Developing interreligious competence in teacher education

Eero Ropo & Riitta Jaatinen (eds), Subject Teacher Education in Transition: Educating Teachers for the Future Tampere: Tampere University Press, 231–258. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-359-016-8 Developing interreligious competence in teacher education Inkeri Rissanen, Arniika Kuusisto and Elina Kuusisto Introduction In many parts of Finland, issues related to religious and cultural diversity have only recently been encountered. During my studies, there has been minimal discussion on these issues, even though all of us now studying to be teachers will encounter students from different cultural backgrounds when we start working. How can anyone assume that teachers will have the ability to work in the types of environments in the future without a proper education? Whether or not a student teacher learns about these issues should not be a matter of his/her own interests. The abounding discussion of how schools should be changed without efforts to acknowledge these changes in teacher education is problematic. Being able to merely handle challenging situations should not be the essence of 232 Inkeri Rissanen, Arniika Kuusisto and Elina Kuusisto eero ropo & riitta jaatinen (Eds) teachers’ intercultural competence, because teachers should also develop their students’ intercultural competences. (Rissanen, Kuusisto & Kuusisto 2016.) Student teachers seem to be well aware of the increasing diversity in society and in educational institutions, as well as the challenges this diversity will present them with as educators. The citation from a Finnish student teacher above depicts the willingness to develop intercultural and interreligious competences as part of their studies, as well as the student teachers’ concerns related to the feeling that the support they receive for the development of these competences is inadequate. In this chapter, we will examine the concepts of teachers’ intercultural and interreligious competence and discuss the challenges related to developing them in teacher education by drawing from multiple studies conducted in the Finnish context. First, we will portray how teacher’s intercultural competence and intercultural sensitivity have been defined in the research literature and discuss the particular challenges related to dealing with religious forms of difference. The notion of interreligious sensitivity will be described, which will lead us to discuss the need to better understand what makes a teacher not only interculturally but also interreligiously competent. Second, we will discuss the Finnish context and the current status of intercultural and interreligious competences in Finnish teacher education. Third, we will elaborate research results from studies that have examined the intercultural and interreligious sensitivities of Finnish teachers and student teachers as well as the development of these sensitivities during their teacher education. Finally, we will discuss the implications of these findings from the perspective of further development of teacher education. Developing interreligious competence in teacher education 233Subject teacher education in transition Teacher’s intercultural and interreligious competence What is intercultural competence in teacher’s pedagogical approach? One of the critical challenges of teacher education today is to prepare teachers to face the increasing diversity in societies. Teachers at every grade level need intercultural competence that can be understood as an “ability to effectively and appropriately interact in an intercultural situation or context” (Berry & Southwell 2011). The dimensions of intercultural competence have been defined in different ways (e.g. Noel 1995; Byram 1997; Bennett 2008; Lustig & Koester 2006). However, intercultural competence is typically considered to include attitudes, knowledge and skills—in other words: cognitive, affective and behavioural dimensions. Furthermore, intercultural sensitivity, which is part of the affective dimension mentioned above, can be seen as the very foundation of intercultural competence. According to Bennett (1993), it refers to a person’s ability to observe and experience relevant cultural differences and to have the cognitive and behavioural skills to deal with these differences. Without intercultural sensitivity as the subjects’ “active desire to motivate themselves to understand, appreciate and accept differences among cultures” (Chen & Starosta 1998, 231), it is impossible to create cognitive and behavioural dimensions, which also include teachers’ willingness to act as critical and active agents of change who promote equality and inclusion in schools (Jokikokko 2005; Niemelä 2015). By and large, intercultural sensitivity is associated with greater potential for exercising