This research proposes a rhetorical framework to improve multicultural education outcomes, emphasizing empathy and engagement.
The purpose of this study is to diagnose the problems in school education for fostering multicultural competencies necessary for a multicultural society and to propose a new approach. Current multicultural education is criticized for failing to achieve its goals and direction, the gap between multicultural education policy and reality, confusion over target audiences and methods, and a lack of teacher efficacy. This study focuses on the process of persuasion through education. Drawing on a neo-rhetorical perspective, the study proposes an alternative multicultural education class design approach model focusing on Burke’s concept of identification and terministic screens and clarify its educational implications. Burke's theory of identification explains the human effort to build community from separate existence. This theory is useful for transcending differences in multicultural societies to discover ‘commonalities’ and promote mutual understanding. This identification process is achieved through empathy and critical engagement, with social values education and critical thinking playing key roles. Furthermore, symbolic screens, which encompasses not only terminology but also diverse audiovisual media, can be utilized as classroom settings for cultural understanding and overcoming prejudices. Ultimately, this study establishes core principles of civic education, including pluralism, contextual understanding, informed action, and self-relevance, as the foundation for multicultural education. Through Burke's identification model, this study proposes a self-directed and collaborative process for members of multicultural societies to resolve conflicts and form new, shared civic identities. This approach is expected to overcome the limitations of existing multicultural education and provide a practical alternative to facilitate students’ internalization of multicultural competencies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jeong et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: