Understanding Peace and Peace Education in International Contexts

Considering these approaches under the larger umbrella of peace education can be dangerous (Salomon, 2002). Profound differences exist between the various approaches including peace education, and questions need to be asked about the purposes for which a particular program is designed. In peace education it is necessary to know the type of peace involved, the sociopolitical context, desired outcome and on what level, macro, i.e. global, or micro, i.e. individual or collective, and finally the status of the participants. Because peace education is about making peace with an adversary it is necessary to identify the political, economic and social status of each group in order to create peace curricula that is relevant to that society (Bar-Tal, 2002). Most of the literature on peace educative efforts uses this format to clearly describe the setting, further emphasizing the importance of these questions when investigating the use of peace education. The focus of each educational approach is inherent in its name, and while there is no question that these approaches progress towards peace, there are underlying concepts and unique purposes for each. With an understanding of the distinctions, educators can better combine approaches to meet the needs of the community thereby meeting more holistic goals.

As the definition of peace evolved so did the goals of peace education. Initially, the aim of peace education was to address the violence of war. The feminist perspective, a catalyst in this evolution, advanced the focus to global issues of feminism and disarmament, global citizenship and planetary stewardship (Reardon, 1988). Peace education objectives were further enhanced as the humanist perspective was embraced due to an increase in violence related to interethnic conflict (Harris, 2002). To meet the current needs of peace education programs, Harris & Morrison (2003) offer ten goals: appreciate richness of the concept of peace, address fears, provide information about security systems, understand violent behaviors, develop intercultural understanding, provide for a future orientation, teacher peace as a process, promote a concept of peace accompanied by social justice, stimulate a respect for life, end violence. Put more simply, Bar-Tal (2002) believes peace education programs aim “to foster changes that will make the world a better humane place” and “to eradicate a variety of human ills” (p. 28).

The goals of peace education also depend on the context in which the curriculum is implemented. In the United States, peace education may focus on prejudice, structural violence, and environmental issues (Harris, 2002). In Israel-Palestine, Rwanda, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cyprus, and Northern Ireland the goals are to change collective narratives (Salomon, 2002; Cairns & Hewstone, 2002; Mukarubuga, 2002; Danesh, 2006; Hadjipavlou, 2007; McGlynn, 2007). Educating to relieve interracial tension is the heart of peace education in Belgium (Leman, 2002). To understand the goals of peace education in a particular society, one need only to look at the political, societal, and economic makeup in that context. The goals of peace education are unique in that each society constructs its own meaning of peace. For this reason, there are several societal and pedagogical implications that determine how peace education will be carried out.

What comprises peace education in a particular society depends on the issues facing that society. Understandings about what it means to live peacefully and the level of commitment to peace education can vary. Peace education requires a change in values and transformation to specific world views. Not all in a society may agree on the goals and curriculum of a peace education program in that it may threaten ideologies held by one group. Therefore compromise and adaptation are part of the societal agreement. When a commitment is made to educate about and for peace, it must expand beyond the schools. Peace education must be embraced in such a way that a peace culture is formed. This peace culture extends beyond education and into the every days lives of the societal members. Peace transformations are difficult on the individual level, and on the societal level, it is even more so. Along with these societal implications, the pedagogy of peace education poses some challenges as well.
Bar-Tal (2002) outlines the pedagogical implications of peace education which contribute to the lack of conceptual clarity among educators. Peace education is an orientation which provides a lens through which learners view their world, whether that world is the subject of math, history, language arts, etc. This orientation, however, can be constrained by those who make the decisions about curriculum development or the inclusion of current events in lessons. Peace education contradicts traditional approaches to education because it requires visiting alternative views, critical thinking, and creativity (Harris, 2002). It also requires that teachers develop new methods within the framework of peace education.

Peace education needs to be relevant to learners. Learning is meaningful when it is situated in the context of use (Brown, Collins, Duguid, 1989). The contexts of peace issues are replete with controversy and require discussions that connect to real-life examples. Peace education aims to transform beliefs and the internalization process requires experiential learning. This type of learning is not practiced by all teachers and requires expertise to carry through. Along these lines, the use of peace education objectives and methods is teacher dependent. Finally, peace education programs are difficult to evaluate. Traditional assessments are not designed to measure the outcomes of peace programs. Attempts to design evaluation programs are in progress (Nevo & Brem, 2002) and evaluations of these evaluations have mainly produced cautionary remarks.
In the face of these challenges, peace education may be viewed as a lost cause. It is this seemingly impossible mission which makes education the logical vehicle for societal transformation. Educators are in education for the long haul (Reardon, 1988) and educative efforts for and about peace require long term commitments on the societal level. Peace education offers not a guarantee for peace but a hope for a better future. The ideals of peace education provide a model and a vision of what a world without conflict, violence and disparity would look like. It is in this spirit that educators find the strength to overcome the challenges and continue to use peace education for change.

Peace educators continue to find ways to better understand peace education despite its elusiveness. Having experience and knowledge in one context does not necessarily translate to another context. For that reason, conceptual clarity might be achieved by finding similarities or categorizing factors that might prove useful. In order to better clarify the different ways peace education is used, Salomon (2002) makes a distinction peace education programs based upon where the peace education takes place. Programs can be classified as those that take place in intractable regions, interethnic regions, or regions of experienced tranquility. Intractable regions are those in which real adversaries are in violent conflict. The conflict between groups is deep rooted, fueled by severe inequalities, and resides in the collective memory. Interethnic regions may not experience overt violence, but racial tensions between majority and minority groups exist. These tensions have a historical basis as a result of past conquests or a disparity of resources. Peace education also takes place in regions where adversarial conditions do not exist. When peace education is practiced in regions in which adversarial conditions do not exist then education centers around teaching about peace rather than teaching for peace. In this context, the society is focused on more global issues of peace and the development of awareness about global conflict.

Using this classification system helps determine the elements that might be included in a particular peace education program. Peace education in intractable regions needs to focus on conflicts between groups rather than individuals and the changing of the group mindset and collective narrative. Interethnic regions might use peace education to “concretize multicultural perspectives” (Leman, 2002, p.168). Therefore, aspects of multicultural education are predominant forces in supporting peace education efforts in these regions. For regions that are in experienced tranquility, bystandership (Staub, 2002), the development of awareness and concern for others embroiled in conflict regions and the responsibility to take action against violence, is likely part of peace curriculum.

Because cultural influences and situations ultimately define peace and the goals of peace education, developing a one-size-fits- all or a homogeneous peace curriculum is not possible. Beyond the contextual concerns of a peace education program, there are recommendations and examples developed by peace educators for what peace education curriculum should look like. Peace curriculum has taken on different faces as peace research emerged and as violence in different contexts appeared. Peace education programs range from informal recommendations to value-laden formal to intensively integrative programs. Boulding (1990) approaches the craft and skill of doing peace through structured workshop activities that closely connect reflection, action, imagining. Reardon’s (1988) comprehensive peace education includes peace education at every level of formal education, and in all subject areas. Comprehensive peace education is based on three value concepts: planetary stewardship, global citizenship, and humane relationships. Comprehensive peace education strives for inner transformation and a sense of global citizenship. The objectives of this type of program is educating about and educating for peace, however, Reardon (1988) sees this type of program as a “framework for all social learning and…all formal learning” (p. 74).

Harris and Morrison (2003) confront the development of peace education curriculum from the perspective that anyone can do it by stating, “An individual may wake up one day feeling a desire to do something to make the world safer and more just” (p.97). They recommend that only two things are needed to begin the process: resources and like-minded educators. This approach can motivate teachers into action and spur grass roots approaches. However, this approach can also be very misleading as peace education is multifaceted and complex. Harris & Morrison (2003) acknowledge the importance of both informal programs and programs in school settings. In school settings, these peace educators outline suggestions for the development of a democratic and peaceful classroom, and the infusion of peace education across curricula, such as using authentic problems of conflict, violence, and disparity in conjunction with mathematics, history, language arts, etc. They warn of the possibility that the concepts of peace might be lost within the subject area and relegated as simple examples without emphasis on the importance of peace issues. While this may be true, Salomon’s (2002) categorization of the contexts in which peace education is used reminds us that infusion of peace education as suggested by Harris and Morrison (2003) would most likely be appropriate used in regions that are experiencing tranquility or low levels of interethnic tensions.

Norway, currently ranked as the most peaceful country in the world by the Economic Intelligence Unit, peace institutions and experts throughout the world, would most likely be able to embrace the peace education curriculum presented by Harris and Morrison (2003) because it is a country experiencing tranquility. Norway has not always had the mindset towards peace or the resources to support peace efforts. Norwegians have experienced their share of war and occupation. The importance of Norway in the context of peace and peace education is how they became a peace superpower and how their example may give hope to those countries emerging from conflict. Norway’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Jonas Gahr Store (2006), attributed the country’s success in the realm of peace to social democracy, which supported a historical and consistent movement towards building a peaceful Norwegian society and a political tenet that “no one becomes worse off when everyone becomes better off” (n.p.). This philosophy has been infused into all aspects of Norwegian life over a long period of time, embraced by Norwegians, and has enabled Norway to enjoy sustainable peace in every day life. Norwegians view themselves as deeply committed to not only wanting peace but doing peace. The international community views Norway as a leader in human rights issues as evidenced in its peace ranking. The literature on Norwegian peace education efforts within the country is scarce and rightly so. Once sustainable peace education programs are established and working, countries successful in achieving tranquility are able to focus on peace education efforts on international levels.

