Citizenship and Pluriculturalism Approaches of Teachers in the Hispanic and Japanese Contexts: Higher Education Research

Abstract

Current higher education policies include several challenges, such as the academic internationalization of universities, mobility, and cultural plurality. Beyond the official curriculum, university educators have conceptions of citizenship and pluricultural competence. To understand the conceptions of educators on both topics in the Hispanic and Japanese contexts of higher education, this article presents a quantitative study involving a collaboration between a sample of education and social sciences teaching staff from universities in Spain and Japan. The CYASPS^® (Citizenship and Plurilingual Social Actors in Higher Education) instrument and a categories system were designed for data collection and analysis with the support of SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) software. Using a comparative approach, this study investigated the teaching staffs’ conceptions about citizenship and pluricultural teaching–learning environments, which focused on their views regarding different kinds of citizenship, citizens’ participation, and sources for the development of pluricultural competences. Based on a descriptive and factorial analysis, there were significant correlations between citizenship and pluricultural competence, with relevant connections between key aspects of pluricultural competence, including awareness of the rights from the liberal citizenship model, civic commitment of the republican citizenship model, and several elements of cosmopolitan and radical citizenship.

1. Introduction

There are many conceptualizations of citizenship. Citizenship can be defined in terms of rights and responsibilities; individual and community importance; local, national, and international approaches; participation; the role of criticism; conflict and ideology; etc. The conceptualization of citizenship depends on multiple variables and the interpretation of a good citizen is considered a subjective construction. According to this, Thompson indicates that “civic imaginings are resources; they serve as bridges between private life and the public world, including helping to define what issues and actions properly belong in each of those domains” [1] (p. 71). Her research situates the vocabulary of citizenship in four quadrants defined by the civic contributions (individual–collective) and civic horizons (hyperlocal–global) dimensions. In general terms, a school system must prepare citizens to face the challenges of the 21st-century society from a critical and creative approach such that they can participate freely and judiciously in a society where machines and technologies have increased importance [2]. In recent decades, the social and educational environments have become culturally plural spaces. Immigration, through contact with people from the host country, is leading to the construction of hybrid identities, which on occasion, has given rise to “real cultural wars” [3] that are derived from the conflict between incompatible identities, namely identities generated in close socialization environments that develop from political, religious, linguistic, and ethnic-cultural factors.

Gajo states that “holistic and interactionist perspectives together help in the grounding of bilingualism (and, by extension, multi and plurilingualism) as a specific field, but interconnected in the social sciences, which causes the articulation between individuals and social contexts” [4] (p. 119). Considering this reflection, plurilingual competence and pluricultural competence are linked to the use of language for communication and intercultural participation. This approach focuses on people who are considered as social actors in communication. Communicative competence is a complex body of knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values; such a competence makes it possible to act and interact with others in a specific cultural environment through the control and use of language resources. Thus, each social actor has a specific linguistic and cultural competence that comes from historical processes and their own experiences [5]. This also means that the development of plurilingual and pluricultural competence promotes linguistic awareness and metacognitive strategies that allow social actors to be aware of their competence when resolving situations and the linguistic dimension involved in communication to control those situations.

Nowadays, internationalization is encouraged in higher education, including the interactions between university teaching staff and new teachers. Considering this and regarding pre-service teachers’ training environments in education and social science faculties, we carried out this research to reveal the conceptions of the university educators from these faculties regarding the meaning of citizenship and participation, as well as key elements for the development of pluricultural competence in the Hispanic and Japanese contexts of higher education. In general terms, this was a study on the teaching staff’s conceptions about citizenship and pluricultural teaching–learning environments; focusing on citizenship models, citizen participation approaches, and sources for the development of pluricultural competences.

2. Models of Citizenship and Civic Participation

Debates on the notion of citizenship have taken place from the 1980s to the present. Public institutions, universities, international organizations, and the media have increased their interest in citizenship and citizen education [6]. Based on this, we present two classifications: one for citizenship models and the other for citizen participation. The first classification regarding citizenship models is based on the proposal by Delgado-Algarra and Estepa [7,8]:

• Liberal citizenship: This model was originally proposed in the work Citizenship and Social Class by Marshall [9]. It highlights civil rights (freedom, right to property, and right to justice), political rights (right to participate in public power), and social rights (right to a full life) for citizens. John Rawls, an American political philosopher, is a significant author within the contemporary liberal approach [10]. His theory of justice as fairness is based on a society of free citizens holding equal basic rights within an egalitarian economic system.
• Republican citizenship: The republican model emphasizes direct participation and accepts a duality with representative participation. This model pays special attention to the active nature of citizens (responsibility) and it is represented by Habermas [11].
• Communitarian citizenship: This model prioritizes the concept of community. Citizens set common goals based on dialog, making decisions on citizen action to meet community needs, social problem-solving, and the reduction of social gaps. It is represented by several authors, such as Michael Walzer [12], Alasdair MacIntyre [13], Charles Taylor [14], Michael Sandel [15], and David Miller [16]
• Cosmopolitan citizenship: This model is focused on the defense of a global system of universal rights and responsibilities beyond national borders. It is encouraged by David Held [17] and Adela Cortina [18].
• Radical citizenship: This model of citizenship highlights the importance of ideological positions, considering protests and conflicts as political and social values. It is represented, among others, by political scientist Mouffe [19].

