WEB 2.0 TECHNOLOGIES FOR FACILITATING SOCIAL JUSTICE TEACHER EDUCATION By Eric M. Dickens A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Educational Psychology and Educational Technology - Doctor of Philosophy 2015 ABSTRACT WEB 2.0 TECHNOLOGIES FOR FACILITATING SOCIAL JUSTICE TEACHER EDUCATION By Eric M. Dickens Many researchers argue that observed soci al inequalities are often rooted in the structural issues of educational systems. Rather than bei ng opportunities for equality and individual liberty, educational systems reproduce the status quo through disenfranchisement and marginalization of s ubordinate groups. Social justice education aims to challenge these discriminatory syst ems through critically conscious instruction. However, how best to prepare socially-just educators remains a problem of practice. This study examines how teacher education course s may play a role in shifting students' dispositions to be more socially-just and deepening their understanding of issues of inequality in education. It further explores how the use of educational technologies Å’ such as blogs wikis, and videos Å’ may enhance th e effectiveness of these teacher education courses. Two versions of social justice te acher education course were examined Å’ one section was taught using traditional met hods, while the other was taught using technology-enhanced versions of major assignm ents. Results indicate that both versions of the course were very effective at developing studentsâ„¢ knowledge and dispositions related to social justice. The technology-enhanced version of the course, however, did not offer a significant advantage over traditional methods either. These findings have implications not only for future research a nd practice, but, hopefully, positive social change. Copyright by Eric M. Dickens 2015 iv This dissertation is dedicated to the memo ry of Raimo Hynynen, who built great things. v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my dissertation chair, Dr. Matthew Koehler in guiding me through this process. Many times over the year s he could have thrown his hands up and given up on me, but he was there through the end and I was able to finish this project in large part due to his continued patience and support. I would also like to the members of my dissertation committee Dr. Dorinda Carter Andrews for her vision, Dr. David Wong for his insight, and Dr. Angela Calabrese-Barton for her encouragement. I am grateful for the endl ess support of my family Mom, Dad, Scott, Alex, Lauren, Logan and all the rest of the gang who have been with me every step of the way, even while 1,200 miles away. Many thanks go out to my colleagues who have helped me complete this project especially Jessica and Cale b for their coding help and everybody who I have asked questions of, bounced ideas off, or worked side by side with. Lastly, I owe a huge dept to my friends and loved ones. Thank you to Paul, Justin, Mandy, Carolyn and all the 7 am crew, whose friendship kept me sane, Victor, whose work inspired me in the final days of wr iting, and most of all, Jenni, whose love has carried me along. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................ix LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................x Chapter 1 - Introduction......................................................................................................1 Purpose........................................................................................................................ ....6 Conceptual Framework of Social Justice Beliefs and Knowledge.................................8 Research Questions.......................................................................................................15 Chapter 2 - Literature Review..........................................................................................19 Social Justice Education...............................................................................................19 Definitions.................................................................................................................19 Outcomes of social justice education........................................................................23 Dispositions...........................................................................................................24 Knowledge............................................................................................................26 History of social justice education............................................................................30 Social justice pre-service teacher education.............................................................32 Components of social jus tice teacher education.......................................................32 Measuring social justice teach er education outcomes..............................................36 Measuring dispositions.........................................................................................37 Measuring knowledge...........................................................................................43 Limitations of prior social ju stice education research..............................................44 Educational Technologies in Pre-Service Teacher Education......................................45 Research on the educational affordances of Web 2.0 technologies..........................47 Blogs.....................................................................................................................47 Video journals.......................................................................................................49 Wikis.....................................................................................................................50 Limitations of prior research on Web 2.0 technologies in teacher education...........51 Synthesis...................................................................................................................52 Chapter 3 - Course, Sections and Students.......................................................................56 Common Elements........................................................................................................56 Instructor...................................................................................................................58 Student demographics...............................................................................................60 Course Structure........................................................................................................61 Daily course activities...............................................................................................62 Pre- and post-test assessments..................................................................................64 Common class assignments......................................................................................66 Differentiated class assignments...............................................................................69 Elements Unique to Traditional Course Section...........................................................73 Representing author's ideas only...............................................................................73 Continuous, self-contained document.......................................................................74 vii Closed document.......................................................................................................75 Ease of revising.........................................................................................................76 Elements Unique to High Technology Course Section................................................77 Blog posts..................................................................................................................79 Wiki pages................................................................................................................82 Reflection videos......................................................................................................84 Chapter 4 - Research Methods..........................................................................................87 Participants................................................................................................................... .87 Data Sources and Measures..........................................................................................88 Learning to teach for social just ice Å’ belief (LTSJ-B) scale.....................................88 Short essays assignment............................................................................................90 Student work on course assessments........................................................................93 Student interviews.....................................................................................................94 Data Recording.............................................................................................................96 Research Design...........................................................................................................96 Role of the Researcher..................................................................................................98 Data Analysis..............................................................................................................103 Quantitative data.....................................................................................................103 Qualitative data.......................................................................................................105 Strategies for Validating Findings..............................................................................109 Clarifying bias.........................................................................................................109 Triangulation...........................................................................................................109 Second coders.........................................................................................................109 Chapter 5 - Results..........................................................................................................11 1 Research Question 1.1................................................................................................111 Research Question 1.2................................................................................................114 Research Question 2.1................................................................................................116 Research Question 2.2................................................................................................119 Research Question 3...................................................................................................121 Blogs.......................................................................................................................124 Wikis.......................................................................................................................131 Video journals.........................................................................................................135 Chapter 6 - Discussion....................................................................................................140 Overall Impact on Dispositions..................................................................................140 Overall Impact on Knowledge....................................................................................142 Lack of Difference Between Sections........................................................................144 The same road.........................................................................................................144 Two roads to the same destination..........................................................................145 Missed opportunities...............................................................................................146 Sample size.............................................................................................................147 Implications for Researchers......................................................................................147 Implications for Practitioners......................................................................................149 Limitations..................................................................................................................15 2 viii Future Research..........................................................................................................154 Conclusion..................................................................................................................158 APPENDICES................................................................................................................161 Appendix A - Foundational Course Information........................................................162 Appendix B - Detail of Sources for Data Collection..................................................172 Appendix C - Study Forms.........................................................................................196 REFERENCES...............................................................................................................197 ix LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Conceptual Framework of Social Justice Beliefs..................................................9 Table 2 Conceptual Framework of Social Justice Knowledge.........................................13 Table 3 Research questions and data sources..................................................................16 Table 4 Examples of educational affordances supporting socially-justice education......54 Table 5 Common course elements and their educa tional affordances beneficial for social justice teacher education..................................................................................................57 Table 6 Common and differentiated assignments and their affordances for social justice teacher education..............................................................................................................58 Table 7 Traditional section course elements and their educational affordances for social justice teacher education..................................................................................................74 Table 8 High Technology section course elements and their educational affordances for social justice te acher education........................................................................................78 Table 9 Research questions and data sources..................................................................95 Table 10 Educational affordances used in qualitative data analysis, by media type.....108 Table 11 Pre-test/post-test changes in dispositions and knowledge for each section and overall.............................................................................................................................11 1 Table 12 Conceptual Framework of Social Justice Beliefs ............................................113 Table 13 Conceptual Framework of Social Justice Knowledge.....................................119 Table 14 Educational affordances used in qualitative data analysis, by media type.....122 Table 15 Frequency of educational affordances use, by media type..............................123 x LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Sample blog post for media artifact /current event analysis assignment.............81 Figure 2 Sample wiki page from iden tity marker group wiki assignment........................84 Figure 3 Sample student video from service learning video journal assignment.............86 Figure 4: Pre-test/Post-test change in LTSJ-B scores by course section........................112 Figure 5: Pre-test/Post-test change in social jusice knowledge short essay assignment scores by course section..................................................................................................117 Figure 6 Sample blog post using video and images in addition to text..........................126 Figure 7 Blog post comment providing feedback for the author....................................128 Figure 8 Blog post comment providing soci o-emotional support to the author.............130 Figure 9 Wiki track changes page...................................................................................132 Figure 10 Sample edit made to wiki pa ge showing minor grammar changes................133 Figure 11 Sample video journal page showing previous videos on the same page........138 Figure 12 Participant online consent form......................................................................196 1 Chapter 1 - Introduction A number of startling disp arities confront our educational system, many of them drawn along gender, racial, economic, and se xual orientation lines. The Achievement Gap between students of color and their wh ite peers is well-documented. Previous research has examined how students of colo r consistently score lower on standardized exams, (Jencks & Phillips, 2011) are le ss likely to complete high school on time (Verdugo, 2011), and are underrepresented in college and universities (Aud et al., 2011). Many educators point to an ï¬Opportunity Gapfl (Carter & Welner, 2013; Diamond, 2013) of inequality in schools that leads to this difference in achievement. Researchers have identified that students of color often have access to less rigorous course loads (Oakes, Joseph, & Muir, 2004), are taught by less e xperienced and lower-quality teachers (Darling-Hammond, Wei & Johnson, 2009; La dson-Billings, 2004; Presley, White, & Gong, 2005; Ronfeldt, Loeb & Wyckoff, 2012) , and are over-repres ented in special education settings (Harry & Klingner, 2005; Yoon & Gentry, 2009). The impact of socioeconomic class on student achievement is similarly profound. Students in low- income schools consistently score lower on st andardized reading and math assessments (Aud et al., 2011) and are five times more likely to drop out of high school (Chapman, Laird, Ifill, & KewalRamani, 2011). While not experiencing as consistent a deficit in academic achievement, LGBTQ students often experience a much more nega tive and hostile environment in schools than do their male and/or heterosexual classmat es. For example, 74.1% of LGBTQ students reported being verbally harassed at school in the past year because of their sexual orientation, and 36.2% reported being physically harassed (Kosciw, Greytak, Palmer & 2 Boesen, 2013). This harassment often is suffere d in silence, as 60% of LGBT students who experienced harassment or assault never reported the incident to the school, most often because they did not believe anythi ng would be done to address the situation (Kosciw, Greytak, Bartkiewicz, Boesen & Palmer, 2014). This negative atmosphere can have serious consequences on LGBTQ students. LGBT students are more likely to skip class or an entire day of school because of harassment about their sexual orientation (Kosciw et al., 2014). More seriously, gay and lesbian youth are five times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexua l young people (Hatzenbuehler, 2011). Girls also face a number of disparities in school. For example, despite girls being the majority in high school biology, chemistry, algebra and pre-calculus courses, male students enroll in and score higher on adva nce placement tests (Dalton, 2007; National Center for Education Statistics, 2004). Sim ilarly, girls tend to score at or above boysâ„¢ levels in early elementary standardized m easures of assessments, but by the end of high school they have fallen behind boys on high stakes and college enrollment exams such as the SAT and ACT (Corbett, Hill & St. Rose , 2008). These downward trends over time may indicate a systematic bias towards boys in teachersâ„¢ practice and schoolsâ„¢ curriculum that have an additive negative effect on girlsâ„¢ esteem, self-efficacy and academic achievement (Sadker & Zittleman, 2012). Many teachers and scholars believe these statistics are a byproduct of structural inequality in the American public educationa l system that privileges some students while oppressing and discriminating ag ainst others (Ladson-Billings, 2009; Milner, 2012). For more than two decades, scholars have argued that to confront these symptoms and the fundamental forms of oppressi on and discrimination at their root, the public educational 3 system needs teachers with not only the know ledge and skills requi red to teach their subject matter, but also with a specific set of beliefs, knowledge and skills to address elements of social inequity underlying the achievement gap (Cochran-Smith, 2004; Ladson-Billings, 2009). That is precisely the goal of social justice education and educators. Bell (2007) defines ï¬social justice educationfl as ï¬both an interdisciplinary framework for analyzing multiple forms of oppression and a set of interactive, experiential pedagogical principles to help learners understand the meaning of social difference and oppression both in the social system and in their personal livesfl (p. 2). Within the broader context of "social justi ce education," the field of social justice teacher education has developed with the goal of closing opportunity gaps and challenging systems of inequality by educati ng critically conscious teachers at the pre- service level and through continuing professional development. While university teacher preparation programs often offer classes or entire programs infused with the ideas and goals of social justice education, reviews of the impact of these courses have shown inconsistent or inconclusive results in terms of closing oppor tunity and achievement gaps. Multiple reasons for these results have been offered. Some scholars have argued the lack of impact is because the goals, methods and demographics of teacher preparation programs have largely remained unchanged ove r the past 25 years while classrooms and students' needs have become increasingly dive rse (Cochran-Smith, Davis & Fries, 2004). Others have argued that, in many teacher education programs the real issues of inequality, diversity and opportunity are relegated to individual, and sometimes optional, ï¬diversity,fl or ï¬multiculturalfl courses that are disconnected from the ideas and curricula of the main preparation courses (Gay, 2010; Howard, 2006; Ladson-Billings, 1995; 4 Vavrus, 2002; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). A third group of scholars maintain the these teacher preparation courses fail to successfu lly challenge opportunity and achievement gaps because they teach teachers merely to "celebrate" diversit y through superficial activities and recognitions, wit hout teaching teachers about th e root causes of social inequality, how schools maintain it, or how to actively teach for social justice (May & Sleeter, 2010; Lee, Menkart & Okazawa-Rey, 2007). In response to these critiques of existing teacher education practi ces, social justice teacher ed ucation seeks to address the systemic educational disparities based on race, social class, gender, sexual orientation and other identity markers. This study is positioned as part of the fiel d of social justice teacher education and specifically social justice pre- service teacher education. It aims to contribute empirical evidence to underdeveloped areas of this body of knowledge. Multiple deficiencies in the research examining the impact of social justi ce teacher education cour ses exist. The first area of concern relates to definitional issues, in that the term ï¬social justicefl and what is meant by ï¬social justice educationfl are va guely, poorly or inconsistently defined (McDonald, 2008; North, 2006; Zeichner, 2009). Secondly, because courses designed to prepare teachers to teach diverse learners are often disconnected ideologically and epistemologically from the majority of practice and methods courses in teacher preparation programs, research on these course s is usually limited to small-scale, action research examining the issues of social ju stice education within one specific course (Hollins & Guzman, 2005). Third, much of th e research on social justice education has focused on change in pre-service teachersâ„¢ attitudes and beliefs, but has not measured 5 parallel changes in their practice or their studentsâ„¢ learning (Cochran-Smith, Davis, & Fries, 2004; Hollins & Guzman, 2005; Lu cas & Grinberg, 2008; Weideman, 2002). In this study, I extended the course-based research approaches to social justice education by examining, in detail, the impact of an alternative met hod of instruction and assessment that integrated Web 2.0 technologies into a pre-service social justice teacher education course. Given the limitations in the research on th e impact of courses designed to prepare teachers for diversity, especially thos e aligned specifically with a social justice education ideology, this study is positioned to contribute to the literature by empirically measuring changes on two core outcomes of social justice education: pre-service teachersâ„¢ beliefs, and knowledge. Studying the role of Web 2.0 technologies in di fferentiating effects of this course is particularly of interest because of the lack of research on educational technologies in social justice education courses and because of hope that the use of these technologies might lend itself to producing the kind of unde rstanding especially relevant to these types of courses. Past research has examined vari ous technologies in courses designed to build teachersâ„¢ pedagogical or content knowledge; however few, if any, studies have been conducted on these technologiesâ„¢ ï¬affordancesfl (Gibson, 1977) for shaping pre-service teachers' social justice beliefs and knowledge . Usingâ„¢s Gibsonâ„¢s definition of affordances as aspects of an environment, object or me dium that allow agents to accomplish some task, this study examines if the unique affo rdances of Web 2.0 tec hnologies may facilitate the kinds of interaction and learning that lead to changes in studentsâ„¢ social justice beliefs and knowledge in these kinds of courses. For example, the perspectives presented by authors students read in the course in this study often are ï¬non-mainstreamfl ideologies 6 that may differ the beliefs students have internalized in their upbringing. Web 2.0 technologies affordances for peer interaction may provide social support that impacts studentsâ„¢ self reflection and dispositional reexamination. Similarly, the issues of identity and social power represent complex domains, with concepts that are best understood as overlapping and particularly sensitive to individual biases and perspectives. This study examines if, for example, because of th eir unique affordances for interaction and representing points of intersection, these Web 2.0 technol ogies may impact students social justice knowledge in different ways than more traditional forms of instructional media (see Chapter 3 for further discussion on the affordances of the course, assignments and technologies included in this study). Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of a combination of Web 2.0 technologies for facilitating social justice teacher education. As is common in many other university-based teacher preparation pr ograms, the course sections used in this study represent the single course in each student's teacher ce rtification program that is specifically focused on a critical analysis of inequality in education. This course is a required part of the program and is used as a component in evaluating studentsâ„¢ applications to the teach er certification program. The present study focused on two sections of this course as individual examples of preservice social justice education teach er education courses. While not explicitly stated as being about "social justice," these sections had in common a number of learning goals that aligned with the foundational principles of social justice education as described in previous research (see Literature review for further definitions and goals of social 7 justice education) that made it an appropriate forum for this study (see Conceptual Framework section below for further discussi on of this fit between this study and the course focused on herein). The two sections of the course in this study shared overarching goals and many instructional components that represent a ffordances (Gibson, 1977) that may have an impact on studentsâ„¢ social justice belief s and knowledge. Examples of these ï¬common affordancesfl include the course instructor, co urse readings, and several assignments (see Chapter 3 for further discussion of affordances for social justice learning common to both sections of the course in this study). The sections did however differ in the media used on three course major assignments. For these assi gnments, students in one class section used the ï¬traditionalfl media of individually and/ or collaboratively written reflective and analytical papers as forms of assessment. These ï¬traditionalfl media have their own unique affordances for impacting studentsâ„¢ social justice beliefs and knowledge (see Chapter 3 for further discussion of affordances for social justice learning in the ï¬traditionalfl section of the course in this study). In the second class section, these paper assignments were replaced by Web 2.0 tec hnologies including blogs, wikis and video journals. These media have unique affordances of their own that may lead to changes in studentsâ„¢ social justice belie fs and knowledge. (see Chapter 3 for further discussion of affordances for social justice learning in the ï¬high technologyfl section of the course in this study). By comparing pr e- and post-test measurements, this study examines the coursesâ„¢ impact on studentsâ„¢ social justice beliefs and social justice knowledge overall. Meanwhile, by quantitatively analyzing any difference in the degree of change in studentsâ„¢ scores between sections as well as qualitatively examining studentsâ„¢ 8 experiences using blogs, wikis and video journals in class, this study provided some exploratory evidence about using alternate educational technologies in social justice teacher education courses. Conceptual Framework of Social Justice Beliefs and Knowledge This study, as well as the course sections included in it, adopt a critically conscious perspective of education that varies from traditional "multicultural education." In short, whereas traditional multicultural teach er education seeks to celebrate and affirm student diversity as an ideal, "critical multiculturalism" (Sleeter, 2001) examines underlying structural, institutional and indi vidual discrimination that perpetuate inequalities in schools and society. For ex ample, a traditional multicultural teacher education course may encourage teachers to read books by African American authors or discuss the contributions of Martin Luther King, Jr. during Black History Month. On the other hand, a "critical multicultural" teacher e ducation course builds on the perspective of feminist and critical race theory scholars (among others) to have teachers examine issues such as the Eurocentric nature of school cu rriculums that necessitate events such as "Black History Month" in the first place (see L iterature Review for further discussion of multicultural, critical multicultu ral, and social justice education and teacher education). Since this study focused on studentsâ„¢ be liefs about, and knowledge of, issues related to social justice in education, it is important to clearly frame what is meant by ï¬social justice beliefsfl and ï¬social justice knowledge.fl This framework was based primarily on previous social justice education research that measured beliefs as a construct. For this study, social justice be liefs was conceptualized as containing five discreet, measurable beliefs listed in Table 1. These beliefs were synthesized from two 9 bodies of research - studies that identified beliefs that present challenges to becoming more critically conscious social justice educators and research on the development and use of the beliefs instrument used in this study. Table 1 Conceptual Framework of Social Justice Beliefs Belief Description B1 Identity markers are largely, if not entirely, socially constructed B2 Social power, discrimination and privile ge is real in soci ety (debunking myth of meritocracy) B3 Belief in bias (oneâ„¢s own & others) B4 Schools & teachers have historically, and continue to operate in a way that perpetuates inequality B5 Schools in all areas & teachers in all subjects should be change agents for students and society by incorporating multicultural curriculum and making issues of inequality explicit in their work The first body of research has argued th at educators, including pre-service and practicing teachers, often hold preexisting ideologies that are problematic to being socially just educators and teachers of cultura lly and linguistically diverse students. These beliefs are not only contrary to the ideals of social justice, they serve as obstacles in teacher education courses and workshops designed to have participants shift their beliefs to be more critically conscious and/or so cially just. These ideological barriers may include internalized racist and sexist beliefs, (Ahlquist, 1991; Cannella, 1998; Scott 1995) viewing non-mainstream cultures from a defi cit perspective, (Barrón, 2008; Ford & Grantham, 2003; Schultz, Neyhart & Reck, 1996) adopting a ï¬color-blindfl perspective that fails to acknowledge studentsâ„¢ racial identity, (Johnson, 2002; Lewis, 2001) seeing 10 schools and society as being unable to be changed, (Diem, 2009) and specifically seeing their role as teachers to be ï¬non-political;fl re fusing to bring up issues of inequality in their classrooms (Ladson-Billings, 2001). Working backwards, the opposite of these problematic beliefs described by these research ers were conceptualized as being socially just beliefs for this study. These include beli eving that teachers and students have their own biases based on past experiences (B3) and that teaching cannot be ï¬non-political;fl that teachers can and should make teaching a bout social justice issu es a part of their pedagogy (B5). It should be noted that, in this studyâ„¢s conceptual framework, this last belief represents a belief in what teachers should do, not a knowledge or skill set in how to teach from this perspective. This knowledge of how to teach for social justice may be an essential part of a critically conscious pedagogy such as Culturally Relevant Pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1995), Culturally Re sponsive Teaching (Gay, 2010), and Anti- Oppressive Teaching, (Kumashiro, 2000) but it is not a goal of the course (the course framework document states, the course is ï¬ not a methods course designed to–.) and is not an area of pedagogical knowledge measured or assessed in this study (see Conceptual Framework for Social Justice Knowledge in the next section) and is therefore not included here. The second body of research informing this studyâ„¢s conceptualization of ï¬social justice beliefsfl was based on the more recent work of Enterline, Ludlow, Mitescu and Cochran-Smithâ„¢s (2008) development of the Learning to Teach for Social Justice Å’ Beliefs (LTSJ-B) scale. The survey consists of 12 items such as: ï¬Issues related to racism and inequity should be openly discussed in the classroomfl (B5) and ï¬an important part of learning to be a teacher is examining oneâ„¢s own attitudes and beliefs about race, class, 11 gender, disabilities and sexual orientationfl (B3) that were developed from focus groups (and subsequent factor analysis) about the ideal beliefs characteristic of an ideal social justice educator (Ludlow, Enterline & Cochran-Smith, 2008). The LTSJ-B has demonstrated a high degree of reliability and validity and is frequently used as a measure of studentsâ„¢ dispositions in social justice education courses, including the one under study here (see Data Sources sec tion for further discussion and Appendix B for full scale). It is important to note that, while a measured variable of this study, shifting students' dispositions to be more socially just is not the main goal of the course used in this study. According to the guiding framework given to instructors for the course, the primary goal of the course is to develop student s' critical thinking skills for analyzing and understanding "how socially constructed categories (e.g., social class, race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, etc.) are used to privilege some individuals and groups and marginalize others" in the sp ecific social institution of public schools. Developing these analytical skills for helping teachers understand "the individual, communal, institutional/societal, and global mechanisms th at convert differences into hierarchies of privilege and domination" and "the complex ro le that schools play in this process" is intended to help future teachers "under stand how their pedagogy and instructional strategies affect student achie vement and life opportunities." Based on this study's primary researcher experience teaching the course, while the course framework does not explicitly state chan ging students' beliefs as a course goal, in the process of achieving its goal of developing students' sk ills for analyzing systems of educational inequality, students are also likely to experience change in their preexisting beliefs about social power relationships, t hose relationships' influence on educational 12 opportunities, how certain groups of students are systematically marginalized, and teachers' role in replicating pre educationa l inequality. For example, in conversations during office hours, students from previous semesters have described how, because of reading course articles and discussions, they have come to believe that while teachers may think of themselves as "neutral," they ac tually are often very biased in their beliefs about students (B3 in this study's conceptual framework). Similarly, previous semesters' students have described a change in believing that how hard one works is the main factor in a person's success (i.e., the Myth of Merito cracy) to now believing more in the cultural advantages and disadvantage groups of pe ople face (B2 in this study's conceptual framework). For further discussion on the resear cher's experience as an informative tool in qualitative and mixed methods research, see the Role of the Researcher section in the Research Methods chapter). Further, these dispositional changes sometimes fit with course objectives described in the course framework. For ex ample, the framework lists as a ï¬Guiding Objectivefl that students should ï¬recognize that teachers, whether intentionally or not, influence the distribution of educational and social opportunity.fl This "guiding objective" informs the fourth belief in this study's c onceptual framework. Even when dispositional changes students experience in the course ar e not explicitly connected to the course framework and goals, they often fit with the previous research on "social justice beliefs" cited above and therefore inform the concep tual framework used in this study. (see Appendix A for further details on the course framework and syllabus for the course in this study). 13 Similarly, based on previous research, ï¬socia l justice knowledgefl is conceptualized to consist of three discrete, measurable knowledge areas, summarized in Table 2. Table 2 Conceptual Framework of Social Justice Knowledge Knowledge Description K1 Critical knowledge of self; personal biases, past experiences as shaping beliefs; knowledge of own beliefs & assumptions; knowledge of own identity markers; knowledge of how th ese influence their own educational experiences K2 Critical knowledge of students; knowl edge of their cultures and identity markers; how these influence their educational experiences K3 Critical knowledge of current and hi storical political a nd social contexts of education As with the ï¬social justice beliefsfl th ese three knowledge areas were primarily derived from previous research, specifically Howard's (2006) theoretical framework of ï¬dimensions of knowing that are necessary for [t eachers] to be effective in our work for education equityfl (p. 126). These three dimensions are: ï¬knowing my self,fl ï¬knowing my students,fl and ï¬knowing my practice," whic h Howard refers to as the "Achievement Triangle." These three sides of the "Achievement Triangle" form the basis for the areas of ï¬social justice knowledgefl conceptualized for this study. Several researchers have identified in dividual areas of knowledge teachers should develop in order to be effective as social justice educators. For example, Helms (1995) and Ladson-Billings (2001) argue that teachers must reexamine their own often advantaged backgrounds and biases, Gay (2002) and Ladson-Billings (1995) suggest that teachers need to learn more about the backgr ounds of their students' lived experiences 14 that shape the diverse perspectives they bri ng to the classroom. Further, several scholars (Darling-Hammond, 1995; Giroux & McLaren, 1992; Kozol, 1991; Irvine, 1991) claim that teachers need to know more about the soci o-political contexts of education that often serve to disadvantage marginalized groups of students. Howard's Achievement Triangle is on e of the few conceptualizations of "knowledge important for social justice educa tion" that combines multiple domains as a conceptualization of a singular "social justice knowledge" for teacher education. This multi-dimensional conceptualization is a signif icant contribution to the literature because it succinctly combines previous research on ar eas of knowledge relevant to social justice preservice teacher education. In addition, Howard's framework is useful for studies such as this one seeking to conceptualize and measure "soc ial justice knowledge" as a multidimensional but single variable. Th is study developed and introduces a new instrument for measuring students' social justice knowledge that contained short essay questions about each of these three sub-dom ains (see Data Sources in the Research Methods chapter for further details on the development and use of this instrument). This instrument's three questions directly align to the three areas of knowledge in Howard's "Achievement Triangle" and th e three dimensions of knowing in this study's conceptual framework. As with the conceptual framework for "s ocial justice beliefs" used in this study, while not the overall goal of this course, parts of this study's conceptual framework of "social justice knowledge" fit with the instructor's framework for the course in this study. This document explicates the ï¬Guiding Objectives,fl ï¬Key Themesfl and ï¬Specific Competenciesfl with which students should leave the course. A number of these 15 objectives, themes and competencies relate to areas of knowledge about the context of schools in society and issues of social power. For example, the course framework outlines several areas of knowledge to be deve loped in the course such as ï¬Understanding identity and positionalityfl and ï¬s ocial, political and historical contextsfl of schools. This area of knowledge fit well with the third dimensions of knowing outlined in Howard (2006) and the third area of social justice knowledge in this study's conceptual framework. Overall, the primary source shaping the conceptual framework of what is meant by ï¬social justice dispositionsfl and ï¬social justice knowledgefl is previous research on social justice beliefs and knowledge, especially the literature informing the instruments used in this study to measure these variables (the LTSJ-B and short essays social justice knowledge assignment). In addition, the concep tual frameworks used for this study align with parts of the course framework and the instructor's previous experience teaching this course to make it an appropriate forum for m easuring changes in students' social justice dispositions and knowledge as conceptualized in this study. Research Questions This study examined two sections of a pr eservice social justice teacher education course. One section was taught using "traditional" paper-based assignments for individual- and group-written analysis papers and personal reflection journals. The other section used a series of Web 2.0 technologies for these assignments - blogs for the individually-written analysis paper, a wiki for the group paper, and video journals for the reflection assignment. In addition to the comm on affordances for social justice learning that both sections of the course contained such as the instructor and several common 16 assignments (see Chapter 3 for further discussion), the different media used in each section had unique affordances that may have also led to changes in students' social justice dispositions and knowledge. Table 3 Research questions and data sources Research Question Data Source When Administered Data Analyses 1.1 - Pre/posttest Social Justice dispositional changes overall LTSJ-B dispositional survey Beginning of semester and end of semester Paired sample T-test of pre- and post-test scores for all students 1.2 Å’ Difference in Social Justice dispositional change between course section LTSJ-B dispositional survey Beginning of semester and end of semester Two-way ANOVA comparing differences in change in pre- and post-test scores between traditional and Web 2.0 technologies sections 2.1 - Pre/posttest change in Social Justice knowledge overall Short essay assignment Beginning of semester and end of semester Paired sample T-test of pre- and post-test scores for all students 2.2 Å’ Difference in Social Justice knowledge change between course section Short essay assignment Beginning of semester and end of semester Two-way ANOVA comparing differences in change on short essay assignment scores between traditional and Web 2.0 technologies sections 3 - Affordances of technologies for impacting Social Justice dispositions and knowledge Student work on blogs, wikis and video journals Throughout the semester Qualitative analysis of student work triangulated by student interviews 17 Therefore, of interest in this study was the overall change in all students' social justice dispositions and social justice knowledge, which were given to students in both sections as pre- and post- test assignments at the beginning and end of the semester. Change over the course of the semester in these dispos itions and knowledge for all students were tested using a paired-sample T-Test of pre- and post-test scores. Additionally, the impact that using the Web 2.0 technologies (due to their unique affordances) instead of paper-based assignments may have had on the dispos itions and knowledge of students in this section was examined using a two-way ANOVA as well as a qualitative analysis of a sample of students' work on these assignmen ts. This research de sign is summarized in Table 3 and elaborated in Chapter 4 (Methodology). Based on the areas developed in the current bodies of literature, the gaps currently unaddressed, and these research goals, this study aims to answer the following research questions: Research Question 1: What was the impact of the teacher education course on social justice education on pre-service teachersâ„¢ soci al justice dispositions? RQ 1.1 (quantitative): What was th e impact of the teacher education course on social justice education on pre-service teachersâ„¢ social justice dispositions regardless of course section? RQ1.2 (quantitative): How do these di spositional changes differ for students enrolled in the course section employing Web 2.0 technologies compared to students enrolled in th e course section employing traditional methods of instruction? 18 Research Question 2: What was the impact of the teacher education course on social justice education on pre-service teachersâ„¢ social justice knowledge? RQ2.1 (quantitative): What was the impact of the teacher education course on social justice education on pre- service teachersâ„¢ social justice knowledge regardless of course section? RQ2.2 (quantitative): How do these know ledge changes differ for students enrolled in the course section employing Web 2.0 technologies compared to students enrolled in the course section employing traditional methods of instruction? Research Question 3 (qualitative): In what ways do the affordances of a collection of Web 2.0 applications influence how students develop their social justice dispositions and knowledge? 