Limits and spaces: Types of learning in the context of non-formal educational settings for refugees in the Greek islands

Research ethics

The research study was initially approved by the main author’s departmental Review Board (it is called “Committee for Educational Research”), during its session on the 16^th of February 2023. The Ethical Approval Number is: CER006/2023.

The interviewees were informed about the purposes of the research and the digital recording of the interviews; they were assured about the confidentiality and anonymity of their personal data; and a written consent was requested and collected from all of them. Additionally, they became aware of the right to withdraw cooperation at any time. They were also assured that their interview transcripts would be used solely by the researchers and that they would not be seen by others. Finally, it was agreed that after the interview all transcripts would be handed back to the respective respondents, allowing them to change aspects of the text which they felt might have misrepresented their views in any way.

Profile of the participants

Six interviews with teachers in non-formal educational projects were conducted during the period of May-July 2023, with a focus on the learning processes applied in the language education of refugees on the Greek islands, mainly on the islands of Lesvos (North Aegean) and Kos (South Aegean). These interviews were carried out by one of the authors, with the participation of five women and one man, all working in non-formal educational settings, and having significant teaching experience in the field of refugee education (from 1 to 8 years), especially in language teaching. They all have worked for certain NGOs which offer Greek-language courses on the above islands, and at the time of the interviews most of them were still active in refugee education, while two of them were hired –on fixed contacts—as substitute teachers in state schools (i.e. they moved to formal education).

A common trait of all interviewees was that they started their teaching activities by volunteering in non-formal education structures around the country. Subsequently, they collaborated with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that operate in “Reception and Identification Centers” (RICs, or “hot-spots” as they are widely known), teaching mainly Greek, and sometimes English, to children and adults, inside and outside the RICs and other official sites or hospitality structures. The main language of instruction during their teaching engagement was Greek, although English and other languages (mainly mother tongues of the refugees themselves) were also used interchangeably, according to the principles of translanguaging (see the “Theory” section).

Their studies (under- and post-graduate) had a similar orientation, as they are mainly graduates of university departments of Philosophy or Literature (Greek and other). All of them had gone through some kind of training related to teaching Greek as a second/foreign language, or to intercultural education.

The interview and analysis settings

Our study is a case-study, and therefore cannot be considered as representative of similar practices at national level (Bassey, 1999), at least not before we are able to corroborate our findings by comparing them with relevant studies in other parts of Greece (especially on the mainland). The study is based on what is usually called “interpretive research”. We regard such an approach as being useful in describing or addressing questions relating to localised events or contexts and a group of participants’ perspectives towards events, beliefs or practices (Babbie, 2011, chap. 9; Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007, chap. 6).

The interviews were conducted using the Webex teleconference software (see https://www.webex.com/), which allows for digital recording, and later for transcription of the created files. The transcription of the recorded interviews (video files) was supported by using the “transcription” add-on of Word for Windows (part of the Office-365 suite), which produced text files with all the necessary information for their interpretation (identification of interlocutors, time stamps for each sentence, etc.). The transcribed interviews went through a meticulous editing before being finalised for subsequent analysis.

Taking down notes before and after the interviews (the so-called “diary of field observation”) helped the interviewer in the analysis of the material collected. However, note-taking during the interviews was kept to a minimum level because it could be intrusive and could make people nervous by continually emphasizing that they were being observed (Kvale, 1996).

The transcribed interviews were analysed using open- and selective-coding procedures. Apart from the main themes, we did not “invent” any other kind of “categories of analysis”, and we noted words (that is concepts and notions inscribed into those words) springing out of interviewees during their conversation with the interviewer (e.g. words such as “rights”, “refugees”, “need” “education”, etc.). The results of that first-level analysis, which included the most frequently used concepts, were then grouped into a higher level of coding, through the combination of words into semantically important phrases and whole sentences, leading to the creation of a more general reference framework than the previous one (e.g. “refugees have every right to be educated or offered work opportunities”). This iterative, inductive process led to conceptual saturation—reaching a point where the information gathered became redundant.