The second classification is based on Westheimer and Kahne [20] and it highlights three citizen models according to the method of participating when faced with social issues:

• Personally responsible citizen: pays taxes, obeys laws, etc.
• Participative citizen: leading positions in established systems.
• Justice-oriented citizen: questioning established systems.

Similar to other states of the European Union, in the Spanish context, the Spanish Socialist Workers Party (PSOE), through the Organic Law of Education [LOE] [21], introduced the subject of Education for Citizenship and Human Rights. With the promulgation of the Organic Law on Improvement of Educational Quality (LOMCE) [22] by the Popular Party (PP), this subject was replaced by Civic and Constitutional Education, removing issues considered controversial or susceptible to ideological indoctrination [23]. The European report Eurydice Brief: Citizenship Education at School in Europe 2017 states that “in democratic societies, citizenship education supports students in becoming active, informed and responsible citizens, who are willing and able to take responsibility for themselves and for their communities at the national, European and international level” [24] (p. 5). Citizenship education can be taught as an independent subject, in several subjects, or as general competences included in all the subjects. The objectives of citizen education are grouped into four blocks [25]: development of political culture; acquisition of critical thinking and analytical skills; development of values, attitudes, and behaviors; and encouragement of active participation, commitment in school, and the community.

In the Japanese context, changes in educational policies have mainly been motivated by the social, economic, and educational issues experienced by Japan in the 1990s. The Prime Minister’s Commission on Japan’s Goals in the 21st Century [26] published a report called “The Frontier Within: Individual Empowerment and Better Governance in the New Millennium.” It focuses on carrying out a radical educational reform and promoting a policy and a Japanese citizenship open to internationalization. Along general lines, as indicated by Ikeno [27], the educational policies of post-war Japan can be divided into distinct, clearly differentiated phases: without policies (1945–1947), an experience-oriented phase (1947–1955), a knowledge-oriented phase (1955–1989), and an activity-oriented phase (1989–). To reconstruct Japanese education based on the principles of the revised Education Law, the government set out four guidelines on lifelong learning, which are included in the document “Second Basic Plan for the Promotion of Education.” This plan pays special attention to independence, collaboration, and creativity. The proposed guidelines include the development of social skills for survival, development of human resources for a better future, building safety nets for learning, forging bonds, and establishing vibrant communities [28].

3. Pluricultural Competence and Plurilingual Social Actor

Plurilingual competence and pluricultural competence refer to the ability to use language and intercultural interaction for communication, respectively. Communicative competence focuses on people as social actors with partial competence in languages and cultural experiences. It includes knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values that make it possible to act and interact with people in a specific cultural environment [29]. The concept of a “plurilingual social actor” emphasizes the relationship between linguistic and cultural plurality, including strategies used in a specific context [30]. In other words,

Plurilingual and pluricultural competence refers to the ability to use languages for the purposes of communication and to take part in intercultural interaction, where a person, viewed as a social actor has proficiency, of varying degrees, in several languages and experience of several cultures. This is not seen as the superposition or juxtaposition of distinct competences, but rather as the existence of a complex or even composite competence on which the social actor may draw.

[31] (p. 11)

In francophone research, “multilingualism,” the coexistence of several languages in a society, is distinguished from “plurilingualism,” individual lifelong experiences in several languages and cultures [32]. Thus, plurilingualism focuses on individuals who communicate with others and intercultural competence focuses on the inclusive approach of social interaction. Current studies have considered the importance of teamwork for teachers’ professional development on intercultural competence, highlighting re-negotiation of their beliefs about the main features of intercultural education. These features include the role of culture in school and the recognition of individual differences due to cultural backgrounds [33,34].

In general terms, the experience of plurilingualism and pluriculturalism can accelerate learning in linguistic and cultural areas, because they [30]:

• Take advantage of pre-existing sociolinguistic and pragmatic skills.
• Produce a better perception of linguistic organization on different languages (metalinguistic and interlingual awareness).
• Perfect the knowledge regarding how to learn and the ability to establish relationships with other people and new situations.

Depending on the trajectory followed by the social actors, their competences are enriched with job experience, geographic space, family mobility, or a change of interests. Furthermore, identity construction has become a complex process rooted in profound changes over several decades, including the recognition and affirmation of regional and ethnic minorities and the concomitant challenges of states in a globalized world [35]. Moreover, the improvement of pluricultural competence constructs has differentiated profiles through development, reduction, and remodeling, and it depends on the individuals and professional experiences. Since the 1980s, the Spanish and Japanese contexts have driven toward global citizenship, but this process has met with resistance because of the fear of the dilution of traditional values and morals. However, in the context of academic internationalization, there is increasing openness to civic interaction and linguistic and cultural enrichment, with a real increase of plurilingual and pluricultural high school academic environments [29,36].

4. Research Design and Methodology

For this study, we focused on university teachers’ conceptions of citizenship and pluricultural competence from a positivist paradigm [37].

4.1. Problems

Problems define research objectives in the specific context of the sample; we focused on the following research questions:

• RQ1: What are the teachers’ conceptions of citizenship in the Hispanic and Japanese higher education contexts?
• RQ2: What are the teachers’ conceptions of pluricultural competence in the Hispanic and Japanese higher education contexts?
• RQ3: What is the link between citizenship and pluricultural competence in the Hispanic and Japanese higher education contexts?