19 Chapter 2 - Literature Review Two bodies of work inform this study: literature on social justice (and related ideologies) in education and research on app lications of Web 2.0 t echnologies in teacher education. Social Justice Education The first body of knowledge relevant to the current research is the field of social justice education. This field has developed over time to rethink and challenge how teachers and students go about their daily work in the classroom. Definitions. In the United States, schools ar e commonly seen as needing to provide students not only an education in subject matter content, but in preparation for participation in a democratic society (Labar ee, 1989). Some scholar s and educators argue that this purpose of schooling goes beyond simp le preparation for society, and requires that schools become forces for social change. This change is needed because, from this perspective, modern American society exhibits a number of fundamental inequalities and injustices that affect all people. Further, schools, as powerful socializing institutions embedded in a socio-political context can ex ercise a great degree of influence over how students learn about themselves, others, societ y, and their futures in it are in a powerful position to make great strides in reducing those inequalities and injustices. In this way, education becomes ï¬transformativefl (Howard, 2006). A number of labels have been attached to ideologies aimed at reforming education as an agent of social change. R eading across the literature, there are references to, among other terms, ï¬diversity education, ï¬multic ultural education,fl ï¬education for social change,fl and ï¬social justice e ducationfl. While these terms have been variously defined 20 and little consensus exists over their exact de finitions, differences and degrees of overlap, an important distinction can be made be tween ideologies and pedagogies from a ï¬multiculturalismfl perspective, and those more closely associated with ï¬social justice educationfl. Multicultural education came to prominence in the late 1970s and early 1980s with seminal work by Banks (1973; 1988), Grant (1977; 1978) and Grant and Sleeter (1986). Multicultural education built of ethnic studies movement of the 1960s and 1970s (Banks, 1993) and was seen as a response to integrationist ideas of the 1930s that saw cultural diversity as a cause of social c onflict. For multiculturalist educators, the goal became to recognize and celebrate cultural pluralism in schools, reducing misconceptions and establishing a sense of community (Applebaum, 2009; Olneck, 1990). In addition to criticism by cons ervatives ideologically opposed to multiculturalism (see D'Souza, 1991; Schlesinge r, 1991) multicultural education has been criticized by those within the field as not being critical enough. To these critics, multicultural education has being enacted in pr actice only symbolically with ï¬heroes and holidaysfl as simplified markers of culture and diversity. In other words, some ï¬multiculturalfl teachers and schools attempt to bring students together and reduce bias, and stereotypes by adding in a few books representing culturally diverse perspectives and designating certain times as celebrations of va rious groups and members of those groups (e.g., African American History Month) by having students learn about surface-level elements of culture such as food, dance and language. When done this way, multicultural education can reinforce stereotyping through superficial understandings of culture as well 21 as send the message that learning about culture and diversity is not a central part of the schoolâ„¢s curriculum (Applebaum, 2009). Key multicultural education scholars have responded to this critique. For example, Banks and Banks (1995) responded to ï¬one of the most prevalent misconceptionsfl about multicultural education - that diversifying curriculum to included diverse cultural, racial and ethnic groups is the main goal of multiculturalists. The authors contend this is only one goal and highlight on e of the domains of multicultural education Å’ ï¬equity pedagogyfl Å’ they argue goes further beyond diversifying the curriculum. The authors explain that equity pedagogy means critically reexamining assumptions about teaching and learning, and ï¬requires the dism antling of existing school structures that foster inequalityfl (p. 153). Further, Sleeter (1995) describes critiques that multicultural education as a movement does not focus enough on challenging structural inequalities as ï¬reductionistic,fl and ï¬disregarding large bodies of scholarshipfl (p. 90). Still, even in her 1995 response to cri tiques of multicultural education, Sleeter, acknowledges that ï¬when multicultural educat ion is framed around learning about ‚otherâ„¢ cultures and displacing stereotypes, the larger structural issues are ignoredfl (p. 91). Sleeter argues that, ï¬multicultural education theories must direct attention more directly to [systems for perpetuating structural ine quality such as] White racism, patriarchy, and capitalismfl (p. 92). Similarly, Ladson-Billings (2004) argued that multicultural education does not go deep enough in order to significantly remediate educational and social inequality. From this perspective, multicultura lists must incorporate critical perspectives such as those found in feminist studies and critical race theory that examines social inequity as being the by-product of systems of privilege, oppression and discrimination 22 fundamentally embedded in American society and its educational system. For example, social justice educators such as Sadker and Zittleman (2012) argue that teachers commonly hold low expectations of, or complete ly ignore, their female students while the standard "neutral" curriculum has a decidedl y male-bias, focusing on the contributions and perspectives of male authors, protagonist s, scientists and historical figures. Other social justice educators see schools as a primary contributor to societal homophobia and heterosexism, arguing that schools maintain heterosexism by systematically excluding LGBTQ perspectives from the curriculum. Th is exclusion is so extreme, teachers will even avoiding acknowledging these perspectives even in the most obvious places such as studying the works of Virginia Wolf or Jame s Baldwin (Friend, 1998). This shift has led some scholars and practitioners to adopt a ï¬critical multiculturalismfl (May & Sleeter, 2010) perspective that specifically aims to go beyond a simple recognition and celebration of cultural differences and focus on the ways in which those cultural differences become fodder for social system s designed to maintain current arrangements that privilege and advantage some groups at the expense of others (McLaren, 1994; May, 1999). Similar to the aims of critical multiculturalism are those of social justice education. Bell (2007) defines social justice education as ï¬both an interdisciplinary framework for analyzing multiple forms of oppression and a set of interactive, experiential pedagogical principles to help learners understand the meaning of social difference and oppression both in the social system and in their personal livesfl (p. 2). The goal of social justice educators then becomes: 23 to enable people to develop the critical analytical tools necessary to understand oppression and their own socialization within oppressive systems, and to develop a sense of agency and capacity to interrupt and charge oppressive patterns and behaviors in themselves and in the institu tions and communities of which they are a part (p. 1-2). Given the plurality of terms for movement s seeking to reform current education practices for the betterment of society, and recognizing the distinction between traditional definitions of multicultural education and cri tical multiculturalism, this study uses the general term ï¬social justice educationfl as a theoretical perspective and framework. In this way, the current research recognizes that knowledge from variously labeled fields related to cultural diversity and inequality inform the work done explicitly under the heading of ï¬social justice education.fl Therefore, for the purposes of this literature review and current study, research conducted as ï¬multicultural educ ation,fl ï¬diversity education,fl ï¬teaching for social change,fl and other related fields are included as re levant to the central themes and understandings of ï¬social justice educationfl research. However, using the term ï¬social justice educationfl makes the distinction that the focus of this research is not on simply the expressions of culture, but rather the social systems that use those expressions in order to reify existing social hierarchies. Outcomes of social justice education. A number of intermediate outcomes are have been identified in past scholarly research on social justice education and practitioner-focused materials for social justi ce educators. This res earcher focuses on two of these outcomes: pre-servi ce teachersâ„¢ beliefs about and their knowledge of issues related to social justice in education. 24 Dispositions. Foundational to subsequent knowledge or action is a belief that the knowledge is important and that the action is worthwhile (Howard, 2006). In teacher education, these underlying beliefs about knowledge and practice are frequently defined as professional dispositions. As defined by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (2012), ï¬teacher dispositi onsfl are ï¬professional at titudes, values, and beliefs demonstrated through both verbal and no n-verbal behaviors as educators interact with students, families, colleagues, and communitiesfl (n.p.). As with the NCATE definition, the terms ï¬dispositionsfl is often used synonymously with terms like ï¬attitudes,fl ï¬values,fl and ï¬beliefsfl in the literature on social justice education. Therefore, while some scholars argue for a clearer distin ction to be made between the terms, this literature review includes research that uses the terms ï¬dispositions,fl ï¬beliefs,fl ï¬values,fl ï¬temperaments,fl and/or ï¬attitudesfl that view these internal mental constructs in such a way. Common across the research using different terms is the view that these mental constructs can be the target of social justice education and that the outcome of that education is an observable change, shift or more nuanced development in the learnersâ„¢ ï¬dispositionsfl. In the field of multicultural teacher educat ion, several authors have argued that, not only can multicultural teacher education courses impact pre-service teachers' dispositions, but that this change is important and necessary aspect of becoming an effective teacher for all children (Taylor & Sobel, 2002). Smith (1998) contends that dispositional change is important for because , for many teachers, their own education was grounded on assimilation ideology, with little ex posure to diverse learners. While not the case for all pre-service teachers, those that come from ma instream racial, class, language 25 and religious cultures can often have never examined their dispositions, even thought they may be barriers to connect with and e ducating diverse learners (Taylor & Sobel). Examples of these problematic beliefs includ e internalized racist and sexist beliefs, (Ahlquist, 1991; Cannella, 1998; Scott 1995) viewing non-mainstream cultures from a deficit perspective, (Barrón, 2008; Ford & Grantham, 2003; Schultz, Neyhart & Reck, 1996) and adopting a ï¬color-blindfl perspective that fails to acknowledge studentsâ„¢ racial identity, (Johnson, 2002; Lewis, 2001). Multicultural teacher education courses, especially those that adopt a critical and/or social justice stance therefore often challenge teachers' previously held mainstream ideologies. This change toward awareness of structural inequalities in education and that their work as a teacher may reinforce those in equalities, can be difficult to accomplish. (Bhargava, Hawley, Scott, Stein, & Phelps, 2004; Kidd, Sánchez & Thorp, 2004). Taylor and Sobel (2005) describe how conversations that challenge teachersâ„¢ beliefs are often not only difficult and uncomfortable, but "simply foreign to many educatorsfl (p. 2). This discomfort may explain why pre-service teachersâ„¢ attitudes are very resistant to change (Grant & Secada, 1990; Major & Br ock, 2003), especially when teachers are asked to confront their own prejudices (Horton & Scott, 2004). Many pre-service teachers, most of whom are White and from advantaged backgrounds (Ladson-Billings, 2001; Nieto & Bode, 2008), are unwilling to change their beliefs about the impact of their own socialization on how they see their students and education, the existence of structural oppression and their potential role in maintaining it (LaDuke , 2009). Instead of changing their beliefs, many of these students are more willing to believe deficit model 26 explanations for studentsâ„¢ lack of academi c success (Agee, 1998; Gomez, 1993; Sleeter, 2001). The process of dispositional change is not a quick one; it "can only be achieved gradually and longitudinally through continuous reflection about theory and practice in conjunction with knowledge about and experience with diverse learnersfl (Major & Brock, 2003, p. 9). That being said, several studies have assessed changes in dispositions as a possible result of a single teacher educ ation course. This study continues in that tradition and presents empirical evidence of di spositional change. For a further review of previous research on measuring dispositions in multicultural social justice teacher education as a background to the results reported here, see the Measuring dispositions section later in this chapter. Knowledge. The issue of what knowledge about t eaching pre-service teachers should be learning is one of the major criticisms of Social Justice Education. The ï¬knowledge critiquefl essentially argues that movements such as multicultural education and social justice education within the teacher education field place t oo much emphasis on liberal progressive and political educational goals such as respecting pupilsâ„¢ cultural identity and raising their self-esteem while at the sa me time devaluing training on traditional educational goals related to teaching subjec t matter knowledge and basic skills (Cochran- Smith et al., 2009). However, this critique rests on the assump tion that there is a dichotomy between justice and knowledge, that ï¬there is a choice about the goal of teacher education: either knowledge and learning or social justice. From the perspective of this dichotomy then, social justice by de finition precludes knowledge and learningfl (p. 635). This is a false dichotomy; knowle dge in social justice education includes 27 traditional academic subject matter and/or pedagogical knowledge, but also a unique set of additional understandings about society, power, opportunity and the construction of knowledge itself. One such knowledge for social justice educators to develop is knowledge of the self. Gay and Howard (2000), King (1997) and Ladson-Billings (2009) argue that, in addition to content and pedagogical knowledge, teachers of ethnically diverse students need to be critically aware of th eir own biases beliefs about culture, ethnicity and achievement, the expectations they have for students from various backgrounds, and an understanding of how those beliefs and expectations may be demonstrated in their teaching practice. Villegas and Lucas (2002) see this as part of a larger ï¬sociocultural consciousness.fl They believe that most teachers do not have a st rong sense of who they are socially and culturally and must engage in ï¬autobiographical exploration, reflection, and critical self-analysis to develop that sensefl (p. 22). Bell, Washington, Weinstein and Love (2003) add to this list of teacher se lf-knowledge an understanding of oneâ„¢s own fears and doubts about teaching ethnically diverse students and about teaching issues of social justice. The issue of self-knowledge is seen as particularly relevant for White teachers who make up the majority of the teaching fo rce but often do not think of th emselves in racial terms. For these teachers, self-knowledge must include an understanding of themselves as racial beings (i.e., having a specific set of experiences and perspectives that is unique to Whites, just as other people of other races do) and the ways they have been privileged by their racial identity (Helms, 1995; Howard, 2006; Ladson-Billings, 2001; Lawrence, 1997). In addition to knowing about themselves, many scholars argue that social justice educators need knowledge of their studentsâ„¢ lives, identities and the cultural experiences 28 that shaped them. This begins with k nowing the norms, patterns of interaction and priorities found in the familial and cultural backgrounds of their students (Gay, 2010) as well as familial make up, immigration hist ory, and knowledge of and past experiences with specific topics in the curriculum. Villegas and Lucas further describe ways teachers can learn about studentsâ„¢ family histories in cluding home visits, meeting with community members, and, within the classroom setti ng, posing problems to students and noting how each solves them (p 4). Effective social just ice educators also understand the role of race, gender, economic class and other identity mark ers in shaping the beliefs, attitudes, experiences and knowledge students of different cultural backgrounds bring with themselves into the classroom (Tatum, 2000) . Where knowledge of students intersects pedagogy, social justice educators need an additional set of knowledge for incorporating studentsâ„¢ culture into their teaching and curriculum in a way that not only celebrates diversity, but empowers students with a rigorous education that is also tailored to their experiences and perspective. This is the basis for pedagogical movements such as Culturally Responsive Teaching (Gay, 2010), Culturally Relevant Pedagogy (Ladson- Billings 1995), and Anti-Oppressive Teaching (Kumashiro, 2000) as well as Milnerâ„¢s (2007) racially aware framewor k for educational researchers. In order for teachers to make schooling more relevant to, and stimulatin g for, students of color, teachers need to have a deep knowledge of the historical contributions of people from multiple backgrounds to their subject matter as well as knowledge of how to revise curriculum in order to incorporate those contributions and better represent studentsâ„¢ lived experiences and cultural heritage. 29 A final body of knowledge needed for social justice educators is a knowledge of social power structures that privilege some groups at the expense of others, and the role education plays in that process. Research s uggests that effective social justice educators have critical perspectives on the social, historical and political contexts surrounding schools and that they recognize how their work is influenced by, and can influence those contexts. (Giroux, 2001; Irvine, 1991, Sleeter & McLaren, 1995). These educators also know that there are structural inequalities not only in society as a whole, but built into the political, financial and organizational structures of schools that maintain power for dominant groups while con tinuing to oppress subordinate groups (Darling-Hammond, 1995; Giroux & McLaren, 1992; Kozol, 1991, Irvine, 1991). In general, in addition to knowing oneâ„¢s own self and multiple aspects of oneâ„¢s students, social justice educators are tasked with coming to understand the politics of education and the ways school perpetuate injustice in an unjust society (Bartolome & Trueba, 2000; Cochran-Smith, 2004). Gay and Howard (2000) extend this idea to argue that social justice educators not only need to have a critical understanding of schoolsâ„¢ role in reifying social inequality, but also an in-depth knowledge of the type of education they are practicing that is intended to counter the pr ocesses of inequality. They refer to this knowledge as ï¬multicultural foundations of edu cationfl and define it as an ï¬awareness of the foundational principles and ideology of multicultural teaching– [including] historical, philosophical, sociological, psychological, political, cultural, and economic analyses and explanations of what multicultural education is and why it is neededfl (p. 11). In summary, social justice knowle dge for teachers includes a reflective 30 understanding of oneâ„¢s own self, knowledge of studentsâ„¢ lives, identities and experiences, as well as critical understanding of the social and political contexts influencing schools. History of social justice education. Over almost a century, educational scholars have sought to reform the work of students, teachers and school leaders in order to directly challenge social inequality. In Democracy and Education (1916), educator and philosopher John Dewey argued that schools shou ld prepare students to become critical social beings that freely engage with one another to question knowledge in an effort to fight inequality (Ayers, Hunt & Quinn, 1998; Kliebard, 1994; Oakes & Rogers, 2006;). However, while the view of schools as being responsible for creating a more equitable society has been present for at least a centu ry, the push to include this knowledge in education and teacher education received new vi gor in the 1960s in concert with the Civil Rights Movement and the desegregation of schools. One of the major education initiative s of the Civil Rights Movement was to demand school reform so that all students in newly desegregated schools would face less discrimination and acquire more human rights. This included the call to have curriculum more wholly incorporate the experiences, pers pectives, cultures and hi stories of people of different ethnic groups. These calls for curricular reform laid the foundation for the modern vision of ï¬multicultural educationfl (Banks & Banks, 2010). The first implementations of a more diverse curricu lum was rushed and without a thoughtful and careful consideration of how to integrate a broader range of ethnic experiences into the curriculum in a meaningful way (Banks, 2006). This trend has continued today as many models of ï¬multicultural educationfl in practice focus on helping teachers, students, parents and administrators understand and re late to people different from themselves. 31 However, just as with early ï¬diversity educationfl that only superficially integrated a variety of perspectives into the curriculum this modern strain of multicultural education can become ï¬justfl a celebration of various peoplesâ„¢ ï¬heroes and holidaysfl (Lee, Menkart & Okazawa-Rey, 2007). Over the past decade, criticism of th e shortcomings of multicultural education continued with many teacher education scholar s arguing that very l ittle has changed in the ways teachers are prepared in university-based programs (Grant & Secada, 1990; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Zeichner & Hoeft, 1996). Spurred by a more liberal and critical body of theory on teacher education, a ï¬new teacher educationfl emerged that was committed to a more thorough infusion of mu lticulturalism and imbued with critical understandings of identity and cultural structures at work in educational settings. From this view, teacher education is less about preparing teachers for understanding a diversity of pe rspectives and more focused on empowering teachers and students to interrupt systems of inequality, in other words, to work for ï¬social justicefl (Cochran-Smith, 2004, p. 17). This view of t eaching as a political act for challenging social injustice is rooted in Freire's (1970) view of teachers as "revolutionary leaders," who, rather than teach to students, work in tandem with their students to practice a "humanizing pedagogy – [that] expresses the consciousness of the students themselves" (26-27). Freire's perspective of teachers as ag ents of change is an essential element of critical pedagogies such as Culturally Relevant Pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1995), Culturally Responsive Teaching (Gay, 2010), and Anti-Oppressive Teaching, (Kumashiro, 2000). 32 Grant and Sleeter (2010) succinctly outline th at social justice teacher education is similar to multicultural education in many curri cular and instructional practices, but goes beyond multiculturalism in four ways: Democracy in the form of debates and political discussions are centered in the classroom, students develop thei r critical consciousness to investigate institutional inequality, students e ngage in social action to challenge these inequalities, and supportive networks are built between various oppressed groups (pp. 68-69). While definitions of what ï¬social justicefl exactly is varies, (see discussion in section on Limitations of prior social justice education research) mode rn forms of social justice pre-service teacher education ca n be seen as having their r oots in multicultural education, but expanding to adopt a more political, critical and socially active ideology. Social justice pre-service teacher education. Within the field of social justice education, teachers play a pivotal role, acting as agents of change within and beyond their classrooms. While teacher education course s with some degree of focus on addressing social justice issues are a common featur e in university-based teacher preparation programs, these vary widely in the degree to which they critically assess the underlying structural inequalities inherent in educational settings and practices (Zeichner, 2006; Zeichner, 2009). However, some teacher pr eparation courses (whether designed for specific settings such as urban schools or not) engage in specialized training that is intentional about developing the dispositions, knowledge, and competencies necessary to become not merely diversity-aware "multicultural educators," but effective, committed social justice educators (Carter Andrews & Donaldson, 2009). Components of social justice teacher education. Programs and courses designed to prepare teachers for culturally diverse classrooms often differ in their 33 methods for doing so. Previous research ha s detailed a number of course components designed to impact students' dispositions a nd the affordances by which such change may happen. For the purposes of setting up the methods and results of this study, this literature review focuses on four components used in this study's course: cross-cu ltural interactions with people from diverse backgrounds, assignmen ts that focus on a critical reexamination of one's own learning history, personal reflec tion of one's own beliefs, and ideologically challenging classroom discourse. Previous research has described the imp act of cross-cultural experiences on students' dispositions, especially those rela ted to understanding how one's backgrounds influence their current perspectives (Fre ire & Macedo, 1987; Gadotti, 1996; Wiseman, 2001). The major affordance these experiences ha ve for social justice learning is giving students the opportunity to perspective take; to learn from first-hand how people from backgrounds different from their own see the world differently. Doing so may lead to students better understanding their own biases and perspectives. For example, Gay (2000) and LaDuke (2009) argue that these kinds of personal experiences are especially impactful for white, middle-class, mono-lingu al, predominately female teachers who constitute the vast majority of the teachi ng workforce, but have had relatively little experience with people from diverse cultura l backgrounds. Without these cross-cultural experiences, these teachers often make a " phenomenal absolutism error" (Howard, 2000), mistaking their own beliefs and pers pectives as the only reality. One example of a cross-cultural experiences intended to change students' dispositions is fieldwork where pre-service te achers work with students and/or families in culturally and ethnically diverse school and community settings. (Capella-Santana, 2003; 34 Milner, 2006). After participating in these ex periences, pre-service teachers may better understood students from different backgrounds, their values, and their beliefs, and be more open to teaching culturally relevant pedagogies (Kidd, Sánchez & Thorp, 2004). Several authors have noted, however, th at these kinds of experiences can be problematic if not carefully planned and thoughtfully carried out. In particular, if cross-cultural experiences are not paired with thor ough examinations of race and class through concurrent class discussions, these experiences can lead to reinforcement of existing stereotypes about diverse students (Milner, 2006; Sleeter, 2001; Vavrus, 2002, cited in LaDuke, 2009). In this study, students engaged in a field-based service learning assignment that typically gave opportunities for cross cultural interaction. See Chapter 3 for further discussion of the affordances of this course component. A second common component of social justice teacher education courses is assignments that challenge pre-service teachers to reexamine their own personal histories and how those histories influence their current beliefs. Zeichner (1993) argues that teachers need to identify their own cultural id entity before they can understand that of their students. In this way, "self-study" assignments may be the most important component of multicultural teacher developm ent, creating a foundation for pre-service teachers to better understand the students and families they serve (Brown, 2004; Chizhik & Chizhik, 2005; Clark & Oâ„¢Donnell, 1999). Assignments such as "life history," "cultural history," and "cultural autobiographies" afford dispositional change by facilitating a critical examination of one's own history. Through this self-examination, the influence of lived experiences, family upbringing and an individual's cultural socialization become apparent and can be connected to current beliefs. When that 35 connection is made, a student is better ab le to understand their own subjectivity and biases, as well as how others' lived experi ence influence their beliefs and behaviors (Bhargava, Hawley, Scott, Stein, & Phelps, 2004; Cochran-Smith, 2004; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). In this study, students wrote a two part cultural autobiography at the beginning and the end of the semester. See Chapter 3 for further discussion of the affordances of this course component. A third frequently used component of so cial justice teacher education courses is personal written reflections or journals. In these journals, students are often asked to write about their reactions, feelings or impre ssions of other course components such as cross-cultural experiences or course readings. (Garmon, 1998, McFalls and CobbsRogers, 2001). Similar to self-examination assignments, reflective writing's affordance for social justice learning is in engaging students in a metacognitive understanding of their own bias and cultural assumptions (Obidah, 2000; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). When students are intentionally examining their own ideas a nd feelings, they become aware of their own subjectivity and better critique their own assumptions as well as those of others (Zeichner, 1996). An additional avenue for supporting reflective writings' affordance for examining one's one beliefs is in how teacher educators respond to their students' journals. By responding directly to students' reflections with constructive feedback, teacher educators can encourage further criti cal reflection and dispositional change in their students (Ladson-Billings, 1991; Vill egase & Lucas; Zeichner). In this study, students created seven reflective journals over the course of the semester about their experiences at their service learning site. See Chapter 3 for further discussion of the affordances of this course component. 36 Lastly, building on Freire's (1970) idea of "problem posing" instruction, engaging students in honest, respectful discussions has been a fundamental component of social justice teacher education described by a numbe r of researchers. These class discussions can facilitate impacting students' dispos itions through multiple affordances including giving reluctant or resistant students opportunities to participate and overcome their resistance (Griffin, 1997), students learning from one another's perspective to understand subjectivity and bias (Nieto, 1998), and building a trusting and respectful community where dispositional reexamination is fost ered and encouraged (Griffin, Young, 1998). While these kinds of discussions can afford changes in students' dispositions, facilitating them in challenging but productive way, can be difficult. For example, teacher educators need to encourage and support students' honesty, even if that honesty creates some conflict and disagreement (Garcia & Gu erra, 2004). With out this conflict, the affordance for learning from one another and reexamining one's own beliefs is diminished. On the other hand, the discussi ons must be carried out with a mutual commitment to respect (Nieto, 1998). Without this commitment, discussions can become defensive and counter-productive, likewise losing the opportunity for dispositional change. In this study, students engaged in daily class discussions designed to encourage challenging one another's ideas and beliefs in a environment of mu tual respect. See Chapter 3 for further discussion of the affordances of this course component. Measuring social justice te acher education outcomes. A fundamental part of any teacher education program is effectivel y assessing the intended outcomes. This is particularly true now when educators are increasingly required to present evidence of the outcomes of their efforts (e.g., evidence-base d interventions and data-driven decision 37 making). For social justice teacher educati on courses, outcomes can be measured by the degree to which pre-service teachers change in each of the beliefs about and knowledge related to social justice in e ducation. Previous research had detailed a number of ways to qualitatively and quantitatively measure the im pact of social justice teacher education courses. However, for the purposes of setting up the methods and results of this study, this section of the literatur e review focuses on the type (quantitative) and specific instrument (LTSJ-B) used in this study. Measuring dispositions. Change in teacher education studentsâ„¢ beliefs about teaching for social justice is commonly assessed as an outcome variable of teacher education courses focusing on issues of diversity and social justice in education. Past research using this kind of assessment ha s employed both qualitative and quantitative data. Based on interviews, focus groups and th ematic analysis of student journals and class assignments, several themes of dis positional change have been discussed in previous research. These cha nges in disposition include pre-service teachers from dominant cultural groups rethinking their prej udices about groups culturally different from their own (Hyland & Noffke, 2005), increasing in a sense of advocacy for historically marginalized students and groups (Athaneses & Oliviera, 2007), and growing awareness that oneâ„¢s own beliefs are bias ed and uniquely based on individualsâ„¢ past experiences and identity (Medina, Morrone, & Anderson, 2005). In addition to describing themes of dispos itional changes, recent research has also used qualitative data to outline degrees of change in pre-service teachersâ„¢ beliefs related to issues of social justice. For example, Burant and Kirby (2002) used qualitative data collected from 26 predominantly white, middle class and female pre-service teacher 38 education students collected through notes from field observa tions, interviews and focus groups as well as studentsâ„¢ own reflective j ournals and class assignments. Researchers analyzed changes in subjectsâ„¢ beliefs expresse d in these data sources over the course of classroom and field-based learni ng and present themes that describe degrees of change in their studentsâ„¢ beliefs. These degrees of change include deepening understanding, eye-opening and transformational, partially miseducative , and escaping. Also measuring dispositional change by degrees is Adams, Bondy & Kuhel (2005). The authors used semi-structured interviews with 13 preser vice-teacher education students about their experience working with a culturally diverse student mentoring program over the course of several months. Analysis of these inte rviews presented themes of the degree of openness to a belief in the systemic nature of educational inequity, ranging from ï¬resistantfl to ï¬passion and commitment.fl In addition to qualitative reports, a number of quantitative instruments have been developed and used to measure change in pa rticipantsâ„¢ beliefs about issues related to social justice in education. One of the most frequently used instruments is the Cultural Diversity Awareness Inventory (CDAI) develo ped by Henry (1986). According to Henry, the goal of the CDAI is to generally assesses respondentsâ„¢, primarily school personnel, respect and awareness of children from cultu res different from their own. Several researchers have used this instrument to iden tity changes in pre-service teachersâ„¢ beliefs (see Brown, 2004a; Brown, 2004b; Davis & Turner, 1993; Larke, 1990). However, since, no data on the scaleâ„¢s reliability and validity have been excluded from Henryâ„¢s original research and subsequent studies, data interpretation and results from research using the CDAI has been ambiguous (Brown, 2004b). 39 In addition to the CDAI, multiple other scales have been developed to quantitatively measure changes in educator sâ„¢ beliefs about multicultural education, diversity and social justice. Examples of th ese scales include the Survey of Multicultural Education Concepts (Moore & Reeves-Kazel skis, 1992), the Teacher Belief Inventory (Tabachnick & Zeichner, 1984), and the Cu ltural Attitude Test (Amodeo & Martin, 1982). Compared to the CDAI, these scales have not been as widely replicated in subsequent research, and when employed, reliability and validity data are very infrequently reported. This lack of data signifi cantly limits the applicability of the scales to and comparability of findings from pr evious research (Pohan & Aguilar, 2001). More recently, Ludlow, Enterline & Cochran-Smith (2008) presented an empirically-based, rigorously developed and tested, and replicable measurement scale for measuring pre-service teachersâ„¢ beliefs relate d to social justice education. The Learning to Teach for Social Justice-Beliefs scale (LTS J-B) is based on initial pilot testing with more than 200 students graduating from a t eacher preparation program with a specific over-arching emphasis on social justice educatio n. After initial pilot testing, focus groups with undergraduate and graduate students in the program were conducted that led to item revisions and a second round of pilot testing which generated more reliable and consistent scores, along with additional feedback on scale items. After additional revisions, the LTSJ-B is now used as a program entry and exit assessment of teacher education students. Over multiple administra tions of the scale as a program entry and program exit survey, the LTSJ-B has demonstrat ed an average Chronbachâ„¢s alpha of .80 and .74, respectively, with a Rasch goodness-of-fit analyses that showed consistency between observed and expected item responses. 40 One of the first studies to employ th e LTSJ-B was Enterline, Ludlow, Mitescu and Cochran-Smith (2008). Along with reporti ng details on the development of the LTSJ- B the authors, Enterline et al. gave the resu lts of two sets of analysis evaluating the impact a teacher education program focu sed on social justice had on students' dispositions. Enterline et al. measured this by comparing the mean LTSJ-B scores for freshmen students entering the program over th e previous three year s to seniors exiting the program over the same time period. They al so administered the survey to graduates who had exited the program the year previous as a "one year out" assessment of the persistence of the program's effects. Results of this analysis showed that exiting seniors' mean LTSJ-B scores were significantly higher than those of incoming freshmen, givi ng evidence that the program over the past three years had been successful at shifting students' dispositions. In the "one year out" analysis, however, scores were note significantly different between the recent graduates and exiting seniors. In fact, the mean score for recent graduates (4.02) was nearly identical to that of exiting seniors (4.04). The researchers interpret this result to mean that the program effects persisted in recen t graduates as they maintained their social justice beliefs. Following up on Enterline et al. (2008) , Cochran-Smith, Ludlow, Ell, O'Leary & Enterline (2012) reported the results of three large-scale studies employing the LTSJ-B in three different countries (the United States, New Zealand and Ireland). These studies used the instrument in a similar way as Enterline, et. al. - as an assessmen t of impacts of entire teacher education programs on students' soci al justice beliefs by measuring multiple cohorts of teachers entering and exiting the programs over multiple years. Mean scores 41 for teachers exiting the United States, New Zealand, and Ireland programs ( =4.06, =3.73, =3.79 respectively) were significantly different (higher) than mean scores for teachers entering the program ( =3.38, =3.28 and =3.35 respectively), but with small effect sizes ( d=0.16, d=0.16 and d=0.14). These results provide evidence that each program was successful in shifting students' so cial justice dispositions, but notably small effect sizes. Mean scores in this study demonstrated a high degree of variance with standard deviations reading from 3.1 to 4.5 across the th ree sites. This large variance may be due to the fact that this study used considerably large samp les (ranging from 283 to 738 participants) and time between pre- and post-te sts (programs were one to four years in duration) and likely contributed to lowering the effect sizes. In addition to the research done by the re search team that developed the LTSJ-B, a number of studies have used the instru ment as assessments as assessments of programmatic and course impacts on social jus tice beliefs. Similar to Enterline et al. (2008), Anastasia and Hewett (2012) studied 4 cohorts of alumni (463) and current freshmen (567) from Jesuit universities to dete rmine the lasting impact these universities' teacher education programs had on studentâ„¢s social justice dispositions. Anastasia and Hewett report that alumni mean scores ( =4.11) were not significantly different than those of current students (=4.20). The researchers interpret the results to mean that students did not change significantly overall in their beliefs over the course of their time in the teacher preparation programs. Anastasia and Hewett followed these overa ll findings with a subsequent item-by- item analysis. This analysis showed that al umni were significantly more likely to agree 42 with individual questions on the LTSJ-B such as, "teachers should teach students to think critically about government positions and actions" and mo re likely to disagree with reverse-coded items such as, "it's reasona ble for teachers to have lower classroom expectations for students who don't speak English as their first language." The researchers interpret this to mean that, wh ile the programs may not have had an overall significant impact in changing studentsâ„¢ dispositions, it did influence graduates to be more committed to certain aspects of teaching for social justice. In a mixed-methods analysis of a soci ology of literacy course, Lazar (2012) compared the LTSJ-B scores of 41 teachers w ho had recently completed the course to 46 teachers who had not taken the course. Lazar did not report overall mean scores for the two teacher groups, choosing instead to compar e the groupsâ„¢ scores on each item. On this item-by-item analysis, Lazar found that t eachers who had taken the course were significantly more likely to agre e with one positively coded items and disagree with three reverse coded item than teachers who did not enroll in the course. While not reporting an overall impact of the course, Lazar interprets the item-by-item results to mean that the course had mixed results in that it may have changed teachersâ„¢ beliefs about some social justice issues, but not others. More recently, Evans (2013) compared the pre-test/post-test dispositional changes of three cohorts of teachers enrolled in multip le sections of a social justice mathematics course. Using a paired samples T-test, this study found no significant difference in the overall pre-test/post-test scores in the total sample ( n=115). Likewise, pre-test/post-test differences for each cohort were not statis tically significant with small effect sizes 43 (d=0.0, d=0.25, d=0.26). The only significant difference found were when comparing the mean post-test scores between the th ree cohorts using a one-way ANOVA. Specifically, a cohort of teachers teaching in high-needs schools were significantly higher in their pre- and post-test LTSJ-B scor es than the two other cohorts. As Evans acknowledged, this difference could be due to sampling bias as the teachers in high-needs schools were recruited specifically for teaching in urban schools and may be more social justice minded to begin with (a s suggested by their pre-test scores). This groups' pre-test and post-test mean scores were relatively high (=3.94 out of 5) and did not change at all (d=0.0) over the course of the semester, which may indicated a ceiling effect on the course's impact. Further, post-te st LTSJ-B scores for the other two cohorts of teachers actually decreased (though not si gnificantly so) over the course of the semester. Overall, adding in qualitative evidence, Evans concludes the course had a mixed impact on teachers' social justice beliefs. Measuring knowledge. While multiple researchers have measured individualsâ„¢ beliefs about issues related to social justice education, little research has been conducted on individualsâ„¢ knowledge of issues related to social justice education. Research measuring of social justice be liefs has matured to the point where such dispositions are commonly measured qualitatively and quantit atively. On the other hand, measurement of social justice related knowledge has lagged behind with researchers advocating multiple domains of knowledge important for social jus tice educators, but very rarely attempting to empirically measure learnersâ„¢ developmen t in those domains. For example, several researchers have argued for educators to grow in their understanding of the social, political and historical contexts of education and the role forms of discrimination such as 44 racism, (Ladson-Billings, 2001) heterosexi sm (Friend, 1998) and classism (Knapp & Woolverton, 2003). Other researchers have advocated educators learning more about themselves in terms of their own identity development (Gay & Howard, 2000; Helms, 1995; Howard, 2006; Valli, 1995). Still other researchers point to understanding the identity and experiences of students from di fferent cultural backgrounds as an essential knowledge for social justice educators (Gay, 2010; Lawrence, 1997). Despite these claims for the need for such knowledge develo pment, very little research has specifically incorporated educatorsâ„¢ knowledge in these domains. Further, when social justice knowledge has been addressed, it is has been presented in descriptive, rather than empirical, research. Most often, this descrip tive research presents themes of preservice teachers developing in their knowledge of soci al inequality (see Mc Donald, 2008) and of themselves as racialized beings in rela tion to their students (Hylad & Noffke, 2005; Medina, Morrone, & Anderson, 2005). To date, there has not been research that attempts to not only describe, but measure and assess change in preservice teachersâ„¢ knowledge of issues related to social justice. In addition, no quantitative scales have been developed for measuring individualsâ„¢ social justice related knowledge. Limitations of prior social justice education research. Research on social justice education teacher preparation cour ses and programs has indicated a number of areas for concern. First, the literature suffers from an inconsistent or often poorly defined conceptualization of what is meant by ï¬socia l justice,fl and ï¬social justice education.fl This lack of consistency has left the field open to criticism th at social justice education is merely about boosting studentsâ„¢ self-esteem (Schrag, 1999) sacrifices actual student 45 learning (Will, 2006) or, worse, is just a form of socially progressive indoctrination by politically liberal faculty members (Crowe , 2008; Leo, 2005). A second major limitation from the literatur e on social justice education is that prior research has largely focused on only pr e-service teachersâ„¢ beliefs as an outcome variable and not considered other areas of change, such as knowledge in domains related to social justice. It may be argued that lear ning to teach for social justice begins with a personal commitment based on dispositions, but an educatorâ„¢s beliefs are a necessary but insufficient precursor to teaching for social justice. Pre-service teachers must develop their knowledge in relevant areas in order to more fully understand the context of their work as well as how to translate their beliefs into practice. Indeed, many authors have made this claim for the necessity of su ch knowledge (Howard, 2006; Ladson-Billings, 2001; Lawrence, 1997), and a few studies have described themes in educatorsâ„¢ social justice knowledge. However, there exists sti ll a paucity of research that actually measures, let alone measures change in, e ducatorsâ„¢ knowledge in domains related to social justice. Educational Technologies in Pre-Service Teacher Education. The second body of knowledge relevant to the current research is the field of studies on technologies incorporated into teach er education courses designed to prepare pre-service teacher for their future careers. Examining the literature on educational technology in teacher education, two themes do minate previous research: 1) Preservice- teachers are entering the classroom underprepare d to integrate technology in meaningful ways into their daily practice, (Hasselbring, 2001; Smerdon et al., 2000); and, 2) it is incumbent upon teacher preparation programs to model use of technology so that pre- 46 service teachers will learn how use to incorporate such technol ogies into their own practice. (Beyerbach, Vannatta & Walsh, 2001; Brownell, 1997; Halpin, 1999; Mullen, 2001) From these themes, the field of research on educational technology in teacher education has largely focused on one desired outcome variable: preparing teachers to be better uses of instructional technology. In this way, learning with educational technology in teacher education is a means to improve the pedagogical competencies of educators (what Mishra & Koehler, 2006 conceptualize as a specific Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge). This contrasts with much of the research in the broader field of educational technology that focuses on the possible educational benefits to the learner directly. Based in educational psychology, research on the in-practice use of educational technology frequently argues theoretically a nd empirically that such technologies may foster the development of cognitive behavior s such as higher order thinking, creativity, problem solving and reasoning amo ng students (Grabe & Grabe, 2001). Since the purpose of this research is not to assess the effects of educational technologies on pre-service teachersâ„¢ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (or other conceptualizations of their competency for integrating technology into their lessons) but to explore the possible learning benefits of a set of technologies on pre-service teachers as learners, examining the previous research on the educational affordances of these technologies on learners (including, but not limited to pre-service teachers) will be more informative. The resear ch presented here focused on the specific technologies being used in this research and emphasize research on the types of 47 educational outcomes most salient to the lear ning objectives of the course (i.e., shifting and developing social justice related beliefs and knowledge). Research on the educational affordances of Web 2.0 technologies. While some technologies have been developed specifically for educating pre-service teachers and other learners, many existing technologies have also been explored for educational value. These potentially educat ional technologies include mode rn computer-based information communication technologies (ICTs), specifically Web 2.0 technologies. In general, the term Web 2.0 refers to World Wide Web-based sites, services, and applications aimed at facilitating user participation and collaboration (Brown & Adler, 2008). Common examples of Web 2.0 sites a nd services include: Wikis (e.g., Wikipedia, Wookiepedia, and EduTech Wiki), blogs (e.g., Blogger, Wordpress), social networking sites (e.g., Facebook, LinkedIn), and recommender syst ems (e.g., Digg and Stumbleupon). Building on the belief that media influences le arning, (Kozma, 1994) many researchers have argued that because of their emphasis on us er participation and collaboration, Web 2.0 technologies are especially suited to learning from a social-constructivist perspective where learners actively create new knowledge through social interaction (Harrison & Barthel, 2009; Jonassen, 1999). This literature review presents research on the educational affordances of three Web 2.0 t echnologies, focusing on those affordances most closely related to social justice teacher education. Blogs. A growing body of research has investigated the educational affordances of weblogs for teaching and learning in a variety of grades and subject matters. Researchers have considered a number of affordances, but three specific ones may be especially 48 useful for shifting student teachersâ„¢ dispositions toward social justice and building related knowledge are considered here. First, compared to off-line written text, blogs may enhance writersâ„¢ self-expression by allowing for multiple modes of self-expression using mixed media including images, audio and video. (Deng & Yuen, 2011) This affordance is particularly important to teaching courses on social justice educati on. The critically cons cious perspectives represented in such classes are often new ways of examining social phenomenon, and students may experience frustration expre ssing themselves with the coursesâ„¢ novel vocabulary. Giving students multiple media fo rms for expressing their thoughts may help overcome this frustration. Second, blogs may aid studentsâ„¢ self-reflec tion, an important component of social justice education courses. Previous research has identified that blogs, as compared to traditional text, may be able to facilitate self-reflection by allowing writers to use hyperlinked text to connect their ideas in one piece of writing to previous written work (Ferdig & Trammell, 2004; Stiler & Philleo, 2003). Third, blogs allow for timely interaction be tween the writer and readers, which may be useful between students in social justice education courses as they develop their critically conscious perspectives. While dial ogue between writer and audience is possible in many media forms, blogsâ„¢ time-based ar rangement of posts followed by in-line commenting significantly streamlines this inte raction and facilitates the possibility for readersâ„¢ feedback to inform future writi ng. Deng and Yuen (2011) call this social interaction between writer and readers for cognition and learning ï¬reflective dialoguefl and note it includes readersâ„¢ input to help the writer make connections (which may be 49 developed in future entries) and group pr oblem solving. In addition to group meaning- making between writer and audience, reader fe edback may be used for social-emotional support (Dickey, 2004; Kreijns, Kirschner & Jochems, 2003) such as giving empathy and affirmation. For courses in social justice e ducation where the concepts and perspectives are often contrary to mainstream ideologies st udents have been raised with, this kind of help in meaning and socio-emotional support may be useful for students developing and adopting such new perspectives. Video journals. Previous research has touted the benefits of journal writing for reflecting on and improving learning (e.g., Van Maanan, 1990, Schoen, 1987, and Hiemstra, 2001) including for pre-service t eachers (Hatton & Smith, 1994; Lee, 2008). However, most research on reflection for pr e-service teachers has focused on traditional text journals. Considering the different characteristics of video versus text, student reflections done via these different mediums may be affect ed by the different affordance of each media type. Previous research on video reflections indicate some affordances that may be particularly useful in meeting the learning goals for social justice education courses. One such affordance is that because vide o requires less effort in preparing as compared to text, students speaking their re flection may be more likely to simply say more and go into greater detail while speaking a video reflection than when asked to write their reflection. While some of this sp eech in their reflection may be superfluous details, some will be relevant to the reflecti on and demonstrate a greater depth of analysis as compared to traditional written reflec tions. (Heintz, Borsheim, Caughlan & Juzwik, 2010) In terms of keeping a chronological series of reflective journals, another affordance of video for greater depth of reflection is th e ability to quickly re-view previous videos. 