intercultural competence (Hammer, Bennett & Wiseman 2003). Bennett’s (1993) Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity includes orientations that describe different reactions to cultural dissimilarity. According to the model, the development of intercultural 234 Inkeri Rissanen, Arniika Kuusisto and Elina Kuusisto eero ropo & riitta jaatinen (Eds) sensitivity follows the three stages of ethnocentric orientation (denial, defence and minimization of difference), with regard to the attitudes related to the existence of cultures in one’s environment, i.e. whether the existence of cultural differences is denied, seen as a threat simply disregarded and minimized. Subsequent to the ethnocentric orientation is the ethnorelativistic orientation (acceptance, adaptation and integration of difference) whereby individuals learn to acknowledge cultural differences, accept and respect them and, in the final stages, even adopt and integrate them into their own identity. A shift from ethnocentric stage of minimization to ethnorelativistic orientation seems to require increased awareness of one’s own worldview including practices, assumptions and values: self-awareness is the basis of becoming aware of the differences in these forms of subjective cultural differences (Hammer, Bennett & Wiseman 2003; DeJaeghere & Zhang 2008). Self-awareness and self-reflectiveness have also been seen, on the one hand, as necessary components of teacher’s intercultural competence that should be developed in teacher education, and on the other hand, as personal character traits that indicate how an individual responds to education on diversity (Rissanen, Kuusisto & Kuusisto 2016; Garmon 2004; Adams, Bondy & Kuhel 2005). In developing self-awareness and positive attitudes towards diversity, cross-cultural experiences seem to be affective especially when they are combined with opportunities to reflect and mediate learning experiences related to encountering diversity (Pohan 1996; Smith, Moallem & Sherrill 1997; Causey, Thomas & Armento 2000; Garmon 2004; Whipp 2013). Although different ways of preparing student teachers for teaching in multicultural contexts have been studied (see, e.g, Sleeter 2001; Cushner & Brennan 2007), these studies do not have very clear implications, and there is no consensus on how changes in the student teachers’ attitudes could be achieved. Furthermore, worldviews and religion are rarely discussed in these studies. Nevertheless, what is known is that previous experiences and Developing interreligious competence in teacher education 235Subject teacher education in transition attitudes of student teachers function as a filter for learning, meaning that negative attitudes are very difficult to change through courses on multicultural education. Overall, student teachers’ beliefs and assumptions of other people or groups have proved to be very difficult to change (Garmon 1996; 2004; Causey, Thomas & Armento 2000), but successful developments during teacher education programmes have also been reported (Kumar & Hamer 2012). Particular challenges in dealing with religious diversity – towards interreligious competence The public role and political significance of religions in contemporary Western multicultural democracies have increased. The polarisation of worldviews into fundamentalist camps of the religious and the secular have created issues related to the new, more visible role of worldviews into heated debate topics (Habermas 2006). Furthermore, the transnational ties of citizens have increased and at the same time nationalist expressions and imaginations have intensified (Abowitz & Harnish 2006). Many European nations endeavour to be aware of and regulate the values of their citizens – for example, through education (Himanen 2012). However, this regulation often seems to focus on certain groups especially – Muslims, in particular, who seem to have become “the critical case of multiculturalism” in many liberal societies, since their religious values are often perceived to be in opposition to liberal discourses of individual rights and secularism (Modood 2011). In state-organised religious education, for example, the aim is often that students internalize national values associated with democratic liberalism and human rights discourse, but these forms of liberal educational practices have also been seen as “othering” towards non-Western worldviews (Rissanen 2018; Poulter, Riitaoja & Kuusisto 2015). Finnish teachers are also extremely oriented towards promoting mutual democratic values, but their willingness to recognise diversity and, in particular, to support the integration of 236 Inkeri Rissanen, Arniika Kuusisto and Elina Kuusisto eero ropo & riitta jaatinen (Eds) Muslim students in school and society is not very strong (Rissanen, Kuusisto & Tirri 2015). However, in many