The linguistic analysis of the data was grounded on the methodological tools of Systemic Functional Grammar (Halliday, 1978; Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004), which implements general principles of Critical Discourse Analysis (Fairclough, 2003), by interconnecting speakers’ language choices to the way they conceive and construct their social reality. Our data processing was based on the ideational and interpersonal metafunctions, as articulated by M. Halliday (Halliday, 1978; Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004). Since the main objective of our research was to investigate adult refugee teachers’ representations (Fairclough, 2003) of both Greek language and of the learning process, we initially examined –through the study of the semantic-syntactic relations represented by specific verbal forms— how teachers/educators tend to decode their teaching experiences. More specifically, we explored in which processes, material, mental, relational, behavioral or existential (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004), educators are engaged during teaching, so as to identify how they perceive their role as actors in shaping the educational landscape.

A greater emphasis was placed on grammatical choices related to language’s interpersonal metafunction (Halliday, 1978), whereby language use is linked with the expression of emotions and personal perceptions, but also with the maintenance of social relations (Fairclough, 2003). Since interpersonal metafunction centers on the communicative dimension of language, it entails on a grammatical level, mood structures and modality (Halliday, 1978). Mood structures express interactional meanings such as what the clause is doing, as a verbal exchange between the encoder and the decoder. Modality, on the other hand, refers to the speaker’s views on the content and speech function of the clause.

Through the corpus analysis, we sought to identify specific language patterns that mainly indicate how teachers perceive and evaluate their teaching work, their relationship with refugees and the Greek educational system. Hence, our analysis focused on the expression of deontic modality, which is here associated with teachers’ obligation to fulfill their educational mission, but also on the evaluation markers concerning the articulation of stereotyped beliefs, dominant representations about the refugee population (Archakis, 2022; Oikonomakou et al., 2021; Gouvias et al., 2021) and the expression of individual conflicts or educational challenges. Critical discourse analysis of the corpus is not exhaustive; it is used -from a methodological point of view - as a supportive tool for critically processing the teachers’ discourse and outlining more clearly which types of learning are implemented in non-formal educational contexts for refugees on various Greek islands.

Learner-centered learning

As regards the aspects of a learner-centered learning, we opted to examine the refugees’ motivations for Greek language learning in relation to their pre-existing knowledge and their demographic characteristics, their use of linguistic and cultural resources and their stance towards the teaching subject as it was articulated during instruction in the classroom (Tsokalidou, 2017). A common component of the questions asked was the development of a broader reflection on the differences that teaching refugee populations might entail and on the role of educators in the cultivation of a pedagogy that places emphasis on transformation and emancipation (Freire, 1970; Mezirow, 1991; Mezirow & Associates, 2000).

To investigate learning motivation, the research participants (hereafter referred to as “P. 1”, “P. 2”, etc.) usually used verbal processes to convey the refugees’ utterances using direct or indirect speech.

The related processes (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004) are mainly mental, as the refugees are in an awareness raising stage, connecting their learning to their future plans. Learning the Greek language is inevitably connected to the refugees’ desire for a stable and safe environment, to the improvement of living conditions in Greece, but also to a wider attempt to promote their inclusion into the Greek educational and social settings.

It is indicative that the teachers systematically use expressive speech acts (Searle, 1969) in their discourse to convey the thoughts of the refugees, who sometimes also look for English language lessons, with the perspective of gradually moving to another European country.

In addition to learning motivations, the social characteristics of refugees inevitably enter the learning process. Thus, although the teachers/educators value the participation of women in the learning process very positively (see the repetition of the adverb “fortunately” in the first example), they identify gender differences that are attributed here through relational processes (men are “energetic”). The attitude of women is associated with their “responsibilities” and “obligations”.

Although age does not appear to be a moderating factor, the socio-economic class seem to ensure a more favorable access to education contexts.