50 Similar to writing versus speaking, re-watchi ng as compared to re -reading requires less effort for the student and may encourage th em to re-view their previous journals. Reviewing older journal entries may help students make connections between their present and previous experiences, an essential part of reflection. (Lee, 2008) Lastly, while not germane to the issue of reflection com posed via video as compared to via text, research on speaking compared to writing indicates speakers may be more likely to craft their reflection in a stream of conscious manner with less self-censoring, which, ultimately may be more honest in representi ng the speakersâ„¢ true thoughts and feelings. (Loury, 1994; Marwick & boyd, 2011) Honesty is particularly useful in social justice education courses as the dispositional shifts that are the go als of such courses require students to be honest about their internalized beliefs in order to shift them. Wikis. Over the past several years, a growing body of research has developed on the use of wikis in educational settings. Several studies have considered affordances of collaborative writing on wikis that may be particularly relevant for use in social justice education courses. One such relevant affordance is wikisâ„¢ built-in features that simplify collaboration between multiple authors. In the process of creating and editing wiki entries, authors are exposed to the insights and perspectives of authors on the same concept (Chandra & Chalmers, 2010; Rei nhold & Abawi, 2006). Reading multiple peoplesâ„¢ perspectives may be especially beneficial for social just ice education courses where students are asked to question their own perspectives and re-consider ideologies from alternative perspectives. Even when authors do not differ in their perspectives, facilitating collaboration between multiple people may still be beneficial for students developing their beliefs about social justice education. Collaborative writing on a topic 51 may build a sense of community with othe r writers (Farkas, 2007). In courses where students are often ï¬trying onfl critically conscious identities and perspectives that differ from those with which they have been rais ed, reading contributions from peers who are similarly negotiating the new identities may he lp give social justice education studentsâ„¢ socio-emotional support that they are not alon e in this ideological re-examination. This sense of camaraderie may help overcome a ma jor obstacle dispositional shifting toward social justice Å’ fear of being alone in this new disposition. Another essential feature of wikis is the ability to combine contributions from multiple writers so that the resulting knowle dge is expanded beyond that which a single author could contribute and shaped by mu ltiple perspectives (Reinhold & Abawi, 2006). This co-construction of knowledge is especially useful for students learning about concepts in ill-structured domains whic h are best understood by examining multiple representations using multiple lines of analys is (Spiro, Collins, Thota & Feltovich, 2003). Many concepts in the domain of social justic e education such as the intersectionality of identity markers within an individual and the overlapping layers of influences during the socialization process are ill-structured, requiri ng such multi-dimensional analysis for true understanding. Using wikis to co-construct this understanding from multiple contributors representing multiple perspectives may be the most effective way to help students understand the social justice knowledge learning goals in these courses. Limitations of prior research on We b 2.0 technologies in teacher education. As many researchers have pointed out, while multicultural education and educational technology are both critical components of t eacher education programs, the two topics are rarely if ever connected in research or in practice (Damarin, 1998; Sleeter & Tettegah, 52 2002; Wassell & Crouch, 2008). This gap ma y exist because the preponderance of research on technology in teacher educa tion views pre-service teachers as future practitioners and focused on modeling technology use whereas while multicultural and social justice teacher education of ten views pre-service teachers as learners changing and developing in their beliefs and knowledge specifically related to issues of diversity and equity. Thus, researchers in the field of educational technologyâ„¢s application in teacher preparation have failed to consider the educational affordances for subject matter learning. In the case of social justice teacher education, this subject matter learning exists outside of the pedagogical knowledge and skills for technology use, and the two knowledge domains have largely been disconnect ed in previous research. Furthermore, the few previous studies that have examined educationa l technology for subject matter learning in social justice teacher educ ation have largely focused on traditional communication technologies such as videos (Hayes & Groves, 2002), email (Anderson, 1998; Sernak & Wolfe, 1998) and bulletin boards (Brown, 2004a; Ramirez, 2002). Outside of the field of multicultural and social justice teacher education, researchers have been active in theoretically and empirically examining the educational affordances of modern Web 2.0 technologies. However, re search on these specific technologies for developing pre-service teachersâ„¢ social justice knowledge and beliefs is currently lacking. Synthesis. To summarize, the two major bodies of research informing this study are the fields of educational technologies of Web 2.0 technologies and social justice teacher education. The former field is base d in educational psychology, specifically the cognitive process these technologies encourage and allow for learners to engage in. The later field is based in critical theories of sociology, specifically examining social 53 inequality and how institutions such as teacher education courses can do to challenge them, Bringing the relevant past research from these two fields together, it is possible to 54 Table 4 Examples of educational affordances supporting socially-justice education Educational Affordance Cognitive Process Relevance to Social-Justice Teacher Education Reflection through connecting thoughts via hyperlinks between Blog posts (Ferdig & Trammell, 2004; Stiler & Philleo, 2003) or by re- watching previous video journal entries (Lee, 2008) Better understanding of interconnectedness of concepts Better understanding of complex concepts such as intersectionality of identity markers and how these markers influence teachers and students educational experiences Making connections with input from blog readers (Deng & Yuen, 2011) and wiki con- contributors (Reinhold & Abawi, 2006) Co-construction of knowledge Better, more complex understanding of current and historical political and social contexts of education due to increased variety of perspectives presented Socio-emotional support from blog readers (Kreijns, Kirschner & Jochems, 2003) and wiki co-contributors (Farkas, 2007) Reduction of anxiety about being ostracized Nascent critically conscious dispositions are fostered and protected Video journals facilitate greater depth and length of reflection (Heintz, Borsheim, Caughlan & Juzwik, 2010) More opportunity for students to think about their beliefs and ideas Increased chance to self -examine previously held beliefs that work against to social justice and critically reevaluate these beliefs over the course of the semester Stream of conscious honesty in video journals (Loury, 1994; Marwick & boyd, 2011) Less self-censoring Students may be resistant to course ideas and use dishonesty to mask their disagreement; being honest in reflective video journals gives instructor (through feedback) and student (through re-watching) leverage in challenging students' beliefs that work against social justice 55 see how the specific affordances of blogs, wi kis and video journals may create learning situations that would be useful for developing the social justice dispositions and knowledge that serve as both the learning outcomes for the course under study and the questions guiding this research. Table 4 illustrates examples of the synthesis of cognitive processes potentially afforded by educational technologies that are particularly salient to the socially-just learning outcomes of this study. 56 Chapter 3 - Course, Sections and Students This study focus on two sections of a soci al justice teacher education course at a large mid-western university. Students were not aware when they enrolled for the course what the class assignments would be; therefor e, participants in this research were effectively randomly assigned to either the tr aditional section or the section using Web 2.0 technologies. Common Elements While the courses differed in the media used for three class assignments, they contained a number of common elements incl uding the instructor, the course structure, and several assessments and assignments. Thes e elements each provided affordances for shifting students' social justice dispositions a nd deepening their social justice knowledge. Table 5 and Table 6 summarize these common el ements and their affordances; a detailed discussion of each subsequently follows. 57 Table 5 Common course elements and their educational affordances beneficial for social justice teacher education Common Element Educational Affordance(s) Benefit for Social Justice Education Instructor Well-developed PCK for course content Facilitating SJK conceptual change Student demographics Small class size allows more opportunities to participate; Increased familiarity and rapport Checking SJK; socio-emotional support for dispositional change Sophomore-level students are in late adolescent psycho-social development Open to dispositional reexamination and change Gender diversity for breadth of perspectives More complex conceptual understanding with greater variety of insights Course structure Schedule gave sufficient time for in-depth and extended discussions Time to better understand SJK concepts in full complexity and intersectionality Course expectations (per syllabus & for teacher education program) held students accountable for engagement and participation Students committed and engaged to SJK building Daily course activities Pre-reading for concept building and conceptual change Facilitates class discussions for SJK conceptual change Class discussions allow for collaboration for co-construction of knowledge; rapport building More complex conceptual understanding with greater variety of insights; socio- emotional support for dispositional change Pre- and post-test assessments Framing and focusing implicit study's goals Students committed and engaged to SJK building 58 Table 6 Common and differentiated assignments and thei r affordances for social justice teacher education Common Element Educational Affordance(s) Benefit for Social Justice Education Common course assignments Formative exam for catching and re-teaching misconceptions Checking nascent SJK; facilitates future conceptual building & change Cultural autobiography for reflection on past experiences and beliefs and classroom application Dispositional reexamination and change; build SJK of own and student positionality Service learning assignment gave first-hand experience with issues of diversity and/or inequality Encourage perspective taking and empathy to deepen SJK and shift dispositions Differentiated course assignments Media artifact/current event analysis assignment for application of course concepts to novel phenomenon Conceptual transfer builds more complete understanding of complex SJK concepts Identity marker group assignment featured collaboration for co- construction of knowledge; More complex conceptual understanding with greater variety of insights Service learning journals assignment for reflection on experiences observing/working in classroom Dispositional and conceptual reexamination Instructor. Both sections of the course were taught by the same instructor (who is also the primary researcher of this study). A pplying Shulman's (1986) Pedagogical Content Knowledge framework, the instructor had a numbe r of past experiences that helped make him an effective educator in both sections of the course. By the start of the semester, the 59 instructor had ten years of experience t eaching at the middle school and undergraduate level. This decade of teaching background built his general Pedagogical Knowledge giving him a skill set for leading a classroom, including skills such as facilitating whole and small group discussions, identifying misc onceptions in student responses and using formal assessments to inform future instruc tion that were particularly useful in this course. The instructor had taught se ctions of the course in this study three times prior to the semester. He had also taught educatio nal psychology courses infused with social justice themes for an additional three previous semesters. In these courses, the instructor taught many of the concepts and material used in the sections of the course presently under study. In addition to this specific instructional experience, the instructor had four years of experience as a public school teacher in an urban school district. During this time, he had first hand experience reflecting on his dispositions, better understanding his own and his students' positionality, and working within and against systems of inequality in public education. These experiences gave him a high Content area knowledge, which he was able to use in aiding students' unders tanding of the class concepts and in guiding students through their own dispositional growth. Taken as a whole, the instructor's past experiences teaching the course in this study and professionally as a social justice educator gave him a thorough understanding of the course concepts and how to effectively communicate them to students. For this course, the instructor had a well-developed Pedagogical Content Knowledge making him an effective instructor for the course a nd an asset to students' dispositional and knowledge growth. The instructor acted as a common affordance for students in both 60 sections of the course, using his Pedagogical Content Knowledge to help them make sense of the multifaceted and intersecting conc epts in the course. This facilitation may have contributed to students developing a better social justice knowledge of themselves, their students and the contexts of education. Similarly, by fa cilitating a learning environment where ideas can be challenged resp ectfully in an open and honest forum, the instructor may have acted as an affordance for students dispositional shift. Bringing together his unique combination of professi onal experiences, instructional skill set and thorough understanding of the course content, this instructor's practice may have contributed to changes in students' soci al justice dispositions and knowledge. Student demographics. The overall student make up was very similar between the sections in multiple ways. Both sections contained 15 sophomore-level students. This is a relatively small number of students; each section allows for up to 25 students to be enrolled. Having a smaller class size may be particularly useful for a course designed to challenge students' pre-conceived beliefs a nd build their knowledge of complex concepts such as the intersectionality of identity ma rkers and the social construction of race. As compared to larger lecture-based formats, having fewer students may allow each student for more opportunities to participate (less competition) and more opportunities for students to interact peer-to-peer, which are foundational to students building knowledge together. In addition, a small class cohort of st udents at roughly the same age, especially late-adolescent age, may help in rapport bui lding for dispositional growth. Students at this age in both sections were likely to be at the same stage in the psycho-social development, engaging in similar identity refo rming processes. This age is particularly 61 open to dispositional reexamination, a fundame ntal component of the social justice teacher education course. Demographically, the sections were also very similar. The sections had the same gender ratio: 10 women and five men and though the sections varied somewhat in their racial demographics, overall the majority of st udents in both classes identified as "white" or "Caucasian." Of those that did not, one student in the traditional section and two students in the high technology section identified as African-American and one student in the high technology section was an international student from China. The sections were also almost identical in their makeup of elem entary and secondary education students. In the traditional section, 10 students planned to pursue a degree in elementary education, 5 planned to pursue a secondary education degree. In the high-technology section, there were eight elementary education students a nd seven secondary education students. This mix of genders and future career goals likely gave diversity to the perspectives students brought when contributing their understanding to such course topics as the social construction of gender, gender identity and male privilege, as well as broadening the range of classroom applications when disc ussing such social justice issues as overrepresentation in special education and examples of "hidden curriculum" in schools. By contrast, both sections were not very racially diverse, likely limiting the breath of personal insight that could be contribute d to class discussion on race and racism. Course Structure. Overall, the two sections of the course were very similar in their structure. The two sections were identi cal in terms of their overall goals, class format, schedule and position in the students' preservice teacher education program. Both sections of the course used the same sylla bus (with the noted differences in the three 62 assignments the high technology section of th e course used Web 2.0 media for). This means that both sections had the same schedul e, met the same number of days and length of time, used the same readings and had the same expectations in terms of attendance and participation. It is also important to note th at, for these students in both sections, passing this course was a requirement for admissi on into the university's teacher education program. Meeting for a total of 29 days and us ing a combination of more than 50 articles as the course text meant that students in both sections had ample opportunity and time to engage with the complex concepts of the cour se. The course's high e xpectations in terms of weekly workload and for daily participation were paired with the understanding that success in the course was a prerequisite for m oving on with their professional goals. This combination of factors helped ensure that students in both sections were committed, engaged, and accountable to the goals of the course. See Appendix A for course syllabus for further details of course schedule and expectations. Having a course where the expectations are clearly spelled out and students are motivated to meet them promotes a positiv e learning environment, regardless of the course's learning goals. This motivation may ha ve been especially useful for a course on social justice as the critical stance of ma ny of the course readings are designed to challenge students' preconceived ideas and beliefs, which could lead students to disengage intellectually with the course content. However, knowing they must perform well in the course in order to continue thei r professional goals in teacher education added an extra layer of extrinsi c motivation for students. Daily course activities. Perhaps the most important elements of the course, and ones that the two sections shared in common we re the day-to-day activities. Before each 63 class, students in both sections were required to read one or more articles about topics such as how issues of privilege, identity, gender, race, and sexual orientation arise in school settings. In addition to reading, students were required to respond to a set of questions based on the articles, and bring their written responses along with the articles to class. This requirement for active and engaged pre-reading fits with the constructivist approach to concept formation, an approach pa rticularly useful for social justice teacher education courses where the concepts are multidimensional and very interconnected. Students certainly enter the course with pre-existing schema of course concepts such as race and gender. However, the pre-reading and reading response assignments activate that prior knowledge before class begins and establishes the parts of those concepts to be further added to and nuanced during class discussions. In addition, physically having these preparation materials in front of th em every day served to prime students' participation in class discussions as well as to hold students accountable to being prepared for that discussion. The focus of most days for both secti ons were small and whole group discussions centered on their prior reading, current events, and previous class discussions. Most days, students in both sections sat in a large circle facing one another. During whole group discussions, students interacted directly with one another with the instructor acting as a facilitator to clarify statements, ask prompting ques tions, and to keep the conversation focused. During small group discussions, st udents either worked with one or two students near them or they were assigned in to specific groups by the instructor. In both small group arrangements, the instructor m oved between the groups to serve a similar facilitation role as during whole group discus sions. Because of this focus on discussion 64 and learning from one another's contributi ons, class participation norms encouraging students to participate and to be respectful of one anotherâ„¢s contributions were discussed during the first week of class and reiterated throughout the semester. Whole group discussions gave student s exposure to a broader range of perspectives on class topics while small group interactions gave students opportunities to interact with their peers in a more relaxed manner without the pr essure of the entire class' (and instructor's) attention. Th is mix of whole and small gr oup discussion arrangements was designed to give students the opportunity to build rapport with one another while also allowing for as wide a range of perspectives and insights to be contributed to the discussion. This dual approach was designed with the goals of the social justice teacher education course in mind. The comfort and fa miliarity between stude nts especially in small group discussions, may have created a se nse of communal trust, where students could be honest about their beliefs and ideas. Such openness is important for dispositional reflection and growth. At the same time, an open-floor whole group discussion where all students were expected to contribute gave mo re opportunities for students to hear from a range of perspectives that may have served to complicate and nuance their knowledge of multifaceted social justice concepts. Pre- and post-test assessments. Students in both sections took two assessments on the first and last days of class. The first of these assessments was the Learning to Teach for Social Justice - Beliefs (LTSJ-B) scale, a 12-item dispositional survey composed of five point Likert-type questi ons. Of these 12 items, five are positively phrased (and scored) such as, ï¬Issues relate d to racism and inequity should be openly discussed in the classroom.fl and seven item ar e negatively worded (and reversed scored) 65 such as, ï¬Realistically, the job of a teacher is to prepare st udents for the lives they are likely to leadfl (see Appendix B for full scale). The scale was developed by a team of faculty members at Boston College, whose en tire teacher preparation program has an explicit focus on social justice, as part of an entry and exit survey to the program in order to compare and measure changes in studentsâ„¢ dispositions (See Data Sources and Measures section for further discussion on the development, validity and current application of this instrument). The second student assessment, referred to simply as the "short essay assignment" was designed as a measure of studentsâ„¢ so cial justice knowledge. Because such an instrument did not exist from previous rese arch, a new instrument was created for this study. Researchers have identified multiple areas of knowledge important too being an effective social justice educator (see Literature Review for examples), but Howard (2006) is one of few who have attempted to combine multiple knowledge domains into a holistic conceptual framework for a teacher's "Soc ial justice knowledge." This framework is comprised of three categories: a) Knowledge of the self, including oneâ„¢s own biases, presumptions and perspectives; b) Knowle dge of students, including the culturally-specific experiences, beliefs, traditions and be haviors that students bring with them into the classroom; and c) Knowledge of the social , historical and political contexts that built and still shape the United Statesâ„¢ public ed ucational system. Based on these categories, a set of open-ended, short essay-type questions we re given to students in both sections as a pre- and post-test assessment of their social justice knowledge (see Appendix B for question prompts and scoring scale and the Data Sources and Measures section for 66 further discussion on the development, vali dity and current ap plication of this instrument). The specific beliefs and knowledge areas assessed on these instruments was not explicitly stated to students in either section as goals of the course. Nevertheless, taking these assessments may have primed student s about the implicit critical stance and expected outcomes of the course. In other words, taking a pre-test about one's beliefs about, for example, the salien ce of inequality in education may have given students the initial suspicion that these beliefs will be the desired dispositions for the course - a suspicion that was likely reinforced as the course went on. Similarly, the short essay assignment may have framed for students what types of knowledge they would be expected to grow in over the course of the semester. These common pre-test assessments may have facilitated students' social justi ce dispositional and knowledge growth in a way that showed up in post-test scores by imp licitly communicating to students the domains of this study's research questions. Common class assignments. In addition to the pre- a nd post-test assessments and daily course activities, the traditional and high-technology sections of the course shared three major assignments: a formative exam given a month into the course, a two-part cultural autobiography essay and an off-site service learning assignment. All three common class assignments provide affordances th at may have led to changes in students' social justice dispositions and knowledge. The formative exam serves an important function in building students' social justice knowledge. Assigned after the first unit where the core concepts of the class are covered, the exam serves as a chance to identify misconceptions students may have in 67 their understanding of class concepts. These concepts, such as multidimensionality of identity, social construction of normality and forms of privilege and discrimination, are fundamental to students' emergent social justice knowledge. The exam helped the instructor ensure that students had an accurate and relatively detailed conceptual understanding before proceeding further in the class. When and where students demonstrated misconceptions, the instructor gave immediate feedback and/or met with students individually to clarify these concepts. By helping the instructor catch misconceptions in students' understanding early into the course, the formative exam helped ensure that the social justice know ledge formation and conceptual change that would occur over the rest of the se mester was built on a solid foundation. The cultural autobiog raphy assignment occurred in tw o parts: an initial reflection due three weeks into the semester and a final reflection due at the end of the semester. In their initial paper, students were asked to reflect on their own identity and the ways in which their choice of two social identity mark ers (such as social class, race, ethnicity, language, ability, gender, and sexual orientation) informed their schooling experiences and development of self. The final autobiogra phy asked students to reevaluate their initial autobiography, deep their initial reflection by applying the terminology and ideas from course readings, and to think forward, explaining how their identity and unique perspectives/biases/experiences may shape thei r work as a future teacher. Both parts of this assignment are particularly useful fo r social justice disp osition and knowledge change. In terms of dispositional growth, even during the first part of the assignment, requiring students to reflect on their own past experiences an d beliefs can lead to them recognizing previously unexamined beliefs a bout issues such as privilege and social 68 construction. This ideological reexamination can be deepened and more precise in the second part after the student has gained terminology and the tools for understand how their beliefs have been socially constructed. In order for students' dispositions to shift, they have to first be examined and be tter understood, and the cultural autobiography provides this opportunity for personal reexamination. The autobiography assignment has similar utility for social justice knowledge growth. The first part of the conceptual framework of social justice knowledge us ed in this study focuses on a teacher understanding their own positionality - the unique and changing nature of their perspectives and the personal experiences that have formed those perspectives. The second part of the social justice knowledge framework refers to a teacher understanding their students' positionality. These two domains are main subjects of both parts of the cultural autobiography. In this assignment, students are tasked with critically analyzing their own and students' positionality, applyi ng class concepts and using the tools of critical inquiry practiced in class in order to develop and demonstrate their social justice knowledge of these important domains. Finally, all students in th e both sections of the course spent 20 hours over a 10 week period participating in a ï¬service learningfl experience at a local school or community center. During these service learning hours, students typically observed teachers, helped individual or small groups of students with schoolwork, and (less frequently) assisted the teacher in preparing and delivering lessons. This outside of class assignment gave students the opportunity to see first hand the concepts from course readings and discussions because these placem ent sites were selected especially for partnering with this kind of course. For ex ample, some of the placement sites were 69 located in an urban school district where social class and racial opportunity gaps were often observed. Other placement sites were in more affluent districts, but in special education or multi-lingual classrooms where cour se students could gain insight to ability and language as identity markers and the educ ational rights of ability- and linguistically- diverse students. The first hand experience at their service learning sites may have been useful in changing students' so cial justice dispositions. For example, students may have held pre-existing beliefs that were contrary to the ideals of social justice such as "it is reasonable for teachers to have lower classroom expectations for students who donâ„¢t speak English as their first language" (item six on the LTSJ-B scale). In such a case, seeing effective instructional accommodations for English Language Learners may lead a student to rethink their preexisting belief. Or, if a student held beliefs that were already more socially just, their experiences may have reinforced these beliefs. In a similar way, these experiences may have also been useful in building students' social justice knowledge. Their time in the classroom may have gave students additional opportunities to critically think about, analyze and apply course concepts. Further, service learning time was, for most students, their first experi ence in a classroom as something other than a student. From this position, students were ab le to observe the daily workings of schools, teachers and students from a new perspect ive. The extended learning opportunities provided by service learning course component may have deepened and enriched students social justice knowledge beyond that which could be achieved through class discussions and reading alone. Differentiated class assignments. Three assignments in the course were differentiated by section in terms of what medium stude nts used in completing the 70 assignment (see next section for discussion of the elements and affordances of the mediums unique to each section). However, while these assignments' medium differed between sections, some elements of each assignment remained the same. The affordances of these common elements of the assignment ma y have led to changes in students' social justice dispositions and knowledge, regardless of the medium used. First, students in each section completed a critical analysis of a media artifact or current event. Although each section used di fferent media and tools to complete the assignment, regardless of section, this assignment required students to use multiple class concepts of social power and identity markers to critique a current cultural/news event or a media artifact such as a television show or movie. Some students analyzed events/artifacts that have inherent qualities related to social power and/or identity (e.g., anti-immigration legislation) or events/artifact s that are usually seen as being critically ï¬neutral,fl (e.g., the Harry Potter books). Students may have used the assignment to express their dispositions, but the main goal of the assignment was for students to apply their social justice knowledge in their analysis. For students in both sections of the cour se, this assignment's essential task of applying course concepts to a novel phenomenon may have contributed to their social justice knowledge, regardless of which medium they used to express that understanding. Students in both sections engaged in outside-of-class independent reading and small and whole group discussion in class in order to deepen and refine the conceptual knowledge of course topics. Most readings and discussions focused on educational institutions, however this assignment built upon those lear ning tasks by extending the application of these concepts to phenomenon such as curr ent events and television shows. This 71 conceptual transfer required students to ex amine the social justice concepts essential parts, the characteristics of the phenomenon they were examining, and remap those parts to the target. This cognitive process required students to critically analyze and transform their knowledge, which may have lead to a more complete understanding. Second, students in both sections completed an assignment centered on a critical analysis of a single identity marker. Although each section us ed different media and tools to complete the assignment, regardless of s ection, this assignment required students to work in groups to analyze an identity make r (e.g., race, gender, social class) through the lens of four aspects of social power - social construction, privilege, discrimination and intersectionality. Students choose which groups to join based on which identity marker they wanted to write about, and all groups focused on the same set of aspects of social power. Each students was expected to write one or more sections of the assignment and to collaborate with classmates to synthesi ze, connect and uniformly format their final paper. For this assignment, students in the tr aditional section created a single paper for their group while students in the high technology section created a single wiki page. Student collaboration was a central element of the assignment and an element that was common between both sections. Collaborative writing encourages the co-construction of knowledge, a process that could be advantage especially for courses such as the one in this study where the concepts are complex, multifaceted, and open to interpretation from different perspectives. Collaboration in this assignment may have exposed students to, and engaged students with, different perspectives on the same topic. This exposure may lead to students refining their understanding as they conceptually accommodated their 72 colleagues' perspectives. With this collabora tive thinking and writing process, students' social justice knowledge may have b ecome more nuanced and broadened. Third, in both sections of the course, fo r six of the 10 weeks students were at their service learning site, they created a brief re flective journal entry describing what they observed and/or participated during their time at the site, as well as reflecting on their experience in terms of class concepts of aspects of social power (e.g., privilege, oppression) and individual identity markers (e.g., race, gender). Students either wrote a two page essay (traditional section) or recorded a five to seven minute video (high technology section) giving their description and analytical reflection of their experiences. Teachers may use reflection to then make future pedagogical decisions, but in the case of students' service learning journals , reflection is primarily a meaning making process wherein the student sequences interconnected ideas in order to come to a better understanding of an experience. During this process, the student may engage in thinking that could lead to changes in dispositions and/or knowledge. In terms of social justice dispositions, reflecting on what they observed at their service learning site and applying their understanding of course concepts to interpret and analyze those observations may have lead students in both sections to rethink their existing beliefs. By not only experiencing a classroom se tting from a new experience, but trying to make sense of it, students may have thought through how they felt about what they saw, and either reinforced or reconsidered those beliefs. Either wa y, the process of engaging in and thinking about one's own beliefs may have lead to dispositional change. Similarly, while interpreting their service learning experiences through the lens of class concepts, students may have been activating their social justice knowledge. Applying their 73 conceptual understanding of issues such as privilege, discrimination and social construction to these new experiences may have deepened, nuanced or even changed students' social justice knowledge. Overall, the traditional and high-technology sections of the course in this study had many elements in common, each with educational affordances that may have led to changes in students' social ju stice disposition and knowledge. Elements Unique to Traditional Course Section While the two sections of the course shared many elements, they differed in the media used for three class assignments - a cr itical analysis assignment, a group identity marker assignment and students' semester l ong service learning journal assignment. For all three assignments, students in the tr aditional section submitted their work in text/written form. This medium may have provided affordances for shifting students' social justice dispositions and deepening their social justice k nowledge. Table 7 below summarizes the affordances of each assignments ' medium. A detailed discussion of each subsequently follows. Representing author's ideas only. First, unlike writing in many Web 2.0 technologies that contain feedback channels for input from readers, traditional papers typically represent the author's own ideas solely. It is not known for this study how students in either section may have collabora ted outside of class on written assignments, but in writing a single-author paper, students in the traditional section may have felt more free to focus on developing and representing their own thinking without worrying about how to respond to and/or incorporate the feedback from others. This focus fits with the first domain of social justice knowledge as c onceptualized for this study - an examination 74 of own preexisting ideas. In this study, this affordance may have been evident in the traditional section's critical analysis assignmen t wherein students applied multiple course concepts as a lens to examine their chosen phenomenon. Writing only from their perspective without needing to incorporate others' feedback may have led to changes in their social justice knowledge in ways that were different from the process of blog writing for students in the high-technology section. Table 7 Traditional section course elements and their educational affordances for social justice teacher education Element Educational Affordance(s) Benefit for SJTE Text/written paper Author representing only own ideas, without having to incorporate reader feedback Focused metacognitive examination of own ideas and understanding One continuous, self- contained document Help author see relationships between individual parts and "big picture" of complex SJK concepts Closed document, not open for public review Security in adopting critically conscious dispositions Ease of revising before submitting Revising work can lead to deeper SJK understanding Continuous, self-contained document. Second, the traditional paper affords a "top-down" conceptual understanding for students working on a single document, as opposed to on Web 2.0 writing that comprises multiple, separate posts. Having all parts of their analysis contained in one docume nt may have helped students see the "big picture" of their thinking. Meanwhile, a holistic, well-developed social justice 75 knowledge not only includes a broad, all-encompassing understanding of social systems, but also the connectedness of ideas; A deep understanding of social justice concepts such as systems of opportunity and the social cons truction of identity requires students to be able to see relationships between many individual pieces. This process may be afforded when students are able to look at all parts of their work in one continuous narrative. For example, students submitted (and presumably wrote) their section papers as single documents rather than as separate blog pos ts hosted across a single web site; Having one document in front of them, where all sections of their analysis were readily accessible, may have helped students make connections between social justice ideas focused on at different points in their papers. Closed document. Third, the medium of an o ff-line paper has its own unique affordance that may have changed students' social justice dispositions and knowledge. Unlike writing in various Web 2.0 technologies, an off-line paper is typically not open for public review. This kind of privacy may s upport the practice of adopting critically conscious perspectives in students' analyses . The perspectives represented in class readings often challenge mainstre am ideologies about topics such as racism and privilege, and students may be uncomfortable or anxious at first adopting these perspectives for their own selves. Knowing that their writing is only going to be read by a private audience of their classmates and the instructor, as opposed to posted online for public viewing, may give students a sense of security. This process may have been evident in the traditional section's identity marker group paper assignment, in which students