a.
.wfli ...

a: "9
. 9... h...

u. A
. . at. h I‘lvm 1-”
. I t V if z.
:FRAMMI.‘ if?

1L».

f .

[$2.5 v.2. .. .,

nbflqidau‘mw' H.

.. ......m....l:. ..‘.,. w... .,
J a .

4
.I

4 ml.

\

‘ . . .v ”r“.
V H u» .1 NLW. 4; JV

. a: 18‘ u L
3...... huh aan

, mung» ,..
. .xrs nun-HIE. 1 ,
{5%. Law a a V 9
d... 1.1. .i. . .
_ 31.4....” .
I: V

‘ u (I .4
H. I 1.
1.. ti}...- \. |
3:13 I! tiniexfflv
v“ (A
‘ ‘Jb-na'

55...:
cwdm‘uut

1.11%.!
N15331:. v.- x.
Vrh‘dnalnhalv fl!
109"»!!!
(II; I, .
, iLflkJanmwf. 3.
:31 .. :1.
n. . at... .n u...
. i 2 . has «.2.
L» J34»). n0 . ‘
. ”an. .n. g . z .6
. . .r. . . .
2...m..§.,ma..a: xhnm” $11.;
.2 i \“ '{fil‘
is) unmannwv...’

:lv. .

:8th

3I1C‘Yul
a».

1.. i
.yaquS4. . . .7 .
Liz. 1 ..un....:
53:31.4... .vit’l¢« I x
3 ,C‘.
y vl’ ‘.V I.

.5: Fa.

 

 

 

yuan: . 3‘."
I .

. . 1.... .I
.‘ A . . 13-. ...ol.r..
l? 8.rl....v,mr.n'

I‘ll!

.LIBRARY |
5 Michigan State :e
mversity

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

Accommodating Differences: Multicultural Education Courses
in Michigan’s Teacher Preparation Programs

presented by

Crystal Gail Lunsford

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Ph.D. degree in Curriculum, Teaching, and
Educational Policy

 

 

C/LC/—\

Major Professor's Signature

Whmi/

Date

 

MSU is an afiinnative—action, equal-opportunity employer

--v—»--n-—-—-—v-----—-—-—--—-—---.-v--o----—---u-c—-—o-.-u-._‘—.—.--.-------u-o-.—.-.-u-.-—.—u--.-¢-.--—

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

AUG 2011

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SIOB K:/Proi/Acc&Pres/ClRC/DateDue.indd

 

ACCOMMODATING DIFFERENCES: MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION
COURSES IN MICHIGAN ’S TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAMS

By

Crystal Gail Lunsford

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Curriculum, Teaching, and Educational Policy

2008

ABSTRACT

ACCOMMODATING DIFFERENCES: MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION
COURSES IN MICHIGAN’S TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAMS

By

Crystal Gail Lunsford

In spite of the amount of multicultural education literature in teacher education,
little is known about the content and approaches of courses designed to prepare teacher
candidates for diversity. In this dissertation, I describe findings from a study of 14
multicultural education courses required in 13 teacher preparation programs in Michigan.
I examined 31 course syllabi to determine the explicit curricula of the courses. I also
drew on findings from a survey of course instructors to understand instructors’ beliefs
about multicultural education courses.

Among the findings in this study, Michigan’s multicultural education courses
were designed to increase teacher candidates’ understanding of foundational topics about
schools and schooling and pedagogy. I also found that the primary objective of
multicultural education courses was to cultivate teacher candidates’ dispositions,
particularly empathy and self-awareness. I found little evidence to suggest that the
cultivation of social activism was a course objective. In contrast to the existing literature
about the types of skills teacher candidates need to develop teach diverse groups of
students, course materials did not emphasize developing teacher candidates’ instructional
skills. Courses primarily aimed to facilitate students’ abilities to engage in critical

analysis and reflection.

The multicultural education courses in this study reflected three diverse course
approaches. Courses aligned the dispositional approach focus almost entirely on
preparing teacher candidates for diversity through the cultivation of empathy and self-
awareness. The critical course approach provided teacher candidates an understanding of
how schools reflect social inequality. In these courses, teachers’ pedagogical choices
were identified as a way for teachers to challenge structural inequality. The third and
final approach described diversity preparation in pedagogical terms. These courses
mostly consisted of materials documenting effective pedagogical techniques and
strategies for helping minority student learn.

