From immersion to implementation: U.S. teachers re-examine peace education after international learning experience in Northern Ireland

• In Event: Peace education and global citizenship education

Proposal

Rationale/Relevance

In today’s global and local contexts—marked by violent conflict, political polarization, racial and gendered injustice, and rising authoritarianism (UNESCO, 2024)—peace education is essential to sustaining democracy (Hymel & Darwich, 2018). Despite peace education’s rich U.S. history (Stomfay-Stitz, 2008), it is marginalized due to underfunding, governmental criticism, and merges with global education (Cook, 2008), unlike its growing recognition internationally (UNESCO, 2024).

International learning experiences (ILE) offer teachers professional development abroad to gain insights into various cultural, historical, and educational phenomena (Cushner, 2018). While ILEs are often described as transformative (Cushner, 2018; Sharma et al., 2012), most studies focus on pre-service teachers’ (Kim & Choi, 2020; Klein & Wikan, 2019). Few studies examine in-service teachers and challenges encountered after engagement in ILEs using alternative theoretical frameworks (Patterson, 2015). Addressing these gaps, this qualitative case study examines how four U.S. elementary teachers implemented peace education after participation in a one-week ILE in Northern Ireland to learn about peace education initiatives post-Troubles, a period of ethno-political violence. I ask the following research question: How did the ILE influence in-service teachers’ classroom practices and implementation of peace education?

Theoretical Framework

This study employs Bickmore’s (2011) typology of peacekeeping, peacemaking, and peacebuilding in schools to analyze teachers’ peace education practices after the ILE. Peacekeeping involves authoritarian measures to maintain the status quo, such as discipline, surveillance, and avoidance of conflictual dialogue. Peacemaking addresses conflictual dialogue, through discussion, negotiation, and deliberation for intergroup understanding. Peacebuilding proactively transforms inequalities and divisions, promotes inclusion and equity, addresses national and global conflicts, fostering student-centered pedagogy for democratic peacebuilding.

Methodology

Setting and Participants

Participants included four U.S. elementary teachers (three women, one man) from a rural Midwest school district. Teaching experiences ranged from 2 to 21 years and education levels from bachelor’s to master’s degrees. They held diverse positions, including inclusion teacher, English Language Learning specialist, and various grade-level teachers. Participants are White and from the state they teach.

The ILE included lectures by historians, professors, community members, and government officials; tours of Belfast and Derry/Londonderry; school and museum visits; and time for reflection and cultural engagement.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data included two semi-structured group interviews (five months and 1.5 years post-trip), classroom observations, and lesson documents. Interviews lasted 75 minutes, were recorded and transcribed, and focused on classroom implementation and collaborative peace education design. Post-trip observations and meetings were documented using a protocol to ensure consistency. Data were triangulated to construct cross-case themes (Small & Calarco, 2022). Using Charmaz’s (2014) constructivist grounded theory, emergent themes were analyzed in relation to Bickmore’s (2011) typology.

Findings

Inconsistent Engagement with Conflict

Teachers inconsistently addressed conflict—embracing peacebuilding to foster cultural understanding but often reverting to peacekeeping under pressure. Amy used The Sandwich Swap, to highlight misunderstandings between a U.S. and Jordanian student; her class researched Jordan and made pita sandwiches with school leaders (Group Interview 1). Ted redesigned his classroom with international flags, continent-named desk groups, weekly map activities, and displayed Northern Ireland trip photos (Ted Post-Trip Observation). He elaborated, “With Europe, I taught about Northern Ireland…I pulled a picture of The Troubles asking, ‘What is going on in this picture? … We had a deep conversation about it with what led to it” (Group Interview 2). Debra facilitated a student discussion when asked why Jehovah’s Witness classmates did not celebrate Halloween: “I wanted them to see that diversity between themselves” (Group Interview 1).

However, while Amy read, Manjhi Moves a Mountain, students asked, “Why do Hindus not believe in Jesus?” She retorted, “They have different beliefs, and we should respect that” fearing parental backlash (Amy Post-Trip Observation). Debra limited discussions of politics recalling, “With Trump and Biden, district said you cannot talk about that because fights” (Group Interview 2). Ted’s other lessons merely celebrated cultural achievements but did not analyze roots of conflict (Ted Post-Trip Observation).

Need for Sustained Support and Professional Development

Another finding was the need for sustained support to implement peace education inspired by the ILE. While initially enthusiastic, participants struggled to sustain practices over time. A year later, Amy admitted she had not shared her Northern Ireland experience or retaught The Sandwich Swap lesson with her students that she was once excited about (Amy Post-Trip Observation). In a follow-up interview, Amy cited doubts about student global understanding and her district’s lack of diversity. Debra elaborated, “I felt were more to teaching the test now than ever ... it’s hard to get other things in.” Samantha echoed this, stating, “Time to plan it and time to pull it off altogether… that is a big one.” In contrast, Ted remained the most consistent, crediting continued engagement in global education workshops: “The resource I need is going and doing random stuff at MU. And then if they pay me” (Group Interview 2). His experience highlights the importance of follow-up support to sustain momentum.

Proactive focus on social identities and hierarchies

Additionally, participants demonstrated meaningful efforts to affirm student identities and disrupt social hierarchies following the ILE. Amy selected Manjhi Moves a Mountain to highlight Indian culture in response to growing Hindu populations in her district (Amy Post-Trip Observation). Debra facilitated dialogue around Halloween when Jehovah’s Witness students opted out, creating space for respectful cross-cultural exchange (Debra Post-Trip Observation). Samantha affirmed multilingualism, celebrating student cultures, and integrated readings addressing identity and injustice. She used the The Wall in the Middle of the Book to challenge border stereotypes, shared migration and achievement stories of Afghan and Latine youth, and taught Thao, a story about reclaiming one’s name. She even used Thao to lead a professional development session to support multilingual students (Samantha Post-Trip Observation).

Contributions

This study reveals both the possibilities and challenges of implementing peace education post-ILE. While ILEs can inform pedagogy, they do not guarantee sustained practice. Findings are critical for program developers, researchers, and teachers, especially as global education often subsumes peace education’s focus on systemic violence. Without that lens, educators and students remain unprepared to proactively address conflict for democracy.

Author

• Mariah Pol, University of Wisconsin Madison