4.2. Population and Sample

According to Fowler [38], a researcher must take three characteristics into account to define a sample: attention to the representativeness of the sample, the possibility of calculating the probability of selection, and efficiency or ratio whereby the population can be represented in the sample. Regarding the representativeness of the sample frame, the first step was to set up a list of all individuals in the population that could be part of the sample. In this research, the population included the teaching staff of education and social sciences faculties from eight universities, where four were Spanish and four were Japanese.

In Spain, the population included a southern university (University of Huelva (UHU)), two from the central zone (Autonomous University of Madrid (UAM) and University of Salamanca (USAL)), and another one from the north of the country (University of Barcelona (UB)). In Japan, the population included a southern university (Hiroshima University or Hiroshima Daigaku (HID)), two from the central zone (Sophia University or Jochi Daigaku (JD) and Waseda University or Waseda Daigaku (WD)), and one from the North (Hokkaido University or Hokkaido Daigaku (HOD)). The acronyms of universities used for this research are related to their name in their original languages. The fact that two were selected from Tokyo was due to the extension of universities in the Kanto area and this prefecture (this was based on “Statistics of Japanese Higher Education” from the Research Institute of Higher Education of Hiroshima University at https://rihe.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/en/statistics/synthesis/).

We consulted academic planning reports for the 2017–2018 academic year, as well as websites of education and social science faculties and departments with related teaching to select the sample and provide access to contact details. We took into account the fact that a sample must be five times larger than the number of items as a first criterion of validity. However, it was also considered necessary to maintain proportionality. Regarding the selection probability of individuals and the ratio, the proportionality criterion between the population and sample through multiphase sampling was maintained. In the initial phase, any member of the population could be selectable (a selection probability of 1/1), and in the second phase, the probability of selection was 1/8 (

Table 1. Population, selection probability, and sample.

Universities	Population	Target Sample Volume	Participant Sample Volume
UHU	147	18.3 →19	20
UAM	216	27 → 27	29
USAL	193	24.1 → 25	27
UB	417	52.1 →53	56
HID	156	19.5 → 20	21
JD	96	12	13
WD	276	33	35
HOD	119	14.8 → 15	16
Total	1620	205	N = 216

). The selection process in phase 2 was random. Thus, according to the above-mentioned criteria, 216 university teachers (participating sample) were selected: 133 (61.6%) from Spanish universities and 83 (38.4%) from Japanese universities, distributed as shown in

Table 2. Sample volume distribution over Spanish and Japanese universities.

q0.1 - University		Frequency	Percentage	Valid Percentage	Accumulated Percentage
Valid	University of Huelva	20	9.3	9.3	9.3
	Autonomous University of Madrid	29	13.4	13.4	22.7
	University of Salamanca	27	12.5	12.5	35.2
	University of Barcelona	57	26.4	26.4	61.6
	Hiroshima University	21	9.7	9.7	71.3
	Sophia University	12	5.6	5.6	76.9
	Waseda University	34	15.7	15.7	92.6
	Hokkaido University	16	7.4	7.4	100.0
	Total	216	100.0	100.0

. Due to this being a Spanish and Japanese study where the sample consisted of teachers from the education and social science faculties of eight Spanish and Japanese universities, the majority of informants were Spanish (60.2%), and 35.2% of informants were Japanese. However, when crossing the age ranges (q0.5) with the universities (q0.1), in relative terms, there was a more advanced age profile in the sample of Japanese universities (Figure 1). Regarding the social context, Kingston [39] notes that Japan faces the challenge of a swiftly aging demographic.

4.3. Categories System

After the problem was defined and the references were reviewed, a system of categories was designed. The specific structure of this system was based on the proposal by Delgado-Algarra and Estepa [40] and supported by the EPITEC R+D Project (2016–2020), EDU2015–67953–P, funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness. We present the following categories: “citizenship” (CIU) and “pluricultural competence” (CPC). A categories system facilitates the design of the research instrument for data collection and supports the analysis of information from a systemic perspective. The categories system includes subcategories, indicators, and descriptors of CIU and CPC blocks (Appendix A).

4.4. Data-Gathering Instrument: CYASPS^® “Citizenship and Plurilingual Social Actor in Higher Education”

The CYASPS^® questionnaire “Citizenship and Plurilingual Social Actor in Higher Education,” owned by Delgado-Algarra with the registered trademark M3683892 (registered in 2017 in the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office of the Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Tourism of the Government of Spain, Nice classification number 41 [Education, Training, and Cultural Activities]) is a mixed instrument that was designed and validated for this research. CYASPS^® consists of a biographical block that allows researchers to define the sample. It is followed by three blocks based on the category system and the issues to be investigated: citizenship, plurilingual competence, and pluricultural competence. We focused on block 1 “citizenship” and block 3 “pluricultural competence” (see Appendix B). Regarding block 1 “citizenship”, it was designed using sources presented in the theoretical background that also served as the basis for the design of the CIDIMEN^® questionnaire “Citizenship and Dimensions of Memory,” with the registered trademark M3695791 and is the property of Delgado-Algarra, Estepa, Vázquez, and López-Meneses. CIDIMEN^® was an up to date version of a questionnaire designed and validated to investigate the relations between citizenship, civic education, and memory. Block 1 “citizenship” consisted of 19 Likert-type items (q1.1–q1.19) (from 1—strongly disagree to 5—strongly agree) and an open response item: “According to your opinion, write three keywords that define a good citizen” (q.1.20). The “citizenship” block likewise proposed six Likert-type items (c1.1–c1.6) focused on citizen participation cases and teachers’ attitudes, and an open response item to justify the previous answers (c1.7). Block 3, “pluricultural competence”, consisted of 10 Likert-type items about pluricultural competence sources and one open response item: “What are the advantages and disadvantages of learning in a pluricultural environment?” (q.3.11). Once the CYASPS^® questionnaire was designed, reviewed, and validated, it was finally shared with teaching staff from Spanish and Japanese universities involved in education and social sciences teaching.

5. Results and Discussion

After collecting the data, a quantitative analysis (descriptive and factorial) was carried out both separately in blocks and between blocks to be able to respond to the problems [25]. Descriptive analysis (central trend, frequencies, and contingencies) was used to answer RQ1 and RQ2. Factorial analysis (analysis of principal components and correlations) was used to answer to RQ3. Appendix A shows the relationship between items of the CYASPS^® questionnaire and the category system. Regarding “teachers’ conceptions of citizenship in the Hispanic and Japanese context of higher education” (RQ1), after data analysis from CYASPS^® block 1 with the support of the “citizenship” category (CIU), the concept of citizenship involved heterogeneity. The analysis of the teachers’ conceptions of citizenship revealed different levels of predominance on indicators of liberal (LIB), republican (REP), communitarian (COM), cosmopolitan (COS), and radical (RAD) citizenship models. The highest average value was found in q1.15 “I accept ideological differences,” with a value of 4.54 and a standard deviation (σ) of 0.752, followed by q1.14 “A citizen can have more than one civic identity,” with a value of 4.38, σ of 0.826; q1.16 “Civic advocacy is a mechanism for social improvement,” with a value of 4.35, σ of 0.811; q1.19 “Wealth must be redistributed,” with a value of 4.25, σ of 1.022; q1.1 “I am aware of my individual rights and defend them,” with a value of 4.25, σ of 0.772; q1.4 “I assume the responsibility of participating in society,” with a value of 4.11, σ of 0.859; and q1.18 “I support the causes I consider just, although it means disagreeing with the political powers that be,” with a value of 4.07, σ of 1.043. Regarding keywords that defined a good citizen (open answer), the teachers in the sample highlighted aspects of republican citizenship such as “commitment,” “cooperation,” “responsibility,” and “participation,”; followed by aspects of cosmopolitan citizenship, such as “flexibility,” “tolerance,” “solidarity,” and “sustainability”; and characteristics of radical citizenship, such as “autonomy,” “criticism,” “reflection,” “conscience,” “ethics,” and “justice.” Liberal citizenship had a relatively minor presence in the teachers’ responses, highlighting “freedom” and “diversity.” Community citizenship had a very low presence, highlighting only the word “loyalty.” In general, the characteristics of a good citizen highlighted by the teachers was related to an active approach of citizenship and civic values underlying the interaction with the environment. In other words, according to the teachers’ keywords, the models of republican and cosmopolitan citizenship were the most important for the sample. The high values of issues related to cosmopolitan citizenship in the Spanish and Japanese cases, such as the acknowledgment of more than one civic identity, differed from the research by Estrellés and Romero [41] with 29 Spanish teachers who did not make any reference to features of civic cosmopolitanism, multiculturalism, or interculturality.

Likewise, Chiu’s research [42] in the Japanese context concluded that teachers were aware of the importance of global citizenship, although there are discrete points of resistance due to fear of the loss of national identity. Along these lines, reviewing the responses to item q3.11 of block 3 “pluricultural competence” of the present research, eight teachers cited “pluricultural conflicts” and the “loss of identity” as drawbacks of pluricultural educational areas, clarifying that, despite being a minority item, the concern over the loss of identity was more present in the case of Japanese higher education teachers. Regarding this, one teacher answered that “the disadvantage is that the awareness of being Japanese becomes weaker" (q3.11-19). However, other teachers focused on conflict: “One drawback may be that there is the possibility of critical emotions against (many) other cultures appearing, driven by the protection of one’s own culture” (q3.11-52). Teachers in the sample gave notable importance to some of the most representative defining aspects of radical democracy, redistribution of wealth, and civic advocacy for just causes, even if it means disagreeing with the political establishment. Regarding this aspect, in item q1.18, 78.7% of the teachers marked high or very high levels of agreement. The highest frequency of 89 (41.2%) strongly agreed. This was followed by a moderate agreement, with a frequency of 81 (37.5%). Finally, 9.4% of teachers disagreed or strongly disagreed that they “supported causes they considered just, even though it meant disagreeing with the political powers” (Figure 2).