wo rked in groups of three to analyze an identity marker (e.g., race, gender, social class) through the lens of four aspects of social 76 power - social construction, privilege, discrimination and intersectionality - before concluding with a discussion of how teach ers might challenge problematic social constructions and forms of in equality related to the group's chosen identity marker. Students in the traditional section produced a single collaboratively-written paper of eight to 10 pages that included references to class readings. It is not known what kind of word processing software students in the traditional section used to create the final document (e.g., a web-based collaborative writing platform like Google Docs or off-line word processors like Microsoft Word), but th e final product was a private document only accessible by the students in the group and the instructor. This process of "trying on" critically conscious perspectives may contribute to dis positions' shifting to be more socially just and may encourage students to become more so by reducing discomfort - an affordance specific to this traditional me dium and relevant to the study's goals. Ease of revising. Fourth, whereas reflective video journaling involves recording in one take, traditional written journals afford ease of revision and editing of one's ideas before submitting the document. The traditional format allows students to write an initial draft to represent their know ledge and dispositions and easily revise, and mentally re- engage with, parts of their analysis without having to rewrite the entire document; Conversely, in the corresponding high technology journaling format, a student would likely need to start from the beginning and re-record the entire video if any change were needed for any part of their analysis. Additionally, unlike video journals, written journals can be created in multiple sessions over time. This ease of revision may mean less of a barrier to students' revising and rethinking th eir analysis. Reviewing and revising their writing is generally seen as an important st ep in students' writing process, but may be 77 especially beneficial to students in this course as they reexamine and metacognitively revisit their own thinking. Thinking about and reflecting on one's own beliefs is a key component of dispositional change. Simila rly, re-examining and cognitively engaging with their own knowledge may deepen students' understanding of their own ideas. This reflective revision process played a part in the course's service learning journal assignment: As part of their service learning experience, students wrote six journals describing and reflecting on what they observed during their time in the classroom. In their journals, students were asked to apply course concepts as a way of analyzing their experiences. This required students to activate and engage with their developing social justice knowledge, as well as express their opi nions as a way to present their social justice dispositions. Written journals were approximately two pages in length and submitted electronically as individual document files on six different weeks over the course of the semester. More so than "one shot" video journals, these written journals facilitate the self-revision and this iterative processes of reflecting, revising and rethinking may have led to changes in trad itional section students social justice dispositions and knowledge. Elements Unique to High Technology Course Section The two sections of the course in this study shared many elements but differed in others, primarily in the media used for thre e class assignments - a critical analysis assignment, a group identity marker assignment and students' semester long service learning journal assignment. For these three as signments, students in the high technology section used a collection of Web 2.0 technologies to complete their work. The digital 78 Table 8 High Technology section course elements and their educational affordances for social justice teacher education Element Educational Affordance(s) Benefit for SJTE Blog post Enhanced self-expression via multiple media forms Demonstrate emerging SJK in multiple ways Reflection through connecting thoughts via hyperlinks between posts Help author see relationships between individual parts and "big picture" of complex SJK concepts Making connections with input from readers More complex conceptual understanding with greater variety of insights Socio-emotional support in comments Support for adopting non-mainstream, critically conscious beliefs Wiki page Engaging with authors from different perspectives Reexamining/Reconsidering own ideas and beliefs Socio-emotional support during collaboration Support for adopting non-mainstream critically conscious beliefs Collaboration for co- construction of knowledge More complex conceptual understanding with greater variety of insights Reflection Video Greater length and depth in reflection Deeper reexamination of own beliefs and understanding Easy to re-watch previous video journals Deeper reexamination by drawing connections between previous and current beliefs and understanding Lack of self-censoring (stream of conscious honesty) Honesty about beliefs supports dispositional shift 79 medium of blogs, wikis and video journals may have provided affordances for shifting students' social justice dispositions and d eepening their social justice knowledge in different ways than the paper medium used in the traditional section. Table 8 summarizes these unique elements and their affordances; a detailed discussion of each subsequently follows. Blog posts. Blogs as a medium for critical anal ysis have several affordances that may lead to changes in social justice dis positions and knowledge. First, blogs may give students more modes for self-expression including images, audio and video clips embedded into their blog posts. Having a dditional modes of self expression and explanation is useful in a social justice teacher education course. Because they often challenge mainstream ideologies, the concepts and perspectives presented in the course are often counter to students' previously held beliefs and ideas. Therefore, when tasked with analyzing phenomena through these pe rspectives, students may experience frustration expressing themselves with th e course's novel vocabulary. Having multiple media forms for expression and explanation may help overcome this frustration and facilitate engaging with social justice dispositions and knowledge. Second, many concepts presented in the c ourse such as race, gender and social class intersect and inform one another, and therefore are best understood by revisiting and drawing connections between them. Blogs may be able to facilitate this reflection and connection-making by allowing writers to crea te hypertext links between their written thoughts. Third, unlike the single-authored writte n documents in the traditional section, blogs allow writer and readers to communicate, which may be useful to the social justice 80 knowledge development of students in this ki nd of courses. The additional perspective and input is beneficial to ma ny kinds of conceptual development, including for complex concepts such as systems of discrimination a nd social construction of identity markers. Last, in addition to co-constructing k nowledge, blogs' comment channel may be a source of social-emotional s upport such as empathy, encouragement and affirmation as students express in their writing the kind of non-mainstream, cr itically conscious perspectives often found in these kinds of courses. This support from readers via their comments is an affordance of blog writing that may have an impact on students' dispositional change. Students in the "high technology" section of the study engaged in this interactive medium for expression through a written critic al analysis of a current event or media artifact. In this analysis, st udents critiqued these events or artifacts as they applied their knowledge related to social justice. Students' analyses were written over the course of four weeks as a series of eight separate blog posts (the blog includes an additional post reflecting on their thinking over the process of writing a blog). In addition, students in the high technology section were assigned to read and comment on at least two other studentsâ„¢ blog post each week. Students' writing in this assignment represents a multi- stage analysis of a single phenomenon wherein students engage with multiple domains of social justice knowledge. With each of these stages written as separate blog posts, it is possible that students may see these ideas as se parate, disjointed concepts; the affordance of hyperlinks within a blog post may help to connect the concepts and deepen students' understandings thereof. The assignment also re quired students to "follow" other students blogs, leaving comments after each post. These comments serve as a feedback channel 81 authors may use to inform future posts. As students think about, apply, and express these perspectives, having socio-emotional support fr om their peers may encourage students to internalize them and/or reduce any pote ntial discomfort toward expressing non- mainstream ideologies. For further discussion of previous research on these affordances of blogs, see the Research on the Educational affordances of Web 2.0 technologi es section of the Literature Review chapter. Figure 1 Sample blog post for media artifact/current event analysis assignment.. 82 Wiki pages. Wikis as a medium contain multiple affordances that may lead to dispositional and knowledge change for students in this study. First, wikis are designed to facilitate collaboration between multiple authors. While working together to create and edit wiki pages, authors are exposed to various different perspectives on the same concept. Reading multiple people's perspectives may be especially beneficial for social justice education courses where students are asked to question their own perspectives and re-consider ideologies from alternative perspectives. Second, the collaborative affordances of wikis may provide socio-emotional support for students as they develop their so cial justice dispositions. In this kind of course, the critically consci ous perspectives students are writing from may differ from those with which they have been raised and/ or currently hold. As students shift in their dispositions, reading contributions and collaborating with peers who are similarly negotiating these new identities may help give social justice education students socio- emotional support through reassu rance that they are not alone in this ideological re-examination. Feelings of isolation may be an obstacle to shifting dispositions to be more socially just, and the collaborative elements of wikis may help overcome this obstacle. Last, wikis facilitate the collabora tion that may produce a more robust, multifaceted understanding of a concept by allowi ng multiple writers to contribute to the resulting wiki page. Many concepts in the domai n of social justice education such as the intersectionality of identity markers and social construction are best understood through a multi-dimensional analysis with contributions from multiple perspectives. Using wikis to co-construct this understanding from multip le contributors representing multiple 83 perspectives may be the most effective way to help students understand the social justice knowledge measured in this study. Students in the high technology section of the course employed a wiki to write jointly, in groups of three, a critical analysis of an identity marker. Students were expected to work on one or more sections of the assignment and to collaborate with classmates to synthesize, connect and unifo rmly format their final paper. Students produced a series of web pages on a course -sponsored wiki, with each group producing a single page first defining the groupâ„¢s identity marker, then analyzi ng how it relates to four aspects of social power before ending with a discussion of the classroom applications of how teachers might challenge problematic social constructions and forms of inequality related to the group's chosen identity mark er. Each student could access and edit any page of the wiki at any time; but st udents were given four weeks to work on their group's wiki page. The wiki itself was publicly viewable by anybody but required approval from the instructor before an account with editing privileges was granted. This collaborative and publicly accessible format e xposed students to other group members' - and other classmates' - perspectives, facili tated the co-construction of knowledge that advances social justice knowle dge, and replaced the obstacle of isolation with the socio- emotional support that working with peers en gaging in similar identity re-negotiation affords. For further discussion of previous resear ch on these affordances of wikis, see the Research on the Educational affordances of Web 2.0 technologi es section of the Literature Review chapter. 84 Figure 2 Sample wiki page from identity marker group wiki assignment. Reflection videos. Three affordances of video journals may be particularly relevant to changes in students' social ju stice disposition and knowledge. First, creating a video journal is a simple process of speaking into a webcam and orally reflecting on one's experiences. Because creating th ese journal entries requires ve ry little effort, students reflecting through this medium may be more in clined to speak longer and go into greater depth in their reflection than those asked to write out their reflections. While greater length of reflection does not guarantee a greater depth of analysis, for students in a social justice education course grappling with ma king sense of new class concepts and new experiences in their service learning site, more time to work through their thinking may be beneficial to students as they reexamine their beliefs and ideas. 85 Second, the ease of access to video journals via hosting s ites that group previously recorded videos together (as with the site used in this study) may encourage students to re-view their previous journals, a practice that can help students make connections between their previous and current experiences. Making these conn ections may impact students' social justice knowledge by helping them see the relationships between concepts and/or impact their social justice dispos itions by showing them how their beliefs may have changed over the course of the semester. A third affordance of the video medium for reflective journaling is found in how speaking casually to a private audience (the instructor) may lead students to reflect in a more honest, open manner. This "stream of consciousness" speech - speaking without censoring oneself - may more accurately portray the student's internalized beliefs and ideas. Honesty about one's own beliefs and ideas is an important part of social justice education courses. For a student in a class such as this, in which their preconceived ideas and beliefs may be challenged, being disingenuo us about how one actually feels can be a barrier to dispositional reexamination and a ny change coming from that reexamination. Over the course of the semester, students in this study spent a total of 20 hours (typically two hours a week for ten weeks) engaging in a service learning project. At their sites, students observed teachers and students, work ed with individual or small groups of students, or helped the teacher deliver whole group instruction. After any service learning visit, students could record a video journal of at least six minutes in length reflecting on their experiences in the classroom. The instru ctor determined this length by timing the reading of a two-page written journal (the expected length for the traditional section) aloud in order to make the two versions of th e assignment comparable in terms of student 86 effort required. Each student created six se rvice learning video journals and uploaded it onto a site which made it very easy for students to find and re-watch their past reflections when they log in to post a new video. The structured organization on the video journals on the site facilitated students' making conn ections over the course of the semester between their field experiences and their growing social justice knowledge, and also afforded the opportunity for students to track their own dispositional growth. For further discussion of previous resear ch on these affordances of video journals, see the Research on the Educational affordances of Web 2.0 technologies section of the Literature Review chapter. Figure 3 Sample student video from service learning video journal assignment. 87 Chapter 4 - Research Methods Participants For this research, the theoretical target population was all undergraduate preservice teachers in the early stages of a teacher education program. The sample population from which participants in this rese arch were drawn is all preservice teachers enrolling in one of two sections of a social justice teacher education course at large mid- western university in the current semester. Students were not aware when they enrolled for the course what the class assignments w ould be; therefore, participants in this research were effectively randomly assigned to either the traditional section or the section using Web 2.0 technologies. Within the samp led participants, all 30 students (15 in each section) were recruited to participate. Recruitment involved sending students a link to an online form asking students for their consent in having their work in the class included in this study. All 30 students digitally signed the form and agreed to participate (see Appendix C for student consent online form ). All 30 students were sophomores; 18 planned to pursue a degree in elementary ed ucation and 12 planned to pursue a secondary education degree. The racial and gender demographic of the sample were typical of previous semesters of the course. Twenty six participants identifying as Caucasian, three participants identified as African-American, and one (an international student) identified as ï¬Chinese.fl Of the 30 participants, 20 were women and 10 were men. For a more complete discussion of the study participants, see Chapter 3. A subset of these participan ts had their work included in qualitative data analysis and follow interviews (see Appendix C for additional consent form for follow up interviews). This subset was a purposeful sa mple of four students in the high technology 88 section of the course. These four students were selected to have their work analyzed based on their performance on each of these assignments and in class overall. Specifically, four students in each secti on were identified who not only scored exceptionally well on one or two of the assignments, but on all three assignments as well as on their class participation grade and their overall final grade. The students averaged scores of 94%, 95% and 96% on their blog assignment, wiki assignment and video journal assignment respectively, 90% on cl ass participation grade and 98% on their overall final grade. Given the students' high achievement on these assignments, it was assumed that their work was more likely to have used the technologies to a fuller extent and thus more likely to demonstrate eviden ce of the media's affordances for influencing social justice dispositional and knowledge growth. All four students in this purposeful sample were sophomores, three students were women and were elementary education majors. One was a man and planned to pursue a secondary level certification in history education. All four students identified as white. Data Sources and Measures Both quantitative and qualitative data we re collected concurrently in order to address each of the research questions gui ding this study. For a summary of how each of these data sources are aligned with this study's research quest ions, see Table 9 at the end of this section. Learning to teach for social ju stice Å’ belief (LTSJ-B) scale. This data source was used to quantitatively assess changes in pa rticipantsâ„¢ dispositions about social justice education, which provided evidence towards Research Questions 1.1 and 1.2. 89 Previous administrations of this sc ale from 2005-2007 consistently showed a Cronbach alphas 0.80 at each administration of th e Entry (freshmen-level) survey and an alpha of approximately .74 for the Exit (senior-level) Survey The scale variance estimates on all Entry Surveys was between 35 and 42; the scale variance estimates on the Exit Surveys was approximately 30 across all admi nistrations (Enterline, Ludlow, Mitescu & Cochran-Smith, 2008). The differences between these Exit and Entry Survey reliability estimates and scale measurements were believed to be a result of the homogeneity of the teacher education curriculum. In other word s, students enter the program with a wide degree of past experiences which caused a greater scale variance, but after four years of exposure to similar programs of study, they exited with a lower de gree of variance on the scale. Since the magnitude of the Cronbach alpha is a function of scale variance, this reduction in scale variance represented only a sl ight decline in reliability between Entry and Exit Surveys (Enterline et al.). For this study, scoring for the LTSJ-B included generating a mean score for each participant based on the 12 surveys items. To answer Research Ques tion 1.1, pre-test and post-test scores for each participant were sta tistically analyzed using a paired sample t- test for significant differences. To answer Research Question 1.2, participantsâ„¢ post-test LTSJ-B scores were analyzed using a two way ANOVA test to identify a statistically significant interaction effect between two independent variables and one dependent variable. In this study, the independent variables were placement (i.e., studentsâ„¢ placement in either the high technology or traditional class sections and time (i.e., the time difference between studentsâ„¢ pre and post-test scores on the LTSJ-B) and the dependent variable was the studentsâ„¢ post-test scores on the LT SJ-B. In other words, the 90 two way ANOVA test was conducted to identify significant differences between studentsâ„¢ scores over time (pre a nd post test), but also differences between the groupsâ„¢ change in pre and post test scores. Short essays assignment. This data source generated quantitative data about participantsâ„¢ social justice related knowledge that contributed to answering Research Questions 2.1 and 2.2. Previous research has identified multipl e types of knowledge important for teaching for social justice, that for the purposes of this study was conceptually defined into th ree overarching categories: a) Knowledge of the self, including oneâ„¢s own biases, presumptions a nd perspectives; b) Knowledge of students, including the culturally-specific experiences, beliefs, traditions and behaviors that students bring with them into the classroom; and c) Knowledge of the social, historical and political contexts that built and still shape the United Statesâ„¢ public educational system. However, despite the identificati on of these important forms of knowledge for teaching for social justice, no previous rese arch has attempted to empirically measure individualsâ„¢ knowledge of these issues. Development of this instrument occu rred locally. Beginning with Howard's (2006) three categories of social justice educational knowledge, the researcher wrote three open-ended short essay questions. These questions were taken to two graduate students in the department of Teacher Educat ion with research and teaching experience in the field of social justice education. These fellow social justice educators were asked for their input on the clarity and thoroughness of the items, as well as on the construct validity of the items (i.e., if they thought the questions would likely generate answers that actually demonstrated students' social justice knowledge). Feedback from the graduate 91 students was mostly positive; both educators agreed the questions were phrased clearly and that the combination of all three ques tions covered a breadth of social justice knowledge so that student answers, taken as a whole across all three questions would accurately demonstrate their knowledge of soci al justice issues in education. The two graduate students did suggest that the questions were phrased in a way that primed the answerer to think specifically about social justice issues such as privilege and discrimination and suggested language to ma ke the questions more ï¬neutral sounding,fl and to help prevent priming participants fr om giving socially desi rable responses (though these responses may still show a lack of know ledge). For example, the first question was changed from, "As a teacher, how might your past experiences give privilege to some students and/or discriminate against othe rs?" to " How will your own personal past experiences, beliefs and perspectives influence your work as a teacher? Pilot versions of these questions were given in May of 2011 to 16 preservice teachers who had recently completed a course on social justice teacher education. Pilot responses to these three short essay questions were reviewed by the researcher with an in- service public school teacher who has a strong commitment to, and knowledge of, social justice education. By reviewing participantsâ„¢ answers together, the evaluators developed four and five point scales for scoring the de pth and accuracy of stude ntsâ„¢ answers in each of the three knowledge domains. The creati on of this scale began by first identifying positives and negatives in students' responses (i.e., parts of their answers that demonstrated more or less of an understandi ng of each social justice knowledge domain), then organizing those positives into sub-domains. For example, one sub-domain of knowledge of teacher bias that arose was the degree of focus on cultural issues/biases, as 92 opposed to "neutral" biases not related to issu es of equity. For each question, four or five sub-domains were created, becoming sub-scales to be averaged together to generate an individual score a student's knowledge in each domain (see Appendix B for full scales, sub-domains and sample answers representative of different scale levels on the scale). Using these scales, the researcher and a different second coder with extensive experience in quantitative data analysis scored a sample of studentsâ„¢ responses in order to establish inter-rater reliability. After sc oring studentsâ„¢ answers individually and subsequently conferring over differences, the two coders reached a sufficient degree of inter-rater reliability. The Krippendorfâ„¢s of 0.81 for the first scale, 0.84 for the second scale, and 0.82 for the third scale. Each of these scores is above the threshold of 0.8 suggested by (Krippendorff 2008). To answer Research Question 2.1, pre-test and post-test scores for each participantâ„¢s score on each of the three short essay questions were statistically analyzed using a paired sample t-test for significant differences. To answer Research Question 2.2, participantsâ„¢ pre and post-test scores on each of the three short essay questions were analyzed using a two way ANOVA test to identify a statistically significant interaction effect between two independent variables and one dependent variable. In this study, the independent variables were placement (i.e., studentsâ„¢ placement in either the high technology or traditional class sections and time (i.e., the time difference between studentsâ„¢ pre and post-test scores on the short essay assignment) and the dependent variable was the studentsâ„¢ post-test scores on the short essay assignment. In other words, the two way ANOVA test was conducted to identify significant differences between 93 studentsâ„¢ scores over time (pre a nd post test), but also differences between the groupsâ„¢ change in pre and post test scores. Student work on course assessments. Over the course of the semester, students in both sections completed a number of assignments that were graded as formative assessments of their knowledge of class concepts related to so cial justice in education. Some of these assessments used the same media type (e.g., the formative exam and cultural autobiography paper), but three assignments were differentiated by course section: Studentsâ„¢ service learning reflective j ournal, their critical analysis of a current event or media artifact, and thei r collaboratively-written criti cal analysis of a socially- constructed identity marker. Students in the ï¬high technologyfl course section used online videos for their journal, a series of individually written blog posts for their event/media critical analysis, and a collaborati vely assembled set of wiki pages for their identity marker critical analysis. Students in the ï¬traditionalfl course section used text documents for all three of these assignments. To aid in answering Research Question 3, qualitative data analysis of student work on formative assignments used a purposive sample of four studentsâ„¢ work from the high technology section. The four students were selected to have their work analyzed based on their excellent performance on each of these assignments and in class overall. Given the students' high achievement on thes e assignments, it was assumed that their work was more likely to have used the technologies to a fuller extent and thus more likely to demonstrate evidence of the media's af fordances for influencing social justice dispositional and knowledge growth. In all, of the 90 video journals, 120 blog posts, and 25 wiki sections created in the "high technology" section of the course, the 24 video 94 journals, 32 blog posts, and 6 wiki sections created by these four students were included for qualitative analysis. Evidence of each Web 2.0 technology's affo rdances for impacting studentsâ„¢ social justice dispositions and knowledge were ex amined in two ways Å’ within the ï¬high technologyfl section and across sections to stude nt work in the traditional section. First, starting with themes derived from previous research on the educational affordances of video journals, blogs and wikis that may be applicable to soci al justice education courses, student work was examined for evidence of, and differences between, how students in the traditional and ï¬high technologyfl sections demons trated their social justice dispositions and knowledge. Second, within the ï¬high technologyfl student sample, student work on these assignments was examined for changes in the ways students demonstrated shifts in dispositions and changes in knowledge over time that may be due to the mediumâ„¢s affordances. This analysis was well-suited for studentsâ„¢ video journals and blog posts which represent multiple entries written over a three month period, as opposed to wiki pages and traditional text assignments which were written in a rela tively short period of time. For further discussion of analysis methods, see Data Analysis chapter. Student interviews. Following the completion of the course, interviews were conducted with the four students in the ï¬hi gh technologyfl section of the course whose work was included in qualitative analysis. The purpose of these inte rviews was to have students reflect on their experiences using Web 2.0 technologies in instruction and assessment and elucidate how these technologies may have helped them reach the courseâ„¢s learning goals. Interviews were conducted in a private setting on campus and follow a semi-structured format with eight open-ended questions, each including follow 95 up prompts (see Appendix B). To aid in recall, students were asked to re-visit their blog, wiki and video journals, and samples of thei r work was available during the interview. Each interview lasted approximately 30 minut es and allowed time for subjects to ask questions at the end. Table 9 Research questions and data sources Research Question Data Source When Administered Data Analyses 1.1 - Pre/posttest Social Justice dispositional changes overall LTSJ-B dispositional survey Beginning of semester and end of semester Paired sample T-test of pre- and post-test scores for all students 1.2 Å’ Difference in Social Justice dispositional change between course section LTSJ-B dispositional survey Beginning of semester and end of semester Two-way ANOVA comparing differences in change in pre- and post-test scores between traditional and Web 2.0 technologies sections 2.1 - Pre/posttest change in Social Justice knowledge overall Short essay assignment Beginning of semester and end of semester Paired sample T-test of pre- and post-test scores for all students 2.2 Å’ Difference in Social Justice knowledge change between course section Short essay assignment Beginning of semester and end of semester Two-way ANOVA comparing differences in change on short essay assignment scores between traditional and Web 2.0 technologies sections 3 - Affordances of technologies for impacting Social Justice dispositions and knowledge Student work on blogs, wikis and video journals Throughout the semester Qualitative analysis of student work triangulated by student interviews 96 Data Recording Quantitative data for this study was collected from two in-class assignments (the LTSJ-B survey of social justice in education beliefs and the short essay assignment about social justice in education knowledge) given on the first and last days of class. Scores from these two assignments were recorded into spreadsheets during coding of student responses. Qualitative data in this res earch was the primary documents created by students in the form of text- or video-base d reflective journals, paper- or blog-formatted critical analysis papers and collaboratively written papers or wiki sections. Studentsâ„¢ video journals were posted online as streaming .flv files and were saved as .avi files. Studentsâ„¢ blog posts and wiki pages were posted online as .html files and were download as complete web-page (.html and associated) files. Studentsâ„¢ paper-based journals and critical analysis papers were originally submitted digitally as .rtf text files and were collected as such. All files of student work were saved on the researchersâ„¢ password protected computer. Student interview data was collected and recorded using digital audio recorders. Using audio recorders allowed the researcher to follow a semi-structured approach and adapt questions based on intervieweesâ„¢ responses. After each interview, the researcher took descriptive and reflective notes while listening to the audio recording, and deleted the audio recording thereafter. Research Design This study employed a mixed methods appr oach, using specifically a concurrent transformative design with data collecte d through both quantitative and qualitative methods in order to answer the thre e overarching research questions. 97 In concurrent transformative research de sign, quantitative data is collected at the same time as qualitative data; however neit her data type is given a higher priority. Instead, priority is given to the overarching theory or conceptual framework guiding the study and the data collection and analysis met hods that are best suited to understanding and/or adding to the theory or conceptual framework are employed as appropriate (Creswell, 2013). For this study, quantitative and qualitativ e data was collected at the same time from already existing data sources. Quantitative data was collected from student responses to the LTSJ-B surveys and short essay assignments administered at the beginning and end of the course. Qualitativ e data was collected from student work on class assignments and follow up student interv iews. Both quantitative and qualitative data was given equal priority and weight as both was used to answer the studyâ„¢s different, but equally-weighted research questions. Data was integrated after data analysis during the interpretation of findings phase. During data collection and analysis, different types of data was collected and analyzed separately. At this point, the qua ntitative data (in the form of raw coded scores) and qualitative da ta (in the form of thematic codes) was compared with one another to create an inte rpretation of evidence answering the research questions. Throughout the study, data collection and analysis was guided by the overarching conceptual framework of social ju stice education and the influence of media on the learning processes. This research strategy is represented visually as: QUAN + QUAL + QUAN Social Justice Education, Mediaâ„¢s influence on learning 98 This specific research st rategy was appropriate given the simultaneous nature of data collection and analysis, the equal prioritization given to the research questions each type of data addressed, and the importan ce of existing theori es and conceptual frameworks guiding this study. Role of the Researcher As qualitative data collection and analysis methods are a part of this research, it is important to acknowledge the role the researcher typically plays in qualitative research. Typically, a qualitative researcher collects, anal yzes and interprets data that is ultimately constructed into new knowledge. In this way, the researcher plays a central part in the study; therefore it is critical to acknowledge the personal perspectives the researcher brings to this study and the dynamic relationship between the researcher and participants. My past experiences undeniably play a pa rt in how I have framed and carried out this research study. Raised in an affluent, predominantly white suburb, I was afforded an excellent education where school was taught in clean, safe, well-resourced schools with teachers who largely shared my lived experiences and cultural background. Students were held to high expectations, with graduating from college being seen as the ï¬normalfl path for all. However, as a teacher in a low-income urban school district teaching primarily children of color and children from immigrant families, I saw first hand the gulf in educational opportunities between students of geographically close, but socially and economically distant schools. This experience learning the details of educational inequity led me to pursue a career in social justice teacher education, in hopes of preparing future teachers with the knowledge of the systems of grossly unequal educational opportunity. I 99 observed the social, political and historical contexts that created and sustain these systems, and what teachers in all types of sc hools and districts can do to dismantle them. These experiences and the beliefs they i ngrained in me influenced my role as a researcher in this study in multiple ways. Most broadly, the topic I chose to research largely stems from my belief in the importan ce of social justice teacher education; a belief constructed first during my time as an urban educator and subsequently developed as an teacher education instructor. This study's purpose and conceptual framework are based on the underlying belief that, in order to achieve the ideals of an equitable society, major institutions, including educational systems must be critically examined for how they perpetuate systemic discrimination and privilege, and have these systems dismantled. A critical component of this exam ination and dismantling is a socially justice teacher education that goes beyond the trad itional multicultural education goals of celebrating and affirming dive rsity. My design of this study to adopt a critical perspective is clearly influenced by my personal belief in the importance of the learning outcomes for this course and the overall purpose of this study. The fact that I feel so strongly that it is imperative pre-se rvice teachers develop critically conscious dispositions and knowledge not only shaped my design of this study, but also my interpretation of the data. I have high expectations for what students need to take away from the course in this study, and when individual students' answers on end of the semester assignments (e.g., the social ju stice knowledge post-test; their final video journals) still do not show dispositional or knowledge growth, it likely frustrated me. This frustration may have led me to score th ese submissions lower than they should have been scored, and/or to have potentially overlooked evidence of overall growth. 100 In a somewhat different direction, I carried some assumptions about the pre- existing beliefs and knowledge of participants in this study that may have made me interpret the data less critically. In my experi ences as a social justice teacher educator, I have found that the majority of my students have had a social and educational upbringing similar to mine before I began teaching. Based on this observed similarity, I assumed that most of the students in this study, as was the case for me at their age, had a general disposition towards the ideals of social justice education (e.g., equal opportunity, democracy in education and social mobility ) but with very little knowledge about how unjust educational opportunity and experiences often are. Therefore, during data collection and analysis, I likely expected to see students demonstrate a low level of social justice knowledge and hold some dispositions that did not align with th e values of social justice education, especially on assignments from the beginning of the semester. For example, in analyzing students' social just ice knowledge pre-test and initial reflective journals, I may have been more open to rating demonstrations of low levels social justice knowledge more highly, giving students some benefit of the doubt about their starting place with these issues. Another influence my beliefs and experiences likely had on data analysis is that I am somewhat skeptical about how educational technologies, including those in this study, can change teaching and learning. While not ag reeing with Clark's (1994) assertion that the affordances of an educational medium ha ve little direct impact on learning outcomes, I come from a perspective articulated by schol ars such as Cuban (2001) who believe that educational technologies' eff ects on learning have largely been exaggerated - that, for a variety of reasons, the way educational tec hnologies are used in classrooms limits their 101 potential impact. From this skeptical perspec tive, I likely began data analysis somewhat expecting to see limited evidence that these t echnologies' affordances were being used in a way that promotes students' social justice growth. In addition to my personal experiences and beliefs influencing how I conduct this study, my dual role as a researcher and teacher is a critical source of bias introduced into the study. I was the instructor for sections of the course being evaluated in this study, which is likely to influence my role as a researcher in multiple ways. First, as a researcher, I am evaluating the effectiveness of this course and exploring the influence of the technologies included in this study as a result of my e xperience with them as an instructor. I have taught this course and used these tec hnologies, but have not had a systematic, empirical analysis of their effect on studentsâ„¢ learning about social justice. This study is motivated by these experiences as an instructor and as a researcher. I was likely expecting to confirm what I suspected as a teacher - that the course overall, and these specific technologies to a lesser ex tent, had a positive influence on studentsâ„¢ learning. Second, throughout the study, some of the da ta I collected was based on work I as an instructor prepared my students for and assigned. It was my responsibility to evaluate the work for evidence of the variables under st udy, and not in terms of its quality towards meeting assignment grading crite ria. It was helpful that my grading for this course had already been completed when I began analyzi ng student work as data in order to remind me to consider the data as to how it answered the research questions and not specifically as to how it met the assignments' expectations . Third, it is possible that, during analysis, I may have been influenced by my memory of a studentsâ„¢ performance in the class and 102 may have interpreted individual studentsâ„¢ wo rk more positively or negatively. For example, for a student I knew performed we ll in the course, I may have been more willing to positively interpret a neutral response or infer a positive meaning that is not actually present in the data. In my role as a researcher, I experienced a number of biases introduced as part of the qualitative research process. While recognizing that all research is subject to bias and that, for qualitative research especially, th e human factor of the researcher as an instrument is both a fundamental weakness, but also the greatest strength (Patton, 1990) I attempted to control for these biases in two ways: through using reflective commentary notes and extensive member checking.. First, my notes ta ken during the stages of qualitative data analysis of students' work and while re viewing student interviews included reflections on my own subjectivity. This "reflective commentary" (Shenton, 2003) acts as a form of self-e valuation to monitor my own developing interpretations of the data. The purpose of these comments are to make explicit my own prejudices and assumptions so that I become aware of th em and can challenge them in my further reading of the data. This bias check was especially useful during initial descriptive analysis of students' work where I would fr equently write reflective notes, asking myself if my initial interpretation was accurate or if an alternative reading was possible (and listing as many alternative interpretations as I could). I would return to these notes in subsequent readings and reconsider the alternative interpretations when looking for patterns in the data. The second guard against rese archer bias I included in the qualitative research was an extensive use of member checking (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In using "member 103 checking" or "participant validation," the researcher presents his or her interpretations of the data directly to the participants themselves for them to validate or verify. This process not only serves to check the researcher's subjective interpretation, but also add the participants' own voices to the final presenta tion of the data. In this study, qualitative analysis of the students' work on class a ssignments generated a number of insights and possible avenues of interpretation. I presented my insights and possible interpretations from each student's work directly to that student during subsequent interviews. This member checking process often became the focal point of the interviews with my interpretations and the participant's responses being the ebb and flow of the conversation. As an example of this process, I would pres ent to the participant a piece of their class work (e.g., a blog post or video journal entry), state my "noticing," and what was my working interpretation of what I noticed. Participants responded to confirm, refute or nuance my "noticing" and interpretations, ch ecking my researcher bias and adding their own insights to the data analysis and interpretation process. Data Analysis Quantitative data. In answering Research Questions 1.1, 1.2, 2.1 and 2.2, quantitative data from the LTSJ-B and short es say questions assignment were analyzed as pre- and post-test measures of the courseâ„¢s effect on the two com ponents of learning in social justice education and to identify a ny significant differences between mean scores between the two course sections. Scoring on the LTSJ-B was generated by taking the mean of each participantâ„¢s scores for the 12 items, factoring in reverse c oding for negatively phrased items. Scoring on the short essay questions assignment wa s generated by taking each participantâ„¢s 104 answer on each question and evaluating it against a five point scale for its depth and accuracy. This scale was developed by the researcher and an additional coder based on existing samples of student work (see Appendix B for scale). For this study, Research Questions 1. 