As central actors in education, teachers play a key role in acting appropriately in the context of social and cultural differences. Research on teacher competences suggests that the teachers’ beliefs are crucial for performing specific functions and tasks in teaching, e.g. for dealing effectively with diverse students (e.g. Klieme & Vieluf, 2009).

Intercultural theory suggests that beliefs about intercultural education are shaped differently depending on the level of intercultural sensitivity (Bennett, 1986; 2004). This level of intercultural sensitivity expresses the level of complexity in the perception of cultural differences and similarities. This constructivist approach suggests that perceptions take place on different levels of sophistication and complexity. This means that a higher intercultural sensitivity is reflected in a more differentiated and more sophisticated way how to perceive specific constellations and situations regarding cultural differences and commonalities. The level of intercultural sensitivity can be seen as a crucial precondition for acting with intercultural competence: It “creates the potential for increased intercultural competence” (Bennett, 2004, p. 73). The existing literature, however, does not portray a conception of how teachers’ beliefs change or differ depending on the level of intercultural sensitivity, i.e. depending on the complexity of how individuals perceive schooling and teaching (for an overview see Leutwyler et al., 2014). However, it has to be assumed that student teachers, teachers or teacher educators will most probably have different beliefs about cultural differences and similarities and therefore also upon Intercultural Education if they are in an ethnocentric stage of development or if they have developed an ethnorelative perspective.

With this in mind, the proposed contribution investigates the connection between the intercultural sensitivity on the one hand and different facets of beliefs about intercultural education on the other hand. Thereby, it focuses on the specifics of a school and teaching context – on specifics which are fairly neglected in the discourse about ‘intercultural competence’ (Sieber, 2007). The specific challenge in the school context arises from the predominantly monocultural setting of schooling as it is reflected both in its history and its current self-conception (Gogolin, 1994). Schools are historically targeted at contributing to the development of cultural cohesion in societies. Monoculturality, in this sense, is both aim and programme of the historically developed institution ‘school’ (Radtke, 2004). Establishing common norms and a common notion of normality is a central aim in schooling; or explained with Foucault’s terms: Normalisation of individuals is a central characteristic of modern societies (Foucault, 1973). In this perspective, the role of schooling is to contribute to this normalisation of pupils. Therefore, dealing with cultural heterogeneity in schools cannot be limited to dealing with individual cultural peculiarities. Rather, interculturally competent teachers are required to deal appropriately and productively with both the conflicting priorities of individual diversity on the one hand and the societal function of schooling on the other hand.

The proposed paper will bring these different argumentation lines together: It addresses teachers’ beliefs about intercultural education and asks for the role of intercultural sensitivity for considering the specific conflicting priorities of the school context. Thereby, it will answer the following research question: How is intercultural sensitivity connected with different facets of beliefs about intercultural education? And how is intercultural sensitivity connected with the way how teachers consider the specific conflicting priorities? By answering these questions, the paper contributes empirical evidence to better conceptualise different forms of dealing with these conflicting priorities and, in doing so, to define the role of intercultural sensitivity for ‘intercultural competence’ in the context of schooling. In this sense, the proposed project contributes with its approach to theory development in intercultural education.

Bennett, M. J. (1986). A developmental approach to training for intercultural sensitivity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10(2), 179-196. Bennett, M. J. (2004). Becoming Interculturally Competent. In J. Wurzel (Ed.), Toward multiculturalism: A reader in multicultural education (S. 62-77). Newton, MA: Intercultural Resource Corporation. Fantini, A. E.(2006). Exploring and assessing intercultural competence. Retrieved 01.09.2013, from http://digitalcollections.sit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=worldlearning_publications Foucault, M. (1973). Archäologie des Wissens. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp. Gogolin, I. (1994). Der monolinguale Habitus der multikulturellen Schule. Münster: Waxmann. Hachfeld, A., Hahn, A., Schroeder, S., Anders, Y., Stanat, P., & Kunter, M. (2011). Assessing teachers’ multicultural and egalitarian beliefs: The Teacher Cultural Beliefs Scale. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(6), 986-996. Hammer, M. R. (2009). The Intercultural Development Inventory. In M. A. Moodian (Ed.), Contemporary Leadership and Intercultural Competence. Exploring the Cross-Cultural Dynamics Within Organizations (pp. 203-218). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kelley, C. & Meyers, J. (1995). CCAI cross-cultural adaptability inventory Minneapolis. MN: National Computer Systems. Klieme, E., & Vieluf, S. (2009). Teaching practices, teachers’ beliefs and attitudes. In OECD (Ed.), Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments. First Results from TALIS (pp. 87-135). Paris: OECD. Koester, J. & Olebe, M. (1988). The behavioral assessment scale for intercultural communication effectiveness, International Journal of intercultural relations, 12, 233-246. Leutwyler, B., Mantel, C., Petrović, D.S., Dimitrijević, B.M. & Zlatković, B. (2014). Teachers’ Beliefs about Intercultural Education: Different Levels of Intercultural Sensitivity in Schooling and Teaching. Educational Research, 5 (8), 280-289. Leutwyler, B., & Petrović, D. S. (2011). Normality Reflection Scale: Verification of Cross-Cultural and Concurrent Validity. In N. Popov, C. Wolhuter, B. Leutwyler, M. Mihova & J. Ogunleye (Eds.), Comparative Education, Teacher Training, Education Policy, Social Inclusion, History of Education. Volume 9 (pp. 49-56). Sofia: Bureau for Educational Services. Radtke, F.-O. (2004). Schule und Ethnizität. In W. Helsper & J. Böhme (Eds.), Handbuch der Schulforschung (pp. 625-646). Wiesbaden: VS, Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Ruben, B. D., & Kealey, D. J. (1979). Behavioral assessment of communication competency and the prediction of cross-cultural adaptation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 3, 15-47. Sieber, P. (2007). Transnationalität und nationale Schulsysteme: Perspektiven für Forschung und Lehre. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Bildungswissenschaften, 29(3), 345-362.