According to the contingency graph (Figure 3) on item q1.18, teachers’ answers in the sample of Spanish universities predominantly expressed high and moderate agreement (56.39% and 34.58%, respectively), while the prevailing response of the teachers from the sample of Japanese universities was a moderate degree of agreement (42.16%) with a significant variation, with neutral agreement being quite far behind (21.68%). In other words, as part of the conceptualization of citizenship, from a comparative approach, a greater proportion of Spanish teachers accepted that a citizen can disagree with the political authority to defend causes that they consider fair. For a citizen to be able to disagree with the political establishment requires the development of critical awareness. Regarding this, Keçe’s [43] research concluded that, usually, textbooks predominate in teaching and there are difficulties in valuing valorization.

Regarding the “teachers’ conceptions of pluricultural competence in the Spanish and Japanese context of higher education” (PE 5), all items (not including q3.1, q3.2, and q3.6) had an average value above 4. The highest average score was found in q3.7 “Interaction with people,” with an average value of 4.65 and a standard deviation (σ) of 0.674; followed by q3.10 “Contact with other languages,” with an average value of 4.47 and σ of 0.819; and q3.8 “Interaction with new situations,” with an average value of 4.39 and σ of 0.832. Teachers gave notable importance to interaction as a key factor for the improvement of pluricultural competence. They assigned the lowest scores to “Academic level and professional experience” (q3.1), with an average value of 3.75, σ of 0.942, and to “Family background” (q3.2), with an average value of 3.89, σ of 0.872.

Focusing our attention on the “interaction” (INT) subcategory, within the “Interpersonal interaction” (ipe) indicator and related with item q3.7 “interaction with people,” there was a growth in frequencies from values 3 to 5 and 95.4% of teachers responded with ratings of 4 and 5, i.e., they were in moderate and high agreement. Value 5 was especially significant, with a frequency of 155 (72.1%) (Figure 4). These outcomes were similar to those obtained in the indicator “Interaction with new situations” (ins), with 90.2% having moderate or strong agreement. Similarly, Cushner, McClelland, and Stafford [44] highlighted the importance of interaction between individuals and groups to anticipate and efficiently manage problems arising from intercultural interaction. Their research conclusions considered the following agents as socializing and transmitters of culture: family, school, religious community, neighbors, peer group, digital and print media, sports, arts, workplace, and technology.

The contingency graph (Figure 5) for item q3.7 shows high agreement for both countries; 68.19% in the case of Spain and 78.34% in Japan, followed by moderate agreement (27.27% and 16.86%, respectively). In other words, interaction with people was the most valued aspect by the teaching staff in the university samples from both countries. In recent years, academic internationalization and the interaction between students from different countries have been promoted in the curriculums of both the Hispanic and Japanese contexts. Eisenchlas and Trevaskes [45] considered that the interest in internationalizing the curriculum responds to the development of intercultural competence, a competence that allows for the efficient interaction of students in a globalized context and fosters the role of universities in a globalized world.

Finally, regarding the analysis of the “link between citizenship and pluricultural competence in the Hispanic and Japanese context of higher education” (PE 7), the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin sample adequacy index provided a good result when it was over 0.750, while the Bartlett sphericity test indicated a high statistical significance (p < 0.005) and that the factors were correlated (

Table 3. Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) sampling adequacy measure and Bartlett test.

Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin sample adequacy measure		0.772
Bartlett’s sphericity test	Chi-square test	4349.242
	gl	780
	Sig.	0,000

). Due to these values, we considered that a factorial model was suitable to explain the data. In other words, as stated by Hoaglin, Mosteller, and Tukey [46], each variable (or group of variables) is considered dependent on a series of components, which are composed of all other variables, such that the choice of factors is related to the criterion of the percentage of variance. In social sciences, scores over 60% are acceptable [47].

According to

Table 4. Total variance explained.

Comp.	Initial Autovalues			Sums of the Saturations to the Extraction Square			Sums of the Saturations to the Rotation Square
	Total	% of the Variance	% Accumulated	Total	% of the Variance	% Accumulated	Total	% of the Variance	% Accumulated
1	9.300	23.249	23.249	9.300	23.249	23.249	5.198	12996	12.996
2	3.585	8.964	32.213	3.585	8.964	32.213	3.921	9.803	22.798
3	2.607	6.518	38.731	2.607	6.518	38.731	3.131	7.828	30.626
4	2.078	5.194	43.925	2.078	5.194	43.925	2.713	6.782	37.409
5	1.827	4.568	48.493	1.827	4.568	48.493	2.302	5.754	43.162
6	1.715	4.288	52.781	1.715	4.288	52.781	1.970	4.924	48.086
7	1.526	3.815	56.596	1.526	3.815	56.596	1.741	4.352	52.438
8	1.377	3.442	60.038	1.377	3.442	60.038	1.690	4.226	56.664
9	1.190	2.976	63.014	1.190	2.976	63.014	1.580	3.950	60.613
10	1.085	2.713	65.727	1.085	2.713	65.727	1.568	3.919	64.532
11	1.054	2.636	68.363	1.054	2.636	68.363	1.532	3.831	68.363
Method of extraction: analysis of the principal components.

and the sedimentation graph (Figure 6), the reduction of factors to 11 explained 68.363% of the variance. With the analysis of principal components, the 40 variables (including those related to plurilingual competence not developed in this paper) would be grouped into 11 components or factors.