multicultural educational approaches, religion is a silenced aspect (see, e.g, White 2009), and only recently have some of the advocates of multicultural education began to include religion and worldviews in the discussions (see, e.g, Banks 2009). Nevertheless, there seem to be disparate challenges in dealing with the diversity of religions in education. In secularized societies, teachers who have no personal connection to a religious way of life sometimes have difficulties in recognizing religious identities and accepting their influence in schools and kindergartens. Even teachers with positive attitudes towards diversity in general sometimes find it difficult to empathize with religious families and understand their needs and wishes. (Rissanen, Kuusisto & Kuusisto 2016; Kuusisto 2011; Kuusisto & Lamminmäki-Vartia 2012.) In regard to religion, teacher’s ideals of colour-blindness appear to be particularly prominent. In the Finnish context, religious minorities are among the forms of diversity that are most poorly recognised by teachers (Jokikokko 2005). However, recognition and appraisal of students’ religion and culture increases their dignity and feeling of belonging, contribute positively to personal development, and are important strategies in fighting against the educational disadvantages of some minority students (Ipgrave 2010; Byfield 2008). Thus, in addition to intercultural sensitivity, teachers’ ‘pedagogical toolkit’ is in dire need of the interreligious sensitivity component (Kuusisto, Kuusisto, Rissanen & Lamminmäki-Vartia 2015). It has also been acknowledged that there are some important qualitative differences between intercultural and interreligious sensitivities. According to Abu-Nimer (2001), Bennett’s model of intercultural sensitivity operates at a general level and overlooks religion, even if religion typically forms an essential part of cultural identity. Abu-Nimer states that religion can even become a hindrance to the development of cultural sensitivity, as it exerts such a strong Developing interreligious competence in teacher education 237Subject teacher education in transition influence on individual cultural behaviour and on the views of people and groups (Abu-Nimer 2001; Kuusisto & LamminmäkiVartia 2012). Similar to Bennett’s model, Abu-Nimer’s Model of Interreligious Sensitivity (2001) also includes religiocentric and religiorelative orientations. However, according to Abu-Nimer, the levels of adaptation and integration are not reasonable or desirable goals for interreligious sensitivity, as the self-understandings and truth claims of religions differ from cultural claims (Abu-Nimer 2001, 687–701). Thus, in an educational context, the goal would be to reach the level of acceptance of religions or even acquire some adaptation skills, such as empathy (Holm, Nokelainen & Tirri 2014). However, religious adaptation in terms of integration and syncretism is beyond the purpose of education, and could be regarded as practices that misrecognise the religious identities of many students. Although intercultural and interreligious sensitivities only form a part of a bigger whole of moral sensitivities (Tirri & Nokelainen 2011), the lack of them can generate significant harm through oppressive and disregarding attitudes and practices. Both intercultural and interreligious sensitivities can be seen to set the very foundation into the development of intercultural and interreligious competences in teacher education. (Kuusisto, Kuusisto, Rissanen & LamminmäkiVartia 2015.) It is also important to recognise their qualitative differences in order to understand the particular issues related to dealing with religions in education. Interreligious sensitivity, and the increased ability to recognise religious differences that comes with it, forms a ground for teacher’s interreligious competence, but there are good reasons to begin a more careful consideration of other factors also —behavioural and cognitive aspects —that could be included. Furthermore, development of the students’ interreligious competence in teacher education is an issue that critically deserves more attention in both research and practice. 