This dissertation concludes with a discussion of the knowledge, skills, and
dispositions important for preparing teacher candidates to teach diverse groups of
students. I argue, by drawing on findings from the exiting literature, that dispositional
objectives are important, but preparation programs should also help teacher candidates
acquire the knowledge and skills necessary for meeting the social and academic needs of

minority students.

DEDICATION

FOR ALL WHO WERE NOT EXPECTED TO ACHIEVE

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost I would like to thank my advisor and friend, Lynn F endler.
Lynn has a knack for knowing when I need help and when I need space to figure things
out on my own. I am thankful for the guidance and support she provided me during the
writing of my dissertation and my five years as a graduate student. I hope I am able to
mentor my future students in the way that Lynn has mentored me.

I would also like to thank my committee members: Suzanne Wilson, Dorothea
Anagnostopoulos, Robert F loden, and Michael Sedlak. Their guidance and
encouragement has influenced how I think about scholarship and also how I see my role
as a scholar. I am grateful for their willingness to let me explore and develop my own
ideas.

I must also acknowledge the course instructors who agreed to participate in this
research. Thank you for sharing a little piece of your teaching with me.

My dissertation was supported by the Marianne Amarel Fellowship for the
Scholarship of Teaching sponsored by Michigan State University’s Center for the Study
of the Scholarship of Teaching. This fellowship afforded me the opportunity to dedicate
two years of my doctoral work to my dissertation. I can not express my gratitude enough.

And finally I would to thank my family. I would particularly like to thank Vivek

for supporting me and helping me get through and Maya for bringing me lots of joy.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... ix
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... x
Chapter 1: Why Study Multicultural Education Courses? ................................................. 1
Personal Motivation for Studying Courses ......................................................................... 3
The Theoretical Focus I Bring to this Study ..................................................................... 14
Organization of the Dissertation ....................................................................................... 17
Chapter 2: Background Literature and Research Methods .............................................. 19
The Literature Informing this Study ................................................................................. 19
Multicultural Teacher Education Literature: Two Strands ........................................... 19
Multicultural Education within Teacher Education Programs ...................................... 23
Forms of Multicultural Education ................................................................................. 24
The Research Design of this Study ................................................................................... 28
Michigan’s Multicultural Education Courses ............................................................... 28
Course Instructors ......................................................................................................... 34
Data Generation and Analysis ...................................................................................... 36
Phase 1: Course Syllabi. ............................................................................................ 36
Phase 11: Course Instructor Survey ........................................................................... 39
Second Round of Data Analysis ............................................................................... 41
Case Study Approach ................................................................................................ 42
Limitations of Research ................................................................................................ 44
Chapter 3: The Curricular Topics of Multicultural Education Courses ........................... 47
Foundational Content about Schools and Schooling ........................................................ 48
Policies that Shape Schools and Schooling .................................................................. 48
Definitions of Multicultural Education ......................................................................... 50
Purposes of Schooling and the Influence of History and Philosophy ........................... 52
Social and Demographic Categories ................................................................................. 54
Race ........................................................................................................................... 58
Social Class ............................................................................................................... 62
Language ................................................................................................................... 65
Disability ................................................................................................................... 67
Gender and Sexual Orientation ................................................................................. 69
Religion ..................................................................................................................... 71
Pedagogy and Teaching Methods ..................................................................................... 72
Pedagogy and the Development of Instructional Skills ................................................ 73
Intellectual Development .............................................................................................. 8O
Multicultural Education Course Curricula, Diversity, and Pedagogy .............................. 84

vi

Chapter 4: The Cultivation of Dispositions in Multicultural Education Courses ............ 86

Cultivating Empathetic Teachers ...................................................................................... 87
Evoking Empathy through the Narrative Accounts of Teachers .................................. 88
Evoking Empathy by Listening to Voices and Perspectives ........................................ 93
Evoking Empathy through Social Science Research .................................................... 98
Evoking Empathy by Exposing Teacher Candidates to Differences .......................... 102

The Four Strategies for Evoking and Cultivating Empathy ............................................ 106

Developing Self-Awareness as a Course Goal ............................................................... 106
Self-Awareness as Racial Privilege ............................................................................ 108
Self-Awareness as Analysis and Reflection ............................................................... 112
The Problems of Empathy and Self-Awareness ......................................................... 115

Chapter 5: The Three Approaches of Multicultural Education Courses ........................ 120