1 and 2.1 generally refer to changes in individual studentsâ„¢ dispositions (RQ 1.1) and knowledge (2.1) between pre- and post- test administered at the beginning and end of the semester. The LTSJ-B dispositional survey and short essay knowledge scores for each participant in both sections of the course (estimated N=30) were calculated ba sed on their responses to the pre- and post-test LTSJ-B survey. Differences between participantâ„¢s pre- and post-test scores were analyzed for statistical significance using a paired-sample t-test. The percentage of participants with scores demonstrating a sta tistically significant difference were measured to evaluate the overall course effectiveness in changing social justice dispositions and knowledge. Research Questions 1.2 and 2.2 generall y refer to differences in learning outcomes between the ï¬traditionalfl and ï¬hi gh technologyfl class sections which may be due to the media types used in class assignm ents. To answer this question, students' scores in each section of the course were compared with one a nother to demonstrate possible differences in the degree of change in social justice disposition and knowledge between students in the ï¬traditionalfl course section and those in the ï¬high technologyfl section. This comparison used a two way AN OVA to identify a statistically significant interaction effect between two independent variables (studentsâ„¢ placement in either the high technology or traditional class sections and time) and one dependent variable (students' post-test scores on the LTSJ-B and short essay assignment. In other words, the 105 two way ANOVA test was conducted to identify significant differences between studentsâ„¢ scores over time (pre and post test ), but also differences between the groupsâ„¢ change in pre and post test scores. Qualitative data. In answering Research Question 3, qualitative data from a purposeful sample of studentsâ„¢ work on in-c lass assignments and a series of follow-up student interviews were analyzed as an expl oration of potential affordances of Web 2.0 technologies for impacting social justi ce disposition and knowledge learning goals. These potential affordances represent a-priori codes from previous research on blogs, wikis and video journals. For a complete list of these themes/affordances, see Table 10. Qualitative analysis of student work occu rred in a series of passes over the data, beginning with descriptive coding, followed by, where appropriate, analytical coding through longitudinal and cross-section comp arisons. Qualitative analysis began by organizing the data into analyzable segments . Segments identified differed by media type but included individual sentences or a series of related sentences, individual images, videos or hyperlinks. Following this, descriptive analysis then began with the purpose of identifying overall where the a priori codes/ affordances were likely to have been shown in students' work. For example, any evidence of making conceptual connections in a blog post based on input from readers (Deng & Yuen, 2011) would require looking at comments, then subsequent posts whereas students in their video journals demonstrating "stream of conscious honesty" and avoi ding self-censoring (Loury, 1994; Marwick & boyd, 2011) would likely be found in individual videos. After identifying where these themes were likely to be evident, student wo rk was typically read three to four times, focusing on a specific a-priori theme each ti me to create a richer description of 106 affordance use and its potential impact on th e student's social ju stice beliefs and/or knowledge. It was during this descriptive analysis th at a significant change occurred in the coding process and a new theme emerged. Init ially, the second pass over student work sought to create categorical code to organize whether segments demonstrated affordances related to beliefs, knowledge or both. However, this strategy changed as it became clear that the assignment's gradi ng criteria, not the medium used, dictated for what purpose students used the technology. For example, because blog and wiki assignments chiefly were graded on how well the student demons trated their knowledge and did not ask students to express their beliefs about the subject, affordances originally thought of as relating to dispositional shifts were very infr equently present. Similarly, as video journals were much more focused on students' own belie fs and ideas, there seemed to be a paucity of use of affordances related to knowledge growth. Overall, the distinction between use for knowledge and dispositions was defined more by task, than affordance, and this stage in the analysis was therefore altered. Instead of categorizing what kind of learning was occurring during each affordances' use, this stage of analysis con tinued with a deeper descriptive analysis to identify frequency and patterns of affordance use that may have led to changes in social justice beliefs and/or knowledge. During this stage of descriptive coding, an additional category was created to represent when it appear ed an affordance could have been used in a students' work (e.g., an image could have been used or a comment made by a reader could have been subsequently integrated) but was not. This ï¬missed opportunitiesfl is an emergent theme that developed during data an alysis and is not specifically drawn from 107 previous research (though previous research has discussed the misuse and underuse of educational technology). Responses from st udent interviews about their experiences using each technology were used to triangulate in terpretations of the occurrence, or lack there of, of each affordance. Following descriptive analysis based on a priori codes, analytical coding began on segments where a specific educational affordance use was evident. This comparative analysis occurred in two directions - across sections and longitudinally within the high-technology section. Looking across sections, segments with evidence of educational affordance use were compared to parallel sections of the same assignment done by a purposive sample of four high achieving students in the "traditional" class section. This comparison sought to highlight frequency and th ematic differences in how students in the high-technology section used the affordances of each technology in a way that might have impacted their dispositions and/or their knowledge in ways not used or unavailable to students in the traditional section. Lastly, segments representing students' use of educational affordance were compared to ot her sections of the same students' work completed at a later time. This comparison was meant to demonstrate frequency and thematic changes over time in ways students us ed the technologies' affordances that may have had an impact on their social justice beliefs and/or knowledge, in accordance with previous research. This time-based compar ison was best suited for video journals and blog posts, which represent multiple entr ies written over a three month period. 108 Table 10 Educational affordances used in qua litative data analysis, by media type Media Type Affordance Previous Research Blogs B1. Enhanced self-expression via multiple media forms Deng & Yuen, 2011 B2. Reflection through connecting thoughts via hyperlinks between posts Ferdig & Trammell, 2004; Stiler & Philleo, 2003 B3. Making connections with input from readers Deng & Yuen, 2011 B4. Socio-emotional support when adopting critically consci ous perspectives. Kreijns, Kirschner & Jochems, 2003 Wikis W1. Reconsidering own ideas because of contributions from authors with different perspectives Chandra & Chalmers (2010); Reinhold & Abawi (2006) W2. Socio-emotional support of camaraderie in ideological re- examination Farkas, 2007 W3. Facilitated understanding of social justice concepts because of multiple contributorsâ„¢ perspectives and ideas Reinhold & Abawi, 2006 Video Journals VJ1. Greater depth and length of reflection Heintz, Borsheim, Caughlan & Juzwik, 2010 VJ2. Reflection through connections made after re-watching previous video journal entries Lee, 2008 VJ3. Lack of self-censoring (stream of conscious honesty Loury, 1994; Marwick & boyd, 2011 109 Strategies for Validating Findings This study employed multiple strategies for validating findings from its quantitative and qualitative data analysis. Clarifying bias. Creswell (2013) describes the importance of qualitative researchers stating the biases they bring to the research in order to "create an open and honest narrative that will resonate well with the reader" (p. 196). By stating my positionality at the beginning I am acknowledging the preexisting beliefs that color my interpretation of the data a nd adding to the trustworthiness of my interpretation of the data and this study's results. This is done, however, while maintaining that all teaching and research is biased (Applebaum, 2009). Triangulation. Triangulation is not necessarily a tool for validation, but an alternative to validation that adds dept h, complexity, richness and rigor to an interpretation (Flick, 2002). In addition to member checking used as a guard against researcher bias in interpreting themes and patterns from students' work, the multiple sources of data in this study act as a form of triangulation for the study's overall results and conclusions. For example, qualitative data was used in answering Research Question 3, however it also serves to add layers to the ultimate conclusions that can be reached from the quantitative data analysis. Second coders. A currently-practicing public school teacher who is also a former student of this course and knowledgeable about the learning goals of social justice education was used in the development of social justice knowledge instrument quantitative coding scales. This contribution helped establish content validity of the instrument, establishing that students' answ ers did indeed reflect their degree of 110 knowledge in each of the three domains. In addition, a different second coder with experience using Web 2.0 technologies in instruction and significant knowledge of quantitative research methods was used in analyzing studentsâ„¢ answers on the social justice knowledge instrument fo r quantitative data analysis. This coder's input helped establish the inter-coder reliability of scales used in quantitative data analysis for Research Questions 2.1 and 2.2 111 Chapter 5 - Results This chapter reports the results of quantit ative data analysis of studentsâ„¢ scores on two instruments and qualitative analysis of students' work on class assignments and post- hoc interviews. The two instruments used fo r quantitative data collection and analysis are the Learning to Teach for Social Justic e Å’ Beliefs survey and the Social Justice Knowledge short essay assignment Results ar e presented here organized by the Research Questions for which they provide evidence. A summary of pre-test/post-test changes in students' disposition and knowledge scores is presented below in Table 11. This data answers Research Question 1.1 and 2.1 as to the overall impact of the course on students' social justice dispositions and knowledge, regardless of course section. Table 11 Pre-test/post-test changes in dispositions and knowledge for each section and overall Traditional Section Technology Section Overall Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Dispositions 3.68 (0.38) 4.04** (0.38) 3.59 (0.32) 3.98** (0.52) 3.64 (0.35) 4.01** (0.45) Knowledge 1.36 (0.55) 2.13** (0.64) 1.81 (0.13) 2.28* (0.78) 1.81 (0.60) 2.20** (0.65) * Pre-Post change p<0.05 ; ** Pre-Post change p<0.01 Research Question 1.1 This research question asks: What was the impact of the teacher education course on social justice education on pre-service teach ersâ„¢ social justice di spositions regardless of course section (n=30)? To answer this question, a pa ired samples t-test was conducted on overall changes in studentsâ„¢ disp ositions as measured by pre-test ( =3.64, SD=.35) and post-test (=4.01, SD=0.45) scores on the Learning to Teach for Social Justice- 112 Beliefs survey. Figure 4 below displays the pre- post-test changes in studentsâ„¢ LTSJ-B scores by course section. Figure 4: Pre-test/Post-test change in LTSJ-B scores by course section When using a paired sample t-test, no rmal distribution is assumed. Prior to analysis, normality of distribution for each va riable was considered satisfactory as the skew and kurtosis levels were estimated at 0.55 and 0.23 respectively for pre-test scores and -0.73 and -0.26 respectively for the post-test scores. Results from the paired samples t-test provide evidence that the course did in fact significantly increase pre-service teachersâ„¢ social justice dispositions; t(29)=6.04, p<0.01, d=0.93. These results suggest that, when considering the degree of dispositi onal change before and after the course for all students, the course achieved one of its stated goals: to shift studentsâ„¢ dispositions toward more socially just beliefs. Connecting these results back to this study's conceptual framework of social justice beliefs (Table 12) further explains what this change in scores means. These results 113 suggest that, regardless of course section, the 30 students in this study changed in their social justice dispositions over the course of the semester. By the end of the semester, students were more likely to believe in major tenets in social just ice education including the power of teacher bias, that those bi ases along with other social powers and institutions can further discriminate agains t already marginalized children, and that teachers should be change agents, challeng ing these systems of inequality through a multicultural and critically conscious curriculum and pedagogy. Table 12 Conceptual Framework of Social Justice Beliefs Belief Description B1 Identity markers are largely, if not entirely, socially constructed B2 Social power, discrimination and privile ge is real in soci ety (debunking myth of meritocracy) B3 Belief in bias (oneâ„¢s own & others) B4 Schools & teachers have historically, and continue to operate in a way that perpetuates inequality B5 Schools in all areas & teachers in all subjects should be change agents for students and society by incorporating multicultural curriculum and making issues of inequality explicit in their work These results demonstrate a much larg er effect size than those reported in previous studies that used the LTSJ-B as an assessment of change in students' social justice dispositions. Cochran-Smith, Ludlow, Ell, O'Leary & Enterline (2012) reported the results of three large-scale studies assess ing the impact of teacher education programs in three countries on students' social justi ce dispositions. Analysis of difference in pre- 114 test and post-test mean scores for students in these three progr ams showed significant gains in students' social justice dispositions. However, these gains showed effect sizes of only d=0.16, d=0.11, and d=0.14 for each of the three programs. By Cohen's (1988) own standards, these effects sizes are relatively small. Research by Evans (2013) found effect si zes similar to those of Cochran-Smith et al. (2012). Evans assessed the impact of a social justice mathematics course on three cohorts of teachers' dispositions. The cour se was not found to have a statistically significant impact on teachers' LTSJ-B scores and relatively small effect sizes of d=0.0, d=0.25, and d=0.26 for each of the cohorts. By comparison, the effect sizes of the LTS J-B pre-test/post-test gains for students in this study were much larger. The overall effect size of dispositional change was d=0.93, representing nearly a one standard de viation gain for students' dispositional scores. This represents tremendous growth in so cial justice dispositions and indicates that the course in this study was exceptionally successful in impacting students' beliefs Research Question 1.2 This research question asks: How do these dispositional changes differ for students enrolled in the course section employing Web 2.0 technologies ( n=15) compared to students enrolled in the course section employing traditional methods of instruction (n=15)? To answer this question, a two way ANOVA test was conducted. A two way ANOVA considers two (or more) independent variables influence on a dependent variable. In this case, th e independent variables are placement (i.e., studentsâ„¢ placement in either the high technology or traditional class and time (i.e., the time difference between studentsâ„¢ pre and post-test scores on the LTSJ-B). As was discussed in the 115 results for RQ1.1, there was a statistically significant main effect of time on students' LTSJ-B scores F(1,28) = 35.33, p<0.01, 2= 0.56. However, there was no statistically significant interaction effect between time and placement on studentsâ„¢ post-test LTSJ-B scores F(1,28) = 0.06, p=0.81, 2= 0.01. In other words, while there was a statistically significant within section change over time, there was not a statistically significant difference on the degree of change between sections change over time. As reported in the previous section and in the Measuring dispositions section of the Literature Review, multiple previous studies have analyzed pre-test/post-test changes in LTSJ-B scores as an examination of the effects of individual courses (Evans, 2013; Lazar, 2012; Leonard & Evans, 2013) and entire programs (Anastasia & Hewett, 2012; Cochran-Smith, Ludlow, Ell, O'Leary & Enter line, 2012; Enterline, 2008). However, this research question features a cross-case comp arison of the changes between two sectionsâ„¢ LTSJ-B scores as an examination of differen tial impact of the educational affordances of traditional and Web 2.0 technologies unique to each section. Two previous studies that have quantitatively examined pre-test/post-te st dispositional changes and collected data on multiple cases (Cochran-Smith, 2012 and Evans, 2013) did not examine differences in the degree of change between these cases. Cochran-Smith, Ludlow, Ell, Oâ„¢Leary and Enterline (2012) examined dis positional changes in three teacher preparation programs and Evans (2013) examined these changes in three teacher cohorts over a single semester. However, unlike this research question, both of these studies did not take up the question of comparing the differential effect each program or courseâ„¢s affordances had on the dispositional outcomes. This research ques tionâ„¢s results showing similar dispositional 116 outcomes between two sections employing diffe rent methods for social justice teacher education is unique in this body of research. Connecting back to the conceptual framew ork for this study, the similarity of the degree of dispositional change between sections indicates that the two groups were indistinguishable in how their scores shifted. This test result gives evidence that the combination of the common and unique affordances of each sections of the course had a very similar impact on students' dispositions. Research Question 2.1 This research question asks: What was the impact of the teacher education course on social justice education on pr e-service teachersâ„¢ social ju stice knowledge regardless of course section (n=30)? To answer this question, a pa ired samples t-test was conducted on the pre- and post-test scores of each of the three questions comprising the Social Justice Knowledge short essay assignment as well as on studentsâ„¢ combined, overall scores on the assignment. The Social Justice Knowledge short essay assignment purports to assess studentsâ„¢ knowledge of 1) the way their own perspectives will influence their teaching, 2) the way their future studentsâ„¢ own perspectiv es will influence their learning and 3) the socio-political contexts of education. Figure 5 below displays the pre- post-test changes in studentsâ„¢ scores on this knowledge assessment by course section. 117 Figure 5: Pre-test/Post-test change in social jusice knowledge short essay assignment scores by course section Overall, the difference between the mean pre-test scores ( =1.59, SD=0.57) on the Social Justice Knowledge short essay assignment were significantly different, t(29)=4.66, p<0.01, d=0.95, than the mean-post-test scores ( =2.20, SD=0.70) at the p<0.01 level. What this means is that, in general, students showed a significant improvement in their social justice-related knowledge from the beginning of the class to the end. Comparing studentsâ„¢ pre- and post-test scores on individual questions shows a similar result. The difference between pre-test scores (=1.59, SD=.57) and post-test scores (=2.2 SD=.70) on Question 1 was statistically significant, t(29)=4.66, p<0.01, d=0.95, at the p<0.01 level. Similarly, the difference between pre-test scores ( =1.66, SD=.46) and post-test scores (=1.96, SD=.64) on Questions 2 was also statistically significant, t(29)=2.16, p<0.05, d=0.53 at the p<0.05 level. Last, the difference between pre-test scores ( =2.19, SD=.58) and post-test scores (=2.43, SD=.53) on Questions 3 was statistically significant, t(29)=-2.23, p,0.05, d=0.43, at the p<0.05 level. 118 These results from the paired samples t-te st provide evidence that the course did in fact have a statistically significant impact on pre-serv ice teachersâ„¢ social justice knowledge of the impact of their own biases; t(29)=-4.66, p<0.01, d=0.95, those of their students; t(29)=-2.16, p=0.04, d=0.53 and the influence of historical, political and social contexts on schools; t(29)=-2.23, p=0.03 d=0.43. These results suggest that, when considering the degree of knowledge change before and after the course for all students, the course achieved one of its stated goals: to make st udents more knowledgeable about three relevant knowledge domains important for being an effective social justice educator. Connecting these results back to this study's conceptual framework of social justice knowledge (Table 13) further explains what this change in scores means. These results suggest that, regardless of course section, the 30 students in this study changed over time in their knowledge of i ssues related to social justice in education. By the end of the semester, students had a better understand ing of how their own previous experiences will influence their work as teachers, how st udentsâ„¢ previous experiences will influences their experiences in school, and of historical, social, and political contexts that have influenced education. 119 Table 13 Conceptual Framework of Social Justice Knowledge Knowledge Description K1 Critical knowledge of self; personal biases, past experiences as shaping beliefs; knowledge of own beliefs & assumptions; knowledge of own identity markers; knowledge of how th ese influence their own educational experiences K2 Critical knowledge of students; knowl edge of their cultures and identity markers; how these influence their educational experiences K3 Critical knowledge of current and hi storical political a nd social contexts of education It is difficult to compare these results to prior research as researchers have not previously quantified social justice knowle dge as a measurable variable. Previous research has argued that part of learning to be a social justice educator is gaining knowledge such as those represented in this study's conceptual framework. However, no previous research has qualitatively or quantitatively meas ured social justice knowledge, nor assessed the impact a course like the one in this study may have on such knowledge. Research Question 2.2 This research question asks: How do these knowledge changes differ for students enrolled in the course section employing Web 2.0 technologies ( n=15) compared to students enrolled in the course section employing traditional methods of instruction (n=15)? To answer this question, four sepa rate two-way ANOVA tests were conducted, one for each question on the Social Justice Knowledge short essay assignment and a final test for each student's overall average score on this assignment. A two way ANOVA considers two (or more) independent variables influence on a dependent variable. In this 120 case, the independent variables are section (i.e., studentsâ„¢ placemen t in either the high technology or traditional class) and time (i.e., the time difference between studentsâ„¢ pre and post-test scores on the short essay assignment). As was discussed previously, there were statistically significant main effect s of time on studentsâ„¢ scores on all three knowledge questions. For question one, the results were F(1,28) = 21.93, p<0.01, 2= 0.44, for question two the results were F(1,28) = 4.56, p<0.05, 2= 0.14, and for question three, the results were F(1,28) = 4.84, p<0.05, 2= 0.15. Similar to the change shown on each individual question, there was a signifi cant main effect of time on students' overall scores on this assignment F(1,28) = 21.93, p<0.01, 2= 0.44. However, there was no statistically signifi cant interaction effect between time and placement on studentsâ„¢ post-test Social Justice Knowledge short essay assignment scores for any individual question or students' overa ll score. For question 1, the results were F(1,28) = 1.30, p=0.26, 2= 0.04, for question 2 the results were F(1,28) = 0.35, p=0.56, 2= 0.01, for question 3 the results were F(1,28) = 0.14, p=0.71, 2= 0.01 and for students' overall scores, the results were F(1,28) = 1.30, p=0.26, 2= 0.04. In other words, while there was a statistically significant within section change over time, there was not a statistically significant difference on th e degree of that change over time between sections. Connecting back to the conceptual framew ork for this study, the similarity of the degree of knowledge change between sections indicates the two groups were indistinguishable in how they grew in their knowledge. This test result gives evidence that the combination of the common and uni que affordances of each sections of the course had a very similar impact on students' social justice knowledge. 121 It is not known how these ANOVA results fit with previous results as no past research has measured soci al justice knowledge quantitatively or qualitatively. Research Question 3 This research question asks: In what ways does using a collection of Web 2.0 applications influence how students develop their social justic e dispositions and knowledge? To answer this question, student blogs, wikis and video journals were analyzing in a series of stages to identify, categorize, and ev aluate evidence of specific affordances being used to represent the st udentsâ„¢ social justice dispositions and knowledge (see Methods section). This analysis was based on specific affordances examined by previous research that may be particularly useful for achieving the studyâ„¢s social justice dispositional and learning outcomes (Table 14). Following this analysis, students were interviewed about their work and the researcherâ„¢s interpretations. The results of that analysis are presented by media type, with pa rticular attention given to each affordance under analysis. Table 15 pres ents a summary of the frequency each affordance was noted being used in the data or reported to be used by students during interviews. 122 Table 14 Educational affordances used in qua litative data analysis, by media type Media Type Affordance Previous Research Blogs B1. Enhanced self expression via multiple media forms Deng & Yuen, 2011 B2. Reflection through connecting thoughts via hyperlinks between posts Ferdig & Trammell, 2004; Stiler & Philleo, 2003 B3. Making connections with input from readers Deng & Yuen, 2011 B4. Socio-emotional support when adopting critically conscious perspectives. Kreijns, Kirschner & Jochems, 2003 Wikis W1. Reconsidering own ideas because of contributions from authors with different perspectives Chandra & Chalmers, 2010; Reinhold & Abawi, 2006 W2. Socio-emotional support of camaraderie in ideological re- examination Farkas, 2007 W3. Facilitated understanding of social justice concepts because of multiple contributorsâ„¢ perspectives and ideas Reinhold & Abawi, 2006 Video Journals VJ1. Greater depth and length of reflection Heintz, Borsheim, Caughlan & Juzwik, 2010 VJ2. Reflection through connections made after re- watching previous video journal entries Lee, 2008 VJ3. Lack of self-censoring (stream of conscious honesty Loury, 1994; Marwick & boyd, 2011 123 Table 15 Frequency of educational affordances use, by media type Media Type Affordance Frequency Blogs B1. Enhanced self expression via multiple media forms 17 of 32 (53%) posts included images/video clips B2. Reflection through connecting thoughts via hyperlinks between posts 0 of 32 posts (0%) used hyperlinks in connections of ideas to other posts B3. Making connections with input from readers 9 of 45 (20%) comments incorporated into subsequent writing B4. Socio-emotional support when adopting critically conscious perspectives. 43 of 45 (96%) comments contained socio-emotional support Wikis W1.Reconsidering own ideas because of contributions from authors with different perspectives 0 of 4 (0%) students reported influence by wiki on opinion on class topics W2.Soci-emoti onal support of camaraderie in ideological re- examination 0 of 4 (0%) students reported feeling support from peers through wiki W3.Facilitated understanding of social justice concepts because of multiple contributorsâ„¢ perspectives and ideas 2 of 4 (50%) students reported improved understanding of class concepts resulting from reading othersâ„¢ wikis Video Journals VJ1.Greater depth and length of reflection 20 of 24 (83%) of video journals exceeded length and time requirements of journal VJ2.Reflection through connections made after re-watching previous video journal entries 7 of 24 (29%) journal entries referenced previous journal entries VJ3.Lack of self-censoring (stream of consciousness honesty) 1 of 4 (25%) students reported never censoring speech in journal entries 124 Blogs. Over the course of one month, students in the high technology section wrote a series of blog posts analyzing a current event or media artifact. In their analysis, students applied ideas from cla ss readings to their event/artifact, discussed classroom implications and, in their final post, reflected on the process of writing their blog. In their posts and in comments from classmates assi gned to ï¬followfl them, studentsâ„¢ work demonstrated, to various degrees, their use of the individual educational affordances of these technologies (see Table 14) in re presenting their beliefs and knowledge. Overall, the four students in the purposive sample fr equently took advantage of using images and videos as enhanced forms of self expression (affordance B1). Over the 32 blog posts analyzed, students used images and/or video clips in 17 posts (53%). Meanwhile, students also frequently provided socio-emotional support when adopting critically conscious perspectives (affordance B4). Of the 45 comments left by students, almost all (43) contained some socio-emo tional support. On the other hand, writers infrequently used the blogs' comments to info rm their subsequent posts (affordance B3). While 32 of the 45 total comments left by readers contained feedback that could have aided the writers' thinking about their topics, only nine times did th e writers incorporate this feedback into their later writing. Sim ilarly, students infrequently made use of blogs' ability to hyperlink ideas between posts as a way of demonstra ting their conceptual knowledge (affordance B2). Twenty of the 32 blog posts contained language that specifically referred back (or ahead) to big ideas elaborated in othe r posts, but in all 20 examples, the writer did not make the explicit connection via hyperlink. Deng & Yuen (2011) argued that the ab ility of blogs to incorporate multiple forms of media such as images and videos may enhance writers' self expression beyond 125 that which would be possible with text alone (affordance B1). In the purposive sample here, students did in fact frequently use this affordance. In 17 of the 32 blog posts analyzed, students included images and/or video clips (8 included only images, 5 included only video clips, 4 included both imag es and videos). Students primarily used images and videos to supplement their text as they demonstrated their knowledge of social justice concepts. For example, one st udent, in discussing religious identity added an image of several re ligious icons at the top of her post. As another example, a student included a YouTube video clip that showed statistics of bullying against LGBT youths. In her text, the student referred back to these statistics, connecting them to the social justice class concepts of individual and structural discriminati on (see Figure 6). Students made less use of affordance B1 over time. After a month of writing posts, only one student included a video or image in any of their final two posts. Interview data from students gave two possible reasons for this decline in use. First, as two students explained, finding videos and images from external sites was simply too time consuming. The time necessary to find illu strative videos and images was seen as especially unnecessary because, as one student commented, they were not part of their grade on the assignment. 126 Figure 6 Sample blog post using video and images in addition to text Previous research by Ferdig and Tra mmell (2004) and Stiler and Philleo (2003) has argued that because of the affordances of hypertext and the fact that blog posts are written over time, but still connected under a single site, writing on a blog may aid writers' reflection (affordance B2). This afford ance specifically allow writers to connect their thoughts in one post back to previous posts (or, with post-hoc editing, forward to later posts) and perhaps, enable them to more deeply understand a concept. At times, students did demonstrate that they were met acognitively thinking about their previous or future thoughts expressed in other blog posts. For example, while discussing the social 127 class of characters in the movie Crash, one student referred back to his previous discussion of racial identity in the movie and to a future post on the intersection of these two identity markers. However, in neither instance did he actually hyperlink these explicit references in his present thoughts back or forward to his thinking in other posts. This kind of passing textual reference to a students' thinking ela borated elsewhere was seen in comparative examples of students' papers. For example, three students in the traditional course section used phrases such as "as I will discuss later" and "as I said previously" in their text-only papers. Interview data gave some explanation for why blog writing students did not use hyperlinks to connect their thoughts between posts. As one student stated succinctly, she "didn't think to do that because [the instructor] didn't ask us to." Deng and Yuen (2011) argued that blogs have a unique affordance for communication between writer and audience that can help shape the writers' message (affordance B3). Specifically, blog posts are wr itten individually over a period of time, and readers are able to leave comments on the writers' work. This communication channel between reader and writer facilitates a feedback loop that may improve students' conceptual knowledge as they write. Out of 45 comments analyzed in this study, the majority (32 out of 45; 71%) provided constr uctive input to the writer about the writers' conceptual understanding (see Figure 7). However, for a variety of reasons, this feedback was largely unincorporated into the writers' thinking, as only nine times did those 32 constructive comments noticeably impact the students' writing. 128 Figure 7 Blog post comment providing feedback for the author Students offered several reasons for not using this affordance. First, students found comments somewhat limited to specific posts and not as helpful in informing future posts. For example, one reader asked the author of a blog about LGBT bullying to expand her discussion of discrimination, but because future posts focused on different social justice concepts, the writer judged her work to be sufficient and instead chose to move to the next post/concept. In interviews three of the four students sampled said they did not regularly read the comments left by their readers because comments come after the assignments are due and because comments we re not seen as useful or necessarily as constructive. When one student was shown an example of a reader's comment made on a mid-month post that she could have incor porated into a later post, the student acknowledged that she had simply stopped read ing comments altogether by that point. It is worth noting that one student in the sample not only regularly read classmates' comments before writing later pos ts but also took that feedback into consideration as she wrote future posts. For example, in the comments section of her initial post introducing her analysis of the television show Glee, a reader suggested the writer describe the role other characters' reactio ns, especially those of the athletes, played 129 in enforcing gender norms in the show. The writer included both suggestions in her subsequent gender analysis post. In all, while the potential for blogs' affordance of user feedback in knowledge co-construction was attempted and at times fully realized, overall this affordance was underutilized and, over time, frequently ignored. Students did use the commenting featuri ng of blogs for another purpose noted by previous research (Dickey, 2004; Kreijns, Kirschner & Jochems, 2003) and particularly useful in social justice education courses: socio-emotional support (affordance B4). Throughout the sample of student blogs, almo st all comments (43 out of 45) included some form of socio-emotional support (see Figure 8). A portion (15 out of 45) of these comments gave only vague or general positive feedback such as "I really think you picked a great topic" and "Great job, can't wait to hear mo re!" that did not specially address the writers' expression of a social just disposition. However, the remaining 28 out of 45 (62%) comments were directed at the writers' dispositions. As an example of this kind of support, in response to a students' analysis of oppressive gender norms, one student commented, "I definitely agree – societ y has made this picture of what an 'ideal' woman should be, that so many just can't liv e up to, so they feel insecure and it causes many problems in their lives." This kind of agreement and support of the writers' beliefs was a common refrain through the comments section. 130 Figure 8 Blog post comment providing socio-emotional support to the author Readers also frequently gave s upport by recognizing when the writer has successfully/accurately analyzed a concept. For example, two students responded to a writers' analysis of sexual orientation as represented in the television show Glee with comments like, "I think you did an excellent job of displaying different aspects of what sexual orientation brings to Glee" and "You explain the ideas of personal homophobia, interpersonal homophobia, institutional homopho bia and cultural homophobia very well." These kinds of comment do not give explicit support for the writer expressing socially just beliefs. Nonetheless, this approval/recognition tacitly supports the writers' socially just perspective. This pattern of support dovetails with the fact that nowhere across the sample did a reader challenge or express an id eological critique of a writersâ„¢ socially-just language/perspective. Some students suggest ed the writer add to their analysis by including additional ideas or references, but none of the 45 comments criticized the writer for their beliefs. Taken as a whole, the ma jority of comments in some way showed 131 affirmation of the critically conscious dispositions expressed by the author and criticism of the authors' beliefs was completely abse nt. This consistent support indicates that, overall, students used this affordance of blogs to help support their classmates' social justice dispositional development. As with using reader comments to co-construct knowledge, commenting to provide socio-emotional support is potentially seen in a peer-editing collaborative writing setting for traditional, text-only writing. However, the rapidity and in-line nature of blog comments make this feedback channel more efficient, and potentially have a greater impact in supporting social justice disposit ion taking when done online. It is worth recalling however that, during interviews, three out of four students acknowledged not reading comments on a regular basis. That be ing said, these students all said they read comments, just not immediately after they were posted. Therefore, it was not surprising that, when asked about how it felt to read supportive comments, all four students said they enjoyed their readers' emotional support, even if that support was not received on a post-by-post basis. Wikis. Over the last month of the course, st udents in the high technology section worked individually and in groups to write a collection of pages for a class wiki. Each page focused on one identity marker (e.g., race, social class) and contained five sections explaining different aspect of that identity marker (e.g., social construction, privilege, discrimination) as discussed in class. Tw o of the students in this purposive sample worked on sections for the Social Class wiki page and two students worked together on the Language wiki page. 132 Pages and sections that students wrote in the course Wiki were examined for evidence of students' use of educational affo rdances derived from previous research (W1, W2, and W3 from Table 14). Overall, stude nts' final written work demonstrated no observable evidence of any of the themes derived from previous research. Because these themes focus on students' inte ractions and therefore may not be readily observable from the finished text, a second st age of data analysis was used, examining the tracked changes group member made to one another's writing (see Figure 9). In this sample, students made a total of 30 revisions to their groups' wiki pages. These revisions were not evenly split between the two groups - the Language group's wiki page only had 3 revisions, all by the same student, while the Social Class group's wiki page had 27 revisions by three different students. Figure 9 Wiki track changes page 133 Of these 30 revisions, six changes were a student adding their own original text to the wiki page, seven changes were a student editing their own writing, and 17 changes were made to another students writing. Of these 17 instances of a student editing another student's text, all represented only minor ch anges to punctuation (five times), formatting (six times), phrasing (four times) or gramma r (two times) (see Figure 10). Taken as a whole, as with the first stage of data analysis, the textual record of students' collaboration through changes to one another's wiki sections showed no evidence of students using the collaborative affordances of wikis in ways described by previous research to shift dispositions, provide socio-emotional s upport, or deepen students' conceptual understanding. Figure 10 Sample edit made to wiki page showing minor grammar changes Student interviews were next used to triangulate these observations by asking students directly about their experiences with the wiki's collaborative elements. Previous research by Chandra and Chalmers (2010) a nd Reinhold & Abawi (2006) has argued that wikis' ability to facilitate collaboration be tween people with different perspectives can 134 expose writers to a greater variety of ideas and thus lead individual contributors to reconsidering their own ideas (i.e., affordance W1). In interviews, all four students acknowledged reading the contributions of other students in their own group and those working on other identity marker sections. However, no student reported having their opinions about class topics influenced by what they read on the wiki. As one student explained, "Basically, [the wiki] was all the same kinds of things people would say in class, – I paid attention in class and thought more about what people were talking about in class than what was on the wiki. It was the same kind of things though, just the same ideas." In addition to shifting dispositions, Reinhold & Abawi (2006) argued that the collaborative elements of wikis can help st udents better understand a concept because of multiple contributors' perspectives being added (affordance W3). Of the four students interviewed, two agreed they understood class concepts at least somewhat better because of reading others' wiki pages, while two st udents did not see much benefit. One student specifically identified the power of multiple contributions on the wiki as helping her understanding. This student noted some students were quiet in class, but "talked" through the wiki and that their contributing to the conversation was beneficial because, "people have different ideas about [class concepts] and reading people's different ideas and opinions helps you see how complicated this all is." Not all students saw a learning benefit to reading multiple perspectives on class concepts. One student noted that the ideas presented were not significantly different than what was said in class, because, as he put it, "I think people knew what to write and were just trying to get a good grade and follow the assignment." 135 Lastly, researchers such as Farkas (2 007) have argued that the collaborative element of wikis can lend so cio-emotional support to i ndividual students (affordance W2). Of the four students interviewed, none of the students reported feeling additional, direct, support from their peers through th e wiki. One student, noted that, unlike blogs, there was not a channel for students to provide support to others. She said, " With the blogs, readers were saying nice things to sort of encourage each other. – but nobody said anything on the [wiki] page." However two students acknowledged that there may have been some tacit support in that, because, as one student said, "people would agree with each other and piggyback off what some body was saying, so you knew somebody agreed with you wrote [on the wiki]." On the other hand, two students did not feel a sense of support from their classmates through their work on the wiki. These students qualified that this lack of feeling supported may have been mostly due to the fact that they were not looking for such support. One student reported already feeling "very comfortable" talking about issues of discrimination and id entity, and did not need much affirmation from her classmates (on or offline), while th e other student said "I didn't really think about what others thought about my part of the page. – I didn't really care if people agreed with me or not, I really just wanted to make sure I was getting a good grade." Video journals. Over the course of the semester, each student in the high technology section recorded six video journals (six written journals in the traditional section) reflecting on their experiences obser ving in a local classroom. Students were instructed to make their vide o journals at least six minutes long (two pages long in the traditional section) and focus on their own reflection and analysis of what they saw that week rather than simply describing/summariz ing classroom events. Ea ch student in this 136 sample produced six video journals. These 24 videos were examined for evidence of students' use of educational affordances desc ribed in previous research (VJ1, VJ2, and VJ3 from Table 14). Where applicable, video journals were compared to a sample of 24 written journals from four high achieving st udents in the traditional class section. Overall, students' video journals dem onstrated a mixed picture of use of the mediums' educational affordances. Students' video journals more frequently (83%) exceeded length expectations as compared to written journals (54%), but video journal students did not spend most of their time anal yzing events (37%) as compared to students writing their journals (52%) who did so. A greater number of video journals (29%) referenced previous journals as compared to 17% of written journals, but all references in both video and written journals were to general, big ideas rather than specific details. Finally, in very few (2 out of 24, 8%) video journals did the speaker explicitly appear to self-censor (e.g., by saying, "How should I put this?"). On the other hand, all videos contained behaviors potentially indicative of self-censoring (e.g., long pauses, looking away from the camera) but that could also be interpreted as simply aiding recall. Because of the ambiguous nature of these observed be haviors, follow up interviews asked students about the degree to which they self-censored while recording video journals. All four students reported that they infrequently, if ever, stopped themselves from saying something the way they were thinking. In their reflection on using various we b 2.0 technologies with their students, Heintz, Borsheim, Caughlan and Juzwik (2010) noted that video channels may lead to greater length and depth of student reflection (affordance VJ1). Students were instructed to make their video journals a minimum of six minutes in length, which is comparable 137 when read aloud to two double space pages (the minimum page length for written journals) and to spend most of their time analyzing events (as opposed to describing them). Therefore, as a way to measure this a ffordance, videos journals were compared to written journals in terms of their overall length and the percentage of time the student spent analyzing events. Overall, 20 out of 24 (83%) video journals exceeded length expectations while only 13 out of 24 (54%) of written journals did so. The extended time students took on their video journals however did not mean they used that extra time for a greater degree of reflection and analysis. On average, video journal students spent most of their time describing events (63%) as opposed to analyzing those events (37% of their video time). This pattern of favoring descri ption over analysis also compares poorly to written journals were students did use the majo rity (52%) of their reflection to analyze, rather than describe, classroom events. In a follow up interview, one who consistently recorded videos longer than the expected length, acknowledged spending most of that time describing and "babbling on" about wh at she saw that day, saying, "I don't know what I was trying to say, I think I was just happy to talk about my day and I didn't really think about the assignment [to analyze]." Several researchers have argued refl ective journaling may enhance students conceptual understanding of subject matter (Hiemstra, 2001; Schoen, 1987; Van Maanan, 1990) while others have focused on the impor tance of making connections in journals (Lee, 2008). Students in both sections of the course were encouraged to review previous journal entries before writing new ones, but video journals, being accessible from anywhere and easily reviewable in just a few minutes may be particularly suited to revisiting and making connections (VJ affordan ce 2). In addition, students' past videos 138 are accessible from the main page they use to record new videos, further facilitating access to previous videos for re-watching (s ee Figure 11). Indeed, it seems video journal writers more often made explicit connections ba ck to previous journal entries. Seven out of 24 (29%) video journals in this sample referenced previ ous journals in some way as compared to only four out of 24 (17%) of wr itten journals. Notably though, both of these percentage represent a small portion of the to tal sample. This underuse by both groups is most likely due to the fact that students did not frequently re-watch their previous video journals. In follow up interviews, one student reported never re-watching his videos; the other three reported only watching previous videos again "once or twice." Figure 11 Sample video journal page showing previous videos on the same page Last, video journals were analyzed for ev idence that speakers refrained from self- censoring (VJ affordance 3). Previous resear ch has argued that self-censoring is an impediment to honest discourse and reflecti on (Loury, 1994), a practice that carries over 139 with similar effects to co mputer mediated communication (Marwick & boyd, 2011). An initial analysis of students' video journals found that all videos contained instances of behaviors that may be used for self-cen soring such as pausing during explanation, looking away from the camera, and using quali fying words, Additionally, in two videos the speakers seemed to explicitly state they were avoiding saying something (e.g., saying, "How should I put this?"). However, it was not clear by simply vi ewing video journals the thought process behind these actions. In follow up interviews, students were asked to review their video journals and report to what degree they recall censoring themselves while recording their journals. No student re ported re-recording a video because they did not like how or what they said. One student reported "never" stopping himself from saying something the way he was thinking it; all three other students reported infrequently doing so. 140 Chapter 6 - Discussion Overall Impact on Dispositions A major conclusion of the results of this study is the course's impact on students' dispositions. Overall, combining both the traditional and high-technology sections of the course (n=30), the course was successful in shifti ng students' dispositions toward being more socially just. This is seen in the significant difference between students' pre-test and post-test scores on the LTSJ-B scale. At th e beginning of the semester, the average score on the LTSJ-B pre-test across both sections was a 3.64 out of five. The LTSJ-B asks students the degree to which they agree or disagree with social-justice minded statements such as ï¬teachers should teach students to th ink critically about gove rnment positions and actionsfl with a score of 3 translating to ï¬uns ure." Therefore, at the beginning of the semester, studentsâ„¢ dispositions were not ï¬anti-social justice,fl but their scores did not indicate a clear agreement with these kinds of social justice-minded statements. However, by the end of the course, these scores had shifted to a mean score of 4. 