238 Inkeri Rissanen, Arniika Kuusisto and Elina Kuusisto eero ropo & riitta jaatinen (Eds) Finnish societal context Multicultural and multireligious Finland? In Finland, there is an official multiculturalist orientation which means, for example, that there are efforts to meet the cultural needs of immigrants in schools. However, there seems to be a gap between official idealistic principles and the practical reality (Saukkonen 2013). Many teachers think that the atmosphere and attitudes in Finnish schools are still characterized by a dominant monoculturalism. In Finland, as well as in other Nordic countries, the combination of Protestantism and secularism has been distinguished as “Secular Lutheranism”, which seems to hold the position of a hegemonic worldview, setting the more confessional Lutheran worldviews into the position of “Other” (Poulter, Riitaoja & Kuusisto 2015). Despite the increasing religious pluralization during the last few decades, mainly explained by secularization and immigration, most Finnish people (roughly 70 percent today) still belong to the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland. However, in comparison to other European countries, Finland has only a small number of strongly religious citizens and also relatively few who would consider themselves completely non-religious. Attitudes towards intense religiosity are relatively negative, and exclusivist religious views are regarded as forms of intolerance. However, Christianity as a tradition is valued positively, which probably reflects the exceptionally strong link between the Lutheran religion and national identity in Finland. Furthermore, in Finland, attitudes towards Muslims are among the most negative in Europe (Ketola 2011a; Ketola 2011b). Developing interreligious competence in teacher education 239Subject teacher education in transition Developing teacher’s intercultural and interreligious competence in Finnish teacher education Finnish teacher education is highly regarded, partly due to Finnish pupils’ academic achievement in international comparisons such as PISA. Both primary school teacher education (MA in Education) and kindergarten teacher education (BA degree) are university degrees. Furthermore, subject teachers complete a master’s degree in their subject, which also includes teachers’ pedagogical studies (60 ECTS). Teacher education curricula are research based, and the aim has been to educate research-oriented, autonomous and reflective teachers who are willing to continuously develop their teaching (Tirri 2014). Thus, the level of expertise in teacher education, in general terms, is excellent. However, societal values and aims are naturally always reflected in university education, too, both in the outlined aims and contents and, to some extent, in the emphases and other implementation factors of each individual staff member. Continuous development of the teacher education system is needed since new challenges arise as society changes (Hökkä & Eteläpelto 2014). One of the most important challenges is the increasing multiculturalism: according to the PISA 2012 data, the achievements of first and second generation immigrant students in Finland are on an alarming level (Harju-Luukkainen et al. 2014, 106). Furthermore, according to previous research, even though Finnish teachers typically view themselves as being responsible for the personal and ethical growth of their students, they need more education in the domain of moral sensitivities including intercultural and interreligious sensitivity (Tirri 2011; Hanhimäki & Tirri 2009; Tirri & Nokelainen 2011). There is some variation in the aims and contents of the courses related to intercultural education depending on the particular institutions offering teacher education degrees. In primary school teacher education, the variance is significantly smaller. This is perhaps partly due to the fact that the curriculum guidelines 246 Inkeri Rissanen, Arniika Kuusisto and Elina Kuusisto eero ropo & riitta jaatinen (Eds) positive influence on the attitudes of all the student teachers, i.e. the perceptions of Muslim families as demanding and difficult seemed to be reinforced. Thus, the observations in previous studies of earlier experiences, beliefs and personal traits functioning as a filter for learning (Garmon 1996; 2004) were, in some respect, also confirmed by this study. However, for most students, their increased understanding and empathy correlated with a (self-evaluated) behavioural change towards more dialogic and attentive ways of dealing with difference; in particular, their willingness to negotiate with the parents and learn to understand their educational ideals had increased. All in all, the course seemed to have induced both an attitudinal change of increased recognition of religion as well as changed ideals of how cultural and religious diversity should be dealt with in practice. The focus had shifted towards positive recognition and seeing diversity as a resource. One interesting finding of the study was the strong emergence of the ideal of neutrality in student teachers’ pre-tasks. When reflecting on their ways of dealing with religious diversity, especially, the student teachers’ statements related to a post-modern liberal and relativistic worldview (for example, students should be taught that all religions are equally true or that religion is a private matter), but represented these as acts promoting neutrality in education. These observations support the view that in Scandinavian