With practice in peace policy and education development over many years, Norwegians are now able to implement abroad what has worked for them at home. Store (2006) described the elements of Norway’s peace processes that are now used in international contexts as including consistent involvement in a small number of projects, a long term approach, an awareness of the interaction between humanitarian efforts, development cooperation and peace efforts, cooperation with non-government organizations (NGOs) and the civil society, and a close relationship with the international community through cooperative efforts. By focusing on consistency and use of long-term strategies in only a few projects at a time, Norway attempts to ensure that projects reach a successful completion. Humanitarian efforts allow Norwegians to make contacts in conflict regions, enabling them to become a part of the peace process. Norway’s strategy in working with NGOs and conflict societies is to work across these entities. This allows for some coordination of resources ensuring that time, money, and human resources are utilized to their full potential. Relationships in the international community are strengthened in that Norway’s economic and political interests are transparent. Norway’s intentions towards other countries have not been influenced by colonialism. There are no hidden agendas in forming relationships or perhaps offering assistance in conflict regions, except perhaps to model and influence other countries to be peaceful.

Norway serves as an exemplar for peacefulness and plays an important role in peace efforts around the world. However, it also serves as a country to watch in that Norway’s humanitarian policies may open the country up to new issues, testing its current peace education efforts. Norway has been consistent in its immigration policy of equal treatment for all immigrants and has maintained this position through restrictive admission policies. Through these policies, Norway has remained relatively homogeneous. In its humanitarian efforts, however, the country plays host to a number of refugee groups and asylum seekers (Cooper, 2005). While these numbers are not huge, the trend is towards a more diverse population. With its high standard of living and commitment to human rights, Norway is fast becoming a desirable country for migrants from other Scandinavian countries as well as from Europe. Recent activity in the multilingual policies may indicate that the country is feeling the impact of increased diversity. Although not a member of the EU, Norway has recently aligned its multilingual policies with the EU charter to include three minority languages which have been spoken in the country for centuries (Egeland, 2005). Recognition of these languages ensures that speakers of the minority languages have opportunities in schools to speak their mother tongue. Norway already has two official languages. Fourteen dominating immigrant languages are currently represented in Norway. It will be interesting to see if Norway’s peace practices withstand the changing times. There are other regions with more recent experiences with changing demographics, and Norway may look to Belgium as a model for infusing multiculturalism with peace education in schools to address issues among diverse populations.

In regions that experience interethnic tensions without overt acts of aggression, different strategies in peace education may be used. Belgium is divided into three distinct areas characterized by the majority use of one of three languages, Flemish, French, and German. There is much overlap in the use of these languages within each region and because of Belgium’s relaxed citizenship policies and the ease in which one can obtain dual citizenship; the country has seen recent increases in immigration from non-European areas. Peace education is reported to be accomplished on two levels. The first is in the schools through multicultural and trilingual education. The emphasis is in knowing and understanding the concepts of diversity as well as mastering the dominant languages spoken across Belgium. The second level is in the police force through antiracism training. The emphasis is learning how to deal with prejudices both within the police force and among the community, to develop activities to bring diverse populations together with the police force, such as community soccer matches, and to initiate campaigns to recruit diverse populations into the police force. As with many peace education efforts there is no evaluation on the success of these programs other than the fact that they have continued to grow in the past ten years (Leman, 2002).
Salomon (2002) proposed a model for peace education in regions of conflict, in which the changing of perceptions of others’ collective narratives is the outcome. This is achieved through the legitimization of the adversary’s collective narrative, critical examination of one’s own group’s contribution to the conflict, development of empathy for the suffering of the adversary as a group and the engagement in nonviolent activities. This model has been used for intractable regions in the form of storytelling activities and programs focused on friendship building and contact (Bar-On, 2002; Kadushin & Livert, 2002). Here the changing of mindsets is a central goal for peace education. Several examples of this model are used in peace education today such as in the Israel-Palestinian context.

Efforts in peace education in the Israeli-Palestinian context are implemented mostly through exchanges of collective narratives and stories, developing understanding about the culture and language of adversaries, and opportunities for increased interaction. In following the Salomon model, legitimizing collective stories, acknowledging responsibilities for roles in the conflict, developing empathy for the others, and engaging in non-violent activities, peace education takes form in projects that are grounded in Allport’s contact theory (1954). Projects such as the NIR for Heart school for high school students interested in medicine, bring together Israelis Jews, Palestinians living the Palestinian Authority and Jordanians in close contact (Tal-Or, Boninger, & Gleicher, 2002). The project supports intense contact as students live and collaborate together for extended periods of time while they develop intergroup projects. All students are of equal age. The collaborative intergroup interactions for extended periods of time in situations where individuals are equal to each other are features of contact theory. To date, this project has not been evaluated and suffers from interruptions due to frequent outbreaks of conflict that tend to be the norm in this region.

From another view, Kadushin and Livert (2002) brought together the theories of contact and friendship to inform the literature on how contact theory can describe the processes needed towards friendship and with friendship being “the most fragile yet most far reaching consequence of contact” (p.118). The researchers recommended that the University of Haifa might be instrumental in fostering friendships among university students by supporting “subsidized, integrated Arab-Jewish student living facilities” (p.124). As part of a learning institute, university students might be more open-minded to the process and good candidates to internalize peace philosophies. To date, the impact of such an arrangement has not been evaluated.
Conciliation storytelling is another strategy that has been used in the Israeli-Palestinian context in the form of a program called To Reflect and Trust (Bar-On, 2002). In this process, adversaries share stories and experiences with each other in the hope of developing empathy toward each other’s situation. This type of program was first used between Germans and Jews and was eventually tried in Northern Ireland and South Africa as well. The participant surveys revealed a new found empathy and revealed the difficulty in giving up one’s self-defining aspects of identity. This project concluded with more questions than it answered but like most projects of peace education, not enough time has passed for real transformations and impact to be seen.

Bilingual education is another approach used in Israel as a means to bring about awareness but has far to go as a viable part of a sustainable peace education program. While bilingual schools expose students to wider perspectives, there are challenges that impede progress. Typically, the minority language in the school is not emphasized (Nasser & Abu-Nimer, 2007; Bekerman, 2007). This models inequality. Often there are conflicting priorities that stem from meeting educational standards and incorporating the flexible and creative curriculum necessary to support a multicultural population (Nasser & Abu-Nimer, 2007). This constrains a teacher from taking advantage of “teachable moments” (Harris & Morrison, 2003. p.208) which have the power to transform classrooms. Nasser & Abu-Nimer (2007) contended that bilingual schools have the potential to be a vehicle for peace education because they provide opportunities for contact, institutionalizing equality, intercultural dialogue, and learning about other cultures.

Bekerman (2007) argued that while bilingual schools have been “successful in helping to reduce prejudice and alleviat[ing] conflict” (p. 101), in comparison with monolingual schools, bilingual students still maintain a strong identity-based world view. These schools rely on multiculturalism principles and approaches and need to place more emphasis on the unique features that peace education has to offer. The Israeli- Palestinian context is also a good example that the preconditions for the implementation of peace education must exist if the peace curriculum has a chance for success. Projects are frequently ended due to recurrence of violence (Tal-Or et al., 2002). In order for peace education to have any impact, there must be a political solution to establish a region of stability and a country-wide support system to allow the programs to flourish. These examples also illustrate various strategies used to change mindsets and offer more opportunities for adversaries to learn about the ‘other’. These examples do not add up to a systematic peace education policy. However, the on-going conflict and the state of violent outbreaks do not make this region suitable for a region-wide education reform that addresses peace issues, proving that larger political efforts must precede or coincide with peace education initiatives. The question arises as to exactly how effect these strategies can be in the face of continued conflict and whether or not time, money, and energy are wasted as projects are interrupted by violence.

Continuing violence is not the only obstacle to peace education. In the Republic of Cyprus, conflict resolution approaches have aided the unification of Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots under a new European identity but practices that preserve the stories and history of each ethnic group and thereby promote nationalistic beliefs in each group still remain. School activities continue to promote nationalistic views by celebrating motherlands’ days and nationalistic themes of each nation, perpetuating tensions between the two groups. Turkish Cypriots learn the Turkish point of view in history, language and civics. Greek Cypriots learn from their own group’s point of view. Rather than schools being a part of the solution, they have become part of the problem. Cross-ethnic dialogues and workshops conducted among educators from these two groups have resulted in recommendations about curriculum reforms. A shared curriculum needs to be adopted, extending beyond text books into films and radio broadcasts that depict each culture rather than one or the other (Hadjipavlou, 2007). In this way, schools become promoters of Cypriot citizenship and progressive institutions that use the history of both groups not to maintain cultural identities but to develop understandings about the interconnectedness among the cultures.

Northern Ireland is another example of a post conflict region where the institutions that should be supporting peace, are actually influencing the mindset of groups in ways that perpetuate segregation between groups. Unlike Israel, language is not an issue but the conflict between Catholics and Protestants has led to segregated schools and divided the country by religious beliefs. In comparison to Cyprus, the cultural and historical differences are not as great. Also, there is likely more natural contact between the Catholics and Protestants because these groups are not totally segregated into residential communities and groups will travel outside of their area to work whereas in Cyprus, Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots have been physically divided by the Green Line, instituted to keep warring factions apart (Johnson, 2007). Denominational schools are often constructed side by side. Primarily, peace building in Northern Ireland has consisted of contact opportunities. Universities in Northern Ireland are integrated and therefore offer relationship building across denominations. There are also course offerings at the university level and at the community level, adult education courses offer Peace education in Northern Ireland continues to develop with integrated education initiated through grass-root efforts on the part of parents.