01 out of five, meaning students on average "agreed" with social-justice minded statements such as ï¬part of the responsibilitie s of the teacher is to chal lenge school arrangements that maintain societal inequities." The post-tests score showing a clear agreement with social justice dispositional statements demonstrates a significant change in students' beliefs and an important outcome of the course. This change in studentsâ„¢ beliefs is important on a conceptual level when considering the role dispositions play in te acher education, especi ally social justice education. Dispositions represent a fundame ntal component of being a social just educator. In order to practice the kinds of culturally relevant pedagogies infused with 141 multicultural curriculum social justice educators have created and promoted, a belief that teaching as a political act for challenging sy stemic inequality not only matters, but that it is possible, and indeed a responsibility of all educators. Dispositions represent a necessary but not sufficient element of being a socially just educator. Agreeing with the socially-just statements on the LTSJ-B only i ndicates a dispositional alignment with these beliefs. However, from these foundational be liefs, students in this study are making an important step along the way to beco ming socially just educators. This study's results are exceptional when co mpared to previous research that has used the LTSJ-B instrument as a pre-test/pos t-test assessment of the impact of social justice teacher education cour ses on participants' dispositions. For example, the three social justice teacher education programs reported on in Cochran-Smith et al. (2012) employed similar samples, methods, and measurement instruments as this study, and, like this study found statistically significant gains on studentsâ„¢ LTSJ-B post-test scores. Meanwhile, Evans (2013) reported no significant gains in LTSJ-B scores in his evaluation of three teacher cohorts in a social justice mathematics course. However, what is most noteworthy is that, in none of these cas es were the effects of the treatment (i.e., course or program) nearly as large as those reported here. The effect sizes for dispositional gains at the three sites reported in Cochran- Smith et al. (2013) were d=0.16, d=0.11, and d=0.14. Similarly, Evans (2013) reported effect sizes of d=0.00, d=0.25, and d=0.26. Compared to the d=0.93 effect size reported in this study, it is clear this course was exceptionally effective in impacting studentsâ„¢ social justice dispositions. This gain in dispositional scores represents nearly one standard deviation in dispositional growth, meaning the dispositions held by students in this course 142 were clearly and ï¬grossly noticeablyfl (Cohen, 1988) different than those they expressed before the course began. Comparing these eff ect sizes, it could be ar gued that, at least in terms of dispositions, the course in this st udy had more of an impact on students in one semester than other courses and even entire social justice teacher education programs lasting one and four years. The size of these effects speaks to the strength of the course, instructor, and assignments, and their affordan ces for impacting social justice beliefs. Overall Impact on Knowledge A second major conclusion of this study is the course's impact on students' knowledge. Overall, the course (combining both sections) was successful in improving students' knowledge of social justice in educa tion issues. This is seen in the significant difference between students' pre-test and post- test scores on the short essay assignment. Not only did students demonstrate a significant changes in their overall knowledge of issues related to social justice, they demonstr ated a significant change in each of the three items included on the assessment. Similar to shifting students' social justice dispositions, deepening students' social justice knowledge was not an explicit goal of the course. However, students nonetheless showed a signif icant change in these areas of knowledge because of their participation in the course. Conceptually, social justice knowledge plays an important part in becoming a socially just educator. Teaching from a crit ically conscious perspective requires not only an ideological belief in the values of social justice education, but also a knowledge how systems of inequality operate in educational settings. Without this knowledge, beliefs are difficult to put into practice. The short-essa y assignment used in this study specifically asked students to demonstrate th eir knowledge about three areas how their own past 143 experience may influence their teaching; how students' past experiences influence their work in the classroom; and of the social, histor ical, and political context of education that maintain systems of inequality. The fact th at students showed, on average, significant gains in each of these areas dem onstrates that students in this course are growing in their preparation for being socially just educators. See Future Research section for future directions in researching social justice knowledge. Two major contributions of this study's quantitative assessment of students' social justice knowledge are to provide evidence that "social justice knowledge" as a variable can be measured and, as a learning outcome, can be changed. Previous theoretical research has argued that there are a number of areas of knowle dge social justice educators need to develop; However, very little work has been done to conceptualize "social justice knowledge" as a measurable variable. The wo rk of Howard (2006) was central to this study because it was one of few pieces of research that presented a multi-dimensional view of "social justice knowledge." The three sides of Howard's Achievement Triangle represent the three knowledge domains assessed in this study. However, Howard does not attempt to measure this know ledge overall or in its individual pieces. This study and its results build off that previous work to demonstrate that a multi-dimensional conceptualization of "social justice know ledge" is possible and measurable. See Implications for Researchers for further di scussion on future directions in measuring social justice knowledge. In addition to conceptualizing "social ju stice knowledge" as a variable, the results of this study provide evidence that students can change in their knowledge of issues related to social justice through participati on in teacher educati on courses. At the 144 beginning of the semester, students' scores on their social justice knowledge assessment (1.xx out of a possible 5) were notably low. At the end of the semester, students' scores on this assessment were still relatively low ( 2.xx out of a possible 5). Still, this change represents a statistically significant growth in their knowledge. Learning about issues such as teacher bias, students' lived experiences, and the multiple contexts influencing education is a life-long process. The results of this study argue that social justice teacher education courses can be an inte gral part of that process. Lack of Difference Between Sections Another major conclusion from the resu lts of this study is that there was no significant difference in the dispositional and knowledge growth between the traditional and high technology sections of the course. This lack of impact is seen in the statistically insignificant results of the ANOVA test. This test showed a main eff ect of pre-test/post-test time on students' disposition and knowledge scores, but no interaction effect of students' placement in either the traditional or high technology section. In other words, what the ANOVA results mean is that the de gree of change students in the traditional section demonstrated in their beliefs and knowledge is so similar to the degree of change students in the high technology section demonstr ated in these assessments that the two groups are virtually indistinguishable. There are multiple possible explanations for why the change in disposition and knowledge scores were so similar between the groups. The same road. The first possible explanation is that the two groups were more similar than they were different. The two sect ions of the course shared a large number of common elements with affordances that mi ght have led to changes in students' dispositions and knowledge. For example, the two courses had in common the course 145 instructor, the course schedule and readings, similar student make ups, and several class assignments. It is entirely possible that b ecause of this high degree of similarity, the courses were in essence the same road to th e same destination. These common elements and their educational affordances may have b een what made the most significant impact on students' dispositions and knowledge as comp ared to the relatively few elements that differentiated the course sections (e.g., the medium used on three specific assignments). Previous research has argued that a number of elements incl uded in the course in this study (e.g., cultural autobiographies, cross-cultural interactions, and reflective journaling) can influence social justice learning outcome s, especially students' dispositions. Two roads to the same destination. The second possible explanation is that the two courses were in fact quite different from one another. However, these different versions of the course were equally succe ssful in changing students' dispositions and knowledge. Focusing on the three class assignments that used different media between course sections, these assignments constituted a significant portion of students' work in the class. While there were common elem ents between the two sections, it is also possible that the unique affordances of the traditional and high technology media were equally effective in impacting students' learning in the course. For example, it is possible that for students in the traditional section, writing their critical analysis paper as one continuous single-authored document helped them see the connections between the different parts of their analysis and better understand the multi-dimensional, complex concepts that make up social justice know ledge. Meanwhile, for students in the high-technology section, it is entirely possible that they were able to see similar connections 146 thanks to feedback from their blogs' readers' comments. Therefore, the courses represent two roads leading to the same dispositional and knowledge change. Missed opportunities. The third possible explanation for the similarity in the two groups' changes is that the course sections might have represented unique paths leading to possibly different outcomes, but the medium in the high technology section were not used in a way that differentiated their impact on students' social jus tice dispositions and knowledge. Qualitative data analysis of student work gave some evidence of students using the unique educational affordances of these technologies in a way that was qualitatively different than comparable studen t work from the tradit ional course section. For example, in a blog post analyzing the i ssue of sexual orientation, one student used a video clip with statistics about the frequency of harassment for LGBT0-Q teens to augment her written explanation. This multi media channel for demonstrating social justice knowledge was unavailable to st udents writing traditional papers. However, while students occasionally used these technologies' unique affordances, a major theme that emerged from qualitative analysis of students' work (and subsequent member checked during follo w up interviews) was that of "missed opportunities" wherein the way students used Web 2.0 technologies for class assignments failed to take full advantage of the unique affordances of these technologies. For example, no student used hyperlinks to c onnect their thoughts across blog posts, an affordance that could have helped them build their social justice knowledge by understanding the interconnectedness of these concepts. In this way, students' work from the high-technology section used essentially the same media (e.g., individually-written text) and cognitive processes available to st udents in the traditional section. The high 147 technology section may have had the potential for being a different path to the same or different destinations, but students' technology use did not significantly differentiate their learning nor learning outcomes. Sample size. The fourth possible explanation for the similarity in the two groups' dispositional and knowledge change is that this study's small sample is vulnerable to sample bias. Each section of the course ha d 15 students representing a total sample of 30 participants. It is entirely possible that if the sample size for both sections increased, students who might make significant use of th e unique affordances in either section could join that section and have a significant impact on that group's average post-test sores. Implications for Researchers This study's first major implication for re searchers is introducing an approach to operationalizing social justice knowledge and measuring change in that knowledge, an important part of social justice teacher educa tion research that has heretofore been under- examined. Previous research evaluating thes e kinds of courses has focused primarily on changing students' dispositions. This study bui lds on previous research while expanding the field to include students' knowledge of how social inequalities affect students, their own teaching, and schools as social institutions as well. This variable should be of particular relevance to social justice teacher education researchers as students in these kinds of courses may experience change in not only their dispositions, but knowledge as well. Without at least first c onceptualizing this knowledge as an outcome variable to be studied, previous research has overlooked a possibly already-present learning goal and area of growth. 148 In addition to conceptualizing this vari able, this study introduced an instrument for measuring change in student s' social justice knowledge. Th e contributions to the field of social justice teacher education resear ch made by the short essay assignment are strengthened by the multiple points of validity and reliability included in its development and use. First, the instrument was theo retically-grounded, being based on Howard's (2006) three "dimensions of knowing" for soci al justice educators. Second, building on this framework, a series of open-ended short essay questions were pilot-tested, refined with input from researchers and educators in the field of so cial justice education. Third, inter-rater reliability was assessed before m easuring "Social Justice Knowledge" as a pre- and post-test variable. Results from this st udy argue that this knowledge can be changed as a result of students' work in social just ice teacher education c ourses. In all, the introduction of a theoretically-grounded instrument for measuring students' social justice knowledge is a significant implication for adva ncing the field of social justice teacher education courses. While this conceptualization and quantitative instrument mark important contributions to the field of research on so cial justice teacher education, there is still much work to be done. See Limitations sect ion for discussion of ways to improve the reliability and validity of the social jus tice knowledge short essay assignment and the Future Research section for ideas about what directions future development of this variable and instrument might take. The second major research implication of this study is in bridging the fields of social justice teacher education research and research on educational technologies, especially Web 2.0 technologies. The intersec tion of these fields has received some 149 attention, but remains largely underdeveloped theoretically and empirically (Wassell & Crouch, 2008). This study represents one of many possible connections between the fields, but in doing so, contributes in multiple wa ys to this intersectional field. First, this study pulls together empirical a nd theoretical research from bo th fields to establish the connection that the educational affordances of specific Web 2.0 technologies may applied to the learning outcomes of social justice teacher education courses. This study also introduces empirical evidence that this connection is at least not counter-productive, and preliminary evidence that suggests this c onnection may demonstr ate the educational benefit of teaching with these technologies in general and for social justice education courses specifically. This evidence is limite d and would greatly benefit from future testing, but it gives strength to the value of research in this intersectional field. Implications for Practitioners The results of this study have implica tions for social justice educators when considering how to design such courses. Students in this study's course showed significant gains in their social justice dispositions and knowledge likely due to the educational affordances of multiple elements both common and unique to the traditional and high technology sections. A significant takeaway from this study for those designing future social justice teacher education courses is to begin by focusing on educational affordances that previous research and this study have suggested can support dispositional and knowledge growth. For example, previous research has argued that assignments and course elements that fost er interaction with people from diverse backgrounds (Freire & Macedo, 1987; Ga dotti, 1996; Wiseman, 2001), critical reexamination of one's own history and id entity (Brown, 2004; Chizhik & Chizhik, 2005; 150 Clark & Oâ„¢Donnell, 1999; Zeicner, 1993), personal reflection of one's own beliefs (Obidah, 2000; Villegas & Lucas, 2002) and challenging but respectful class discussions (Griffin, 1997; Nieto, 1998) can shift students' dispositions towards being more social-justice minded. In this course , those affordances were contained in students service learning fieldwork, their writing cultural autobiographies and their service learning reflection journals. Practitioners aiming to imp act students' social justice dispositions should consider incorporating these kinds of course elements for their educational affordances. In addition to these common elements with educational affordances for social justice learning, practitioners can look to this study's results for suggestions for integrating educational technologies in these courses. Students in the high technology and traditional sections of the course had si milar degrees of dispositional and knowledge growth, suggesting there may be multiple ways to design social justice teacher education courses to achieve these learning outcomes. This study's results suggest that social justice teacher educators can replace traditiona l paper-based assignments with Web 2.0 technologies and produce similar results. The technologies employed in this study included affordances that differentiated them from, as well as affordances that were common to, traditional assignments. Whether it be due to their unique affordances, those in common with traditional me dium, or a combination of both, this study gives empirical evidence to course designers that there are alternate ways impact students' dispositions and knowledge, and practitioners should be encouraged to incorporate the media and types of assignments that best fit their st udents' interests, needs and the resources available. 151 However, it should be noted that, fo r practitioners looking to incorporate educational technologies, mean ing integration may require a significant redefining of the learning tasks involved and a unique fund of teacher knowledge for this reimaging and technology use. Applying Puentadura's (2014) SAMR model illustrates how practitioners can make the most of a given technologies ' affordances. According to Puentadura, high- level educational technology integration represents "Redefining" the learning task at hand, keeping in mind the educational technol ogy's unique affordances. At the same time, thinking through this redefining and carrying out a thorough integration of educational technology may require practitioners to deve lop their technological pedagogical content knowledge (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). The TPAK framework suggests that it is not sufficient for practitioners simply to know how a technology works (TK), but to synthesize this knowledge with their pedagogical and content areas of knowledge (PCK) that give them an understanding of the learning outcomes of a given course and the cognitive processes in which students can engage in order to reach these outcomes. Keeping in mind these thinking process and le arning outcomes, practi tioners need formal and informal opportunities to learn about each technology and to synthesize this developing knowledge with their established PCK. Bringing together the SAMR model a nd the TPACK framework, practitioners wanting to make the most of any educationa l technology in their courses need to deeply understand how the technology works, what kinds of thinking it affords and how these affordances fit with the learning outcomes of the course. Th en, the practitioner needs to plan (and likely "reimagine") the learning task s in order to explicitly incorporate these affordances. 152 Limitations This study has multiple limitations. First, at the conceptualiza tion stage, one of the variables under study - social justice knowledge - was conceptualized without precedent in empirical research. The concep tualization of social justice knowledge employed in this study was based on Howard's (2006) three "dimensions of knowing" for social justice educators. While based on an existing theoretical framework, these three "dimensions of knowing" have not previously been used to represent "social justice knowledge" as a standalone variable. It is entirely possible that other social justice educators and researchers may conceptualize "social justice knowledge" in an entirely different way. Similarly, the educational a ffordances analyzed were based on previous research, but had never been conceptualized as they were for this study. Previous studies on individual affordances of blogs, wikis, and video journals were consulted, but very little research has considered these affordances in the context of so cial justice teacher education courses. As with the conceptualization of "social justice knowledge," other researchers may identify a different set of rele vant affordances that might have been used for this study. Second, at the data collection stage, th is study had only 30 participants used for quantitative analysis. Further, only four of those students were sampled for exploratory qualitative data analysis. These four students were purposefully selected because of their excellent work on the Web 2.0 class assignments , but this is still overall a very small sample. Additionally, these students were only sampled from one section of the course, so their work may not be representative of st udents' in the traditional section within this study or externally of the traditional, paper-based assignments in other similar classes. 153 Having such a small sample and pulled from one cohort makes the da ta collection very susceptible to sampling bias. Therefore, the findings based on analysis of this sample should be interpreted and applied with caution. Third, also at the data collection stage, interviews used for qualitative data analysis were conducted almost three years afte r the conclusion of the course. This is a significant gap in time between when the st udents worked on their blog, wiki, and video journal assignments, and when they were as ked to reflect on their experiences with the technologies. Prior to and during interviews, students revisited their work to aid in recall. Nonetheless, that students' memories of wh at using these technologies did and did not do for them in terms of impacting their dispos itions and knowledge were almost certainly imprecise and subject to error. Therefore, conclusions based on student interview data must be interpreted with caution. A final set of limitations of this study comes from the methods used for data analysis. The quantitative coding scale used for evaluating students' answers on the social justice knowledge assignment needs additional checks on its reliability. The scale was co- created by two researchers based on pilot data from a previous iteration of this course and the scoring used for this study done by two researchers was tested for inter-rater reliability. As this was the first time this in strument had been use d, additional testing is needed to further establish the scale's inter-rat er reliability and the instrument's test-retest validity. Until then, the strength of conclusions about students' social justice knowledge is limited. The methods used for qualitative data an alysis also introduce limitations to this study's findings. First, the qualita tive analysis of student work began with a priori codes 154 derived from previous research. This framing allowed the present study to apply the theoretical and empirical work done in thes e studies to a new set of learning goals, however doing so may have also limited th e breadth of observations and masked potentially informative interpretations a nd conclusions about students educational technology use in social justice education courses. This study was able to draw some conclusions about students' use of educational affordances described in previous research, but a richer, different set of interpretations may have been omitted. Future research on these technologies' affordances for social ju stice education may begin with a reimagining of how these technologies could be more dyna mically integrated into the course and employ a Grounded Theory approach (Corbin & St rauss, 2007) that would be open to any themes that emerge from an open analysis of student work. (see Future Research section). Secondly, the qualitative data analys is of students' work using Web 2.0 technologies employed only one coder, the pr imary researcher and instructor of the course. The findings of themes present in stud ent work represents an individual, biased interpretation of the data. Students' interview data was also consulted to triangulate these interpretations, but nevertheless, these qualitative findings should be interpreted with caution and future research on the use of educational technologies in social justice education courses should employ multiple coders to add to it's credibility and transferability. Future Research Three directions for future research w ould, one, seek to strengthen the weaknesses of the current study, two, reimagine the cour se to reach possibly different conclusions about the integration of educational technologies, and, three, extend the findings of this 155 study into new empirical and theoretical wo rk. In regards to the first direction, upon reflection, both the design of the course and the methods used to analyze student work introduce a number of limitations that could be addressed by more rigorous replications of the current study, or parts of it. Beginning at the conceptual level, future research could question, challenge, or support the way "social justice knowledge" in which was conceived and operationally defined. The operationalization of Social Justice Knowledge used in this study may have face validity, as it is based on Howard's (2006) conceptual framework, but other social ju stice educators may have diffe rent conceptualizations of what exactly "social justice knowledge" is and how to measur e it. These visions of what this area of knowledge is could and should be presented in future research. Also at the conceptual level, this study selected a set of educational affordances found in previous research on blogs, wikis and video journals as being potentially useful in supporting the kinds of learning and psychological processes in which social just ice teacher education students engage. That being said, as with conceptualizing "social justice knowledge," other researchers may identify other process, affordances and/or educational technologies they believe fit with the learning outcomes of these kinds of courses. Future research may seek to replicate and support the choices in technologies and affordances used in this study, or to introduce different choices that may more effectively bring about the dispositional and knowledge changes intended. Future replications of this study could also address a number of limitations in the data collection and data analysis stages. Specifically, in terms of data collection, future replications could support or refute the initial findings from this study. Further, these subsequent findings could avoid some of the limitations from this study by using a larger 156 sample overall, and particularly in the quali tative analysis. The data analysis methods used in this study could be improved upon in fu ture research. The validity and reliability of the instrument used to measure students' social justice dispositions (the LTSJ-B) has been established by previous research, but the instrument used to measure students' social justice knowledge was developed for this st udy and has yet to be rigorously evaluated. Including this instrument in future research would add to its test-retest reliability while further checking the coding scale's inter-rate r reliability. Further, the method used for analyzing qualitative data could be strengthened in future research. Only one coder (the primary researcher) reviewed students' work on Web 2.0 class assignments. The researcher did triangulate his interpretations of students' work by also consulting students' answers in follow-up interviews, but the qualitative findings remain largely the interpretation of one individual. This presents one of the most significant limitations in this study and any future replication of all or part of this study should include multiple coders and member checking durin g qualitative data analysis. A second direction for future research is to go beyond addressing weaknesses of the present study to begin at the conceptual level to reimagine the integration of education technologies into social justice teacher education courses, A redesign of the course's educational technology use could in corporate the SAMR model (Puentedura, 2014) to possibly to produce different data for analysis and different results for discussion. One of the possible interpretations for the similarity betw een the dispositional and knowledge changes made by students in the traditional section and high technology sections is that the included technologies we re not used in a way that took full advantage of their unique affordances. Applying Puentedura's SAMR model, th is use represents 157 "Substitution," the lowest level of educational technology use. Puentedura argues that, for educational technologies to have the largest impact on students' learning outcomes, instructors should use these tools to significantly "Modify" or "Redefine" the tasks in which students are engaged. For example, in this course, blog writers wrote a series of posts analyzing a current event or media ar tifact using different class concepts. As assigned, the sequence and structure of these posts exactly replicated (or, to use Puentedura's words "substituted" for) the educational affordances of the papers written in the traditional section. This arrangement did not take advantage of the unique affordances of blogs, such as that readers' comments c ould inform subsequent posts and that, using hyperlinks, blog-writers could connect their thoughts across several posts. "Modifying" the task in this way may lead to different cognitive process by students, and possibly higher degrees of dispositional and knowledge change than what was observed in the present study. Future research could examine this possibility beginning with reimagining of the course's educatio nal technology integration. A third direction for future research is to build upon this study's results and implications into new theoretical work - sp ecifically in defining in greater detail what "social justice knowledge" is and the role it plays in educators' practice. This study conceptualized "social justice knowledge" as a single outcome variable of a pre-service teacher course, but future work might more fully define it as a unique fund of knowledge as well as part of a broader kind of knowledge that intersects with an instructor's pedagogical and content areas of knowledge to inform his/he r socially-just practice. In other words, this "social justice pedagogical content knowledge" (SJ-PCK) represents a knowledge of how to teach one's subject matte r content in a way that raises students' 158 critical consciousness about systems of inequality, and empo wers students to challenge these systems as students and adults. Defining Social justice pedagogical content knowledge and examining the relationship between these knowledge domains could also contribute to future pedagogical research in social justice education. As with many fields, linking theory to practice is a challenge for social justice e ducators. For example, many researchers and authors (e.g., Lee & Okazawa-Rey, 1997) de scribe ways of teaching subject matter content from a socially-just perspective, but fail to address the necessary-but-not- sufficient social justice knowledge needed in order to effectively do so. Examining SJ- PCK may help to better unde rstand the connection between teachers' socially just pedagogical perspectives (e.g., Culturally Relevant Pedagogy) and their actual practice. Future research may better define this know ledge and examine how it can be developed alongside teachers' content and pedagogical knowledge areas.. Conclusion Overall, the results of this study supporte d claims made by previous research that social justice teacher education courses can ha ve an impact on students' dispositions and that educational technologies can be integrated into instruction in a way that helps teachers achieve their instructional goals. Quan titative analysis indica ted that, due to their common and unique affordances, the high-technology and traditional approaches were equally effective at significantly impacting students' social jus tice dispositions and knowledge. These results give evidence that, at the very least, using educational technologies such as blogs, wikis and video journals, does not interfere with students' learning in these courses. What is more, qual itative data analysis seems to indicate that 159 there was some untapped potential in the Web 2.0 technologies; that a redesign of course learning tasks could take fuller advantage of these technologies' affordances for social justice learning, This is a hopeful conclusion and one that can inform future research and practice for these kinds of courses. This study set out to make a connecti on between the fields of educational technology and social justice education in order to examine ways in which the affordances of a set of Web 2.0 technologies may help achieve the learning goals of pre- service social justice teacher education courses. Researchers and practitioners often seek to improve the effectiveness of their teaching, in this case, shifting students' dispositions to be more socially just and deepening thei r knowledge of issues related to systems of inequality as they appear in educational contexts. Meanwhile, the field of educational technology has put forth a number of insights ab out various applications may foster the kind of cognitive processes required for achievi ng certain learning goals. Bring together these two fields, this study began with the belief that the educational affordances of blogs, wikis, and video journals - namely that they foster a deep understanding of multifaceted concepts through collaboration a nd support deeper reflection and connecting ideas through hyperlinking and feedback channels - may be particularly useful for these kinds of courses. In order to make this connection and dr aw conclusions about these technologies utility for the field of soci al justice teacher educati on, this study drew on existing research, but also had to expand upon that research in multiple ways. First, a key component of this study was moving beyond th e traditionally studied learning goals for social justice teacher education courses, i.e ., students' dispositions, and into examining 160 changes in students' foundational understanding about issues of identity and inequality in education. This expansion was seen as im portant because, in order for teachers to effectively teach from a socially-j ust pedagogy, they need to not only believe in the need to address issues of systemic inequality in their teaching, they must fully understand what those issues are. To measure this change in knowledge, a new instrument was constructed and implemented, with noted limitations. Second, this study expanded upon previous empirical and theoretical research on the educational affordances of blogs, wikis and video journals by applying those affordances to a new, under-researched context. From an educational psychology perspective, research on these technologies educational affordances has been applied to various content areas, but has largely left unexamined their utility in achieving social justice education learning goals. This study adds additional evidence to the results and insights from previous research on these technologies while transferring those results into a new domain. In all, these two areas of e xpansion represent significant contributions to the fields informing this research and hope fully strengthen the emerging intersectional field of research on educational technologi es for social justice teacher education. 161 APPENDICES 162 Appendix A - Foundational Course Information Course Syllabus Course Description: This course introduces prospective teachers to the ways in which social inequality affects schooling and schooling affects social inequality. This course is not a celebration of difference. Rather, this course is designed to allow students to examine how socially constructed categories (e.g., social class, race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, etc.) are used to privilege some individuals and groups and marginalize others. The course focuses mostly on one social institution, public schools in the United States; however, we will examine how other social institutions influence opportunities for success and failure in schools. Central themes of the course in clude culture, power, and difference. Some key questions this course will explore include: In what ways do schools create, perpetuate, and exacerbate inequality? How do systems of privilege impact individualsâ„¢ opportunities for social and economic mobility? In what ways do teachers and students jointly produce conditions for successful learning or frustrating failure? How do school-community relationships a ffect student opportunities to learn? What does it mean to teach for social ju stice in schools of a ll types and levels? We will identify the ways in which teachers in fluence the distribution of educational and social opportunities, whether they intend to or not. This means that teachers need to understand how their pedagogy and instructional strategies affect student achievement and life opportunities. We will achieve this goal by questioning the way things are in society and challenging our assumptions, bi ases, and stereotype s and those of our colleagues. This course is not a methods course that provides answers for successfully working in diverse classrooms. Rather, it is about how power influences schooling experiences of and opportunities for students. In that way, this course will help you better understand some of the basic social, historical, cultu ral elements at work in schools today and prepare you for your experiences working with these elements as a teaching intern. This course is a required part of your preparation towards your internship year; further information about the criteria for in ternship preparation can be found at: http://education.msu.edu/academics/undergraduate/criteria-for-progression.asp Required Texts Course pack (Available at Bookstore, across from the Union) Grade Breakdown To compute your final grade, add up the points you earned for each assignment and locate that percentage in the following table. I round up starting with .5% (i.e., a 92.5 is a 4.0, but a 92.4 is a 3.5) 163 Assignments GPA Ranges Attendance & Participation 10% 100-94% 4.0 Reading Responses 13% 93-86% 3.5 Schooling/Cultural autobiography 20% 85-80% 3.0 Unit 1 Take Home Exam 11% 79-75% 2.5 Current Event/Media Analysis Paper 15% 74-70% 2.0 Identity Group Paper 15% 69-65% 1.5 Service Learning Journals 6% 64-60% 1.0 Service Learning Paper 10% <60% 0.0 Assessments Attendance, Preparation & Participation (10%) Attendance To ensure the regular on-time attendance and full participation in class that is critical to learning, I will take attendance at every class session and make note of late arrivals and early leavings. You may miss up to two class sessions without impacting your grade. However, if you a third class session, your grad e for this part of c ourse will be lowered by 50% (i.e., from 10% to 5%). Four absences will result in a zero for this part of course. Absences due to illness, family emergencies, funerals, car trouble, etc., will be counted toward the two absence limit. Documentati on is not required; however, because you get only two absences, it would be wise to save them for unpredictable circumstances. Absences due to participation in university-approved events (e.g., religious holidays, intercollegiate sports, etc.) will not count towa rd the absence limit, but do require written documentation of your participation in these activities at the beginning of the semester and arrange to make up any missing work as fa r in advance of your absence as possible. In addition, two late arrivals or early departures (more than 10 minutes late or early) will count as one absence. As with full-class absences, documentation for why you arrived late or need to leave early is not necessary, but you should alwa ys plan to be in class on time and to stay for the entire period, saving any late arrivals or early departures for emergency situations. You are required to complete 20 hours at you r service learning site (2 hours each week) For absences at your Service Learning sites, you must call your host teacher in advance if you are unable to meet a field visit comm itment and you must make up all Service Learning field absences. If you do not complete all 20 hours of service learning, you cannot pass this course. In accordance with the Teacher Preparation Programâ„¢s Professional Conduct Policy, attendance and punctuality in class meetings and field experiences are critical to your success in this course and in the Program. It is your responsibility to familiarize yourself with these policies, available online at: [removed to de-identify] In the case of recurring absences or tardiness, youâ„¢re the College of Education will be notified and you may be required to attend a meeting regarding your attendance. 164 Preparation & Participation Students are expected to thoroughly prepare for and actively participate in class. Thorough preparation includes reviewing readin g all required assigned readings for each class, reviewing previous class notes, and possibly doing additional outside reading/research. Active participation in cludes reading the assi gned reading BEFORE attending class, bringing the readings to class, taking notes, being attentive, participating in class discussions and listening to comments raised by others. Students will be assessed on their preparation and participation based on the frequency, quality, and clarity of their contributions in class discussions and activities. Throughout the semester I will monitor each studentâ„¢s part icipation, and provide feedback to them to suggest, if needed what adjustments in prepar ation for and participation in class may be needed. If students continue to participate very during class, points may be deducted from the final grade for this part of the course. As a final note about participation, I encourage active discussions in an atmosphere that allows everyone to talk comfortably. There are no right or wrong questions or comments, but offensive comments directed at groups or individuals will not be tolerated. We recognize that this is a learning community, so you may ask about issues you do not understand, but please be considerate when framing your questions. If you are uncomfortable with the classroom dynamics, you s hould feel free to say so in class or talk with me during office hours. Reading Responses 13% In preparation for each class period, you will be required to post a brief response to the readings. At the end of most classes, I will provide a set of questions to guide your reading of the homework articles. As you rea d, keep these questions in mind and make notes as you craft an answer to them. Pr ior to each class, you will need to post your response to these questions in a private ï¬Reading Responsesfl forum in Angel. Each response should be about 250 words and will on ly be viewable by the author (you) and me. In your response, do not spend much tim e summarizing the artic le; you can assume your audience has read the articles as well. Your response posting is due by 10am the morning of each class period, but I HIGHLY re commend finishing your readings as early as possible and posting your responses at least by the night before. The Angel Reading Response forum will automatically lock at 10am and no additional postings will be accepted. Schooling/Cultural Autobiography (20%) Understanding how your personal and schooling experiences have shaped your own assumptions about teaching and learning is esse ntial to the aims of the course. To help you examine these experiences analytically, you will compose an autobiography in two parts in which you reflect on your own identity and the ways in which identity markers (such as social class, race , ethnicity, language, ability, ge nder, sexual orientation, etc.) informed your schooling experiences. C onsider in your essay what your schooling experiences might have taught you about your own identity. 165 Unit 1 Take Home Exam (11%) At the end of Unit 1, you will be given a paper exam to complete before the next class session (2 days). This exam will assess the depth and accuracy of your understanding of key concepts from the first part of this course. Questions on this exam will be in the form of multiple choice, matching, short answer a nd essay. The exam is ï¬open book;fl meaning students will be allowed to use their notes to help them answer questions, however, questions will require more than simple recall/recognition of terms and concepts from the readings and instead will as k students to interpret, analyze and apply those terms and concepts in their own thinking. Current Event/Media Analysis Paper (15%) For this assignment, students will write a crit ical analysis paper (7-9 double spaced pages in length) regarding topics addressed in the course. Critical reflection papers are responses to questions about class concepts as they are expressed in current events, different forms of media, and/or popular culture. This paper should demonstrate your understanding of assigned readings and should draw on class discussions, videos and activities to analyze an outside-of-class phenomenon. In general, your writing is evaluated on the thoughtfulness of your ideas, articulation of your argument, and clarity of writing. Identity Marker Group Paper (15%) At the end of Unit 1, students will join groups based on a specific identity mark er they are interested in. Over the course of the semester, students will work individually and with their groups to write a critical analysis group paper about multiple aspects of social positioning such as privilege, oppression, dominant & non-dominant groups and intersectionality, as they relate to a singl e identity marker. Ea ch student will be responsible for about 3 double spaced pages of the entire paper which will be 10-12 double spaced pages. The paper is due at the end of the semester and should flow as one document to demonstrate the groupsâ„¢ collect ive understanding of social positioning and identity markers by drawing on assigned readings, and possibly additional sources. Service learning (16%) Service Learning Journals (6%) You will submit 6 service learni ng journals in which you refl ect critically on a specific situation/experience you are having through the lens of the course readings. The entries should be about 2 pages double spaced. Only 1 journal per week is allowed, so you need to post a single journal entry, by 9pm on the Friday of that week, 6 times over the course of the semester. One purpose of the journals is to help you write a strong final paper. So, for each journal entry, I suggest you try to include the following, focusing on Interpretation and Insights: 1) Description: Briefly describe what happened at your placement in as much detail as possible. 