To interpret these components, we transformed the factorial matrix into a rotated factorial matrix through a factorial rotation process (Varimax standardization with Kaiser). It made the interpretation easier by achieving high correlations with one group of variables and low correlations with the others [48]. Based on the analysis of principal components extraction method (

Table 5. Rotated components matrix (summarized).

	Components
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
q3.1: Academic/professional	0.437	0.404	−0.057	0.219	0.209	0.000	−0.017	0.046	−0.020	0.118	−0.374
q3.2: Family	0.549	0.234	−0.117	0.197	0.262	0.112	−0.145	0.022	0.302	−0.125	0.064
q3.3: Travel	0.750	0.254	−0.065	0.055	−0.054	0.152	−0.043	0.123	−0.128	0.039	−0.088
q3.4: Readings	0.784	0.015	0.080	0.219	0.031	0.038	−0.022	0.009	−0.057	0.104	−0.245
q3.5: Cultural references	0.738	0.032	0.178	0.001	0.018	0.104	0.222	0.119	0.135	0.109	0.085
q3.6: Adapted Actions	0.744	−0.095	−0.026	−0.050	−0.021	−0.068	0.139	0.168	−0.075	0.183	0.231
q3.7: Interaction—people	0.620	0.271	0.142	0.071	−0.112	0.084	−0.055	0.076	−0.131	0.182	0.305
q3.8: Interaction—new situations	0.734	0.098	0.244	0.203	−0.085	0.066	−0.007	0.002	0.101	−0.117	0.142
q3.9: Problem solving	0.560	0.210	0.297	0.117	−0.145	0.137	−0.222	0.134	0.151	−0.214	0.276
q3.10: Contact with other languages	0.475	0.420	0.237	0.096	0.022	0.142	−0.042	−0.083	−0.173	0.204	0.196
q1.4: Responsibility—participating	0.245	0.572	0.443	0.239	0.055	−0.087	0.049	0.023	0.162	−0.213	0.017
q1.5: Legal status—respect for laws	0.095	0.580	0.242	0.116	−0.128	−0.169	−0.105	0.300	0.004	0.057	−0.406
q1.10: Sustainable development	0.001	0.662	0.486	0.101	0.125	0.071	0.117	−0.029	0.031	0.060	−0.050
q1.13: Cultural globalization is positive	0.154	0.741	0.021	−0.096	−0.001	−0.064	−0.041	−0.135	0.056	−0.046	0.037
q1.15: Ideological differences	0.253	0.572	0.022	0.239	−0.077	0.129	0.198	0.218	−0.096	0.187	0.212
q1.16: Claim—social improvement	0.373	0.535	0.259	0.186	−0.112	0.101	0.048	0.094	0.057	0.013	0.084
q2.4: Communicative fluency	−0.104	0.417	0.095	0.247	−0.119	0.245	−0.027	0.022	0.400	−0.106	−0.191
q1.11: Fair trade	0.042	0.313	0.810	0.016	−0.061	0.119	−0.059	0.073	0.042	−0.002	−0.018
q1.12: Rational consumption	0.046	0.514	0.643	0.153	0.159	0.080	−0.026	−0.152	−0.146	0.221	−0.050
q1.19: Wealth redistribution	0.238	−0.018	0.757	0.170	−0.019	0.096	−0.077	0.117	0.101	0.012	0.036
q1.1: Individual rights	0.341	0.213	0.297	0.647	0.127	−0.122	−0.080	0.139	−0.009	0.034	0.030
q1.18: Claim—disagree with powers	0.117	0.115	0.431	0.589	−0.074	0.077	0.118	0.008	0.258	−0.052	−0.019
c1.3; Problem solving—any country	0.191	0.143	0.303	0.557	−0.006	0.124	0.062	0.103	0.040	0.393	0.085
c1.6: Causes of problem	0.100	0.081	−0.007	0.736	−0.021	0.130	0.015	0.020	0.099	−0.051	0.144
q1.7: Tradition of the community	0.017	0.087	0.012	−0.205	0.700	−0.077	−0.009	0.278	0.289	−0.038	−0.034
q1.8: Language of the community	0.008	−0.102	0.086	−0.128	0.736	−0.059	0.110	0.123	0.010	0.152	−0.095
q1.9: Community moral	−0.207	0.297	−0.028	0.206	0.598	0.059	0.091	−0.128	0.302	0.197	0.081
q2.3: Grammatical perfection	−0.002	−0.139	−0.118	0.223	0.679	−0.068	−0.015	−0.065	−0.162	−0.265	−0.101
q1.6: Interests of the group	−0.156	0.326	0.249	−0.034	0.143	0.410	−0.063	0.356	0.404	−0.071	−0.030
q2.6: Perception of competence	0.166	0.078	0.110	0.008	−0.073	0.829	−0.031	0.033	0.026	0.157	−0.018
q2.7: Perception of linguist. organization	0.196	−0.094	0.082	0.141	−0.074	0.844	0.159	−0.035	0.015	0.013	0.011
c1.4: Campaign participation	0.037	0.055	−0.009	−0.141	0.000	−0.032	0.870	0.067	0.223	0.087	−0.073
c1.5: Campaign organization	0.009	0.017	−0.089	0.242	0.161	0.174	0.762	−0.014	−0.150	−0.127	0.170
q1.2: Participation in political decision	0.184	0.107	0.008	0.281	0.160	0.025	0.150	0.653	−0.270	−0.002	−0.097
q1.3: Individual aims—public good	0.225	−0.095	0.090	−0.019	0.082	0.006	−0.026	0.809	0.094	0.053	0.161
c1.2: Problem solving—my country	0.058	−0.037	0.081	0.161	0.185	−0.003	0.112	−0.077	0.693	0.134	−0.145
c1.1: Problem solving—not my problem	−0.261	−0.380	−0.371	−0.252	0.135	0.042	−0.133	−0.081	0.033	−0.415	−0.064
q2.5: Cultural values	0.124	−0.005	−0.008	−0.010	0.049	0.116	−0.034	0.015	0.077	0.784	0.066
q1.14:More than one civic identity	0.296	0.126	0.062	0.167	−0.088	0.025	0.181	0.137	−0.154	0.062	0.551
q1.17: Claim—agree with powers	−0.180	0.072	0.061	−0.379	0.150	0.133	0.115	−0.034	0.143	−0.191	−0.559