These efforts are showing promise in the changing of identities and the acceptance of the other narrative (McGlynn, 2007). However, there are few integrated schools as both Catholic and Protestant Churches exert powerful influence over parents to educate children within their own religion. As a Catholic I am witness to the pressure the Church imposes on families to send children to Catholic schools. However as an American Catholic, I do not feel obligated to send my children to the Church school simply because I live in the United States where separation of church and state is valued. Parents in Northern Island feel more pressure from their churches as religion is not separate from state affairs. The case of Northern Ireland, as does Cyprus, illustrates the two faces of education. On the one hand, education can work as a solution towards peace but on the other hand, it is used to foster segregation among ethnic groups, identity-based views, and promotion of propaganda. The religious institutions that strive to teach peace in the context of religion are actually contributing to the issue of non-peace by creating divisions. In both the Catholic and the Protestant religions, peace is a foundational belief. Yet as an institution, each perpetuates the concept of non-peace by in the beliefs of segregated education. The hope may be in the desire of parents to send children to integrated schools but the small number of integrated schools currently established cannot accommodate all who wish to attend. Integrated education, however, does exist and with it comes the opportunity to build democratic classrooms in which sustainable peace educative efforts are possible.

Nigeria is an example of a country with numerous ethnic groups and languages and a region emerging from conflict. With government support, the country is implementing several initiatives with implications for peace education. With reform of the social studies curriculum, Nigerians have integrated citizenship and a national identity curriculum which has had adequate results. Teacher education and as well as schools are dedicated to creating a culture of peace, which has become the model for peace throughout the country. Researchers found equality in discussions, non-violent responses to conflict, and forums available for the discussion of peace (Aladejana, 2007).

The success for peace in Nigeria is attributed to the government, which set the tone for peace through activities such as “negotiation forums, attending to problems of marginalization, fairness, and equity in the allocation of resources, alleviation of poverty, gainful employment of youths… involvement of… leaders in peace efforts, and positive use of the mass media for peace initiatives” (Aladejana, 2007, p. 182). This is quite an achievement and quite unbelievable. The research does not provide more evidence of these actions. However, these government accomplishments provide a good example of the kinds of actions governments can take to address peace issues.

No region exemplifies the effects of structural violence better than the area of Rwanda, Burundi, and Congo. Genocide in Rwanda has been illustrated in film and in research. While Rwandans are divided into three ethnic groups, Hutu, Tutsi, and Twa, the struggles in this country were not ethnic related but political in nature. The legacy of colonialism and the superiority given to the Tutsi by colonist brewed feelings of power in one group and inferiority in another, and as a result, inequitable allocations of resources. Power exchanged hands in the Social Revolution of 1959 and the Hutu reign was characterized by a reversal of inequities and the discrimination of the Tutsi. What makes this context unique from others is that the Hutu and Tutsi share identical language, religion, and most other important aspects of life. Therefore, peace education is needed to address structural violence and prejudice.

The Agency for Cooperation and Research in Development (ACORD) developed a peace activity to empower the people through coalitions, to promote dialogue, to support local initiatives and to reduce prejudice. Trainers were selected from Rwanda based on specific criteria and received training in the knowledge and skills necessary for handling conflict. These trainers carried out the mission of the agency by providing camps, dances, and sports events to foster interaction between the Hutu and Tutsi. The agency also produced a videotape on prejudice which is shown on national television as well as used in public education. Mukarubuga (2007) contended that much “work has been done behind doors” (p. 235) but this program has been effective in transforming attitudes. Currently, everyday interactions between Hutu and Tutsi remain cordial on the surface as Rwandans individually are making attempts towards peace (Njoroge, 2007). This does provide hope that contact between the two groups has improved relations but without deeper conversations about the past, sustainable peace may not be accomplished.

I wish to further investigate peace education in the region surrounding Rwanda, Burundi, and Congo. The statement from Mukarubuga (2007) implies that there is much more than meets the eye in Rwandan peace educative efforts. This has made me very curious. An Internet search reveals there to be quite a few peace missions from religious groups, non-profit organizations and NGOs working in the region. These do not add up to a comprehensive peace education curriculum. To continue my understanding of peace education and how it is used in the area, my goal is to interview Dr. Ndura about her experience with Burundi and peace education and to see more of an ‘insider’s perspective’ of the situation.

The last twenty years have seen great changes in the world structure that have had great implications for peace education. With the emergence of new democracies in Eastern Europe, Corkalo (2004) proposed that peace education needs to address the unique character of this region. Communism suppressed themes of conflict and ethnic identity. Now in a democratic atmosphere, societies are faced with the challenged of how to incorporate these issues into their society. Peace education as a top down approach, the national macro-level, and paralleled at the bottom-up approach, the community micro-level. This translates to institutional support at all stages of peace educative efforts on the macro-level, and human rights, social justice, conflict resolution, democracy, citizenship, and multicultural education on the micro-level.

Danesh (2006) introduced an integrative peace program called the Education for Peace (EFP) program based on the principles of the Integrative Theory of Peace (ITP). The ITP defines peace as a “psychosocial…political…moral and spiritual condition” (p. 137) and is the “main expression of a unity-based worldview” (p. 138). In addition, “the unity-based worldview is a prerequisite for creating both a culture of peace and a culture of healing” and finally, the transformation of “survival-based and identity-based worldviews to…the unity-based worldview” (p.138) is most effectively done through a comprehensive, integrated, and lifelong educational approach. The purpose of this peace education program is similar to Salomon’s (2002) model in that interethnic reconciliation needs to occur before a culture of peace is created. Finding similarities among models as well as finding commonalities among the examples in which the model is applied can be of great value. While peace education is context driven and generalizing from the reported results may not seem useful, the processes involved in the implementation can be looked at for commonalities and a formulation of a generic phenomenon may prove useful (Becker, 1990). In this way, it is instructive to have a broad understanding of the ways peace education is implemented in global contexts.
The Education for Peace program is one example in which peace educators may find useful to apply in contexts of intractable regions because of its integrative nature and attention to the Salomon (2002) model. The elements of the EFP curriculum include training and activities in an integrative fashion to teachers, parents and children in order to develop a universal identity of humaneness in the context of each specific community’s history and experience. The principles of peace are applied across subject matters. In the two year program, participants learn about the characteristics of a culture of peace then participate in creating a culture of peace. The EFP addresses reconciliation and healing in that it provides activities and opportunities at the intrapersonal, interpersonal, and intergroup levels with the purpose of creating societal health (Danesh, 2007).

The implementation of the EFP in post-conflict interethnic Bosnia- Herzegovina (BiH) and the research that has resulted provide a wealth of knowledge and encouragement for peace educators in regions with similar issues. The program began with as a two-year pilot experiment as BiH was recovering from the effects of intense, horrific conflicts between ethnic, religious groups. The EFP experiment was brought to BiH by invitation from the Ministry of Education. From the onset, the program not only had support from within BiH, but also from the European Community as part of their commitment to the 1995 Dayton Peace Accord, and the Government of Luxembourg, which funded year one of the project. An international group of faculty, none from the region, trained in the principles of the program, became on-site teacher trainers at six schools. They also served as community support during peace activities.

As with any new program, EFP was met with lots of skepticism. Within six months of implementation, the transformative impact of the project was gaining notoriety throughout the country. Interestingly, the second year of the pilot program was implemented through volunteer work on the part of the faculty and the BiH school participants. This speaks tremendously of the commitment and belief in the program held by the faculty and the community. Eventually, 106 secondary schools joined the project, which has been voluntarily adopted by all three ethnic groups in the country- Bosniak, Croat, and Serb. The program has been recommended by the United Nations as “a model of society oriented towards peace, cooperation, and development” (Danesh, 2007, p. 147).

In addition to the initial skepticism from participants, the program brought to light other challenges peace programs face. These included developing new concepts of peace and war among the society, in this case BiH, sustaining the program through reaching new teachers and students, providing on-going training, and assisting in total curriculum reform to incorporate peace concepts. Financial challenges face this type of program, which is intensive and costly. Providing enough trainers who are skilled in the program is an obstacle and requires systematic training programs to be initiated. The program, as with any program that addresses issues of peace and conflict, needs a long term commitment in areas of implementation, support, research, and evaluation. Finally, new methods of delivering the principles and practices of EFP to reach more students and teachers must be created. Danesh (2007) implied here that groups are excluded at the moment from this process. This could be a result of the socio-political structure of BiH and the division between some ethnic communities.

The successes of the pilot program are reported in terms of attitude change, interethnic reconciliation, and educational reform (Danesh, 2007). Worldviews of the participants were changed to align with the program’s goal of moving away from identity-based views and towards a unity-based worldview. Interethnic reconciliation was illustrated through the initiation of meaningful conversations among the diverse participants. Interethnic friendships were formed and families from the participant schools began to feel comfortable visiting cities of former adversaries. However, the researchers warned that it is still too early to project long-term impact in this area and that the project will continue but now with a focus on strengthening these friendships. An unintended result was curriculum reform. As the project began it soon became clear that a change in classroom practice was needed in order to support more democratic classrooms. Teachers were supported in their efforts to integrate these principles into their lessons. A formal evaluation of the pilot program by a Swiss agency revealed similar results. The program is credited with initiating a shift from teacher-centered approaches to student-centered approaches. The program has also created an environment in which friendships and reconciliation can begin and most of the impact has been felt on an individual level. The evaluators noted that support from the program came from all the Ministers of Education and the Pedagogical Faculties (Danesh, 2007). It was also recognized in this evaluation that more time needs to pass before greater impacts can be seen. These successes show the power of the program and the importance of widespread support from not only the participants but from governmental (in the form of the education ministers), the educational community (in the form of the Pedagogical Institutes) and international communities.