Refugees’ previous literacy experiences significantly shape their relationship with learning. Some of them have thus far not had the opportunity to attend any educational institution, while others have a university education and similar professional skills.

The desire to create a learning environment that focuses on refugees’ learning needs and social and cultural characteristics is evident across the range of language choices of teachers. They develop a broader reflection on their educational role, based on their interaction with the members of their classrooms.

Their discourse is dominated by elements of interpersonal function (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004). They tend to use the first or second person, verbs expressing deontic modality and emotionally charged vocabulary.

The individual and social characteristics of refugees determine the content and methodology of the teaching interventions, which are characterized by flexibility and harmonized with the principles of inclusive education (Capstick & Delaney, 2016; Oikonomakou et al., 2021). The first-person plural pronouns appear systematically, as teachers feel that they are members of a wider educational community, with common anxieties and concerns.

The teachers seem to be emotionally involved by conveying experiential experiences in relation to dominant stereotypes that are widespread in Greek society. As demonstrated by the use of interpersonal function elements, pragmatic features and orality markers (Archakis, 2005), their teaching activity ultimately contributes to their confrontation with racist perceptions and to the redefinition of their own personal perceptions of cultural and linguistic diversity.

In relation to applied teaching practices, using refugees’ mother tongues and multilingual educational material has been positively assessed (Skourtou et al., 2021; Tsokalidou, 2017), and so has the attempt of creating a familiar environment that promotes the exchange of views and the development of refugees’ communication skills (Byram, 1997; Capstick & Delaney, 2016). Using students’ native languages in the classroom supports the achievement of the intended learning outcomes, notably when learning utilizes new functional vocabulary. Students often function as “mediators” in their community through translation/interpretation, while developing metacognitive skills for the language acquisition process.

In several cases, because of their long-term involvement in the field, teachers have learned some elements of refugee’ languages, through their interaction with different communities.

The teaching practices are essentially based on the feelings and learning priorities of the refugees, as the focus is on the recipients of the actions and on the positive dimensions of intercultural communication. On the level of language expression, it is indicative that the teachers often choose to quote expressive speech acts in order to convey the voice of their students in direct speech.

As far as differences in adult language education are concerned, compared to other groups of learners, interventions in non-formal education are positively assessed because they are not bound by the normative conventions that characterize formal education systems. This allows for greater flexibility and autonomy for the teacher.

The importance attributed to refugees’ personal biographies and profiles contributes to the transformation of learning into a tool of literacy development and emancipation (Freire, 1970; Mezirow, 1991; Mezirow & Associates, 2000). Their lived experiences are rich in orality elements, alternating direct and indirect speech, but also in interpersonal function markers (facial expressions, emotionally charged vocabulary, interrogative speech acts, modal expressions) (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004), demonstrating the dynamics developed in learning spaces.

Knowledge-centered learning

In knowledge-centered learning (Anderson, 2008; Bransford et al., 2000) what is of paramount importance is whether teaching (in this case language teaching) connects with other subjects or scientific areas and fosters the development of the cognitive abilities, but also the metacognitive skills of refugees. From all the information collected through the interviews, it appears that language teaching is usually associated with the development of practical skills, which focus on communicative fluency and the satisfaction of daily communication needs.

Combining language teaching with other subjects, such as mathematics, geography and history, not only aims at developing practical skills, but also promotes a deeper understanding of the context and historical background of the European countries, which are essentially the new migration destinations. Learning Greek often activates prior knowledge from the country of origin and creates bridges between languages and different scientific fields.

The fluidity of their refugee status largely shapes the choice of learning methods and corresponding teaching practices. The principles of differentiated teaching (Tulbure, 2011) are systematically emphasized, and their application appears to be necessitated by classroom management challenges, as indicated by the use of the deontic “must” and the repetition of the verb “adapt” or similar nominal expressions.