Extraction method: Principal component analysis. Rotation method: Varimax normalization with Kaiser.

), the CYASPS^® Likert-type items could be reduced to the following 11 components:

• Component 1: Explained 23.249% of the variance. We designated it as “pluricultural competence.” It included variables related to family histories and cultural references, adaptation, readings, trips and interaction with people, situations, languages, and problems. For component 1, we found a value of 0.437 (higher score compared to the other components) regarding the item of studies and professions. However, it should be noted that it was well below 0.5; therefore, its link with the component was considered far from the minimum we consider desirable.
• Component 2: Explained 8.964% of the variance. We designated it as “global participation and advocacy.” It incorporated issues such as individual responsibility and the legal status of citizenship, sustainable development, positive assessment of globalization, ideological differences, and citizen movements. For component 2, we found a value of 0.417 (highest score compared to the other components) regarding the communicative fluency item. However, it should be noted that this is well below 0.5; therefore, its link with the component was less than the minimum we consider desirable.
• Component 3: Explained 6.518% of the variance. We designated it as “consumerism.” It covered the variables of fair trade, rational consumption, and redistribution of wealth.
• Component 4: Explained 5.194% of the variance. We designated it as “participation for social justice.” It includes the variables of the protection of individual rights, encouragement of social justice before the political authorities, resolution of issues beyond national borders, analysis of the problem causes and search for solutions through participation in politics, and social movements.
• Component 5: Explained 4.568% of the variance. We designated it as “communitarianism.” It encompassed the variables of tradition, community morality, language, and grammatical perfection.
• Component 6: Explained 4.288% of the variance. We designated it as “metalinguistic competence.” It included the variables regarding the perception of individual competence and linguistic organization of different languages for the improvement of plurilingual competence. For component 6, we found a value of 0.410 (higher score compared to the other components) regarding the item on group interests over individual interests. However, it should be noted that this was well below 0.5; therefore, its link with the component was considered far from the minimum we consider desirable.
• Component 7: Explained 3.815% of the variance. We designated it as “liberal commitment for social participation.” It includes variables regarding individual participation for the support and organization of solidarity campaigns.
• Component 8: Explained 3.442% of the variance. We designated it as “liberal commitment to political participation.” It included variables regarding individual participation in political decision-making and the achievement of individual objectives.
• Component 9: Explained 2.976% of the variance. We designated it as “national participation and commitment.” It included a single variable about problem-solving when these occurred within national borders.
• Component 10: Explained 2.713% of the variance. We designated it as “cultural values.” It included the importance of cultural values. For component 10, we found a value of −0.415 (highest score compared to the rest of the components) regarding the item of not seeking the solution to problems that do not affect us directly. In this case, it was closer to 0 than −1; therefore, its link with the component was less than the minimum we consider desirable.
• Component 11: Explained 2.636% of the variance. We designated it as “identity plurality and partial advocacy.” It included variables regarding the recognition of plural identity and advocacy, without confrontation with the political powers that be.

Components 1 to 6 explained most of the variance, especially components 1 and 2. In these cases, grouping by components was especially useful, helping us to establish profiles regarding models of citizenship; participation; sources for the development of pluricultural competence; and the role of interaction with people, new situations, and problems.

Regarding the correlations, focusing on the interaction between citizenship and pluricultural competence, the low ones were taken into account. Likewise, attention was paid to the average correlations. Although there were no high correlations, many of them were significant. The average correlations were intrablock correlations; however, among the interblock items, there were low and medium-low correlations. Regarding the most significant correlations of items from the main components or factors, we established a simple bivariate Pearson correlation table (r) to interpret the relationship between pairs of variables according to the magnitude (absolute value) and direction (+/−). These absolute values were: low (from 0.300 to 0.499), average (from 0.500 to 0.749), high (from 0.750 to 0.999) and perfect (1). The main correlations are indicated in the text. Moreover, the significance of the correlations was taken into account; focusing on the low correlations between 0.300 and 0.500 and the average correlations between 0.500 and 0.750.