Peace education efforts cannot have sustainable impacts when the wider community is not involved, supportive and/or creating opportunities for peace (Bar-Tal, 2002). The fact that the newly formed government of BiH as a result of the 1995 Dayton Peace Accord is based on consociationalism can be seen as a step towards public acknowledgment of the three ethnic groups and their right to share executive power as representatives of Bosniaks (Bosniacs), Croats, and Serbs. The principles of consociationalism are frequently used in government as a way to manage conflict and maintain equity in the society. Northern Ireland, Belgium, South Africa, and Cyprus are examples that employ these principles. However, these principles can also mask the importance of a unity-based worldview by emphasizing the importance of being a member of one of the ethnic groups. Markowitz (2003-2004) found that while BiH citizens are “complying with pressures to classify themselves” yet there are “weaker…persistent voices… proclaiming themselves BOSNIANS or BiHs as they push for an inclusive identity –of-all citizens” (n.p.). Without support from official documents that classify the groups, these voices may never be heard. The language of instruction and the materials that are used in each school in BiH depends on the majority of ethnic group represented in a community.

This is one of the obstacles that the EFP would have had to address; yet, in the research it was not clear. Danesh (2007) does not discuss the educational segregation that results from the political structure of the country. There are several levels of divisions in BiH into cantons and municipalities for example. These divisions are ethnically created. The fact that schools and communities are divided along ethnic lines, there is great need in BiH for the EFP program to become a country-wide program to reach further into the integrated sections of the society.

The case of BiH and the EFP program is of particular interest to me because Macedonia, shares much of BiH’s history and problems. The government of Macedonia, however, has been set up as a parliamentary democracy. While there are advantages and disadvantages to this type of government as it relates to supporting peace efforts, it seems that attempting a type of democratic government sets a democratic tone for the citizens of Macedonia in their everyday life. Examples of democratic behavior can be seen in the government, creating a possible habit of mind towards democratic principles in other aspects such as education. For peace education to be successful, a democratic approach needs to be present (Harris & Morrison, 2003). There are some contradictions between the philosophy of democracy in Macedonia and how things work in Macedonia.

Macedonia still faces challenges in its educational system with regards to ethnic segregation. Five major ethnic groups, Macedonians, Albanians, Turks, Serbian, and Roma are represented in Macedonia on all levels. On paper, the educational system appears to follow democratic beliefs in that instruction is conducted in the language of the majority ethnic group in the community/school. During my first visit to Macedonia, initial conversations about the ethnic groups present in Macedonia would always lead to one statement: We are all Macedonians here.
Upon returning to the University from my first visit, Dr. Dimitrov and I discussed my experience and the topic of the diverse population in Macedonia came up in the conversation. Dr. Dimitrov explained there were three kinds of Macedonians: Serbian Macedonians, Albanian Macedonians, and Greek Macedonians. This left me stunned because I did not get that impression from the Macedonians I met. I realized that this stance reflected Dr. Dimitrov’s experience in the region. On my second visit to Macedonia, I was able to be more candid in my conversations as I formed closer relationships and it was then I witnessed the presence of ethnic identities in conversations. My friend, Lence, would speak of herself as being Serbian as a way to explain some of her beliefs, or participants would share the latest jokes about the other Macedonian ethnic groups, revealing strong stereotypes.

Like BiH, the language of instruction in schools depends on the majority of the ethnic group in that community. If minority representatives attend the school, the policy has been to separate the school day. Publicly it is stated that an overpopulation of students necessitates two daily sessions. Maria Pryshlak, director of East European and Eurasian Programs at Georgetown University, shared that the Albanian children attend school in the morning then the “air is cleared” (2005, private conversation) and the Macedonian children come to school. In January 2006, I asked Tula, our program assistant, about this situation. She quickly replied that this is no longer the case in the primary schools, but the high schools are still struggling with the issue. It is difficult to be an outsider because we are not truly trusted, no matter what friendships have been formed, and the Macedonians want to put their best face forward in order to create a positive image to the world. I know that I am missing many pieces to the story of Macedonia and as an outsider, I may never be privy to inside information nor will I ever know what it is like to be Macedonian. However, I am able to collect and analyze information for my Macedonian friends and present it to them to consider. As I review the EFP program in BiH and the challenges faced by educators and citizens there, I realize that more comprehensive programs, rather than workshops as suggested by Tula, might result in more positive and lasting change in Macedonia.

The peace education program implemented by Danesh (2007) is truly an integrated program that addresses peace, understanding collective narratives and individual narratives, contact with adversaries, friendship, and a direction towards transformation in both school and in the surrounding community. For this reason it has the possibility of not only changing attitudes but also behaviors. The peace education programs described in the literature are not this far-reaching for many reasons including the challenges Danesh (2007) reported: constraints on time, money, human resources, and community acceptance. Workshops are popular delivery formats in the world of peace education. McCauley (2002) analyzed the effectiveness of workshops as “innovative forms of peace education” (p. 240). Most peace education workshops generally consist of small group meetings to share experiences and exercises to develop ethnic differences with the goal of changing attitudes. Less popular are workshop activities that use role-playing activities and other more behavioral transformation activities (McCauley, 2000).

In another email conversation with Tula this week, I mentioned the work of Dr. Danesh in BiH and asked if she was familiar with the EFP program. I included the 2006 article Dr. Danesh had written which outlines the integrative peace education theory and the EFP program. Coincidently, she had recently corresponded with Dr. Danesh as a result of our past conversation about what kind of project would be best for Macedonian teachers. She is currently communicating with Dr. Danesh about the possibilities of using the EFP program in Macedonia. We discussed the use of workshops as a delivery method for peace education.

I do not place much value in the workshop process as a way to produce sustainable peace education results in Macedonia. The literature has shown that reaching peace education efforts is a long term process of sustained efforts. Furthermore, Macedonia is desperately working to improve country conditions in order to be accepted as a member of the European Union (EU). For Macedonia, membership in the EU means opportunities for financial growth, a stable democratic society, and ultimately peace. With candidacy granted in 2005, the country has merely seven years to meet EU requirements. To prepare for membership, a number of issues must be resolved including economic stability, human rights, law and ethics, and the ability to uphold the obligations of EU membership. Macedonia is experiencing an influx of workshops and courses throughout the country on many levels. These include integrating technology in schools, democracy, citizenship, advocacy, and believe it or not, how to include the spouses of judges in social activities. It is the nature of EU candidacy. A lot needs to be covered in a short amount of time with a limited amount of resources. Workshops seem to be fit this need, but do they produce sustainable results?

McCauley (2002) suggested that the popular workshop format is to win “hearts and minds” (p. 250) by assuming the problem is the perceived threat from the ingroup due to negative qualities of the outgroup, and the problem is solved by contact between the two group These do not succeed in changing behaviors because identifying the problem and providing a solution are the only supports presented. Possessing more information does not necessarily lead to changing beliefs, belief changes may not alter attitudes, and altered attitudes may not lead to a transformation in behavior. Therefore, winning hearts and minds may not be the “royal road to changing behavior” (p. 253).

Grounded in dissonance theory, the “foot in the door” approach, and the reciprocity rule, McCauley (2002) explored the notion that we are likely to transform our beliefs when we act inconsistent with our attitudes in order to rationalize new behaviors (dissonance theory), we are more likely to consent to a larger request when we consent to a previous smaller consent (“foot in the door” approach), and we are more likely to give something back when we believe we have received something. In applying these strategies and theories to peace education, participants need experiences in their lives outside of the initial intergroup contact workshops. Workshop educators need to take advantage of the social-psychological factors that are in the works as participants reenter into their “real world” i.e. their own communities. Participants need to test new attitudes and new behaviors. As graduates of the workshop, they can be asked to do a much larger task, which is using new behaviors in their home environment, and they may reciprocate through more sustained behavior changes because of the ideas they received in the workshop. All of this takes continued support, not in workshop form, but in the community.

The implication here is that while many workshops focus on changing individual attitudes, the focus also needs to be on re-grouping individuals into dyads or larger support groups in which a much more powerful transformed “identity” is formed. In this case, the group of transformed individuals supports each other in the community and work to influence others. The art of being peaceful, advocating peace, forgiving adversaries, and recognizing responsibilities for keeping conflict flames burning takes an enormous amount of personal courage. McCauley (2002) called for heroism. Not all of us are heroes or able to have the strength as individuals to initiate effective peace measures, but just as group identity negatively divides, it can also positively unite. This is a baby step approach that extends the diversity workshop format into a much more influential and transformational experience. There is also a lesson here that many theories of social structure, behavior, learning, and others can be, need to be, applied when peace education is considered. While many cases of peace education are undertaken systematically and grounded in theory, there are many instances where efforts towards peace, deemed peace education in the literature, are politically generated or stem from grass roots approaches as a result of humans aspiring to make their world better.

Recently, specific information and collections of stories from the trenches of peace education have emerged as modern peace efforts begin to show impact just in the fact that governments and communities are adopting peaceful attitudes, even if on a small scale. Few examples demonstrate systematic, integrative peace education programs but the diverse use of strategies employed in peace education efforts offers innovative ideas and lessons learned.

South Africa is an interesting example of peace efforts in light of the fact there were no measures in the post-apartheid government that addressed peace education explicitly (Houghton & John, 2007). However, many of the policies and actions that have taken place in the country have peace education undertones (Bray & Joubert, 2007). With the end of apartheid in 1994, a political and educational reform began. Apartheid left a legacy of educational issues. The South African Schools Act of 1996 (SASA) set out to deracialize the educational system through equal treatment, equal educational opportunity, and strategies towards educational adequacy for all (Fiske & Ladd, 2004). Setting the tone for equality and peace in the constitution and educational policies was an important step in moving towards possible implementations of peace education. Enslin (2002) argued that the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) may have been a model for peace education in that it fostered communication of collective narratives and for some victims, reconciliation with the oppressors. Enslin (2002) equated these aspects with Salomon’s (2002) peace education model. However, there is no legitimization of the oppressor’s collective narrative in the TRC, an important aspect of the model. Viewing the TRC as a peace educative effort is a bit far-reaching. One aspect of the TRC process that may resemble a goal of peace education is that it modeled a democratic communication process and provide a recommendation that the proceedings be displayed as public record and part of the formal education curriculum.

