arabian Nights), not a best-seller book.Footnote 1 End-users and researchers work together to establish the best ways to co-create the SEAs and MHPSS approaches on the ground. This way, the co-creation process is crafted by all stakeholders involved in the implementation and evaluation process. As observed, the RDCP also mirrors the process of knowledge creation when using the communicative approach. On the one hand, researchers offer the available scientific evidence about the researched problem or issue at hand. On the other, end-users bring their meaning-making and real-life contextual experiences to the discussion which can serve to inform potential actions that can be put in place to tackle the problem.
In this section we introduce each of the RDCP steps. Figure 2 below shows how the whole process worked:
Fig. 2
REFUGE-ED Dialogic Co-Creation Process.
Step 0. Identification of potential sites where to implement the pilot actions
Step 0 of the RDCP consisted of the identification of potential pilot sites that would like to join the project and participate in the co-creation and implementation of SEAs and MHPSS approaches identified by the research at its initial phase. Each partner followed a similar strategy, which was to identify potential institutions and schedule meetings with those responsible for them. In these introductory meetings a brief presentation of the project was delivered, providing an overview of how the co-creation process was planned. Although these introductory meetings follow similar criteria for its working in terms of content and the dialogic approach that needed to be followed, each partner decided about technical aspects, such as run them offline or online due to barriers posed by COVID-19, or upon request by their prospective pilot site.
Step 1. Needs analysis with stakeholders and end-users
Once the implementing pilot sites were identified and agreed to become collaborating partners of the project, Step 1 of the RDCP, was launched. The main goal of Step 1 was to gather key information about the context and the needs of the pilot settings. This involved collecting information about two main aspects: socio-economic and cultural traits of the context; and needs and challenges faced by end-users (children, and in some cases their families).
Related to the first aspect, data were gathered about the socio-economic and cultural context of each pilot, the legal procedures, and strategies to gain access to the field, and the constraints and challenges that could be encountered once accessed (e.g.: limited personnel, tight schedule to run extra activities, etc.) were also evaluated. Project partners also collected data about previous actions or interventions conducted at the site aimed at supporting MAR youths’ education, integration, and MHPSS needs. That meant that other stakeholders were invited to the co-creation process, as their work was closely related with the main goals of the project and a work process in that direction was in place by that point. Ensuring the active cooperation by all parties benefits the project’s leading mission to improve the educational and psychosocial wellbeing of the children could be achieved and enriched. Qualitative data were collected about the MHPSS, and educational needs and challenges faced by migrant and refugee children in the researched sites considering the three core aspects tackled by the project: academic success; well-being, and sense of social belonging. Hence, fieldwork was conducted in all pilot sites with end-users, professionals, and relevant stakeholders. This information was also complemented with desk research conducted for each pilot site.
Out of Step 1 the REFUGE-ED consortium was able to gain an overview of the characteristics and key aspects of each of the 46 pilots, which allowed all researchers to get a richer and context specific picture of the end-users’ needs and challenges across countries.Footnote 2
Step 2. Dialogic selection of practices and co-creation
The main goal of Step 2 is to engage in dialogue with stakeholders at the implementing pilot sites, sharing and discussing the identified in Step 1 needs and challenges. Following that all participating parties should agree upon which SEA and MHPSS approaches could best address these needs if implemented.Footnote 3 For doing so, either an assembly with the whole community (e.g., those residing in a centre or students in the case of schools, educators, social workers, teachers and other professionals, as well as those stakeholders interested in attending), or a series of small meetings were organised. In these sessions REFUGE-ED researchers explained the detected needs and challenges derived from the fieldwork, and asked participants about their views on them, probing further if there were elements that had not been included or considered in the analysis. The project team agreed on a set of norms that should be observed when any meeting with the community was going to be run in the pilots, based on the seven principles of the Dialogic Learning. See Fig. 3 for an account of the proposed norms that guided this process in Step 2.
Fig. 3
Guiding norms for facilitation process.
Step 3. Creation of the Communities of Practice and Learning
The main goal in Step 3 is to create the “Communities of Practice and Learning” (CoP&L), a working group composed of representatives of all types of actors involved in the implementation in the pilots. For this, the REFUGE-ED team drew on the expertise and work done by our partners in the Danish Red Cross, who have facilitated CoP&Ls across international humanitarian contexts.