Reviewing the correlations of pluricultural competence items with citizenship items, the “interaction” subcategory (INT) presented multiple correlations with different types of citizenship. More specifically, rights proposed in the “liberal” citizenship model (LIB) correlated with three types of interaction in pluricultural competence (interpersonal interaction, interaction with new situations, and interaction with problems). Likewise, the civic commitment of “republican” citizenship (REP) also correlated with them. This situation was repeated in “cosmopolitan” citizenship (COS) and “radical democracy” (RAD). This correlation was consistent with the results of Cuga’s research [49], where education for citizenship relates to multicultural education, contributing to education for responsible, and participatory and democratic citizenship linked to one’s own identity and the identity of others.

On the other hand, UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) [50] concluded that teacher training allowed for managing multicultural situations and existing disconnections between politics, educators’ misconceptions, and their training on multicultural education. In this case, and through an interblock approach in terms of “participation models” (PAR), the negative correlation between some items of this citizen model was especially significant. This was based on the citizens’ actions on the causes of problems and not a consideration of problem-solving when the problems did not affect oneself (c1.1). “Communitarian” citizenship (COM) did not correlate with any aspect of pluricultural competence. This was consistent due to the homogenizing features of this citizenship model. In general, our results regarding the interaction are similar to those of the study of Cushner, McClelland, and Stafford [44] regarding the interaction between groups and individuals when facing emerging problems due to intercultural interaction. Focusing on the “elements” subcategory (EM2), the correlations between citizenship models and academic–professional references (rap) are particularly relevant, showing that professional studies and experiences and the definition of civic rights, commitment, assessment of globalization, development of consumerist attitudes, and civic encouragement are positively related, without going into causality-related aspects.

6. Conclusions

The role of pluricultural competence and interaction has acquired significance in academia as part of a broader concept designated the “plurilingual social actor,” which encompasses both plurilingual and pluricultural competence. In line with the high scores obtained in items related to radical citizenship and the importance of ideology for this model, Cushner, McClelland, and Stafford [44] consider multicultural education as a field of practice and study, and as an ideological perspective oriented toward increasing global sensitivity. This global sensitivity accompanies the development of digital technologies, considering that educational environments must foster interaction and develop media and digital competence [51]. Moreover, the academic internationalization process of universities is accompanied by the increase of mobility and interaction with people in culturally plural environments.

There are no great differences between Japanese and Spanish university educators regarding citizen advocacy independent from the political powers, but had a slightly greater importance in the Spanish case. In the case of Japan, even though the advantages of interculturality were prominent, there was some concern about the influence that pluricultural education environments may have on Japanese identity. In general terms, the adoption of different approaches to citizenship will condition citizens’ education in educational environments [52,53,54]. Likewise, there were significant correlations between citizenship and pluricultural competence. Regarding this, interaction was a key aspect of pluricultural competence that connected with the awareness of the rights of liberal citizens, civic commitment of republican citizenship, and other elements from cosmopolitan and radical citizenship. Educators who positively rated the aforementioned issues indicated low values regarding the lack of civic solidarity when problem-solving requires going beyond national borders.

Universities must foster useful competences for students in academic, personal, and professional development [55]. Regarding this, the response of education and social sciences teachers to questionnaires administered remotely was satisfactory and allowed for a full and meaningful analysis of the notions of citizenship, civic participation, sources of pluricultural competence, and value of this competence.

Based on the results of this research and according to previous sources, we established some useful recommendations for teachers training in pluricultural environments:

• Include cases of pluriculturalism in teacher training. Pluriculturalism is common in most primary, secondary, and university educational centers.
• Teacher training for teaching in intercultural settings must be realistic. It must meet the expectations of teachers regarding issues such as “relativization,” “inclusion,” “communication,” or “development of empathy”; however, it is also important to take into account how to respond to their concerns such as “pluricultural conflicts,” “exclusion,” “localism,” or “loss of identity.”
• There is no one way to work in pluricultural environments. However, there are underlying aspects that we would consider fundamental as citizens and educators: “commitment,”, “cooperation,” “responsibility,” “participation,” “flexibility,” “solidarity,” “criticism,” and “ethics.”
• Emphasize learning by doing. We must move away from generic discourses that are not reflected in practice. Coherence between words and actions is essential.

In general terms, intercultural education offers methods and tools for its inclusion in pluricultural environments. However, methods and tools for intercultural education can be applied in the classroom only with teacher training regarding how to use them and how to promote inclusion [56]. An example consistent with our recommendations is the course of teacher training designed by Biasutti, Concina, and Frate [33]. Their course allowed teachers to discuss different options regarding pedagogical approaches, teaching strategies, and practices in intercultural education. Due to the description of the reference population and the sampling adaptation criteria, the results are valid and reliable for the teaching staff of the education and social sciences of the eight selected universities. Regarding the limitations of this research, the conclusions of this research cannot (nor are intended to) be extrapolated to all Spanish and Japanese universities. In other words, it allowed us a first approach to know and understand the beliefs of social sciences/education university teaching staff regarding academic internationalization in several Spanish and Japanese universities and it should not be taken as a generalizable reference for the entire national territory of both countries. As a corollary, this study’s conclusions cannot be extrapolated to other countries or universities. The number of universities could be expanded in the Hispanic and Japanese contexts and other countries, Moreover, other potential research questions are: How is citizenship education for pluricultural competence undertaken in higher education? How are teachers trained for pluricultural competences in a higher education context? What are teachers’ experiences in pluricultural educational environments?