The experience from South Africa and the lack of peace education even ten years following apartheid show the importance that a country wide effort towards peace must begin with a widespread end of conflict between adversaries before peace education can even be planned. Public measures against perpetrators of oppression and atrocities in the form of legal measures and international tribunals must be present to begin public reconciliations. Finally financial compensations must be provided to victims (Bar-On, 2002). These compensations may be viewed by the victims as sincere commitment to reconciliation. A constitution, such as South Africa’s new constitution, that values deracialization, an educational reform that promotes equality and equity, and events that attempt to bring the reconciliation lays a foundation for peace but more needs to happen on other levels. What is missing here is an important aspect of peace education: opportunities to understand the underlying causes of violence, an important objective of comprehensive peace education. Although South Africa’s educational system continues to be dysfunctional and the country itself is challenged with the effects of structural violence, it is possible that the country is not yet capable of handling the rigors of peace education and all the issues that need to be addressed. There are only so many programs that can be initiated in a developing democracy due to economic, political, and social constraints. The experience of the new South Africa illustrates that the establishment of democratic principles and measures towards peace do not necessarily afford peace. An educative process needs to be established and time allowed for that process to develop and influence. In the years following apartheid, immediate remedies needed to be implemented before the deeper approaches of comprehensive peace education could be initiated. It seems, though, that as South Africa progresses nearly fifteen years into its new constitution, formal peace education is making an appearance.

Recently, systematic alternatives to the non-educative and political processes of the past are emerging in South Africa and in other African countries. Houghten & John (2007) developed a peace education program aimed at adults at the university level and informal settings grounded in critical action research and communities of practice. Their hope was to provide a sustainable peace education in which adult learners had opportunities to practice and mentor the principles they learned in the program. This peace education program was framed on the definitions and goals most closely related to the ideas of Harris & Morrison (2003) and included experiential learning and partnerships with peace organizations. A challenge they faced was that in order for critical action research and communities of practice to work, there needed to be a community in which to practice. Currently, the number of South Africans involved in this peace education program is very small. As can be noted in all examples of peace education efforts, things do not happen overnight. The program began in 2006. It is much too early to determine the impact.

Another illustration of more systematic, educational approaches can be seen in the reform of teacher education in Rwanda. As common in many countries divided by conflict, education was used as a tool to drive a wedge between Hutu and Tutsi. Teachers taught according to their own beliefs, carrying their prejudices into their classrooms. Therefore, the system of reform needed to address a reconstruction of the teacher psyche to produce a transformed teacher capable of fostering life skills in learners to help them become more self-directed rather than other-directed, to promote the similarities in humans rather than the differences (Njoroge, 2007). The Rwandan government established the Kigali Institute of Education (KIE) in 1999 to develop highly qualified teachers in both content areas and current pedagogical best practices. The focus is educating teachers to be critical, creative and transformative agents of hope and life (Njoroge, 2007). In January 2007, KIE held its second graduation conferring 166 degrees in education. The hope continues in this institute that opportunities to transform together as KIE students, Rwandans, and future teachers will dissolve notions of stereotypes, develop understandings and realities about the past, and empower to teach others the new values.

What is apparent at this time is that constructivist principles are forming the foundations of educational learning opportunities that focus on peace and that constructivist principles align well with the objectives of peace education. This shift in teaching practice and philosophy is evident in many international examples such as the BiH experience and the EFP program, South African adult education, and Rwandan teacher education. These examples also show that peace educative efforts not only require a regional commitment to end violence and conflict but also a shift in thinking about teaching and learning across the society.

That reform in teaching practices and curriculum has been identified as necessary actions to support peace efforts reaffirms the important role the teacher, teaching, and education has in changing mindsets, cultivating skills, and developing a sense of responsibility to others and the environment. These behaviors and skills can only be reached through processes that involve profound transformations of people, worldviews, and assumptions (Carter, 2007). Education is the venue for these processes. However, too many times in the literature on peace education, training is referenced as the means to these ends:

“Training provides the knowledge and skills to enable members of the group to handle conflict situations” (Mukarubuga, 2002, p.235).
“…there is a great need to train these teachers in ways that will expand their knowledge, attitudes, and skills in critical areas that will equip them to educate children for a culture of peace” (Johnson, 2007, p. 29).
”Ongoing teacher training and awareness workshops should take place, planning creative forums to empower minority student and teacher and to express views about current issues is important too” (Nasser, Abu-Nimer, 2007, p. 117).
“Being trained in cooperative learning strategies and “academic controversy” debate practices…will enable teachers not only to enhance student learning…but will equip them to help build skills essential to peace building such as conflict resolution and collaborative problem-solving” (Johnson, 2007, p.29).
To use the word “training” in describing the kinds of actions needed to implement peace programs dilutes the processes of peace education. Training or instructing emphasizes imparting knowledge so that others can acquire it. There is no implication of the inner construction of meaning in order for knowledge to be applied and therefore, training elicits inert knowledge. When applied to peace practices, inert knowledge has no function. Knowing that the “other” has their own narrative does little to foster reconciliation between adversaries. The examples presented in this report reveal that more than knowing is necessary to meet the goals of peace education. There is a need for inner change and the ability to take that knowing and put it into action. Education emphasizes understanding inner processes and the preparations necessary to become a contributing member of society. Education is a transformative process whereas training is the acquisition of knowledge. With this in mind, one might ask the question: For sustainable peace, who best should conduct peace education, a trainer or an educator?
The distinction between trainer and educator is especially important when applied to peace education because the processes require more than skill development. Peace education requires the development of human capacities essential to changing mindsets and creating new ones. Trainers need to know the knowledge and skills to impart but an educator must go further by experiencing their own transformation before they can transform others (Reardon, 1988). Self-transformation is achieved as two levels of learning occur simultaneously. One is the learning an educator elicits from students and the other is the learning the educator experiences through the process. Reardon (1988) defined an educator undergoing the transformation process as an edu-learner, “a practitioner/theorist whose primary activity is learning while trying to help other people learn” (p. 47). Edu-learning is purposeful, value-oriented, and focuses on the process of teaching and learning. To develop human capacities needed for peacekeeping, peacemaking, and peacebuilding, these processes must be transformative and creative. We cannot transform what we cannot imagine (E. Boulding, 1988) and therefore these processes must include reflecting, envisioning, imagining, and making new metaphors. Edu-learners therefore must be reflectors, visionaries, imaginers, metaphor makers, and life long learners in order to model and teach these elements to students.

I have wondered about the allies that Tula and I might to share our interest in Macedonian peace education. Lence and I meet briefly at a café in Washington D.C. She has just completed her State Department faculty appointment at LSU and is in town for one day before heading back to Macedonia. The freedom of being in the U.S. and the ability to speak out of ear-shot of her Balkan companions provides her the opportunity to express her feelings about Albanian Muslims. “I can tolerate Albanians, but not Muslims”, is her stance (personal communication, May 22, 2007). I am taken aback by the strong language she uses, the hatred in the tone of her voice. She tells me of a new university in Stip, a small city in eastern Macedonia, and the plan for the pedagogical faculty to split. I ask her why this is so and she replies that more freedom is needed to do what they want. I ask her if this means it will be an English language university such as the one established in Tetevo in response to the violent outbreak in 2001 over the construction of an Albanian language university. She indignantly says it will be a Macedonian language-only university. And in a hushed voice, she goes on to explain that most likely the country will split with the western part given over to the Albanians and the eastern part will be Macedonian.

I wrote to Tula to tell her of my disappointment in Lence and her hatred of Albanian Muslim. Tula wrote, “Leni’s attitude towards Muslims in Macedonia is something very normal unfortunately. I face it every single day, every hour, and you can imagine how much energy I do spend on ‘neutralizing’ such negative emanations. I work on my own harmonious development as a human being.” (personal communication, May 27, 2007. Her transformation reminded me of the story of Luli (Albanian) and Vasko (Macedonian) who fought against each other in the 2001 Tetevo conflict. They are now colleagues at the Pedagogical Faculty in Skopje. They were roommates for two weeks during our initial Integration of Technology in the Schools workshop and collaborated on projects to use together at the university. They enjoyed telling their story about how they have become very close friends. I see though that not all of our Macedonian colleagues are ready to transform.
Lence is now Vice Rector in charge of 7 education faculties at the new university. Rather than taking on the entire country of Macedonia, I believe my desire to facilitate transformations needs to be directed towards myself and my friend who is now in the position to influence many.
These elements make up the covert curriculum of any program that teaches for change. When interwoven and integrated into formal curriculum, they make powerful partners in the process of change. Transformed peace educators facilitate transformations by creating learning environments that are democratic and cooperative in addition to building critical thinking, moral sensitivity, and self-esteem. These environments must be flexible to allow for teachable moments, which take advantage of those unpredictable occurrences in the classroom. Teachable moments promote cognitive mentoring practices as the educator helps students think through the classroom occurrence, its implications, and its consequences. They model democratic discussion practices as well as create possible uncomfortable feelings that are so often necessary in order for learners to make progress towards transformations. Unfortunately most educational structures are grounded in teacher centered practices which are obstacles in the formation of democratic, flexible, and cooperative classrooms. Fortunately, models of student centered practices do exist.

Those countries just getting their feet wet as democracies struggle with challenges of reforming educational systems which align with newly established democratic principles. Examining international perspectives on peace education provides examples for peace educators. As Kuhn (1996) stated, “One of the fundamental techniques by which the members of a group…learn to see the same things when confronted with the same stimuli is by being shown examples of situations that their predecessors in the group have already learned to see as like each other and as different from other sorts of situations” (p. 193). Looking at examples of models that foster student centered practices necessary in peace education is not enough. Tacit knowledge can be unleashed in the process of creating exemplars. Therefore, learning about student centered approaches is not learning the rules of student centered approaches. It is learning about student centered approaches by participating in and doing activities designed using student centered approaches.