2) Interpretation: Comment on what happenedÅ this can include your thoughts and personal reactions/feelings, what you learned, why you think certain things happened, etc. 166 3) Insights: Connect your interpretations to larger ideas, read ings class discussions. Is something you experienced in your placement a possible example of something we read about in class? Service Learning Final Paper (10%) At the end of the semester, you will refl ect on the whole of your experience at your placement school. This reflection should bu ild on and go beyond the descriptions, interpretations and insights you wrote about in previous journal entries to discuss aspects of social power and identity as they appeared at your service learning site, as well as offer a critical reflection on how your thinking about these issues has changed over the course of the semester. Submission instructions and Late Assignments: Students are expected to meet writing deadlin es. Any work submitted after its due date will be considered late. Late papers will be reduced by 20% for the first day of lateness and an additional 20% for any time later, except in extreme cases. If you are having trouble meeting a deadline, PLEASE communi cate with me in advance, alternative options can often be made. Most written cl ass assignments (papers and online reading responses) will be submitted on the course CMS site. Please note the dropboxes and discussion forums for these assignmen ts WILL CLOSE AUTOMATICALLY at the posted deadline. Late papers must be ema iled directly to me and no late discussion postings will be accepted. Class Schedule The following list of questions will be helpful to keep in mind as you read each reading. What are the key ideas or concepts that the readings present? What does the reading have to do with pa rticular aspects of diversity, power, opportunity? What argument is the author(s) trying to make? Where do you agree/disagree? Why? In what ways is the argument pe rsuasive or not to you? Why? What do you think the author failed to cons ider about the issue? Why? Why not? What strikes you as particularly interest ing, surprising, insightful, irritating, etc.? This course schedule is a guide and is subject to change. Any such changes will be announced in class or through email. If you miss a class, it is your responsibility to clarify if there have been any changes to the readin g assignments for the following day. Date Topic Come to class having read– Unit 1 Å’ Systems of Opportunity, Privilege & Oppression Wed. Aug. 31st Course Intro Mon. Sep. 5th No Class Å’ Labor Day Wed. Sep. 7th Purposes of Schooling Service Learning intro Norms & Learning Freire Å’ Ch 2, Pedagogy of the Oppressed Mon. Sep. Purposes of Schooling Labaree Å’ The American (High) School 167 12th has Failed its Missions Hocschild & Scovronick Å’ What Americans Want from Public Schools Wed. Sep. 14th Identity Tatum Å’ The Complexity of Identity Mon. Sep. 19th Cycle of Socialization Social Construction of Normality & Difference Harro Å’ The Cycle of Socialization Watch ï¬Mickey Mouse Monopolyfl (online) Christensen Å’ Unlearning the myths that Bind us Wed. Sep. 21st Privilege Johnson Å’ Privilege, Oppression & Difference Johnson Å’ How Systems of Privilege Work Wildman & Davis Å’ Language & Silence (optional) Thurs. Sep 22nd Cultural Autobiography part 1 due by 9pm Mon. Sep 26th Forms of Oppression & Discrimination Pincus Å’ Discrimination Comes in Many Forms Young Å’ Five Faces of Oppression Wed. Sep. 28th Theories of Academic Success & Failure Nieto Å’ Toward an Understanding of School Achievement Langston Å’ Tired of Playing Monopoly? Sleeter & Grant Å’ Race, Class, Gender, and Abandoned Dreams (optional) Thur. Sep. 29th Pick identity groups (Angel) Unit 2 - Issues of Identity in Education Mon. Oct. 3rd Revisit Norms & Learning Gender: Overview Lorber Å’ Night to his Day Take home exam assigned at end of class Wed. Oct. 5th Gender: Bias & Discrimination Sadker & ZittlemanÅ’ Gender Bias Take home exam due at beginning of class Mon. Oct. 10th Gender: Body Image Watch ï¬Killing us Softly 4fl (online) Pope, Phillips & Olivardia - The Adonis Complex Wed. Oct. 12th Sexual Orientation: Overview & Culture of schools Friend Å’ Heterosexism, Homophobia & the Culture of Schooling Mon. Oct. 17th Sexual Orientation: Homophobia & Inclusion Blumenfeld Å’ How Homophobia Hurts Everyone Mayo Å’ Queer Lessons: Sexual & Gender Minorities in Multicultural Education 168 Wed. Oct. 19th Race: Overview Tatum Å’ Defining Racism Tenorio Å’ Race and Respect Among Young Children Takaki Å’ A Different Mirror (angel, optional) Mon. Oct. 24th Race: History of Racism in the U.S. Race: Educational Experiences of People of Color Minter & Prettyman Å’ ï¬Educationfl from the EoAAC&H Wingfield & Karaman Å’ Arab Stereotypes and American Education San Miguel Å’ Contested Learning: Latino Education in the US Spring Å’ Asian Americans: Exclusion & Segregation Klug & Whitfield Å’ A Brief History of American Indian Education Wed. Oct. 26th Race: White Privilege McIntosh Å’ White Privilege Olson Å’ White Privilege in Schools Howard Å’ Ch 3 Decoding the Dominance Paradigm Mon. Oct. 31st Race: Wrap up ÅHoward Å’ Ch 7 White Teachers & School Reform Edgington Å’ Moving Beyond White Guilt (optional) Wed. Nov. 2nd Language: Overview of Immersion, ESL & Bilingual Education Nieto Å’ Linguistic Diversity in the US Classroom Stritikus & Varghese Å’ Language Diversity and Schooling Mon. Nov. 7th Language: Linguicism & Discrimination Hays Å’ To Track or Not to Track Cummins Å’ The Two Faces of Language Proficiency Wed. Nov. 9th Language: Linguicism & Discrimination Continued Watch ï¬Do You Speak American?fl clips (online) Artiles et al. Å’ ELL Representation in SPED in California Urban School Districts (Angel) Mon. Nov. 14th Social Class: Equity & Opportunity Re-read Langston Å’ Tired of Playing Monopoly? Hodges-Persell - Social Class & Ed Equality Anyon Å’ Social Class and School Knowledge Nocera Å’ How the Middle Class has Helped Ruin Public Schools (optional) Wed. Nov. 16th Social Class: Social/Cultural Capital Lareau Å’ Why Does Social Class Influence Parent Involvement in Schooling? 169 Carter Å’ ï¬Blackfl Cultural Capital Thur. Nov. 17th Current Event/Media Analysis due by 9pm Mon. Nov. 21st Ability (physical) Special Education Smart Å’ Experiencing Prejudice & Discrimination Wed. Nov. 23rd Ability (mental & cognitive) Special Education ÅWikipedia Å’ Learning Disability (Intro, Types & Diagnosis) Harry & Klingner Å’ Constructing Learning Disabilities Harry & Klingner Å’ Constructing Behavior Disorders Siegel Å’ IQ-Discrepancy Definitions and the Diagnosis of LD Mon. Nov. 28th Special Education: Overview Bicard & Heward Å’ Educational Equality for Students with Disabilities McNeal & Oâ„¢Rourke Å’ Legal Foundations of Special Education Wed. Nov. 30th Special Education: Issues & Challenges Losen & Orfield Å’ Racial Inequality in Special Education Smith, Salend & Ryan Å’ Watch Your Language Meyer, Bevan-Brown, Harry & Sapon-Shevin Å’ School Inclusion and Multicultural Issues in Special Education Unit 3 - Beyond the Current & Present Mon. Dec. 5th School Funding Biddle & Berliner Å’ Unequal School Funding in the US Rothstein Å’ Where has all the Money Gone? Arsen et al Å’ Adequacy, Equity & Capital Spending in Michigan Schools (optional, Angel) Wed. Dec. 7th Moving Forward McClintock Å’ How to Interrupt Oppressive Behavior ÅBHH reading of your choice (angel) Thurs., Dec 8th ÅCultural Autobiography part 2 due by 9pm Thur. Dec. 15th 10am- 12:00pm in our classroom Course Wrapup: Identity group presentations & Feedback Identity group papers due Service Learning Final Paper due 170 Core Course Concepts Derived from official cour se instructors' framework. Concept Examples/ Explanation Associated Authors/ Theories Aspects of Social Power Purposes of schools Social mobility; democratic citizenship; social efficiency Labaree Social construction of identity markers ï¬sexfl vs ï¬genderfl Harroâ„¢s Cycle of Socialization Social construction of normality & difference Dominant and subordinate groups; ï¬otheringflTatum & Harro Intersectionality of identity markers Intersection of race and gender Tatum Privilege Unearned advantages, co nferred dominance Johnson, Wildman & Davis Forms of discrimination & oppression Individual, institutional & structural discrimination (especially teacher expectations and tracking); violence, marginalization, cultural imperialism, powerlessness, exploitation Pincus & Young Theories of academic success & failure Meritocracy; deficit theories; resistance theories, Social reproduction theory Nieto School funding Property tax struct ures and other sources of school funding; inequality in school funding Berliner & Biddle; Rothstein Socially Constructed Identity Markers Gender Sexism; gender roles and re sponsibilities Sadker & Zittleman; Lorber; Pope Sexual Orientation Heterosexism and homophobia; violence and harassment of LGBTQ students in schools Kimmel; Friend; Blumfeld Race Biological vs. social explanations of race; historical and current racism in U.S. and public schools; the Achievement Gap between white students and students of colorTakaki; Tatum Language Linguicism; school practices for educating English Language Learners; African American Vernacular English Nieto; Krashen; Cummins; Hayes Social Class SES and group a ffinity; classism; roles of schools in social reproduction theory Anyon; Hodges-Persell; Lareau Ability (physical & cognitive) Social construction of ability/disability; Abelism; diagnosis and education of students with cognitive and learning impairments Smart; Heward & Cavanaugh; Harry & Klingner 171 Course Beliefs and Knowledge Learning Goals Derived from official course framework for instructors document B1 Identity markers are largely, if not entirely, socially constructed B2 Social power, discrimination and privile ge is real in society (debunking myth of meritocracy) B3 Belief in bias (oneâ„¢s own & others) B4 Schools & teachers have historically, and continue to operate in a way that perpetuates inequality B5 Schools in all areas & teach ers in all subjects should be change agents for students and society by incorporating multicultural curriculum and making issues of inequality explicit in their work K1 Critical knowledge of self ; personal biases, past experiences as shaping beliefs; knowledge of own beliefs & assumptions; knowledge of own identity markers; knowledge of how these influence their own educational experiences K2 Critical knowledge of students; knowledge of their cultures and identity markers; how these influence their educational experiences K3 Critical knowledge of current and histor ical political and social contexts of education 172 Appendix B - Detail of Sources for Data Collection Learning to Teach for Social JusticeÅ Beliefs scale Respond to the following statements re garding your beliefs about teaching 1 An important part of learning to be a t eacher is examining oneâ„¢s own attitudes and beliefs about race, class, gender, disabilities, and sexual orientation 2 Issues related to racism and inequity should be openly discussed in the classroom. 3R For the most part, covering multicultural t opics is only relevant to certain subject areas, such as social studies and literature. 4 Good teaching incorporates diverse cu ltures and experiences into classroom lessons and discussions. 5R The most important goal in working with immigrant children and English language learners is that they assimilate into American society. 6R Itâ„¢s reasonable for teachers to have lo wer classroom expectations for students who donâ„¢t speak English as their first language. 7 Part of the responsibilities of the teache r is to challenge school arrangements that maintain societal inequities. 8 Teachers should teach students to think cr itically about government positions and actions. 9R Economically disadvantaged students have more to gain in schools because they bring less into the classroom. 10R Although teachers have to appreciate divers ity, itâ„¢s not their job to change society. 11R Whether students succeed in school de pends primarily on how hard they work. 12R Realistically, the job of a teacher is to pr epare students for the lives they are likely to lead. a Likert response categories: Strongly Disagree=1, Disagree=2, Uncertain=3, Agree=4, Strongly Agree=5 b R: denotes the categories were reverse scored. Social Justice Knowledge Short Essay Assignment On your own paper, answer each of the first three questions as fully as you can. Set a time limit of 30 minutes to answer all three questions. 1) How will your own personal past experiences , beliefs and perspectives influence your work as a teacher? 2) How will your studentsâ„¢ past experiences, be liefs and perspectives influence them in your class? 3) What are some social, historical and politic al contexts that have shaped the evolution of American public schools? How are these c ontexts still influencing how schools operate today? 173 During pilot study; a 4th question was added: 4) Give me some feedback on these questi ons– What was it like for you to answer these questions? Are they clear? Confusing? How long did you take to answer each one? How well did what you learned in TE250 last semest er help you in answering these questions? Short Essay Assignment Å’ SJ Knowledge Scale Questions 1) How will your own personal past experiences, beliefs and perspectives influence your work as a teacher? Sub-Domain/Score N/A 1 2 3 4 Degree of emphasis on cultural knowledge Tangible is the sole focus. No (limited) reference to cultural knowledge. Most of the focus is on the tangible. There is little focus on the cultural knowledge. Most of the focus is on the cultural. There is little focus on the tangible. Tangible is only relevant as it relates to the cultural. Awareness of mutability of beliefs Little awareness of mutability of beliefs and no examples. Vague awareness of mutability of beliefs with no examples. Basic awareness of mutability of beliefs with vague examples. Deep awareness of mutability of beliefs with potentially specific examples. Awareness that their past experience is unique and limited to them. Little awareness of limited perspective with no examples. Vague awareness of limited perspective with no examples. Basic awareness of limited perspective with vague examples. Deep awareness of limited perspective with potentially specific examples. Understanding of the connection of past experiences to current beliefs Little understandi ng of the connection, with no vocab. and no examples. Vague understanding of the connection with no vocab and no examples. Basic understanding of the connection with use of empty vocab and vague examples. Deep understandin g of the connection with vocabulary used specifically and 174 meaningfully with specific examples. Understanding of the connection of current experiences and beliefs to future beliefs and practices Little understandi ng of the connection with no v and no examples. Vague understanding of the connection with no vocab and no examples. Basic understanding of the connection with the use of vocabulary and vague examples. Deep understandin g of the connection with vocabulary used specifically and meaningfully with specific examples. 2) How will your students' past experiences, beliefs and perspectives influence them in your class? Sub-Domain/Score N/A 1 2 3 4 Degree of emphasis on cultural knowledge Tangible is the sole focus. No (limited) reference to cultural knowledge. Most of the focus is on the tangible. There is little focus on the cultural knowledge. Most of the focus is on the cultural. There is little focus on the tangible. Tangible is only relevant as it relates to the cultural. Awareness of mutability of beliefs Little awareness of mutability of beliefs and no examples. Vague awareness of mutability of beliefs with no examples. Basic awareness of mutability of beliefs with vague examples. Deep awareness of mutability of beliefs with potentially specific examples. Awareness that students' past experience is unique and limited to each of them. Little awareness of limited perspective with no examples. Vague awareness of limited perspective with no examples. Basic awareness of limited perspective with vague examples. Deep awareness of limited perspective with potentially specific examples. 175 Understanding of the connection of past experiences to current beliefs Little understandi ng of the connection, with no vocab. and no examples. Vague understanding of the connection with no vocab and no examples. Basic understanding of the connection with use of empty vocab and vague examples. Deep understandin g of the connection with vocabulary used specifically and meaningfully with specific examples. 176 3) What are some social, historical and political contexts that have shaped the evolution of American public schools? How are these contexts still influencing how schools operate today? Sub-Domain/Scor e N/A 1 2 3 4 Degree of emphasis on social justice- minded contexts Neutral is the sole focus. No (limited) reference to social justice- minded contexts Most of the focus is on the neutral. There is little focus on social justice- minded contexts. May mention diversity, but not in a socially-just, critically conscious way Most of the focus is on social justice- minded contexts. There is little focus on neutral contexts. Neutral is only relevant as it relates to the social justice- minded contexts. Number of contexts considered 1 context considered 2 contexts considered 3 contexts considered 4 or more contexts considered Depth of understanding of the influence contexts have had on schools Little understanding of the influence, with no vocabulary and no examples Vague understanding of the influence with no vocabulary and no examples Basic understandin g of the influence with use of empty vocabulary and vague examples Deep understanding of the influence with vocabulary used specifically and meaningfully with specific examples Depth of understanding of the influence contexts still have on schools Little understanding of the influence, with no vocabulary and no examples Vague understanding of the influence with no vocabulary and no examples Basic understandin g of the influence with use of empty vocabulary and vague examples Deep understanding of the influence with vocabulary used specifically and meaningfully with specific examples 177 Short Essay Assignment SJ Knowledge Scale Sample Answers Question 1 - How will your own personal past experiences, beliefs and perspectives influence your work as a teacher? (Sub-domains: 1) Degree of emphasis on cultural knowledge, 2) Awareness of mut ability of beliefs, 3) Awareness that their past experience is unique and limited to them, 4) Understandi ng of the connection of past experiences to current beliefs, 5) Understanding of the conne ction of current experiences and beliefs to future beliefs and practices.) Score: 1 (1,1,1,1,1) "My past experiences will play a huge role in how I plan to operate as a teacher. Over the years, I have had a few teachers that have changed my life forever. I will incorporate things I remember from those classrooms in to mine, with the hope to instill the same passion in school in my students as my teachers did in me. I have also had teachers that have changed how I view school in a negative way. Because I've been through this, I plan to teach differently than they did. My know ledge on good and bad teachers from my past will guide me as I create a teaching style of my own. My beliefs and perspectives will also be powerful while shaping who I am as a teacher. I believe that learning can be fun, and that every child can learn. I will push that belief into my classroom so hopefully my students will feel the same way. - SN1 Pre-test Score 1.6 (1.59 was pre-test question 1 mean) (2, 1, 2, 2, 1) "Growing up, I have always been good at school. I developed efficient studying tactics early on. I believe this and my passion for what I am looking into teaching (science) could help make me an excellent teacher. Ot her than that, my experiences at high school will also influence my work. [My high sc hool] had many good teachers that left an impression. I had one world history teacher w ho only lectured, but he enjoyed what he was talking about so much that his student s paid attention all hours. – These teachers showed me that there are many effective ways to explain a topic to your class and that the more passionate and honest you are, the better. Secondly, this class deals with diversity in classrooms. Being open to many different types of people - race, gender, religion, sexuality is something that was instilled in me by my family from a young age. I think openness is the first step to any functioning classroom." SR1 Pre-test Score 2.4 (2.2 was post-test question 1 mean) (3,2,2,2,3) "I will treat my ESL students with the same amount of re spect and understanding as I received in my German school. Certain thi ngs teachers did were wonderful, like treating me with respect and treating me as if I was a German student, and grading me as one, too, but with a bit more help in comprehensi on. I will examine my own thoughts and actions more in the classroom. Asking myself, "Why do I feel this way and is it right? Am I doing this because of old stereotypes and belief s?" I will also try to bring into my lesson more multicultural ideas and activities." AB1 Post-test Score 3.6 (highest across all sections) (4,4,4,3,3) "I grew up in a conservative household that was very careful with money and very open about ideas on earning what you receive. For a long time, this was my understanding of 178 economics and society, not paying any attenti on to where people come from and what they're given. Now I see both sides, and sit ting atop the fence shows a lot more than you could see on one side or the other. My goal is to have an equal opportunity classroom where a rating on merit can be perceived th rough a lens of cultural acceptance and understanding." JM1 Post-test Question 2 - How will your studentsâ„¢ past experiences, beliefs and perspectives influence them in your class? (Sub-domains: 1) Degree of emphasis on cultural knowledge, 2) Awareness of mutability of beliefs, 3) Awareness that students' past experience is unique and limited to each of them., 4) Understanding of the connection of past experiences to current beliefs) Score: 1 (1,1,1,1,1) "My students' past experiences, beliefs, and pe rspectives will influence my class in many different ways that could be considered challenging. But when I do encounter these situations I will e ready for the challenge. I wi ll try my best to be a neutral teacher and will not take sides. I will not attempt to change their minds because I feel as if that is the students' decision. But I will discuss with them my past experiences, beliefs, and perspectives. I believe that informing student s about the things stated above will help make them form an opinion as an individual." JC1 Pre-test Score: 1.75 (1.66 was pre-test question 2 mean) (1,1,3,2) "I believe that if a student has a bad attitude in class or perceive that the class is going to be uninteresting, he will not succeed in the classroom without vigorous effort. Also, if the student has experienced a poor teacher in the past, he will project those memories of a bad teacher on to me and fail to respect the class or take it seriously. However, if a student has had good experiences and comes into the room with a positive attitude and believe that he or she can succeed in the cla ssroom, they are much more likely to achieve and score on the material." PB2 Pre-test Score: 2 (1.96 was post-test question 2 mean) (1,1,4,2) "My students' past experiences, beliefs and pers pectives will greatly influence them in my classroom. If students have had bad experiences they may be more inclined to act up or not try as hard in class as students that have had good academic experiences. Their experiences may also contribute to how much they are comfortable in doing in class such as speaking out in class or answering questions out loud. If a student believes that they must receive an education and that it is importa nt to them or their families, they may be inclined to put in more effort without my encouragement then if a student does not see the value of an education. Also, students may act differently if they believe they cannot succeed in school versus if they think they can. Or, if the option of college is an economically viable one, students may try hard er because they believe they can go farther in school. If students have beliefs or experiences that oppose the way I am conducting my class, they may call me out on that idea or act up or dismiss things that I have to teach them because the do not respect my way of teaching." KR2 Post-test 179 Score: 2.75 (highest across all sections) (4,1,3,3) "How students view their position in the school influences how they're educated. if a student ahs felt oppressed, they are more likely to do poorly in the educational system because it works against them, understandably. It is unfair to expect the same results from students treated unfairly. the teacher has to make an effo rt to try and treat students equally, because of this." WG1 Post-test Question 3 - What are some social, historical and political contexts that have shaped the evolution of American public schools? How are these contexts still influencing how schools operate today? (Sub-domains: 1) Degree of emphasis on social justice-minded contexts, 2) Number of contexts c onsidered, 3) Depth of understanding of the influence contexts have had on schools, 4) Depth of understanding of the influence contexts still have on schools) Score 1: (1,1,1,1) "Schools are very different in different areas for starters. Some schools were very tough on their students about education and still are today. Others schools don't push for anything, so either the student gets it or they don't. I find both methods to be flawed. If teachers were to make learning interesting but still make sure they keep order then everybody comes out winners. We can't change the learning process without changing ourselves." JD2 Pre-test Score: 2.25 (2.19 was pre-test question 3 mean) (4,1,3,1) "The evolution of the American public school goes back a very long time, all the way back to social dividers like segregation and the infection of racism in the public school. One major change in the public school system happened when schools were desegregated. National Guard troops had to escort children into a Birmingham school to keep them from being lynched. Racism in sc hools is not so prevalent today, but still exists, especially in the South. Many political acts, such as desegregation of schools and the Civil Rights Act helped bring us to where we are today." JV1 Pre-test Score: 2.5 (2.43 was post-test question 3 mean) (4,2,2,2) "Many social, historical, and political contexts have shaped the evolution of American public schools, specifically, when schools we re segregated by race. Schools are obviously still not separated by law, but in "all colors" schools, children still tend to socialize together. I believe that this was somewhat in fluenced by early segregation. There has also been plenty of cases having to deal with the inequality of education (Brown vs. Board of Education) that have created more equality in public schools, yet there is still major unequal education still occurring. this unequal education has to deal with a lot of funding done by the state and local property taxes." JC1 Post-test Score: 4 (highest across all sections) (4,4,4,4) "When educational foundations were first establ ished in the U.S. it was to benefit elite white men, thus schools were funded by local ta x. Today, this factor greatly influences the quality of education in poor and richer neighborhoods. After Brown vs. Board of Education, schools ceased to be segregated. today, stereotypes about race are still 180 prevalent in actions toward minority race students, who are overrepresented in some schools. Recently, it has increased in so cial acceptability and expression to be homosexual or bisexual. While some students suffer silently and others broadly boast, actions taken by schools vary in location. Some state laws prohibit discussion on minority sexuality and others claim classrooms are a " homophobic free zone." In the 90's, the U.S. government passed regulations for special educat ion, ensuring that they received a chance at "equal education." Some students have been correctly diagnoses, over diagnosed (younger boys) and under diagnosed (young women). EB1 Post-test Qualitative Data Sources Sample Service Learning Journal Prompts Week 3 (week of 10/10): Last week and this week we're studying gender as a social construction. What are some ways you see students (and teachers) "doing gender" by acting out cultural norms for their gender? Do you see any evidence of gender bias in the teaching or curriculum (refer back to exam ples from Sadker & Zittleman for help)? Week 4 (week of 10/17): We've been focusi ng on sexual orientation in class. A major point about this identity ma rker is how homophobia and he terosexism are a fundamental part of schools. Do you see any evidence of that in your classroom? Are their any homophobic actions or words used? Do the studen ts or teacher act/tal k as if everybody is heterosexual? Week 8 (week of 11/14): In class, we've been talking & reading about Social Class, or SES. Do you see any difference in how student s of different economic levels at your site might experience the same school/class differe ntly? Do you see any differences between this school/site and schools/sites that ar e largely made up of people of a different economic levels? If not, why do you think so ? If so, how might these be forms of individual, institutional and/or structural classism? Week 9 (week of 11/21):Do you see any evidence of the forms of prejudice & discrimination Smart described in her article? If not, describe how you think this school has avoided these types of behaviors & actions. If so, describe these behaviors/actions and how you avoid them in your own school/class. Critical analysis Paper Assignment Instructions and Rubric Overview Issues of identity, power, privilege an d opportunity are all around us. In the current media, technological, social, politic al, religious, familial worlds, aspects of peopleâ„¢s and groupsâ„¢ identity are being played out daily. The way these identity markers are expressed and interact with one another often has relevance to larger social functions such as privilege, oppression, discrimination and opportunity. In this paper, you will take a current event or a media artif act and critically analyze it through the lens of core class concepts. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate your understanding of these class 181 concepts as well as your ability to apply them in a real worl d setting by analyzing some phenomenon . Organization This paper will contain three parts. Firs t, begin with a brief introduction that summarizes the current event/media artifact that you will be discussing. I wonâ„¢t be explicitly grading this part of your paper, so do not spend too much time on it. Second, discuss your current event/media artifact through the lens of 2 identity markers. This section should include a brief explanation (1-2 sentences) of what ï¬identityfl means as well as a brief explanat ion of each identity marker you apply. Major identity markers you might refer to are: gende r, sexual orientation, race, language, social class* and disability*. At the end of this section, discuss how the intersection of each of these identity markers is releva nt for your specific event/artifact. Third, critically analyze your event/artifact through the lens of 3 class concepts about social power. Major class concepts in this area that you might refer to are: the Purposes of school, Cycle of Socialization, social construction of normality and difference, forms of privilege, forms of oppre ssion, & forms of discriminati on. Again, begin with a brief explanation of your terms before you start your analysis. Finally, end your paper with a brief discussion of how you might apply this critical analysis with students in your fu ture classroom. I am not expecting a fully articulated lesson plan or even for your ideas to be necessarily realistic, but be as specific as possible. Think about your studentsâ„¢ age and the potential connections between this event/artifact and the subject you might teach . You may focus on ways you would use this analysis in class or outside of class . Grading Criteria The paper is worth 15 points total, but will be graded out of 45 points. This 45 points comes from 9 grading criteria that I will assess on a 0-5 scale (NG, Poor, Acceptable, Good, Very Good, Excelle nt) The grading criteria are: Identity (20 points) Explanation of ï¬identityfl and 2 ï¬identity markersfl Analysis through first identity marker Analysis through second identity marker Analysis of intersectionality of identity markers Social Aspects (20 points) Explanation of each social aspects Analysis through first social aspect Analysis through second social aspect Analysis through third aspect Conclusion (5 points) Future application in your classroom 182 An ï¬excellentfl explanation includes the use of accurate citations from class readings, concise interpretations of those citations and strong, illustrative examples from personal experience or from outside the class. An ï¬excellentfl analysis includes a clear and accurate understanding of class concepts, accurate and insightful connections to class concepts through references to the class readings, discussions, videos and activities. An ï¬excellentfl application includes insightful and creative id eas that are specific to your future teaching situation. Data sources Your paper should draw on evidence from, and your arguments should be supported by, data and ideas from a variety (5-10 total) of sources. When citing these sources, be sure to use APA style citations both in text (e.g., Pincus, 2000, p. 33) and in a collected works cited at the end of the paper. Sources from which to support your thinking and arguments include: Readings from class (at least 5) Outside readings (academic articles/books as well as popular, but reputable books, newspapers, magazines & th eir online equivalents) Class discussions & class activities Service learning experience Interviews & observations with intere sting/relevant teachers and students Personal experience as a student, teacher, tutor, etc Please double check the syllabus for formatting requirements, additional writing guidelines and information on acad emic honesty and late assignments. Identity Score Comments 5 Å’ Excellent 4 - Very Good 3 Å’ Good 2 Å’ Acceptable Explanation of ï¬identityfl and 2 ï¬identity markersfl 1 Å’ Poor 5 Å’ Excellent 4 - Very Good 3 Å’ Good 2 Å’ Acceptable Analysis through first identity marker 1 Å’ Poor 5 Å’ Excellent 4 - Very Good 3 Å’ Good 2 Å’ Acceptable Analysis through second identity marker 1 Å’ Poor 183 5 Å’ Excellent 4 - Very Good 3 Å’ Good 2 Å’ Acceptable Analysis of intersectionality of identity markers 1 Å’ Poor Social Aspects Score Comments 5 Å’ Excellent 4 - Very Good 3 Å’ Good 2 Å’ Acceptable Explanation of each social aspect 1 Å’ Poor 5 Å’ Excellent 4 - Very Good 3 Å’ Good 2 Å’ Acceptable Analysis through first social aspect 1 Å’ Poor 5 Å’ Excellent 4 - Very Good 3 Å’ Good 2 Å’ Acceptable Analysis through second social aspect 1 Å’ Poor Conclusion Score Comments 5 Å’ Excellent 4 - Very Good 3 Å’ Good 2 Å’ Acceptable Future application in your classroom 1 Å’ Poor Critical analysis Blog Assignme nt Instructions and Rubric Overview Issues of identity, power, privilege an d opportunity are all around us. In the current media, technological, social, politic al, religious, familial worlds, aspects of peopleâ„¢s and groupsâ„¢ identity are being played out daily. The way these identity markers are expressed and interact with one another often has relevance to larger social functions such as privilege, oppression, discriminati on and opportunity. In this assignment, you will take a current event or a media artifact and critically analyze it through the lens of core class concepts. The purpose of this assignment is to demonstrate your understanding of these class concepts as well as your ability to appl y them in a real world setting by analyzing some phenomenon . Organization Your analysis will take the form of a series of eight blog posts over the span of several weeks. In general, your posts will cont ain three sections. Your first post will be a 184 brief introduction that introduces the curre nt event/media artifact that you will be discussing and previews the ways in which you will be analyzing it. In the second section, you will discuss your current event/media artifact through the lens of 2 identity markers. Each post should include a brief explanation (1-2 sentences) of the identity marker you are applying. Majo r identity markers you might refer to are: gender, sexual orientation, race, language, soci al class* and disability*. At the end of this section, discuss how the intersection of each of these identity markers is relevant for your specific event/artifact. In the third section, you will critically analy ze your event/artifact through the lens of 2 class concepts about social power. Major class concepts in this area that you might refer to are: the Purposes of school, Cycle of So cialization, social c onstruction of normality and difference, forms of privilege, form s of oppression, & forms of discrimination. Again, in each post, begin with a brief explanation of your terms before you start your analysis. Finally, end your blog with a two part conclusion. Discuss how you might apply this critical analysis with students in your future classroom. I am not expecting a fully articulated lesson plan or even for your ideas to be necessarily realistic, but be as specific as possible. Think about your studentsâ„¢ age and the potential connections between this event/artifact and the subject you might teach . You may focus on ways you would use this analysis in class or outside of class . End you conclusion by revisiting your personal beliefs on the topic and reflecting on how your thinking about this topic and these class concepts may have changed over the course of writing your blog posts. In addition to writing your own blog, each week you will ï¬f ollowfl two other studentsâ„¢ blogs and leave brief comments to their posts. These comments should be about 2-3 meaningful sentences long. Meaningful sentences do things such as: challenge the authorâ„¢s ideas, suggest additional ways of making their argument, and support or extend the authorâ„¢s argument with additional evidence. Post 1 Å’ Introduction & Preview Post 2 Å’ First Identity marker (explain term & apply class theory) Post 3 Å’ Second Identity marker (e xplain term & apply class theory) Post 4 Discuss intersectionality of these 2 id entity markers in your event/artifact Post 5 Å’ First Aspect of Social Power (explain term & a pply class theory) Post 6 Å’ Second Aspect of Social Power (explain term & apply class theory) Post 7 Å’ Future classroom application (be specific & creative) Post 8 Revisit beliefs & reflect on process of writing these posts Grading Criteria The assignment is worth 20 points total, but will be graded out of 60 points. 45 points come from 9 grading criteria that I will assess on a 0-5 scale (NG, Poor, Acceptable, Good, Very Good, Excelle nt) The grading criteria are: Introduction (5 points) 185 Identity (15 points) Analysis through first identity marker Analysis through second identity marker Analysis of intersectionality of identity markers Social Aspects (10 points) Analysis through first social aspect Analysis through second social aspect Conclusion (10 points) Future application in your classroom Revisiting and reflection Explanation of terms (5 points) Accurate brief explanation of class terms used in posts The additional 15 points will come from the comments you leave on other studentsâ„¢ blogs. You will ï¬followfl two other studentsâ„¢ blogs. Each student will make 8 posts for you to comment on. Therefore, you will post 16 brief comments over the course of this assignment. Each of these comments will be worth 1 point (you can get an extra point). As long as you post on time and meet length requirements, your comment will receive full credit. An ï¬excellentfl explanation includes the use of accurate citations from class readings, concise interpretations of those citations and strong, illustrative examples from personal experience or from outside the class. An ï¬excellentfl analysis includes a clear and accurate understanding of class concepts, accurate and insightful connections to class concepts through references to the class readings, discussions, videos and activities. An ï¬excellentfl application includes insightful and creative id eas that are specific to your future teaching situation. Data sources In your posts, when you apply course concep ts of identity markers and aspects of social power, you should draw on evidence from, and your arguments should be supported by, data and ideas from a variety (4-6 total) of sources. When citing these sources, be sure to use APA style citations both in text (e.g., Pincus, 2000, p. 33) and in a collected works cited at the end of the paper. Sources from which to support your thinking and arguments include: ÅReadings from class (at least 4) ÅOutside readings (academic articles/books as well as popular, but reputable books, newspapers, magazines & th eir online equivalents) ÅClass discussions & class activities ÅService learning experience ÅInterviews & observations with interesting/releva nt teachers and students ÅPersonal experience as a student, teacher, tutor, etc 186 Please double check the instructorâ„¢s classroom blog, te250.wordpress.com, for models of explanation and analysis. Overall Score Comments 5 Å’ Excellent 4 - Very Good 3 Å’ Good 2 Å’ Acceptable Explanation of terms for each identity marker and aspect of social power 1 Å’ Poor Introduction 5 Å’ Excellent 4 - Very Good 3 Å’ Good 2 Å’ Acceptable Introduce topic and preview areas of analysis 1 Å’ Poor Identity Score Comments 5 Å’ Excellent 4 - Very Good 3 Å’ Good 2 Å’ Acceptable Analysis through first identity marker 1 Å’ Poor 5 Å’ Excellent 4 - Very Good 3 Å’ Good 2 Å’ Acceptable Analysis through second identity marker 1 Å’ Poor 5 Å’ Excellent 4 - Very Good 3 Å’ Good 2 Å’ Acceptable Analysis of intersectionality of identity markers 1 Å’ Poor Social Aspects Score Comments 5 Å’ Excellent 4 - Very Good 3 Å’ Good 2 Å’ Acceptable Analysis through first social aspect 1 Å’ Poor 5 Å’ Excellent 4 - Very Good 3 Å’ Good 2 Å’ Acceptable Analysis through second social aspect 1 Å’ Poor Conclusion Score Comments Future application in 5 Å’ Excellent 187 4 - Very Good 3 Å’ Good 2 Å’ Acceptable your classroom 1 Å’ Poor 5 Å’ Excellent 4 - Very Good 3 Å’ Good 2 Å’ Acceptable Revisiting initial beliefs 1 Å’ Poor 5 Å’ Excellent 4 - Very Good 3 Å’ Good 2 Å’ Acceptable Reflection on process of writing a blog 1 Å’ Poor Participation Score Comments 5 Å’ Excellent 4 - Very Good 3 Å’ Good 2 Å’ Acceptable Commenting on first blog 1 Å’ Poor 5 Å’ Excellent 4 - Very Good 3 Å’ Good 2 Å’ Acceptable Commenting on second blog 1 Å’ Poor Group Analysis Paper Assignment Instructions and Rubric Overview Students will work indivi dually and with groups of three to write a critical analysis paper about multiple aspects of social positioning such as privilege, discrimination and the social construction of id entity as they relate to a single identity marker. Each student will be responsible fo r about 2-3 double spaced pages of the entire paper which will be 8-10 double spaced pages. The final paper should flow as one document to demonstrate the groupsâ„¢ collect ive understanding of social positioning and identity markers by drawing on assigned readin gs and additional sources. The paper is due submitted on Angel by Thursday December 15 th at 10am. Organization This paper will contain six parts. First, be gin with an introduction paragraph defining your groupâ„¢s identity marker (with an in-text citation to either a course reading or an outside source). The purpose of this paragraph is explain what you mean by "gender" or "race," etc. You may also need to explain what your identity mark is not; i.e., how gender and sex or race and ethnicity are different. Again, you would want a class or outside source to support this argument. Lastly, you sh ould also say something general and broad about your identity marker in society and edu cation that previews the rest of the paper. 