contexts, strong ideals of the perceived ‘ideological neutrality’ in education exist, while the mediation of fundamental national values based on liberal Protestant secularism is regarded as an important educational aim (Berglund 2013; Rissanen, Kuusisto & Tirri 2015; Poulter, Riitaoja & Kuusisto 2015). Furthermore, these views also reflect the negative attitudes of Finns to exclusivist truth claims and visible forms of religiosity (Ketola 2011b). However, these ideals seemed to be, in some respect, questioned by the student teachers during the course due to increased understanding of Muslim identities as well as discussions on politics of recognition (see, e.g., Taylor 1992). One of the topics of the course Developing interreligious competence in teacher education 247Subject teacher education in transition was politics of recognition, the implications of which in educational contexts were discussed and compared to politics of similarity and politics of difference. Politics of recognition is grounded on the idea that identities are defined in dialogue with the attributes other people see in us, and it encourages an open and interested attitude towards difference but does not entail an uncritical “celebration of diversity” (Taylor 1992). These discussions led the student teachers to change some of their ideals related to very practical questions in schools and kindergartens. For example, instead of idealising “neutral” festivities and “colour-blind” practices, the student teachers had more multiculturalist ideas in the post-task. Their ideals had shifted from restricting and “thinning” the educational content for everyone and “the culture of cutting off” (Kalliala 2001; 2005; Kuusisto & Lamminmäki-Vartia 2012) towards seeing the value of different cultures and religions as resources, also. This change is reflected in the course diary of a student teacher who already had quite a lot of teaching experience: My aim should not only be to adapt them (immigrant families) to the Finnish kindergarten, but also to enrich my class with their knowledge and practices. Many lost opportunities, where I could have paid more attention to multicultural children and their families, come to my mind. Surely I have acted with my best understanding and skills in these situations, but now I feel I have almost offended a couple of families with my ignorance. When I go back to work, I hope I will remember what I have learned here, be able to act better and be more conscious of the different habits of families. I am very happy I participated in this course (student 2). (Rissanen, Kuusisto & Kuusisto 2016.) Furthermore, increased knowledge generated through recent research results concerning the impact of recognition to the academic achievement of minority groups (see, e.g., Byfield 2008; Ipgrave 2010; Cohen, Garcia, Apfel & Master 2006), the course had also changed 248 Inkeri Rissanen, Arniika Kuusisto and Elina Kuusisto eero ropo & riitta jaatinen (Eds) the student teachers’ ideas of the practices to support minority students’ learning and achievement. Before the course, most of the students regarded only language issues as the main reason for the achievement gap, and they wanted to concentrate mostly on them in their practices. However, after the course they had added recognition as well as the promotion of commonality and cooperation to their solutions. Increasing self-awareness and self-efficacy In addition to self-evaluated changes in student teachers’ attitudes and practices, important processes during the course included improvements in self-awareness and self-efficacy. The pre-tasks gave the impression that student teachers’ ideals of dealing with difference were mainly focused on how they should understand and communicate with others; however, during the course they began to understand the significance of being aware of their own worldview, attitudes and ways of acting to their intercultural competence. The student teachers’ inability to see the ideologically laden and culturally rooted nature of their own ideals of dealing with difference, as brought forth in their pre-tasks, illustrates the need for better awareness of one’s own worldview (see also Kuusisto & Lamminmäki-Vartia 2012). The majority culture tends to have blind spots and without the willingness to self-reflect, values related to liberal Protestant secularism could, in this way, become confused with neutralism and lead to new forms of imperialistic educational practices (see also Rissanen 2014, 142-144; Berglund 2013; Poulter, Riitaoja & Kuusisto 2015). All teachers, whether they do it intentionally or not, transmit values in the classroom — the tone of voice or even silence as an answer to a child’s religious question, for example, is enough for this type of situation to evolve (e.g. Holm 2005). Thus, particularly in