As mentioned earlier, a parallel between teaching the integration of technology in schools and the integration of peace principles in schools exists and therefore technology education may serve as an exemplar for educating teachers and students about peace. The affordances of the new technologies support learner- centered practices, but also require that educators learning about the integration of technology in schools put aside teacher centered practices in order to take full advantage of these affordances. Teachers and students learn about technology by using technology. Teachers and students learn about technology integration by doing technology integration. This process includes cognitive apprenticeship, the modeling and explaining of problem solving within a domain by experts, the coaching of learners as they practice the trade, and the fading of the expert as learners use their knowledge to create (Collins, 1991); situated cognition, learning tools and concepts in the context of their use (Brown, et al., 1989); communities of practice, engaging in mutual activities and negotiating meaning with members united by common purposes, values, and goals (Wenger, 1991); and expertise, solving problems using factual knowledge, procedural knowledge, informal knowledge, impressionistic knowledge, and self-regulatory knowledge (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993). These constructivist models are widely recognized in education.

What is missing from the literature on structuring peace education curriculum, whether it is teacher education, adult education, or K-12 curriculum, is the explicit reference and use of various theories and strategies grounded in constructivist principles. In some cases such as the EFP experience in BiH, curriculum reform towards student-centered practices was realized after the original program was designed. After all, peace education is education and should align well with current educational practices. The theories predominantly found in structuring peace education, for example, contact theory, also work well within these strategies. The contact hypothesis states that “one avenue to reducing prejudice and intergroup hostility is through the creation of situations in which members of an ingroup have positive interactions with member of an outgroup” (Kadushin & Livert, 2007, p. 120).

Developing a community of practice can be that situation. An example of this can be seen in the documentary, The World According to Sesame Street (Knowlton & Costigan, 2006). The documentary depicts the behind-the-scenes production of international versions of Sesame Street as local educators come together to develop curriculum relevant to the region in which the show will air. The Kosovo version of Sesame Street was developed by Albanian and Serbian teachers who met together to achieve a common goal- to develop a curriculum that depicted the current political challenges in the region on a child’s level and how different groups can live harmoniously. In this process, the Albanian and Serbian teachers formed a community of practice and learned more about each other through the experience. Whether or not these teachers experienced their own transformations during this process is not known, but combining the theory of contact with the creation of a community of practice, it is quite possible.

Teacher education programs across the globe need to do their part in facilitating teacher transformations and the skills for the integration of peace concepts into curriculum. The argument exists that teacher preparation programs face huge challenges to fit in all that needs to be accomplished, especially when the program in some cases only lasts two years or less. A well-integrated program not only provides a rich curriculum for learners but also models integrative practices to be used in their own classrooms. A well designed teacher education program, grounded in constructivist strategies has the ability to empower and transform learners as they construct their own meanings and are asked to use those understandings in meaningful ways. Again, an example from a program developed for teacher education to address the integration of technology in schools illustrates a model for course design that can be applied to peace education. Norton and Wiburg (2003) developed the FACTS model to scaffold teachers in the process of integrating technology into their classrooms. The model integrates the foundations for learning, the activities used to facilitate learning, the content to be addressed, the tools used to support the learning, and the system of assessment used to evaluate the learning. In addition the model is grounded in constructivist principles and situated cognition theory. From my own faculty experience and designer of learning opportunities for teachers, I have seen the empowerment and transformation in teachers as they learn to become change agents, not only in their use of technology tools, but in their teaching methods. I see the FACTS model as a useful tool in peace education for the creation of learning opportunities, empowering and transforming experiences, and change agents. Appendix A illustrates and example of the model as applied to peace education and how a course in peace education can be developed for teacher learners.
Technology integration not only provides a model for developing peace curriculum but also provides peace educators with tools to reform curriculum and support learning about peace and other cultures. Salomon (1991) stated:
Not allowing computers to serve as the trigger for the design of new learning environments, holding the environment constant and only changing the means of delivery, is a wasteful abuse of powerful technology, resulting in under-whelming yield. System-wide changes may be the most important opportunities afforded by computers. These entail new designs of whole curricula and socially-based inquiry opportunities; interdisciplinary, authentic learning tasks; changing roles for teachers; and new modes of assessment (p. 44).

Peace education needs to be included in these new learning environments learners prepared to contribute in the 21st century. The integration of technology into these programs enhances the experience. E. Boulding (1990) proposed that when technology is appropriately used, it can “extend the reach of the human mind in breathtaking ways and enable even the most hopelessly crippled human beings to communicate with others and manage their personal environments” (p.85). Technology offers learners the opportunity to new ways of knowing by offering opportunities to experience the world without leaving home. New ways of knowing allow learners to construct new understandings about themselves and the world around them.
Vandeyar and Esakov (2007) reported that while South African schools and teachers are not having an impact in transforming identities, the students themselves are developing a more unity-based view of being South African. This is attributed to globalization and learners’ exposure to societies outside of South Africa. Increased access to telecommunications technologies such as radio, cell phones, television, email, and the Internet have opened up the world for all to see. Internet resources offer a multitude of statistics that can be offered to learners to analyze and evaluate indicators of peace. With this information, peace educations can support not only peace objectives and math objectives but also promote necessary critical thinking skills. Taking advantage of web-based learning environments and designs, Danesh (2007) has designed a comprehensive web version of EFP in order to make it more widely available. However, this warrants close evaluation and determination if this online version is merely a repository of information rather than a comparable version of the original program. Critical evaluation is necessary for all information technologies because never before has so much information from around the world been available to so many. Never before have so many global perspectives been voiced.

Today I heard back from the creators of the Global Peace Index on my request to provide a comparative tool on the site to make it more useful to educators who want to integrate the use of the site into their curriculum. I am amazed that they have taken my suggestion seriously and are working to provide a comparative tool within the next few months. They provided me with several final reports which discussed the methodology and sample analyses of the ten most peaceful countries and the ten least peaceful countries. These reports have since found their way on the site but for a fleeting moment I felt important and empowered that little old me could elicit a response from a large organization via a simple email.

The voices that can heard around the world and the impact they have on societies may even be surprising. Sesame Street (Coony, 1969) reaches more than 120 countries in the world with each country or region offering its own presentation and solution to issues of conflict, structural violence, disease outbreaks, child labor, and being different. The production process of the show in these countries adheres not only the original spirit of the United States versions, but also to the belief that context and perceptions must be considered. Therefore, local crews, educators, and writers, create the local show from local perspectives. Sesame Street (Ganz Coony, 1969) plays an important role in providing young children possibly their first experience in changing mindset. Myers-Bowman, Walker, and Myers-Wall (2005) reported that children as young as three years old have a concept of peace and war and rarely are there programs available to scaffold peace education in young learners. To date one research study on the impact of the Israeli-Palestinian version of Sesame Street, conducted by doctoral candidate, Yael Warshel is in the works. This study explores the roles these shows play in trying to build peace between the children and will offer valuable insight into ways television can be used in peace efforts.

The emergence of Web 2.0 tools holds great promise in supporting peace education. Weblogs, wikis, and audio/video- casting are not only the most widely available to educators and learners, they are also relatively easy to use. Weblogs, more commonly known as blogs, are easily created, easily updateable websites that allow an author to instantly publish on the Internet and the ability of an audience to comment on the author’s writing. A wiki is a collaborative webspace where anyone can add content and anyone can edit previously published content. Audio/video casting offers ways to publish in a different media using voice and video files and to easily distribute the products across the Internet (Richardson, 2006). These new tools have fostered new ways for people to interact. Focusing on the human aspects of Web 2.0’s interactivity, Abram (2005) stated, “It is about conversations, interpersonal networking, personalization, and individualism” (p. 44). Barsky (2006) elaborated, “Web 2.0 is ultimately a social phenomenon of users’ experience of the Web and is characterized by open communication, decentralization of authority, and freedom to share and reuse Web content” (p. 33). Web 2.0 tools ensure that anyone with Internet access has the ability to connect with other humans on a personal level worldwide. The implication for peace education is the redefining of contact theory to include virtual connections and exchanges. Web 2.0 tools provide new ways for the sharing of narratives and the asynchronous nature of the tools allows reflective opportunities for deeper consideration.

Blogs have emerged as a popular tool to distribute thoughts and experiences about peace and war. Reactions to daily incidents and inner thoughts are readily published and open for comment and critique. Through warblogs and peaceblogs, abuses of power and instances of heroism are now made transparent through the individual perspectives of observers (Oravec, 2004). In addition to providing a platform for the expression of thoughts and the exchange of perspectives, Web 2.0 tools such as wikis model democratic processes and worldwide collaborative spaces to create content. “This is true democracy at work. Everyone can add their own input to any thing that is written, or add their own changes, words, comments, chapters, definitions, articles, and so on. This open editing capability places real powers in the hands of the user” (Descy, 2006, p.4). Audio/video-casting provide yet another medium for anyone to become a broadcaster. Not only is content created through use of these tools but they foster evaluation of content and other perspectives, and critical reflection of one’s own beliefs. For peace education, this opens up critical dialogues about war and peace concerns both as inner dialogue and more global conversation. The use of these tools are empowering as users become writers, reporters, analyzers, researchers, and creators of global content. They offer nonviolent ways to address conflict. Yet, if used inappropriately to further individual agendas, resistance to nonviolence can occur (Martin & Varney, 2003). In wartime or repression, these personal views written for all to see can come under the scrutiny of government agencies and subject to penalties (Oravec, 2004). Therefore, it becomes the responsibility of the peace educator, when taking advantage of the affordances technology has to offer, to learn how to use these tools appropriately in order to model good use.