188 Second, explain how the identity ma rker is socially constructed. You will apply Harro's Cycle of Socialization theory, starting with the big idea and explaining in general how your identity marker fits into this theory. From there, be more specific and focus on the roles of schools (teachers, curriculum & social aspects) in social izing ideas about your identity marker. Wrap up this section by talk ing about ways teachers can enforce or go against this social construction process. Throughout your explanation you should cite the appropriate readings in-text and fully at the end of this page. You will obviously cite Harro, but you need to also find one additional source to cite that supports your explanation of the social construction of your identity marker, especially as it relates to schools. See section on ï¬data sourcesfl for suggestions on where to find additional sour ces and how to integrate them into your analysis. Third, explain how your groupâ„¢s identity marker is used to discriminate against certain groups. You will mostly be applying Pincus' theory, starting with the big idea and explaining in general how the identity marker fits into this theory. Then, you need to explain all three forms of discrimination and come up with a school-based example of each one. Again, see ï¬data sourcesâ„¢ section below. Fourth, explain how the identity marker creates privilege for members of certain groups. You will likely be explaining Johnson's chapte r from Unit 1 called "Privilege, Oppression and Difference" to explain the two types of privilege. However, for your identity marker, you may have a course reading that also talks about these two types of privilege specifically for your identity maker. You can cite and explain this reading instead of Johnson. Whether you use Johnson or some othe r identity marker specific article on privilege, you will also need one additional source. Fifth, discuss the intersectionality of your identity marker wi th another identity marker. This section is a little different than the ones before it. In this section, you do not have a specific course reading that you are trying to explain. Instead, use your own understanding and one source to explain how your group's identity marker commonly influences/is influenced by another identity ma rker. Your explanation of this intersection should include multiple (2-3) school-based examples. You need to have at least one citation and can either pull from the course readings for examples of intersectionality between two identity markers or find an outsi de source that does so. If you do the former, reread the articles on your identity marker and you likely will see some discussion of its relationship to another identity marker. If you do the later, think about an example of intersectionality you believe to be true, and then look for sources that support or illustrate that. Fifth, you will discuss the critical classroom applications of how teachers might challenge the social construction of normality and forms of discrimination associated with your group's identity marker. You will explain this by giving two examples of lessons or educational activities that woul d not only teach some grade and content area 189 learning goal, but also challenge social inequa lity related to your identity marker. Your two examples may come from your own ideas or you may find examples online of sample lessons and activities that serve this dual purpose of teaching state standards while challenging inequalit y. Sites like Teaching Tolerance and EdChange are good sources of these. I am not expecting a fully articulated less on plan, but spend a few sentences on each lesson/activity explaining what content & grade-level standards it teaches, and how it also encourages/empowers/challenges student s socially. You do not have to have a specific number of citations here, but if you re-present a lesson/activity you found elsewhere, or if you just start with somebody else's idea and bu ild off of it, make sure you cite it in text and below. Sixth, end your paper with a conclusion paragraph that summarizes the major points youâ„¢ve made throughout your paper. Below is a chart organizing the main points above Section Suggested Length No. of Sources Introduction .5 page (150 words) 1 that defines ID marker Social Construction 1.5 pages (400 words) Harro + 1 more Discrimination 1.5 pages (400 words) Pincus + 1 more Privilege 1.5 pages (400 words) Johnson (or other) + 1 more Intersectionality 1.5 pages (400 word s) 1+ (from class or outside) Classroom Application 1.5 pages (400 word s) 0 required, but cite as needed Conclusion .5 page (150 words) 0 required, but cite as needed Grading Criteria See separate grading rubric for specific grading criteria, but in general: An ï¬excellentfl explanation includes the use of accurate citations from class readings, concise interpretations of those citations and strong, illustrative examples from personal experience or from outside the class. An ï¬excellentfl analysis includes a clear and accurate understanding of class concepts, accurate and insightful connections to class concepts through references to the class readings, discussions, videos and activities. An ï¬excellentfl application includes insightful and creative id eas that are specific to your future teaching situation. Data sources Your paper should draw on evidence from, and your explanations should be supported by, data and ideas from a variety (8+) of s ources. Many of these will come from course readings as you define your identity marker a nd explain key theories of social power. In 190 the introduction, if there is not a clear definition of your identity marker in the course readings, you will need an outside source fo r a clear, concise definition. Additionally, in your explanation of class concepts (social construction, discrimination, privilege and intersectionality) you will need a citation from outside the course readings to support the arguments made by the course reading. Most often, this this additiona l citation will provide an example or statistic that supports or illustrates the class autho râ„¢s argument. For example, in explaining what Harro's theory says about the role of media in socializing beliefs about gender, you would cite Harro first, and then perhaps an article you find on line about masculinity in a recent movie. Similarly, you might use an a dditional source to provide a statistic that helps make Harroâ„¢s point and further your explanation of the social construction of your identity marker. For example, in explaining what Ha rro's theory says about school's role in socializing beliefs about language, you might find an article online giving survey results of teachers' opinions about bilingual and ESL. Remember, this is a paper for a teacher education course, so as much as possible, you should provide school-based examples of whatever it is you are explaining. When citing these sources, be sure to use APA style citations both in text (e.g., Pincus, 2000, p. 33) and in a collected works cited at the end of the paper. Sources from which to support your thinking and arguments include: Readings from class Outside readings (academic articles/books as well as popular, but reputable books, newspapers, magazines & th eir online equivalents) Service learning experience (you can cite your SL journal) Interviews & observations with intere sting/relevant teachers and students Formatting Each main should be about 1.5 pages or 400 words maximum. Your group's editor should proofread all sections for consistency of language and formatting . The paper should read like one document written by one author, so th e style of language should be consistently professional, academic tone that avoids cont ractions, slang, and other forms of informal language. There should also be consistency in the actual formatting of the paper including font, line spacing and indentations. Please double check the syllabus for formatting requirements, additional writing guidelines and information on academ ic honesty and late assignments. Section 1: Score 5 Å’ Excellent 4 - Very Good 3 Å’ Good 2 Å’ Acceptable 1 Å’ Poor 191 5 Å’ Excellent 4 - Very Good 3 Å’ Good 2 Å’ Acceptable 1 Å’ Poor Section 2: Score 5 Å’ Excellent 4 - Very Good 3 Å’ Good 2 Å’ Acceptable 1 Å’ Poor 5 Å’ Excellent 4 - Very Good 3 Å’ Good 2 Å’ Acceptable 1 Å’ Poor Group Work 5 Å’ Excellent 4 - Very Good 3 Å’ Good 2 Å’ Acceptable Average of group matesâ„¢ review of your efforts in completing the group project 1 Å’ Poor 5 Å’ Excellent 4 - Very Good 3 Å’ Good 2 Å’ Acceptable Preparation for Finals day roundtable discussions 1 Å’ Poor Grading criteria for individual work se ctions (10 points each section) 1) Social Construction section Explanation of class co ncept (Accuracy & depth) Use of sources (class and/or additional references) 2) Discrimination section Explanation of class co ncept (Accuracy & depth) Use of sources (class and/or additional references) 3) Privilege section Explanation of class co ncept (Accuracy & depth) Use of sources (class and/or additional references) 4) Intersectionality section Explanation of class co ncept (Accuracy & depth) Use of sources (class and/or additional references) 5) Critical Classroom Application section Sample lesson/activity 1 (specificity & criticality) Sample lesson/activity 2 (specificity & criticality) 6) Editing section 192 Introduction & Conclusion Formatting & Cohesiveness of language Group Analysis Wiki Assignment Instructions and Rubric Identity Marker Name Begin your page with an introduction pa ragraph defining identity marker (with an in-text citation to either a c ourse reading or an outside source). The purpose of this paragraph is explain what you mean by "gender" or "race," etc. You may also need to explain what your identity mark is not; i.e ., how gender and sex or race and ethnicity are different. Again, you would want a source to support this argument. Lastly, you should also say something general and broad about your identity marker in society and education that previews the sections below. This pa ragraph should be written by the group editor, and should only be about 100 words long. Social Construction This section explains how the identity marker is socially constructed. You will mostly be applying Harro's Cycl e of Socialization theory, st arting with the big idea and explaining in general how your identity marker f its into this theory. From there, be more specific and focus on the roles of schools (t eachers, curriculum & social aspects) in socializing our ideas about your identity marker. Wrap up th is section by talking about ways teachers can enforce or go against this social construction process. Throughout your explanation you should cite the appropriate readings in-text and fully at the end of this page. You will obviously cite Harro, but you need to also find one additional source to cite that supports your explanation of the social construction of your identity marker, especially as it relates to schools. Most people will use this additional citation to provide an example of a specific aspect of Harro's theory. For example, in explaining what Harro's theory says about the role of media in soci alizing beliefs about gender, you would cite Harro first, and then maybe an article you find online about masculinity in a recent movie. Similarly, you mi ght use an additional source to provide a statistic that helps make your point and further your explanation of the social construction of your identity marker. For example, in explaining what Harro's theory says about school's role in socializing beliefs about language, you might find an article online giving survey results of teachers' opinions about bili ngual and ESL. Remember, this is a wiki for educators (researchers, teachers, teacher educa tion students, and others), so as much as possible, you should provide school-based exampl es of whatever it is you are explaining. Formatting wise, each of these secti ons should be about 400 words maximum. This section is actually about 400 words, so use this as a measure of what your length should looks like. Also, remember this is fo r a professional, academic audience, so avoid contractions, slang, and other forms of in formal language. You can follow the "model identity marker" template to input your text , but also make sure you proofread what you wrote to look for spelling and grammar erro rs. Your group's editor should also proofread 193 this section for any weird formatting errors. A consistent look across all pages is key to making these pages look professi onal. Little things matter, li ke what "level" header you use and when you use a double space and when you use a single space. Discrimination Similar to the instructions above, in this section you'll be explaining how the identity marker is used to discriminate against certain groups. You will mostly be applying Pincus' theory, starting with the bi g idea and explaining in general how the identity marker fits into this theory. Then, you need to explain all three forms of discrimination and come up with a school-bas ed example of each one. Again, this is where you may find end up citing an additional source to give an example or provide a statistic. Every thing else about the formatting and length also applies here. Privilege This section will be very similar to the sections above in its purpose, use of sources, organization, length and formatting. You will likely be explaining Johnson's chapter called "Privilege, O ppression and Difference" to explain the two types of privilege. However, for your identity marker, you may have a course reading that also talks about these two types of privilege specifically for your identity maker. You can cite and explain this reading instead of Johnson. Whether you use Johnson or some other identity marker specific article on privilege, make sure you find an additional source to provide a school-based example or st atistic that helps your explanation. Intersectionality This section is a little different than the ones before it. In this section, you do not have a specific course reading that you are trying to explain. Instead, you are explaining a concept we have discussed at various times during class: "intersectionality." You do not need to explain your terms here, just jump into explaining how your group's identity marker commonly influences/is influenced by another identity marker. Your explanation of this intersection should include multiple sc hool-based examples. You need to have at least one citation here. You can either pull from the course readings for examples/statistics of intersectionality between two identity markers or find an outside source that does so. If you do the former, we may not have a readi ng specifically about two identity markers intersect ing, but reread the articles on your identity marker and you likely will see some discussion of its relationship to another identity marker. If you do the later, think about an example that you believe to be true, and then look for sources that support or illustrate that. Critical Classroom Application This last section is the most different from the others. In this section, you will discuss how teachers might challenge the soci al construction of normality and forms of discrimination associated with your group's identity marker. You will explain this by 194 giving two examples of lessons or educationa l activities that woul d not only teach some grade and content area learning goal, but also challenge social inequality related to your identity marker. Your two examples may come from your own ideas or you may find examples online of sample lessons and activities that serve this dual purpose of teaching state standards while challenging inequality. Sites like Teaching Tolerance and EdChange are good sources of these. I am not expecting a fully articulated le sson plan or even for your ideas to be necessarily realistic, but spend a few sent ences on each lesson/activity explaining what content & grade-level standards it teaches, but how it also encourages/empowers/challenges students soci ally. You do not have to have a specific number of citations here, but if you re-prese nt a lesson/activity you found elsewhere, or if you just start with somebody else's idea and build off of it, make sure you cite it in text and below. Works Cited Here is where all your sources cited in -text above will be collected. These should be in full APA format and arranged alphabetically (not in the order they appear below!) It is editor's responsibility to proofread the fo rmatting here and make sure everything is in order. Section 1: Score 5 Å’ Excellent 4 - Very Good 3 Å’ Good 2 Å’ Acceptable 1 Å’ Poor 5 Å’ Excellent 4 - Very Good 3 Å’ Good 2 Å’ Acceptable 1 Å’ Poor Section 2: Score 5 Å’ Excellent 4 - Very Good 3 Å’ Good 2 Å’ Acceptable 1 Å’ Poor 5 Å’ Excellent 4 - Very Good 3 Å’ Good 2 Å’ Acceptable 1 Å’ Poor 195 Group Work 5 Å’ Excellent 4 - Very Good 3 Å’ Good 2 Å’ Acceptable Average of group matesâ„¢ review of your efforts in completing the group project 1 Å’ Poor 5 Å’ Excellent 4 - Very Good 3 Å’ Good 2 Å’ Acceptable Preparation for Finals day roundtable discussions 1 Å’ Poor Grading criteria for individual work se ctions (10 points each section) 1) Social Construction section Explanation of class co ncept (Accuracy & depth) Use of sources (class and/or additional references) 2) Discrimination section Explanation of class co ncept (Accuracy & depth) Use of sources (class and/or additional references) 3) Privilege section Explanation of class co ncept (Accuracy & depth) Use of sources (class and/or additional references) 4) Intersectionality section Explanation of class co ncept (Accuracy & depth) Use of sources (class and/or additional references) 5) Critical Classroom Application section Sample lesson/activity 1 (specificity & criticality) Sample lesson/activity 2 (specificity & criticality) 6) Editing section Introduction & Conclusion Formatting & Cohesiveness of language 196 Appendix C - Study Forms Figure 12 Participant online consent form. 197 REFERENCES198 REFERENCES Adams, A., Bondy, E., & Kuhel, K. (2005). Pres ervice teacher learning in an unfamiliar setting. Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(2), 41-62. Agee, J. (1998). Negotiating different conceptions about reading and teaching literature in a preservice literature class. Research in the Teaching of English, 33(1), 85- 124. Ahlquist, R. (1991). Position and impositio n: Power relations in a multicultural foundations class. Journal of Negro Education, 60(2), 158-169. doi: 10.2307/2295607 Amodeo, L., & Martin, J. (1982). A study of the effects of multicultural training on the factual knowledge and stereotypic attitudes of elementary and secondary teachers. Paper presented at the AERA Annual Conference, New York. Anastasia, M. Hewett, K. (2012) Quantifying the value add of Jesuit teacher preparation. Prepared for the AJCU Counsel of Education, March, 2012 Report from Eduventures retrieved from http://a jcunet.edu/Assets/Conference/File/02-14_AJCUEDU%20Eduventures.pdf Anderson, S. E. (1998). Integrating multim edia multicultural materials into an educational psychology course. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 6(2), 169-182. Applebaum, B. (2009). Is teaching for social justice a" liberal bias"? The Teachers College Record, 111(2), 376-408. Athanases, S. Z., & de Oliveira, L. C. (2007). Conviction, confrontation, and risk in new teachers' advocating for equity. Teaching Education, 18(2), 123-136. doi: 10.1080/10476210701325150 Au, K. H., & Blake, K. M. (2003). Cultural identity and learning to teach in a diverse community findings from a collective case study. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(3), 192-205. doi: 10.1177/0022487103054003002 Aud, S., Hussar, W., Kena, G., Bianco, K., Frohlich, L., Kemp, J., & Tahan, K. (May, 2011). The Condition of Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Ayers, W., Hunt, J. A., & Quinn, T. (1998). Teaching for social justice. A democracy and education reader. New York, NY: New Press. 199 Banks, J. (1996). The historical reconstruction of knowledge a bout race: Implications for transformative teaching. In J. A. Banks (Ed.) Multicultural education, transformative knowledge, and action: Hist orical and contempor ary perspectives. New York, NY: Teachers College Press (p 64-87). Banks, J. A. (Ed.). (1973). Teaching ethnic studies: Concepts and strategies (43rd yearbook). Washington, DC: National Council for the Social Studies. Banks, J. A. (1988). Multiethnic education: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). Allyn and Bacon: Boston, MA. Banks, J. A. (2006). Race, culture, and education: The selected works of James A. Banks. New York, NY: Routledge. Banks, C. A. M., & Banks, J. A. (1995). Equity pedagogy: An essential component of multicultural education. Theory into Practice 34 (3), 152-158. Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. A. M. (2009). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Barrón, N. (2008). Beneath the veil - Mainstr eam preservice teachers (dis)covering their cultural identities. In L. Bartolome' (Ed.). Idealogies in education: Unmasking the trap of teacher neutrality (pp. 181-205). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Bartolomé, L. I., & Trueba, E. (2000). Beyond the politics of schools and the rhetoric of fashionable pedagogies: The significance of teacher ideology. In L. I. Bartolomé & E. Trueba (Eds.), Immigrant voices: In search of educational equity (pp. 277-292). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Becker, H. J. (1999). Internet use by teachers: Conditions of professional use and teacher-directed student use. Teaching, Learning, and Computing: 1998 National Survey (Research Report N. 1). Retrieved from University of California-Irvine, Center for Reseracher on Information Technology and organizations website: http://www.crito.uci.edu/TLC/findings/Internet-Use/startpage.htm Bell, L. A. (2007). Theoretical foundations for social justice education. In M. Adams, L. A. Bell & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice (2nd ed., pp. 1-14). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Bell, L. A., Washington, S., Weinstein, G ., & Love, B. (2003). Knowing ourselves as instructors. In A. Darder, M. P. Baltodano & R. D. Torres (Eds.), The critical pedagogy reader (pp. 464-478). New York, NY: Routledge. Bhargava, A., Hawley, L. D., Scott, C. L., Stein, M., & Phelps, M. (2004).An investigation of students' perception of multicultural education experiences in a school of education. Multicultural Education, 11(4), 18-22. 200 Brown, E. L. (2004a). Overcoming the challe nges of stand-alone multicultural courses: The possibilities of technology integration. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(4), 535-559. Brown, E. L. (2004b). What precipitates change in cultural diversity awareness during a multicultural course the message or the method? Journal of Teacher Education, 55(4), 325-340. doi: 10.1177/0022487104266746 Brown, J. S., & Adler, R. P. (2008). Open education, the long tail, and learning 2.0. Educause Review, 43(1), 16-20. Brown, K. M. (2004). Assessing preservice leaders' beliefs, attitudes, and values regarding issues of diversity, social justice, and equity: A review of existing measures. Equity & Excellence in Education, 37 (4), 332-342. doi: 10.1080/10665680490518948 Brownell, K. (1997). Technology in teacher e ducation: Where are we and where do we go from here? Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 5(2), 117-138. Burant, T. J., & Kirby, D. (2002). Beyond classroom-based early field experiences: Understanding an ï¬educative practicumfl in an urban school and community. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(5), 561-575. doi: 10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00016-1 Cannella, G. S. (1998). Fostering engagement Å’ Barriers in teacher education. In R. Chavez Chavez & J. Oâ„¢Donnell, J (Eds.), Speaking the unpleasant the politics of (non) engagement in the multicultural education terrain (pp. 87-107). Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Capella-Santana, N. (2003). Voices of teacher candidates: Positive changes in multicultural attitudes and knowledge. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(3), 182-190. Carter, P. L., & Welner, K. G. (2013). Closing the opportunity gap: What America must do to give every child an even chance. New York, NY: Oxford Univeristy Press. Carter-Andrews, D. J. (2009). ï¬The hardest thing to turn fromfl: The effects of service- learning on preparing urban educators. Equity & Excellence in Education, 42(3), 272-293. Carter-Andrews, D. J., & Donaldson, M. L. (2009). Commitment and retention of reachers in urban schools: Exploring the role and influence of urban-focused preservice programs: Introducti on to this special issue. Equity & Excellence in Education, 42(3): 249-254. 201 Chandra, V., & Chalmers, C. (2010). Blogs, wikis and podcasts: Collaborative knowledge building tools in a design and technology course. Journal of Learning Design, 3(2), 35-49. doi: 10.5204/jld.v3i2.49 Chapman, C., Laird, J., Ifill, N., & KewalR amani, A. (2011). Trends in high school dropout and completion rates in th e United States: 1972-2009. Compendium Report. NCES 2012-006. National Center for Education Statistics . Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42 (2), 21-29. Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). Walking the road: Race, diversity, and social justice in teacher education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Cochran-Smith, M., Barnatt, J., Lahann, R., Shakman, K., & Terrell, D. (2009). Teacher education for social justice: Critiquing th e critiques. In W. Ayers, T. Quinn & D. Stovall (Eds.), The handbook of social justice in education (pp. 625-639). New York, NY: Routledge. Cochran-Smith, M., Davis, D., & Fries, K. (2004). Multicultural teacher education: Research, practice, and policy. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (2nd ed., pp. 931-975). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cochran-Smith, M. Ludlow, L. , Ell, F., O'L eary, M., & Enterline, S. (2012). Learning to teach for social justice as a cross cultur al concept: Findings from three countries. European Journal of Educational Research, 1(2), 171-198. Cook, D. A. (1994). Racial identity in supervision. Counselor Education and Supervision, 34(2), 132-141. doi: 10.1002/j.1556-6978.1994.tb00320.x Corbin, A. & Strauss, J. (2007) Basics of qualittative research (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Crowe, E. (2008). Teaching as a profession: A bridge too far? In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Fieman-Nemser, J. McIntyre & E. Demers (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts (3rd ed., pp. 989-999). New York, NY: Routledge. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 202 D'Souza, D. (1991). Illiberal education: The politics of race and sex on campus. New York: The Free Press Dalton, B. (2007). Advanced mathematics and science course-taking in the Spring high school senior classes of 1982, 1992, 2004 (NCES 2007-312). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Damarin, S. K. (1998). Technology and multic ultural education: The question of convergence. Theory into practice, 37(1), 11-19. doi: 10.1080/00405849809543781 Darling-Hammond, L. (1995). Inequality and access to knowledge. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 465Å’483). New York: Macmillan. Davis, L. E., & Turner, J. S. (1993). An Investigation of the Cultural Sensitivity Level of Elementary Preservice Teachers . Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., & Johnson, C. M. (2009). Teacher preparation and teacher learning: A changing policy landscape. In G. Sykes, B. L. Schneider, and D. N. Plank (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 613- 636). New York: American Educational Research Association and Routledge. Diamond, J. B. (2013). The resource and opportu nity gap: The continued significance of race for African American student outcomes. In D. Carter-Andrews & F. Tuitt (Eds.), Contesting the myth of a ‚post-racial eraâ„¢: The continued significance of race in US education (pp.97-111). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Delpit, L. D. (2006). Other people's children: Cultural conflict in the classroom (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The New Press. Deng, L., & Yuen, A. H. (2011). Towards a framework for educational affordances of blogs. Computers & Education, 56(2), 441-451. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.005 Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York, NY: MacMillan. Dickey, M. D. (2004). The impact of web-logs (blogs) on student perceptions of isolation and alienation in a web-based distance-learning environment. Open Learning, 19(3), 279-291. Enterline, S., Cochran-Smith, M., Ludlow, L. H., & Mitescu, E. (2008). Learning to teach for social justice: Measuring change in the beliefs of teacher candidates. The New Educator, 4(4), 267-290. doi: 10.1080/15476880802430361 203 Evans, B. R. (2013). Beliefs about social justice among elementary mathematics teachers. Mathematics Teaching-Research Journal Online, 6(1), 46-58. Farkas, M. G. (2007). Social software in libraries: building collaboration, communication, and community online (1st ed.). Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc. Ferdig, R. E., & Trammell, K. D. (2004). Content delivery in the ‚blogosphereâ„¢. T.H.E. Journal, 31(7), 12-20. Flick, U. (2002). Qualitative research-state of the art. Social science information, 41(1), 5-24. doi: 10.1177/0539018402041001001 Ford, D. Y., & Grantham, T. C. (2003). Pr oviding access for gifted culturally diverse students: From deficit thinking to dynamic thinking. Theory into Practice, 42(3), 217Å’225. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum. Freire, P. & Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word & the world. Westport, CT: Bergin. Friend, R. A. (1998). Heterosexism, homophobia, and the culture of schooling. In S. Books (Ed.), Invisible children in the society and its schools (1st ed., pp. 137-166). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Gadotti, M. (1996). Pedagogy of praxis: A Dialectical philosophy of education. Albany, NY:State University of New York Press. - repeated reference. Garcia, S. B., & Guerra, P. L. (2004). Deconstructing the deficit thinking. Working with educators to create more equitable learning environments. Education and Urban Society, 36(2), 150-168. Garmon, M. A. (1998). Using dialogue jour nals to promote student learning in a multicultural teacher education course. Remedial and Special Education, 19(1), 32-45. Grabe, M. & Grabe, C. (2001). Integrating technology for meaningufl learning (5th ed.). Stamford, CT: Cengage Publishing. Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 106-116. doi: 10.1177/0022487102053002003 204 Gay, G., & Howard, T. C. (2000). Multicultural teacher education for the 21st century. The Teacher Educator, 36(1), 1-16. doi: 10.1080/08878730009555246 Gibson, J.J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting and knowing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Giroux, H. (2001). Theories and resistance in education: Towards a pedagogy for the opposition (Vol. 3). Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. Giroux, H. A., & McLaren, P. (1992). Writing fr om the margins: Geographies of identity, pedagogy, and power. Journal of Education, 174(1), 7-30. Gomez, M. L. (1993). Prospective teachers' perspectives on teaching diverse children: A review with implications for teacher education and practce. Journal of Negro Education, 62, 459-474. Grant, C. A. (Ed.). (1977). Multicultural education: Commitments, issues, and applications. Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Grant, C. A. (1978). Education that is multicultural: Isn't that what we mean? Journal of Teacher Education, 29(5) , 45-48. Grant, C. A., & Agosto, V. (2008). Teacher capacity and social justice in teacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Fieman-Nemser, J. McIntyre & E. Demers (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts (3rd ed., pp. 175-200). New York, NY: Routledge. Grant, C. A., & Secada, W. G. (1990). Prepar ing teachers for diversity. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 403-422). New York, NY: Macmillan. Grant, C. A., & Sleeter, C. E. (1986). Race, class, and gender in education research: An argument for integrative analysis. Review of Educational Research, 56(?), 195-211. Grant, C. A., & Sleeter, C. E. (2010). Race, cl ass, gender, and disability in the classroom. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (7th ed., pp. 59-82). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Griffin, P. (1997). Facilitating social justice education courses. In M. Adams, L.A. Bell, and P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice: A sourcebook (pp. 279-98). New York, NY: Routledge. 205 Halpin, R. (1999). A model of constructivist learning in practice: Computer literacy integrated into elementary mathem atics and science teacher education. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(1), 128-138. Harrison, T. M., & Barthel, B. (2009). Wiel ding new media in Web 2.0: Exploring the history of engagement with the colla borative construction of media products. New Media & Society, 11(1-2), 155-178. doi: 10.1177/1461444808099580 Harry, B., & Klingner, J. K. (2005). Why are so many minority students in special education?: Understanding race & disability in schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Hasselbring, T. S. (2001). A possible future of special education technology. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16(4), 15-21. Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1994). Facilitating reflection: Issues and research. Paper presented at the Conference of the Australian Teacher Education Association, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Hatzenbuehler, M. L. (2011). The social environment and suicide attempts in lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. Pediatrics, 127(5), 896-903. doi: 10.1542/peds.2010-3020 Hayes, M., & Groves, P. (2002). The medium is the experience: Uses of media in multicultural education. Multicultural Education, 10(2), 15-18. Heintz, A., Borsheim, C., Caughlan, S., & Juzwik, M. (2010). Video-based response & revision: Dialogic instruction using video and web 2.0 technologies. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 10(2), 175-196. Henry, G. B. (1986). Cultural diversity awareness inventory. - More needed here. Helms, J. E. (1985). An update of Helm's white and people of color racial identity models. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki & C. M. Alexander (Eds.). Handbook of multicultural counseling. (pp. 181-198). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hiemstra, R. (2001). Uses and benefits of journal writing. In L. M. English & M. A. Gillen, (Eds.), Promoting journal writing in adult education: New directions for adult and continuing education (pp. 19-26). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hollins, E. R., & Guzman, M. T. (2005). Re search on preparing teachers for diverse populations. Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education, 477-548. Hollins, E. R., & Torres Guzman, M. (2005). Re search on preparing teachers for diverse population. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher 206 education: The report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education (pp. 477-544). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Horton, J., & Scott, D. (2004). White students â„¢ voices in multicultura l teacher education preparation. Multicultural Education 11(4), 12-16. Howard, G. R. (2006). We can't teach what we don't know: White teachers, multiracial schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Hyland, N. E., & Meacham, S. (2004). Community knowledge-centered teacher education: A paradigm for socially just educational transformation. In J. L. Kincheloe, A. Bursztyn & S. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Teaching teachers: Building a quality school of urban education. (pp. 113-134). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Hyland, N. E., & Noffke, S. E. (2005). Understanding diversity through social and community inquiry: An action-research study. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(4), 367-381. doi: 10.1177/0022487105279568 Irvine, J. J. (1991). Black students and school failure. Policies, practices, and prescriptions . Westport, CT: Praeger. Jencks, C., & Phillips, M. (2011). The black-white test score gap . Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Johnson, L. (2002). ‚‚My eyes have been opened™™ White teachers a nd racial awareness. Journal of Teacher Education, 53 (2), 153Å’167. Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory, 2(?), 215-239. Kidd, J. K., Sanchéz S. Y., & Thorp, S. Y. (2004). Gathering family stories: Facilitating preservice teachers' cultural awareness and responsiveness. Action in teacher education, 26(1), 64-73. King, J. E. (1991). Dysconscious racism: Ideology, identity, and the miseducation of teachers. Journal of Negro Education, 60(2), 133-146. doi: 10.2307/2295605 King, J. E. (1997). "Thank you for opening our mindsfl: On praxis, transmutation, and Black studies in teacher development. In J. E. King, E. R. Hollins & W. C. Wayman (Eds.), Preparing teachers for cultural diversity (pp. 156-169). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Kliebard, H. M. (1994). "That evil genius of the negro race": Thomas Jesse Jones and educational reform. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 10 (1), 5-20. 207 Knapp, M. S., & Woolverton, S. (1995). Social class and schooling. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 548-569). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. Krippendorff, K. (2008). Testing the reliability of content analysis data: What is involved and why. In K. Krippendorff & M. A. Bock (Eds.), The content analysis reader (pp. 350-357) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Bartkiewicz, M. J., Boesen, M. J., & Palmer, N. A. (2012). The 2011 national school climate survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in our nation's schools. New York, NY: GLSEN. Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Palmer, N. A., & Boesen, M. J. (2014). The 2013 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in our nationâ„¢s schools. New York:GLSEN. Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influe nce learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42 (2), 7-19. doi: 10.1007/BF02299087 Kozol, J. (1991). Savage Inequalities. New York, NY: Crown. Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collabora tive learning environments: A review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(3), 335-353. doi: 10.1016/S0747-5632(02)00057-2 Kumashiro, K. (2000). Toward a theory of anti-oppressive teaching. Review of Educational Research,70(1), 25-53 Labaree, D. (1989). The American (high) school has failed its mission. MSU Alumni Bulletin, 7(1), 14-17. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Multicultural t eacher education: Research, practice, and policy. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 747-759). New York, NY: Macmillan. Ladson-Billings, G. (2001). Crossing over to Canaan: The journey of new teachers in diverse classrooms. The Jossey-Bass education series. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. Ladson-Billings, G. (2004). New directions in multicultural ed ucation. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (2nd ed., pp. 50-65). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Ladson-Billings, G. (2009). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 208 LaDuke, A. (2009). Resistance and renegotiation: Preservice teachers interactions with and reactions to multicultural education course content. Multicultural Education, 16(3), 37-44. Larke, P. J. (1990). Cultural diversity awareness inventory: Assessing the sensitivity of preservice teachers. Action in Teacher Education, 12(3), 23-30. doi: 10.1080/01626620.1990.10734396 Lawrence, S. M. (1997). Beyond race awareness: White racial identity and multicultural teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 48(2), 108-117. Lazar, A. (2012). The possibilities and challenge s of developing teachers' social justice beliefs. Online Yearbook of Urban Learning, Teaching, and Research . p 33-40 Lee, E., Menkart, D., & Okazawa-Rey, M. (1997). Beyond heroes and holidays: A practical guide to K-12 anti-racist, multic ultural education and staff development . Upper Marlboro: McArdle. Lee, I. (2008). Fostering preservice reflection through response journals. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35 (1), 117-139. Lenski, S. D., Crumpler, T. P., Stallw orth, C., & Crawford, K. M. (2005). Beyond awareness: Preparing culturally responsive preservice teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly , 32(2), 85-100. Leo, J. (2005, October 24). Class (room) warriors. US news and world report. Retrieved from http://townhall.com/columnists /johnleo/2005/10/17/classroom_warriors Lewis, A. E. (2001). There is no ‚‚race™™ in the schoolyard: Color-blind ideology in an (almost) all White school. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 781Å’811. Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry: The paradigm revolution . London: SAGE. Loury, G. C. (1994). Self-censorship in publ ic discourse: A theory of ï¬political correctnessfl and related phenomena. Rationality and Society, 6(4), 428-461. doi: 1043463194006004002 Lucas, T., & Grinberg, J. (2008). Responding to the linguistic reality of mainstream classrooms: Preparing all teachers to teach English language learners. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Fieman-Nemser & J. McIntyre (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts (3rd ed., pp. 606-636). New York, NY: Routledge.. 209 Ludlow, L. H., Enterline, S. E., & Cochran-Smith, M. (2008). Learning to teach for social justice-beliefs scale: An applicati on of rasch measurement principles. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 40 (4), 194. Major, E., & Brock, C. H. (2003). Fostering positive dispositions toward diversity: Dialogical explorations of a moral dilemma. Teacher Education Quarterly, 30(4), 7-26. Marwick, A. E. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Tw itter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New media & society, 13 (1), 114-133. doi: 10.1177/1461444810365313 May, S. (1999). Towards critical multiculturalism. In S. May (Ed.), Critical multiculturalism Rethinking multicultural and antiracist education (pp. 1-10). Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press. May, S. & Sleeter, C. E. (2010). Introduction. In S. May & C.E. Sleeter (Eds.), Critical multiculturalism: Theory and praxis (pp. 1-18). New York, NY: Routledge. McDonald, M. A. (2008). The pedagogy of assignments in social justice teacher education. Equity & Excellence in Education, 41 (2), 151-167. doi: 10.1080/10665680801943949 McFalls, E. L., & Cobb-Roberts, D. (2001). Reducing resistance to diversity through cognitive dissonance instruction im plications for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(2), 164-172. McLaren, P. (1994). White terror and oppos itional agency: To wards a critical multiculturalism. In D.T. Goldberg (Ed.). Multiculturalism: A critical reader (pp. 45-74). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Medina, M. A., Morrone, A. S., & Anderson, J. A. (2005). Promoting social justice in an urban secondary teacher education program. The Clearing House, 78 (5), 207-212. Milner, H. R. (2007). Race, culture, and researcher positionality: Working through dangers seen, unseen, and unforeseen. Educational Researcher 38(7), 388-400 Milner, H. R. (2012). But what is urban education? Urban Education, 47(3), 556-561. doi: 10.1177/0042085912447516 Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers college record, 108(6), 1017-1054. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x 210 Moore, T. L., & Reeves-Kazelskis, C. (1992). Effects of formal instruction on preservice teachers' beliefs about multicultural education. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Knoxville, TN. Mullen, L. (2001). Beyond infusion: Preservice studentsâ„¢ understandings about educational technologies for teaching and learning. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(3), 447-466. National Center for Educational Statistics. (2004). Trends in educational equity for girls and women. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Nieto. S. (1998). From claiming hegemony to sharing space: Creating community in multicultural courses. In R. Chav ez Chavez & J. Oâ„¢Donnell, J (Eds.), Speaking the unpleasant: The politics of (non) engagement in th e multicultural education terrain (pp 16-31). Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Nieto, S., & Bode, P. (2011). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education . Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. North, C. E. (2006). More than words? Delv ing into the substantive meaning (s) of ï¬social justicefl in education. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 507-535. doi: 10.3102/00346543076004507 Oakes, J., Joseph, R., & Muir, K. (2004). Access and achievement in mathematics and science: Inequalities that endure and change. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (2nd ed., pp. 69-90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Oakes, J., & Rogers, J. (2006). Learning power: Organizing for education and justice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Olneck, M. R. (1990). The recurring dream: Sy mbolism and ideology in intercultural and multicultural education. American Journal of Education 98, 147-174. Obidah, J. (2000). Mediating boundaries of race, class, and professional authority as a critical multiculturalist. The Teachers College Record, 102(6), 1035-1060. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. London:SAGE. Pohan, C. A., & Aguilar, T. E. (2001). Measuring educatorsâ„¢ beliefs about diversity in personal and professional contexts. American Educational Research Journal, 38(1), 159-182. doi: 10.3102/00028312038001159 Presley, J., White, B., & Gong, Y. (2005). Examining the distribution and impact of teacher quality in Illinois. Edwardsville: Illinois Edu cation Research Council. 211 Puentedura, R. (2014). SAMR: An applied introduction [PDF document]. Retrieved from Hippasus website: http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/ar chives/2014/01/31/SAMRAnAppliedIntro duction.pdf Ramirez, A. (2002). A little change do es me good: Incorporating web-enhanced technology within multi cultural education. Multicultural Education, 10(2), 38-40. Reinhold, S. D. & Abawi, D. F. (2006). Concepts for extending wiki systems to supplement collaborative learning. In Z. Pan et al. (Eds.), Edutainment 2006 Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Romo, J. J., & Chavez, C. (2006). Border pedagogy: A study of preservice teacher transformation. The Educational Forum, 70(2), 142-153. doi: 10.1080/00131720608984885 Ronfeldt, M., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2013). How teacher turnover harms student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 50(1), 4-36. doi: 10.3102/0002831212463813 Sadker, D., & Zittleman, K. (2012). Gender bi as: From colonial America to todayâ„¢s classroom. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (8th ed., pp. 135-169). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Schlesinger Jr, A.M. (1991). The disuniting of America. Knoxville, TN: Whittle Direct Books. Schrag, P. (1999, July X). W ho will teach the teachers? University Business, 6, 29-34. Schultz, E. L., Neyhart, K., & Reck, U. M. (1996). Swimming against the tide: A study of prospective teachersâ„¢ attitudes regardi ng cultural diversity and urban teaching. Western Journal of Black Studies, 20(1), 1-7 Schwarz, G. (2000). Renewing teaching through media literacy. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 37(1), 8-12. doi: 10.1080/00228958.2000.10518789 Scott, R. (1995). Helping teacher educati on students develop positive attitudes toward ethnic minorities. Equity & Excellence in Education, 728 (2), 69-73. Sernak, K. S., & Wolfe, C. S. (1998). Creating multicultural enderstanding and community in preservice edu cation classes via email. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 6(4), 303-329. 212 Sevier, B. (2005). ï¬What does this have to do with us?fl: Pursuing transformative possibilities and cultural relevancy in a social foundations teacher education course. Theory & Research in Social Education, 33(3), 347-375. doi: 10.1080/00933104.2005.10473286 Shenton, A. K. (2003). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22, 63-75. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who unders tand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher,15(2), 4-14. Sleeter, C. E. (1995). An analysis of th e critiques of multicultural education. Handbook of research on multicultural education, 81-94. - Journal or book? Sleeter, C., & Tettegah, S. (2002). Technology as a tool in multicultural teaching. Multicultural Education, 10(2), 3-9. Sleeter, C. E. (2001). Preparing teachers for culturally dive rse schools research and the overwhelming presence of whiteness. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(2), 94-106. doi: 10.1177/0022487101052002002 Sleeter, C. E., & McLaren, P. (1995). Multicultural education, critical pedagogy, and the politics of difference . New York, NY: SUNY Press. Smerdon, B., Cronen, S., Lanahan, L., Anderson, J., Iannotti, N., & Angeles, J. (2000). Teachers' tools for the 21st century: A report on teachers' use of technology. Washington, DC: US Department of Education. Smith, G. P. (1998). Common sense about uncommon knowledge: The knowledge bases for diversity. Washington, DC: American Asso ciation of Colleges for Teacher Education. Spiro, R. J., Collins, B. P., Thota, J. J., & Feltovich, P. J. (2003). Cognitive flexibility theory: Hypermedia for complex learni ng, adaptive knowledge application, and experience acceleration. Educational technology, 43(5), 5-10. Stiler, G. M., & Philleo, T. (2003). Blogging and blogspots: An alternative format for encouraging reflective practice among preservice teachers. Education, 123(4), 789-798. Tabacbnick, B. R., & Zeichner, K. M. (1984). The impact of the student teaching experience on the developmen t of teacher perspectives. Journal of Teacher Education, 35(6), 28-36. doi: 10.1177/002248718403500608 Tatum, B. D. (2000). The complexity of identity: Who am I? Readings for diversity and social justice (pp. 9-14). New York, NY: Routledge. 213 Taylor, S. V. & Sobel, D. M., (2005). Research reports: Diversity preparedness in teacher education. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 41(2), 83-86. doi: 10.1080/00228958.2005.10532050 Valli, L. (1995). The dilemma of race: Learning to be color blind and color conscious. Journal of Teacher Education, 46 (2), 120-129. doi: 10.1177/0022487195046002006 Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Beyerbach, B. Vannatta, R., & Walsh, C. ( 2001). From teaching technology to using technology to enhance student learning: Preservice teachersâ„¢ changing perceptions of technology infusion. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 105-127. Vavrus, M. J. (2002). Transforming the multicultural education of teachers: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Verdugo, R. R. (2011). The heavens may fall: School dropouts, the achievement gap, and statistical bias. Education and Urban Society, 43(2), 184-204. doi: 10.1177/0013124510379875 Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Prepari ng culturally responsive teachers rethinking the curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 20-32. doi: 10.1177/0022487102053001003 Wassell, B., & Crouch, C. (2008). Fostering connections between multicultural education and technology: Incorporating weblogs into preservice teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(2), 211. Wasson, D. H., & Jackson, M. H. (2002). Assessing cross-cultural sensitivity awareness: A basis for curriculum change. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 29(4), 265-276. Wiedeman, C. R. (2002). Teacher preparation, social justice, equ ity: A review of the literature. Equity &Excellence in Education, 35 (3), 200-211. doi: 10.1080/713845323 Will, G. (2006, January, 16). Ed schools vs. education. Newsweek Magazine. Retrieved from URL Windschitl, M. & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachersâ„¢ use of technology in a laptop computer school: The interplay of te acher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 165Å’205. 214 Wiseman, R. L. (2001). Intercultural co mmunication competence. In Handbook of Intercultural International Communication. Retrieved from http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/rwiseman/ICCCpaper.htm - if this is a textbook more is needed. Women, A. A. O. U. (2008). Where the girls are: The facts about gender equity in education. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation Xu, S. H. (2001). Exploring diversity issues in teacher education. Reading Online, 5(1), 1-17. Yoon, S. Y., & Gentry, M. (2009). Racial and ethnic representation in gifted programs: Current status of and implications for gifted Asian American students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(2), 121-136. doi: 10.1177/0016986208330564 Young, L.S. (1998). Care, community, and context in a teacher education classroom. Theory into Practice 37(2), 105-113. Zeichner, K.M. (1993, February). Educating teachers for cultural diversity (NCRTL special report) . East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 359 167) Zeichner, K. (1996). Educating teachers for cult ural diversity. In K. Zeichner, S. Melnick & M. L. Gomez (Eds.), Currents of reform in preservice teacher education (pp. 133-175). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Zeichner, K. (2006). Reflections of a university-based teacher educator on the future of college-and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 326-340. doi: 10.1177/0022487105285893 Zeichner, K., & Hoeft, K. (1996). Teacher socialization for cultural diversity. In J. Sikula, T. Buttery & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 525-547). New York, NY: Macmillan.