multicultural contexts, the willingness of teachers to reflect and work on their own worldviews and the impact of cultural or religious Developing interreligious competence in teacher education 249Subject teacher education in transition ideals, beliefs and values in their pedagogical approach and the actual educational practices is an essential part of their intercultural and interreligious competence (see also Kuusisto & Lamminmäki-Vartia 2012). In the course of this study, the student teachers were asked to reflect on their own values, worldviews and the influence of these on their educational ideals and pedagogical practices. This was regarded as a starting point for developing sensitivity towards others. M.J. Bennett’s six-stage theory of intercultural sensitivity (Bennett 1993, 2008) appeared to function as a useful pedagogical tool in inducing student teachers’ self-awareness. In the first lesson, the students were asked to reflect on their own thinking in the light of Bennett’s theory. This had provoked intensive and long-lasting thinking processes which was illustrated in the learning diary data. Many of the student teachers considered the reflections on Bennett’s theory to be an important wake-up call that made them aware of flaws in their own thinking and engendered a willingness to reflect critically on their own attitudes. This was also the case in the experiences of the following student teacher: The most important outcome of this course that I will surely remember forever was Bennett’s developmental model, and how I realised I might not be as interculturally sensitive as I had thought and hoped. It woke me up to actively reflect on how I could develop my openness and my ability to accept and pay attention to those who see things differently. (student 3) (Rissanen, Kuusisto & Kuusisto 2016.) Furthermore, the course seemed to have a two-way impact on the student teachers in that, on the one hand, their self-awareness and constructive self-criticism increased and they began to feel a stronger need to develop their intercultural and interreligious competences. On the other hand, they also achieved a stronger sense of self-efficacy and more trust in their ability to deal with diversity in practice. For example, they felt a need to seek help from other members of 250 Inkeri Rissanen, Arniika Kuusisto and Elina Kuusisto eero ropo & riitta jaatinen (Eds) the school/kindergarten staff in challenging situations and started to reflect on the practices of their work communities from a more expert perspective in light of the theoretical knowledge they had achieved during the course. It was interesting to notice that the ability to argue for their personal views based on theoretical grounds seemed to increase the student teachers’ feelings of competence. This was especially so for those students with more practical experience and those from primary school teacher, subject teacher and adult education programmes. The way in which the increased theoretical understanding seemed to support these student teachers’ confidence and sense of efficacy probably reflects the academic emphasis in the teaching profession in Finland: many teachers do, indeed, want to develop their professional identities as academic experts (Tirri 2014). Discussion Bearing in mind the role of religion in contemporary acute political issues, barriers built between secular and religious citizens, as well as the sacred nature of religious identification for some students, it is reasonable to state that besides intercultural sensitivity, teachers need interreligious sensitivity. Interreligious sensitivity enables recognition of religions/religious identities and forms a basis for interreligious competence. However, in addition to the importance of paying more attention to the notion of interreligious sensitivity, we think it is important to develop an understanding of interreligious competence in which its cognitive and behavioral dimensions would also be included. On the basis of our studies, we suggest some factors relevant in developing teachers’ interreligious competence. Knowledge of religions and especially of “lived religion”, i.e. the daily realities of religious individuals and groups, seems to be of great importance in supporting student teacher’s empathetic attitudes and willingness to Developing interreligious competence in teacher education 251Subject teacher education in transition openly encounter religions. Furthermore, understanding the internal plurality of religious traditions clears confusions and supports the willingness to encounter students and their families as individuals. By developing the cognitive dimension of interreligious competence through increasing knowledge of religion, it is possible to develop the behavioural dimension. In the pilot course of our study, the student teachers’ increased knowledge enhanced their willingness openly communicate with students and their parents about their religious needs/wishes without considering them as taboos or private matters. Being interreligiously competent also requires that teachers understand issues and negotiations related to the public role of religion in contemporary society and are able to mediate these negotiations constructively in their own multi-religious educational communities. One important implication of our study is the need to help student teachers understand that the views they hold about religion are not neutral but based on a certain ideological framework, and they should learn to see when these views contradict the convictions and truth claims of some traditions. For example, when ideals of tolerance are based on the liberal relativistic framework, they may contradict the ideals of tolerance based on the teachings of a religious tradition. To be able to support their students who often balance between these different frameworks and whose identity negotiations are complicated by the conflicting demands from school and their families, teachers need to understand the different frameworks and also be able to reflect on their own stance. An important factor in interreligious competence is the ability of teachers to reflect on their own worldviews and the cultural or religious roots of their own ideals and values. Thus, despite using the term interreligious competence, we acknowledge the need to pay equal attention to both religious and non-religious worldviews and support teachers’ capacity to recognise their influence as part of their own and their students’ identities (see Kuusisto, Kuusisto & Kallioniemi 2014; Kuusisto & LamminmäkiVartia 2012). 252 Inkeri Rissanen, Arniika Kuusisto and Elina Kuusisto eero ropo & riitta jaatinen (Eds) We are rather optimistic about the possibilities to develop these competences in teacher education. Our studies, as well as our experiences as teacher educators, have convinced us of the strong motivation of student teachers, who have experiences in working in multicultural contexts, to develop their intercultural and interreligious competences as part of their studies. Despite the proven power of such courses in teacher education that combine extensive field experiences with personal reflections, much can also be done in theory-based courses. In research-based teacher education, theories can be used as pedagogical tools that induce self-reflection and help teachers do research and develop their pedagogical practices, and in this way increase their feelings of competence. A good example of this in our case course was how the developmental model of intercultural sensitivity by M.J. Bennett induced very intensive self-reflections in the student teachers. However, in order to further develop the notions of teacher’s intercultural and interreligious competence as well as to increase understanding of the most effective ways of developing them in teacher education, more research is needed. Developing interreligious competence in teacher education 253Subject teacher education in transition References Abowitz, K.K. & Harnish, J. 2006. Contemporary discourses on citizenship. Review of educational research 76(4), 653–690. Abu-Nimer, M. 2001. Conflict Resolution, Culture, and Religion: Toward a Training Model of Interreligious Peacebuilding. Journal of Peace Research 38 (6), 685–704. Adams, A., Bondy, E. & Kuhel, K. 2005. Preservice teacher learning in an unfamiliar setting. Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(2), 41–62. Banks, J. A. (Ed.) 2009. The Routledge International Companion to Multicultural Education. New York: Routledge. Bennett, M.J. 1993. Towards Ethnorelativism: A Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity. In M.R. Paige (ed.) Education for the Intercultural Experience Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press, 21–72. Bennett, M.J. 2008. On becoming a global soul. In V. Svicki (ed.) Developing intercultural competence and transformation: Theory, research and application in international education. Sterling: Stylus, 13–31. Berglund, J. 2013. Swedish religion education: Objective but Marinated in Lutheran Protestantism? Temenos 49(2), 165–184. Berry, L. B. & Southwell, L. 2011. Developing intercultural understanding and skills: models and approaches. Intercultural education 22(6), 453–466. Brydon-Miller, M. & Maguire, P. 2009. Participatory action research: contributions to the development of practitioner inquiry in education. Educational Action Research 17 (1), 79–93. Byfield, C. 2008. The impact of religion on the educational achievement of Black boys: A UK and USA study. British Journal of Sociology of Education 29(2), 189–199. Byram, M. 1997. Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Causey, V.E., Thomas, C.D. & Armento, B.J. 2000. Cultural diversity is basically a foreign term to me: the challenges of diversity for preservice teacher education. Teaching and teacher education 16(1), 33–45. Chen, G.M. & Starosta, W.F. 1998. The development and validation of the Intercultural Sensitivity Scale. Human Communication 3, 1–15. 254 Inkeri Rissanen, Arniika Kuusisto and Elina Kuusisto eero ropo & riitta jaatinen (Eds) Cohen, C.L., Garcia, J., Apfel, N. & Master, A. 2006. Reducing the racial achievement gap: A social-psychological intervention. Science 313 (5791), 1307–1310. Cushner, K. & Brennan, S. (eds.) 2007. Intercultural student teaching: A bridge to global competence. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education. DeJaeghere, J.G. & Zhang, Y. 2008. Development of intercultural competence among US American teachers: professional development factors that enhance competence. Intercultural Education 19(3), 255–268. Garmon, M.A. 1996. Missed Messages: How Prospective Teachers’ Racial Attitudes Mediate what They Learn from a Course on Diversity. Michigan: Michigan State University. Garmon, M.A. 2004. Changing Preservice Teachers’ Attitudes/Beliefs About Diversity. What are the Critical Factors? Journal of Teacher Education 55(3), 201–213. Habermas, J. 2006. Religion in the public sphere. European Journal of Philosophy 14(1), 1–25. Hammer, M.R., Bennett, M.J. & Wisemanc, R. 2003. Measuring intercultural sensitivity: the intercultural development inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27(4), 421–443. Hanhimäki, E. & Tirri K. 2009. Education for Ethically Sensitive Teaching in Critical Incidents at School. Journal of Education for Teaching 35 (2): 107–121. Harju-Luukkainen, H., Nissinen, K., Sulkunen, S., Suni, M. & Vettenranta, J. 2014. Avaimet osaamiseen ja tulevaisuuteen. Selvitys maahanmuuttajataustaisten nuorten osaamisesta ja siihen liittyvistä taustatekijöistä PISA 2012 -tutkimuksessa. Jyväskylä: Koulutuksen tutkimuslaitos. Himanen, T. 2012. Cultural Diversity, Social Cohesion, Religion: Core Values and Educational Policies in Four European Nations. Turku: University of Turku. Holm, N. G. 2005. Kehityspsykologisia näkemyksiä uskontokasvatukseen [Perspectives of Developmental Psychology to Religious Education]. In P. Hilska, A. Kallioniemi, & J. Luodeslampi (eds.) Uskontokasvatus monikulttuurisessa maailmassa [Religious Education in a Multicultural World]. Helsinki: Kirjapaja, 57–58. Holm, K. 2012. Ethical, Intercultural and Interreligious Sensitivities. A Case Study of Finnish Urban Secondary School Students. Münster: Waxmann. Developing interreligious competence in teacher education 255Subject teacher education in transition Holm, K., Nokelainen, P., & Tirri, K. 2009. Relationship of Gender and Academic Achievement to Finnish Students’ Intercultural Sensitivity. High Ability Studies 20(2), 187–200. doi.org/ 10.1080/13598130903358543 Holm, K., Nokelainen, P., & Tirri, K. 2011. Intercultural and Interreligious Sensitivity Scales. In K. Tirri & P. Nokelainen (eds.) Measuring Multiple Intelligences and Moral Sensitivities in Education. Rotterdam: Sense, 101–120. Holm, K., Nokelainen, P., & Tirri, K. 2014. Finnish Secondary School Students’ Interreligious Sensitivity. British Journal of Religious Education, 36 (3), 315–331. doi.org/10.1080/01416200.2014.902807. Hökkä, P. & Eteläpelto, A. 2014. Seeking new perspectives on the development of teacher education: A study of the Finnish context. Journal of Teacher Education 65(1), 39–52. Ipgrave, J. 2010. Including the Religious Viewpoints and Experiences of Muslim Students in an Environment that is Both Plural and Secular. Journal of international migration and integration 11(1), 5–22. Jokikokko, K. 2005. Interculturally trained Finnish teachers’ conceptions of diversity and intercultural competence. Intercultural Education 16(1), 69–83. Kalliala, M. 2001. Sanoista tekoihin ja tekemättömyyteen - uskontokasvatuksen arki päiväkodissa. In J. Salminen (ed.) Varhaiskasvatuksen uskontokasvatus. Studia Paedagogica 24. Helsinki: Department of Teacher Education, 163–191. Kalliala, M. 2005. Varhaiskasvatuksen uskontokasvatuksen mahdollisuudet moniuskontoisessa yhteiskunnassa. In P. Hilska, A. Kallioniemi & J. Luodeslampi (eds.) Uskontokasvatus monikulttuurisessa maailmassa. Helsinki: Kirjapaja Oy, 141–176. Ketola, K. 2011a. Suomalaisten uskonnollisuus. [Religiosity in Finland.] In K. Ketola, K. Niemelä, H. Palmu & H. Salomäki (eds.) Uskonto suomalaisten elämässä.[Religion in the lives of Finns]. Tampere: Yhteiskuntatieteellinen tietoarkisto, 7–24. Ketola, K. 2011b. Suomalaisten uskonnollinen suvaitsevaisuus. [Religious tolerance among Finns.] In K. Ketola, K. Niemelä, H. Palmu & H. Salomäki (eds.) Uskonto suomalaisten elämässä.[Religion in the lives of Finns]. Tampere: Yhteiskuntatieteellinen tietoarkisto, 60–89.