The examples provided in this report may not show prescriptive solutions to conquering violence. The do show hope in that many tools such as technology, conceptual tools such as multiculturalism, human rights education, conflict resolution, and government practices such as new constitutions and country-wide educational reforms, are available to peace educators to use in creating and cultivating peace curriculum. The right balance is needed depending on the context in order to facilitate transformations towards peace. Impact on the influence of these tools in peace education is not yet seen in terms of formal evaluation. In light of the fact that long term strategies may need to be applied and therefore comprehensive evaluations of these newly established programs are not available, the question becomes, “Does peace education really make a difference?” Salomon (2006) recently addressed this question after asking a similar question two years previous (Salomon, 2004b). The examples of peace educative efforts show that core values which embody the collective narrative are not susceptible to change, at least not in the time frames that these efforts have been in effect. However, it is possible that attitudes can be altered enough to allow a reasonable level of peaceful coexistence.

Not every peace program will impact everyone in the same way and the impact may not be evident in achieving the goals of peace education but rather in the prevention of further deterioration of relationships (Salomon, 2004b). Regions that continue in conflict have little success in sustaining peace efforts without a large-scale political commitment to end conflict. However, giving up the cause of peace would be irresponsible and not in the character of peace educators. For other regions that are emerging from conflict peace education efforts are impacting curriculum reform towards the use of student centered approaches. These approaches have been practiced for years in peaceful countries such as Norway and may prove to be the key to sustainable peace. An important consideration is that peace education as a discipline and a topic for research is in its infancy. There is much left to do in terms of evaluation, peace education course design, and research. It is therefore not a mission impossible, but a mission with many possibilities.
References
Anderson, R. (2004). A definition of peace. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 10(2), 101-116.

Abrams, S. (2005). Huh?! Library 2.0. Librarian 2.0. Information Outlook, 9(12), 44-45.

Ardizzone, L. (2002). Towards global understanding: The transformative role of peace education. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 4(2), 16-25.

Aladejana, F. (2007). From war to peace: An analysis of peace efforts in the Ife/Modakeke community of Nigeria. In Z. Bekerman & C. McGlynn (Eds.), Addressing ethnic conflict through peace education: International perspectives (pp.173-184). New York: Palgrave McMillan.

Bar-On, D. (2002). Conciliation through storytelling: Beyond victimhood. In G. Salomon & B. Nevo (Eds.), Peace education: The concept, principles, and practices around the world (pp. 109-116). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Barsky, E. (2006). Introducing Web 2.0: Weblogs and podcasting for health librarians. Journal of Canadian Health Librarian Association, 27, 33-34.

Bar-Tal, D. (2002). The elusive nature of peace education. In G. Salomon & B. Nevo (Eds.), Peace education: The concept, principles, and practices around the world (pp. 27-36). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Becker, H.S. (1990). Generalizing from case studies. In E.W. Eisner & A. Peshkin (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry in education: The continuing debate (pp. 233-242). New York: Teachers College Press.

Bekerman, Z. (2007). Developing Palestinian-Jewish bilingual integrated education in Israel: Opportunities and challenges for peace education in conflict societies. In Z. Bekerman & C. McGlynn (Eds.), Addressing ethnic conflict through peace education: International perspectives (pp.91-106). New York: Palgrave McMillan.

Bell, M. (2007, May 30). Measuring peace. Guardian Unlimited. Retrieved on June 1, 2007, from http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/martin_bell/2007/05/measuring_peace.html

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves. Chicago: Open Court.

Boulding, E. (1990). Building a global civic culture: Education for an interdependent world. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Bray, E., & Joubert, R. (2007). Reconciliation and peace in education in South Africa: The constitutional framework and practical manifestation in school education. In Z. Bekerman & C. McGlynn (Eds.), Addressing ethnic conflict through peace education: International perspectives (pp.49-59). New York: Palgrave McMillan.

Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (2006). Foundations of multimethod research: Synthesizing styles. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Brown, J., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-44.

Cairns, E., & Hewstone, M. (2002). Northern Ireland: The impact of peacemaking in Northern Ireland on intergroup behavior. . In G. Salomon & B. Nevo (Eds.), Peace education: The concept, principles, and practices around the world (pp. 217-228). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Carter, C.C. (2007). Teacher preparation for peace-building in United States of America and Northern Ireland. In Z. Bekerman & C. McGlynn (Eds.), Addressing ethnic conflict through peace education: International perspectives (pp.245-258). New York: Palgrave McMillan.

Collins, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship and instructional technology. In L. Idol & B. F. Jones (Eds.), Educational values and cognitive instruction: Implications for reform (pp. 121-138). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cooper, B. (2005, May). Norway: Migrant quality, not quantity. Migration Policy Institute. Retrieved on June 21, 2007, from http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?id=307

Corkalo, D. (2002). Croatia: For peace education in new democracies. In G. Salomon & B. Nevo (Eds.), Peace education: The concept, principles, and practices around the world (pp. 177-186). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Danesh, H.B. (2006). Towards an integrative theory of peace education. Journal of Peace Education, 3(1), 55-78.

Danesh, H.B. (2007). Education for peace: The pedagogy of civilization. In Z. Bekerman & C. McGlynn (Eds.), Addressing ethnic conflict through peace education: International perspectives (pp.137-159). New York: Palgrave McMillan.

Descy, D.E. (2006). The wiki: True web democracy. TechTrends, 50(1), 4-5.

Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogic creed. The School Journal, 54(3), 77-80.

Eckhardt, W. (1988). Bridging the gap between peace action, education and research. Journal of Peace Research, 25(2), 179-185.

Egeland, L. (2005). Country Report on multilingual issues: Norwegian Archive, Library and Museum Authority. Retrieved July 2, 2007, from http://www.mek.oszk.hu/minerva/html/dok/norway.pdf

Enslin, P. (2002). South Africa: The truth and reconciliation commission as a model of peace education. . In G. Salomon & B. Nevo (Eds.), Peace education: The concept, principles, and practices around the world (pp. 237-243). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Fiske, E. B., & Ladd, H. F. (2004). Elusive equity: Education reform in post-apartheid South Africa. Washington, D.C.: Bookings Institution Press.

Fountain, S. (1996). Peace education in UNICEF (UNICEF Staff Working Papers PD-ED-99/003). Retrieved on February 18, 2007, from http://www.unicef.org/girlseducation/files/PeaceEducation.pdf

Freire, P. (1984). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.

Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, peace and peace research. Journal of Peace Research, 6(3), 167-191.

Galtung, J. (1981). Social cosmology and the concept of peace. Journal of Peace Research, 18(2), 183-199.

Cooney, J. G. (Creator/Writer/Producer). (1969). Sesame Street [Television series]. New York: Public Broadcasting Service.
Knowlton, L.G., & Costigan, L. H. (Producers and Directors). (2006).The world according to Sesame Street [Documentary]. New York: Sony Wonder.

Harris, I. (2002). Conceptual underpinnings of peace education. In G. Salomon & B. Nevo (Eds.), Peace education: The concept, principles, and practices around the world (pp. 15-25). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Harris, I., & Morrison, M.L. (2003). Peace Education. 2nd Ed. North Carolina: McFarland.

Hadjipavlou, M. (2007). Multiple realities and the role of peace education in deep-rooted conflicts: The case of Cyprus. In Z. Bekerman & C. McGlynn (Eds.), Addressing ethnic conflict through peace education: International perspectives (pp.36-48). New York: Palgrave McMillan.

Houghton, T., & John, V. (2007). Toward sustainable peace education: Theoretical and methodological frameworks of a program in South Africa. In Z. Bekerman & C. McGlynn (Eds.), Addressing ethnic conflict through peace education: International perspectives (pp.187-199). New York: Palgrave McMillan.

Johnson, L.S. (2007). Moving from piecemeal to systemic approaches to peace education in divided societies: Comparative efforts in Northern Ireland and Cyprus. In Z. Bekerman & C. McGlynn (Eds.), Addressing ethnic conflict through peace education: International perspectives (pp.21-33). New York: Palgrave McMillan.

Journal of the Scottish Parliament (2004, June 24). Retrieved February 18, 2007, from http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/chamber/journalMinutes/journal-04/jour-040624.htm

Kadushin, C., & Livert, D. (2002). Friendship, contact, and peace education. In G. Salomon & B. Nevo (Eds.), Peace education: The concept, principles, and practices around the world (pp. 117-126). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Leman, J. (2002). Belgium: The triangle of peace-Education, legislation, mediation. In G. Salomon & B. Nevo (Eds.), Peace education: The concept, principles, and practices around the world (pp. 165-176). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Markowitz, F. (2003-2004). Ethnic entanglements: Sarajevo’s cultural legacies in discourse and practice. International Research and Exchanges Board Individual Advanced Research Opporutunities Program Research Report. Retrieved June 20, 2007, from http://www.irex.org/programs/iaro/research/03-04/markowitz.pdf

Martin, B., & Varney, W. (2003). Nonviolence and communication. Journal of Peace Research, 40(2), 213-232.

McCauley, C., Wright, M., & Harris, M. (2000). Diversity workshops on campus: A survey of current practice at U.S. colleges and universities. College Student Journal, 34, 100-114.

McCauley, C. (2002). Head first versus feet first in peace education. In G. Salomon & B. Nevo (Eds.), Peace education: The concept, principles, and practices around the world (pp. 247-258). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

McGlynn, C. (2007). Challenges in integrated education in Northern Ireland. In Z. Bekerman & C. McGlynn (Eds.), Addressing ethnic conflict through peace education: International perspectives (pp.78-89). New York: Palgrave McMillan.

Miles, R. E. Jr. (1978). The origin and meaning of Mile’s law. Public Administration Review, 38(5), 399-403.