CoP&Ls are often defined as a group of people who share a common concern or passion for something they do (Domain) and learn how to do it better (Practice) as they interact regularly (Community) (Wenger 1990). These communities often focus on sharing best practices and generating new knowledge to advance the domain of their professional praxis together. Regarding their working procedure, the creation of the CoP&L cannot be a fully standardised process across all countries and pilot sites as, as expected. However, common principles can be sought across all pilot sites to ensure the participation of grassroots communities and end-users. In this sense, the REFUGE-ED team agreed upon three criteria for the selection of potential members of the CoP&L: representativeness, diversity and self-governance, and sense of ownership.
This way, the CoP&L will fulfil different roles. As a network meant to connect local stakeholders (‘Who’) providing continuation of the dialogic co-creative process amongst themselves and with peers in other pilot sites, as well as to proceed to identify needs (‘Why’), foster learning (‘What’) and create solutions on ‘How’ to produce socially inclusive, supportive and transformative learning environments (‘Where’, ‘When’ and ‘With Whom’), especially to local decision and policymakers. Finally, the CoP&L will also play a role in the last phase of the REFUGE-ED project – at the time of creating the Brokering Knowledge Platform. They will be key agents when deciding which types of networks and resources need to be ‘brokered’ to them, and to additional future collaborators that can benefit from the Platform.
Step 4. Training Round 1
The main goal during Step 4 is the provision of training on the SEAs as well as in the MHPSS approaches, both for trainers and for end-users and stakeholders. Therefore, three levels of training were planned to be carried out: Level 1. Training the trainers; Level 2. Training at the state level for all pilots in that country; and Level 3. Training at the pilot site. Figure 3 below is an overview of the training levels:
Each of the two training types, that is, on SEAs and on MHPPS approaches, are being arranged online or on-site, depending on the preference of the centre. Also, their length is agreed upon between the REFUGE-ED researchers and the pilots, prioritising their availability, and considering the type of training they want to receive. REFUGE-ED partners agreed on the importance of generating a collective reflection on how these actions and approaches can be recreated and adapted to the pilot settings, without altering their core features Fig. 4.
Fig. 4
Overview of training levels.
Step 5. Implementation Round 1
The main goal for this step is to launch the implementation of the effective practices/approaches at all pilot sites, as decided in Step 2. The centres will decide all the aspects of the implementation of the SEAs and MHPSS approaches. For example, the centres will decide how many children will take part in the pilot, or the frequency and duration of training in the pilots. REFUGE-ED partners are available to provide practical support in relation to implementation.
Step 6. Evaluation Round 1
The main goal for this step is to evaluate the first round of the implementation in the pilots at all sites of the project. In doing so, REFUGE-ED is following the “Supportive Process for the Inclusion of Children’s Experience” (hereinafter, SPICE) approach, developed by one of the project partners, Trinity College Dublin. SPICE is aligned with the RDCP, and thus is based on the premise that end-users (i.e., children) and their key integration agents (i.e., teachers, parents, community groups) should be actively involved in any research designed to evaluate practices or interventions that seek to improve, educational and MHPSS outcomes. That encompasses all processes ranging from initial research design to its implementation, interpretation of results, and discussion of findings.
SPICE was developed to guide all research partners at the time of evaluating the implementation of the SEAs and MHPPS approaches in their corresponding pilot sites. This way, comparative data will be gathered across the 46 implementing pilots regarding both the outcomes obtained after the implementation of the actions and the process while unravelling. It should be noted that all pilot sites vary in their contexts and in the SEAs and MHPPS approaches they have chosen to implement, as well as in the timeline they are following. Taking this into account, SPICE is serving to help streamline our research and data collection procedures across the REFUGE-ED consortium. Therefore, the outcome evaluation asks whether our practices/interventions are associated with changes in the desirable indicators, while the process evaluation is designed to capture people’s experiences of engaging in the RDCP.
Step 7. Implementation Round 2
Finally, Step 7 is planned as the last phase of the RDCP and is aimed at circling back on the whole process, incorporating the lessons learned and takeaways observed in the evaluation step. Additional training will be provided for those pilots identified by the research teams, and upon request by the implementing pilot sites. A second round of implementation will be done in such cases when new or additional SEAs and MHPSS approaches are selected to answer newly discovered or current needs. During this period the consortium will work on the final evaluation of the work done.
Copyright for syndicated content belongs to the linked Source link
