Future teachers confronting extremism and hate speech

The study addresses the growing prevalence of extremism and hate speech in democratic societies, particularly online, and its spillover into educational contexts. It asks whether future primary teachers in Spain can identify online hate speech and construct counterspeeches suitable for educational practice. Motivated by increasing online hostility toward minorities and the importance of counterspeech as a civil society response that preserves free expression, the study aims to assess pre-service teachers’ capacities and inform improvements in teacher education to support social justice and democratic citizenship.

The literature notes the rise of far-right and authoritarian populist rhetoric globally and its diffusion through mass and social media. Online environments amplify exposure to hate narratives, aided by anonymity and algorithmic dynamics. Hate speech targets out-groups, employing biased, dichotomous language, stereotyping, stigmatization, and relegation of targeted groups outside normal social relations (Parekh, 2006), causing harm to human dignity (Waldron, 2012). Definitions vary from narrow (criminal incitement) to broad (discriminatory discourse), with the Council of Europe defining expressions that spread, incite, or justify hatred against protected groups. Approaches to countering hate include legal restrictions (Parekh) and educational strategies that create democratic, agonistic spaces for expression and debate (Mouffe; Davies), balancing emotions in political discourse with deliberative aims (Tryggvason). Educational responses emphasize critical media/digital literacy and democratic citizenship, promoting counterspeech and alternative narratives grounded in human rights. Effective counterspeech strategies include exposing harms to purported beneficiaries, highlighting hypocrisy, correcting inaccuracies, and using satire (Tuck & Silverman), alongside constructing positive alternative narratives (Council of Europe). Prior research suggests trainee teachers often produce simplistic narratives and struggle to craft robust counterspeeches, underscoring the need for targeted training.

Design: Mixed-methods study combining quantitative summary of categorical codes and qualitative thematic content analysis. Ethical procedures followed institutional guidelines; responses were anonymized and translated from Catalan/Spanish. Sample: Non-probabilistic convenience sample of n=114 future primary teachers in 2nd and 3rd year programs at the University of Malaga and the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (Spain). Both institutions were part of the broader research project. No significant differences were found between institutions, so data were analyzed jointly. Instrument and procedure: Participants completed a 45-minute individual writing dossier centered on a real Twitter conversation following the August 2017 Barcelona terrorist attacks. A focal tweet exemplifying online hate speech toward Muslims was provided. Tasks: (1) report and explain emotions while reading; (2) analyze use of “us” vs “them”; (3) state whether the focal post is hate speech and justify; (4) write a hypothetical contribution to the online debate. Participants could use any digital tools to verify information. Data analysis: Thematic content analysis (Flick, 2004) with mixed-methods integration (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). Activity 1 coding (identification of hate speech) used categories: (a) identifies as hate speech; (b) denies or doubts; (c) reproduces hate speech. For those identifying hate speech, sub-categories (based on Mouffe, Parekh) captured attributions: triggers passions; demarcates and stigmatizes; generalizes stereotypes; displaces the hated group. Activity 2 (counterspeech) coding categories (from Tuck & Silverman; Council of Europe): negative impact; incoherent discourse (hypocrisy); inexact arguments (factual inaccuracies); use of humour/satire; alternative narrative (human rights-based). Quantitative results are reported as counts and percentages; qualitative excerpts illustrate categories.

Activity 1: Identifying hate speech (n=114)

• Identified as hate speech: 102 (89.47%) • Triggers passions/emotions: 28 (24.56%) • Demarcates and stigmatizes: 14 (12.28%) • Generalizes stereotypes: 17 (14.91%) • Displaces the hated group from normal relations: 28 (24.56%) • Identified without classifiable rationale (“no category”): 15 (13.16%)
• Denies or doubts it is hate speech: 8 (7.02%)
• Reproduces the hate speech: 3 (2.63%)
• No answer: 1 (0.88%) Qualitative insights: Many respondents framed the post as inciting anger/disdain and othering Muslims via stereotyping, stigmatization, and exclusion from normal social relations; some explicitly referenced racism.

Activity 2: Counterspeech production (n=114)

• Developed counterspeech: 85 (74.56%) distributed as: • Inexact arguments (correct factual inaccuracies): 50 (43.86%) • Alternative narrative (human rights/democratic values): 20 (17.54%) • Incoherent discourse (highlight hypocrisy/inconsistency): 12 (10.53%) • Negative impact (on those purportedly represented): 3 (2.63%) • Use of humour/satire: 0 (0%)
• Did not develop a counterspeech: 29 (25.44%) Qualitative insights: Most counterspeeches emphasized non-generalization (e.g., distinguishing jihadists from Muslims). Alternative narratives promoted tolerance, equality, and peace without directly rebutting the hate post. A minority highlighted hypocrisy by referencing crimes by members of the in-group (e.g., Christian or national history). No respondents used humour/satire, likely reflecting the sensitive context.

The study shows that most pre-service teachers can recognize prototypical online hate speech and identify its core mechanisms (othering, stereotyping, stigmatization, exclusion, emotive incitement). However, a nontrivial minority failed to detect hate speech, and a very small number reproduced it, which is concerning given their future educational role. Regarding counterspeech, while a majority attempted responses, these were predominantly limited to correcting inaccuracies or urging against generalization; few leveraged broader strategy repertoires (e.g., exposing hypocrisy, articulating alternative narratives), and none used humour. The findings suggest that recognition skills outpace the ability to craft complex, context-appropriate counterspeeches that could be transferred into classroom practice. Comparisons with prior studies indicate pre-service teachers outperform secondary students in both identification and counterspeech production, yet their responses remain simplistic and strategy-limited. The results underscore the need for teacher education that explicitly develops counterspeech competencies, navigates emotions in democratic debate, and supports inclusive, justice-oriented pedagogy. Variability in willingness to intervene and the potential dependence on the targeted group highlight the importance of situational and normative factors in counterspeech engagement.

This study contributes evidence that Spanish future primary teachers largely identify online hate speech but struggle to produce robust, multi-strategy counterspeeches or translate them into pedagogical practice. Teacher education programs should be redesigned to: (1) explicitly address extremism and hate speech; (2) develop critical digital literacy and democratic citizenship skills; (3) train in diverse counterspeech strategies (correcting inaccuracies, exposing harms and hypocrisy, constructing alternative human-rights-based narratives, and context-appropriate use of humour); and (4) create classroom spaces for political debate that channel emotions toward democratic aims. Future research should examine different targeted groups to assess how engagement varies, explore training interventions that improve counterspeech complexity and classroom transfer, and replicate across institutions and contexts to enhance generalizability.

• Sampling: Non-probabilistic convenience sample from two Spanish universities; findings may not generalize beyond this context.
• Task/context: Single, sensitive real-world scenario (post-terror attack tweet) within a 45-minute academic exercise may constrain strategy use (e.g., no humour) and elicit socially desirable responses.
• Measurement: Reliance on written self-produced responses; no observation of actual online or classroom interventions; potential coder interpretation limits despite thematic analysis.
• Scope: Focus on one targeted group (Muslims); responses may differ with other groups.
• Minor internal inconsistency in reported counterspeech percentage in text (figure/discussion indicate 74.56%); results interpreted based on category totals.