Particular importance is simultaneously given to the principles of experiential and task-based learning. The processes in which class members are involved as agents are mainly material, predominantly involving the use of the verb “to do” in the first plural person. Learning takes on an experiential character by deviating from typical language learning contexts, leading teachers to express reflections on mainstream beliefs through parenthetical sentences and evaluative adjectives (e.g., “funny”, “strange”). This approach allows them to adapt the course’s cognitive content to the social and pedagogical context of their classroom.

Assessment-centered learning

Assessment-centered learning (Anderson, 2008; Bransford et al., 2000) entails reinvestigating learners’ assessment techniques and facing various challenges related to their implementation in language education. Due to the irregular attendance or departure of refugees, because of the fluidity that characterizes their situation, the evaluation techniques are here more flexible than those usually adopted in formal learning environments –either with adult or minor students. These techniques adhere to the principles of differentiated teaching, which teachers assert should guide language instruction in heterogeneous classes.

Assessment tends to be formative in these contexts and is often carried out informally or unplanned, based on the learners’ needs. Among the different assessment techniques employed (Byram, 1997; Mouti et al., 2023, p. 45), the use of projects (see for example the use of repetition by P. 2 below) that engage students’ interest and further associate language learning with social context is highly valued.

The potential of new technologies for assessing learning (Anderson, 2008) has also been implemented in an informal way by using online tests, social networking, collaborative learning environments, and specialized language learning software, such as “Duolingo”. Digital media, therefore, function as a tool for fostering group cohesion rather than for assessment, supporting those unable to attend the learning sites in person and distributing educational material across the community (Kourtis-Kazoullis, 2019).

Community-centered learning

The creation of “learning communities” (Anderson, 2008; Bransford et al., 2000; Kourtis-Kazoullis et al. 2019) is based on the promotion of learners’ collaboration inside and outside the classroom, on the interconnection of learning environments with the local community, and on strengthening the relationships among the members of the classroom on a long-term basis. Mutual support among members, either within the family or ethnic or social group, can be beneficial for the learning experience, contributing to their socialization and mitigating the conflicts between different immigrant groups (see Gouvias et al., 2021; Oikonomakou et al., 2021; Skourtou et al., 2021).

At the level of language expression, this reality is outlined through: (a) the personal deixis, with the first person of plural prevailing, (b) the description of the various processes carried out jointly by the members of the learning community, but also (c) the use of nouns in predicate positions (family, community, group). The creation of similar communities is also influenced by the refugees’ living environment, as smaller islandic communities favour the development of more coherent interpersonal relationships.

Apart from classroom activities and projects, what emerges from all the interviewees is that non-formal education settings encourage extracurricular learning, based on close collaboration with the local community or other social organizations and institutions. Through this cooperative framework, which is positively evaluated by the teachers, the refugees seem to be engaged in material processes for acquiring practical skills, with the aim of improving their living conditions in their new place of residence.

The creation of learning communities, however, is not isolated from the stereotypical perceptions that arise within the classroom or local community context. It is often a matter of personal experiences or a transfer of narrations that are expressed through material or mental processes, supported by interpersonal function elements, such as evaluative modal expressions.

Some teachers voiced concerns regarding the nature of their long-term relationships with the refugees and set boundaries, either based on the normative framework of voluntary action in terms of, for example, an accredited NGO, or based on how they view their roles as educators. This sense of “boundaries” is evident in negative evaluative language choices for continuing communication with community members.

Despite the challenges, these educational initiatives have paved way, especially on islands with a smaller number of refugees, for the creation of learning communities, whose members gradually develop interpersonal relationships, maintain contact “like friends” and build a network of mutual support over time through digital media.

Ethics and consent

The research study was initially approved by the main author’s departmental Review Board (it is called “Committee for Educational Research”), during its session on the 16^th of February 2023. The Ethical Approval Number is: CER006/2023.

The interviewees were informed about the purposes of the research and the digital recording of the interviews; they were assured about the confidentiality and anonymity of their personal data; and a written consent was requested and collected from all of them.