Mukarubuga, C. (2002). Rwanda: Attaining and sustaining peace. In G. Salomon & B. Nevo (Eds.), Peace education: The concept, principles, and practices around the world (pp. 229-236). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Nasser, I., & Abu-Nimer, M. (2007). Peace education in a bilingual and biethnic school for Palestinians and Jews in Israel: Lessons and challenges. In Z. Bekerman & C. McGlynn (Eds.), Addressing ethnic conflict through peace education: International perspectives (pp.107-120). New York: Palgrave McMillan.

Nevo, B., & Brem, I. (2002). Peace education programs and the evaluation of their effectiveness. In G. Salomon & B. Nevo (Eds.), Peace education: The concept, principles, and practices around the world (pp. 271-282). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Njoroge, G. (2007). The reconstruction of the teacher’s psyche in Rwanda: The theory and practice of peace education. In Z. Bekerman & C. McGlynn (Eds.), Addressing ethnic conflict through peace education: International perspectives (pp.215-229). New York: Palgrave McMillan.

Norton, P., & Wiburg, K. (1998). Teaching with technology. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

Oravec, J.A. (2004). Incremental understandings: Warblogs and peaceblogs in peace education. Journal of Peace Education, 1(2), 225-238.

Reardon, B. (1988). Comprehensive peace education: Educating for global responsibility. New York: Teachers College Press
.
Peddiwell, J.A. (1939). The saber-tooth curriculum. New York: McGraw- Hill

Ramis, H. (Producer/Writer/Director), & Rubin, D. (Writer). (1993). Groundhog day [Motion picture]. United States: Columbia Pictures Corporation.

Richardson, W. (2006). Blogs, wikis, podcasts, and other powerful web tools for classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Salomon, G. (1991). Learning: New conceptions, new opportunities. Educational Technology 31(6): 41-44.

Salomon, G. (2002). The nature of peace education: Not all programs are created equal. In G. Salomon & B. Nevo (Eds.), Peace education: The concept, principles, and practices around the world (pp. 3-14). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Salomon, G. (2004a). Comment: What is peace education? Journal of Peace Education, 1(1), 123-124.

Salomon, G. (2004b). Does peace education make a difference in the context of an intractable conflict? Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 10(3), 257-274.

Salomon, G. (2006). Does peace education really make a difference? Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 12(1), 37-48.

Smoker, P. & Groff, L. (1996). Spirituality, religion, culture, and peace: Exploring the foundations for inner-outer peace in the twenty-first century. International Journal of Peace Studies, 1(1). Retrieved on March 3, 2007, from http://www.gmu.edu/academic/pce/smoker.htm

Staub, E. (2002). From healing past wounds to the development of inclusive caring: Contents and processes of peace education. In G. Salomon & B. Nevo (Eds.), Peace education: The concept, principles, and practices around the world (pp. 73-86). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Store, J. G. (2006, April). Norway-a peace nation myth or fact? Speech presented at the meeting of the Polytechnical Society’s International Group, the Norwegian Institute of Foreign Affairs, the Nobel Peace Center and Telenor, Oslo, Norway. Retrieved on July 4, 2007, from http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/ud/About-the-Ministry/Minister-of-Foreign-Affairs-Jonas-Gahr-S/Speeches-and-articles/2006/Norway--a-peace-nation-Myth-or-fact--.html?id=420860Tal-Or, N., Boninger, D., & Gleicher, F. (2002). Understanding the conditions and processes necessary for intergroup contact to reduce prejudice. In G. Salomon & B. Nevo (Eds.), Peace education: The concept, principles, and practices around the world (pp. 89-107). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

UNESCO. (1945). Preamble to the constitution of UNESCO. Retrieved on February 3, 2007, from http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=6206&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

Vandeyar, S., & Esakov, H. (2007). Color coded: How well do students of different race groups interact in South African schools? In Z. Bekerman & C. McGlynn (Eds.), Addressing ethnic conflict through peace education: International perspectives (pp.63-75). New York: Palgrave McMillan.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.Appendix AFoundations
 
Literacy:
In this section, attention is given to providing opportunities to engage with encoding and decoding the various symbol systems of a discipline. In the case of Peace Education, these may include books and journal articles on peace, written historical perspectives, film, popular fiction, narrative stories, statistics of peace, etc.
Problem-Solving:
In this section, attention is given to anchoring instruction in a problem for students to solve. In other words an overarching challenge relevant to peace education to foster critical thinking and analytic skills required in peace processes. An example may be posing an authentic problem in which the student has been appointed to develop a Peace School (in the country of their choice and either for K-12 learners or adult learners). Another example might be to develop a one hour children’s show that depicts the needs of the community in terms of peace education, in the spirit of The World According to Sesame Street.
Knowledge:
In this section, attention is given to the structures and processes of the discipline. Structures of the discipline are the concepts of a discipline. The processes of a discipline are how the discipline is done. In the case of peace education, examples of the structures include: the concepts of peace, goals of peace education, cooperation, democracy, approaches used to develop peace, contact theory, friendship, integrative peace programs, etc. The processes may include: changing mindsets, peacebuilding, peacekeeping, peacemaking, etc.
Using Information:
In this section, attention is given to developing skills for using information. These skills include searching and sorting information, creating with the information, and communicating the information to a relevant audience. In peace education this may include: judging and evaluating Internet resources, print resources, statistical information on peace and violence, making decisions about the type of information needed to address peace issues, providing opportunities for students to use the information to solve a problem, and an opportunity to share the solution with a relevant audience.
Community:
In this section, attention is given to modeling a democratic classroom, cooperative and collaborative opportunities, instances of 'teachable moments', and a safe environment in which students can learn about the values and beliefs of others as well as express their values and beliefs. Attention is also given to the development of a community of practice in which members come together to work towards common goals. Constructivist principle addressed: Communities of Practice.
Activities
Authentic Activities:
In this section, attention is given to the use of relevant authentic activities to gain an understanding of what kinds of practitioners use the content knowledge I want students to master. What do they do to solve the problems they encounter? What products do they produce to support and communicate the solutions they devise? In the context of peace, examples could be a curriculum developer at an NGO, a school administrator, adversaries living in the same region, a member of an advocacy group, etc. Constructivist strategy addressed: Situated Cognition.
Background Building Activities:
In this section, attention is given to the development of background knowledge essential to anyone who wants to understand peace. These background building activities may include: reading articles about the concept of peace, analyzing the use of peace education in various contexts, reading about the theories underpinning various approaches, reviewing various examples of peace educative efforts, etc. Constructivist strategy addressed: Apprenticeship- modeling, coaching.
Constructing Activities:
In this section, attention is given to providing opportunities for learners to take the knowledge they have acquired and put it into practice. Each constructing activity is linked with a corresponding authentic task and background activity for support. For example: The overarching problem/ challenge for learners may be that they are appointed to develop a Peace School.
Authentic activities may include
A1.developing curriculum,
A2. recruiting transformed teachers,
A3. setting up democratic classrooms,
A 4. communicating to the public about the school.
Background activities therefore need to address the knowledge learners need in order to complete the task such as learning about what are the
B1a.concepts of peace,
B1b.how is peace curriculum developed,
B2. what is involved in personal transformation,
B3. what are examples of democratic classrooms,
B4. what are ways the community can become involved or made aware of the New Peace School.
Constructing activities would involve learner applying their knowledge in authentic activities
C1. developing lesson plans that integrate peace,
C2. learners creating opportunities for promoting inner transformations among staff,
C3. learners creating a model democratic classroom,
C4a. learners developing a mission statement,
C4b.public service announcements,
C4c. published materials to market the school and elicit community support
C4d. creating a Public Service Announcement
C4e. creating Advocacy Websites.

Constructivist strategy addressed: Apprenticeship- fading, Expertise development.
Sharing Activities:
In this section, attention is given to providing an opportunity for learners to communicate what they have learned through an authentic sharing activity. Using the example of the authentic challenge to develop a Peace school, learners may be asked to present their school at a grand opening, to be attended by "school board members", "local university faculty", "representatives from minority groups, or diverse ethnic groups", etc. Constructivist strategy addressed: Situated Cognition.
Contents

In this section, attention is given to any standards, accreditation requirements, and International declarations such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Goals and objectives for peace education as found in the literature are also frameworks for content in peace education.
Tools

In this section, attention is given to the Tools that might be used to support the authentic, background building, constructing and sharing activities. For peace education as in any type of education, the tools used to support the process are numerous and may include: Print books, Videos, Word Processors, Desktop Publishing, Wikis, Blogs, Podcasting, Hypermedia presentations, Internet, Telecommuncation tools, Simulations.
Systems of Assessment

In this section, attention is given to assessments. The outcomes of peace education are difficult to assess in that the process is long term and the objectives pertain to the internalization of values, beliefs, and behaviors. Therefore more creative alternatives to the standard of testing needs to be developed. Here the process can be viewed to be as important as product and learners' explanations of how they developed, changed, or created a product as important as the product itself. These assessments must be instructionally based and relatively non-intrusive. They must provide students with expanded opportunities to demonstrate what they know. In the case of peace education, reflection portfolios are examples of the type of assessment that can be used. Rubrics that set criteria for products and offer explicit language to measure success can be used for instructor evaluations, self-evaluations and/or peer evaluations.
Learning Environment

In this section, attention is given to the learning environment and includes the intellectual learning environment, which addresses the ways that the learners' minds will be used to interact with the content, the tasks, etc.; the physical environment, which addresses the ways learning space is arranged to promote cooperative and collaborative interactions; and the emotional environment which addresses the values promoted within the learning environment, such as democratic principles, the process of transformation, etc. In peace education, these elements include the presence of an educator has undergone self-transformation and has the ability to model the process. It also requires the use of materials the challenge the mindsets of learners in a safe environment.