Carving out a hybrid space: a self-study of contextualizing teaching for social justice in South Korea

Abstract

Throughout the world, issues of justice, equity, and diversity have been extensively discussed and are now ubiquitous in educational research circles under the overarching term, teaching for social justice. The expansion and worldwide popularity of teaching for social justice is promising, but it opens up new challenges with contextualization: situating the global-scale discourse within local and national contexts. With careful attention to the context of South Korea, this self-study illuminates one teacher educator's struggle to integrate social justice teaching with the nation's culture and education system. Guided by hybridity theory, the findings provide a detailed description of the course improvement, focusing on how the teacher educator interpreted and responded to context-specific tensions encountered in each academic year. The discussion highlights tensions and dilemmas that might be encountered by teacher educators who practice social justice teaching in countries where there are curricular standards at the national level; teachers serve as government officials; and, in spite of increasing diversity, student demographics are still homogeneous. Based on the findings, instructional strategies for carving out third space in the practice of social justice teaching are provided.

Assessing transformative learning in international education: Critiques and new directions based on a systematic review of literature

“…Since sample size is often not a key concern in qualitative research, it is unsurprising that those included in this review range from n = 1 to 150 with the majority ranging between n = 10 and n = 30. Qualitative studies with small sample sizes tended to use multiple methods for data collection (for example, Arshavskaya, 2017; Cho, 2021; Hu & Wang, 2017), including autoethnography or self‐study. In contrast, qualitative studies with a larger sample size collected data using open‐ended questions and coding procedures (Bell et al., 2016; Hessel, 2019).…”

“…Specifically, IE is discussed as rife with opportunities for “disorienting dilemmas” and “critical reflection” that can lead to changes in a student's “frame of reference.” Only a few qualitative pieces minimally acknowledged alternative voices in TL theory, such as emotional transformation from intercultural learning in teacher education (Chiocca, 2021; Jokikokko, 2016) and social emancipatory transformation from studying abroad (Intolubbe‐Chmil et al., 2012). Some qualitative studies did not integrate TL as part of the theoretical framework, rather referencing it to support the positive learning outcomes from IE, such as intercultural sensitivity and immersion (Barden & Cashwell, 2014), intercultural competence and leadership development (Lyons, Buddie, & Purcell, 2018), decolonialism and reflexivity (Castell et al., 2018), global citizenship (Cheng & Yang, 2019), and social justice (Cho, 2021).…”

What does “Asia–Pacific” mean to APER? Toward high-quality scholarship and inclusive practices in international education

“…Here, concepts such as education fever, shadow education, and (ethno)nationalism persist. A review of papers throughout the volumes of the journal shows that these imaginaries and diverse interpretations of the "Asia-Pacific" have been thoroughly addressed by scholars interested in the region (e.g., Cho, 2021;Jackson, 2019;Lee et al, 2010;Rizvi, 2019).…”