A Multicultural Education Course with a Dispositional Approach ................................ 121
Context ........................................................................................................................ 121
Dispositional Objectives Support Key Departmental Goals ....................................... 126
Goals and Objectives .................................................................................................. 128
Topics and Themes ..................................................................................................... 129
Assignments and Activities ......................................................................................... 133

Rivers’ Course Promotes Dispositions ........................................................................... 134

A Multicultural Education Course with a Critical Approach ......................................... 134
Context ........................................................................................................................ 134
Goals and Objectives .................................................................................................. 138
Topics and Themes ..................................................................................................... 142
Assignments and Activities ......................................................................................... 146

Valley’s Course Conveys Critical Theory and Practice ................................................. 149

A Multicultural Education Course with an Approach Grounded in Pedagogy .............. 150
Context ........................................................................................................................ 150
Goals and Objectives .................................................................................................. 155
Topics and Themes ..................................................................................................... 157
Assignments and Activities ......................................................................................... 161

Oak’s Course Focuses on Pedagogy and the Work of Teachers .................................... 162

Interpreting the Approaches of Michigan’s Multicultural Education Course ................ 163

Chapter 6: What’s Absent fi'om Multicultural Education Courses? .............................. 170

Overview of Findings ..................................................................................................... 171

The Impact of Teacher Preparation Programs on Learning to Teach ............................. 173

The Limitations of Multicultural Education Courses ..................................................... 175
Knowledge .................................................................................................................. 176
Skills ........................................................................................................................... 178
Dispositions ................................................................................................................. 182

Empathy .................................................................................................................. 1 84
Self-awareness ........................................................................................................ 1 86
Social Activism ....................................................................................................... 187

vii

Endnotes .......................................................................................................................... 191

Appendix A: Race of K-12 Public School Students by State ........................................ 193
Appendix B: List of Michigan’s 31 State Certified Teacher Preparation Programs ..... 195
Appendix C: Number of Study Participants and Non-Participants by Institution ......... 196
Appendix D: Course Syllabi Primary and Secondary Codes ........................................ 197
Appendix E: Survey for Instructors of Multicultural Education Courses ..................... 199
References ....................................................................................................................... 205

viii

LIST OF TABLES

2.1 Percent of Michigan’s Preparation Programs by Race .............................................. 33
2.2 Percent of Teacher Candidates in Programs Represented in Study Compared to
Michigan Programs by Race ............................................................................................. 33
2.3 Number of Multicultural Education Courses by Course Approach ........................... 43
3.1 The Distribution of Foundational Topics Among Multicultural Education Courses
and Course Syllabi ............................................................................................................ 48
3.2 Policy Topics by the Number of Course Syllabi ....................................................... 49
3.3 The Distribution of Social and Demographic Topics among Multicultural Education
Courses and Course Syllabi .............................................................................................. 55
3.4 Number of Social and Demographic Topics by Course Syllabi ................................ 55
3.5 Types of Readings about Race by Number of Course Sessions ................................ 58
3.6 Types of Assignments with a Pedagogical Link by Number of Multicultural
Education Courses ............................................................................................................ 75
A-1: Race of Public School Students by State ............................................................... 193
A-2: Number of Study Participants and Non-Participants by Institution ...................... 196
A-3: List of Primary and Secondary Codes ................................................................... 197

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

2.1 Number of Michigan’s Preparation Programs by Institutional Type ......................... 29

2.2 Comparison of Preparation Programs Represented in Study to Michigan Programs
with a Required Multicultural Education Course by Institutional Type ........................... 30

2.3 Number of Michigan’s Preparation Programs by Student Enrollment Population... 31

2.4 Comparison of Represented Programs to Programs with a Required Multicultural
Education Course by Student Enrollment Size ................................................................. 32

Chapter 1
Why Study Multicultural Education Courses?

Despite the rhetorical claims made by educational scholars about the importance
of multicultural teacher education, there is not a lot known about the curricula that have
been designed to prepare teacher candidates to teach diverse groups of students. As the
United States becomes increasingly more diverse, there is an even greater need for the
teacher education community to understand existing curricular designs. In the state of
Michigan, all teacher preparation programs must account for the ways in which programs
prepare teacher candidates to work with diverse students. In the majority of programs,
this curricular requirement has been addressed with a multicultural education courses
1. This also appears to be the case nationwide. Most teacher preparation programs have
incorporated diversity content through the addition of a multicultural education course
(Sleeter, 2001). Studying the explicit curriculum of such courses is, therefore, the
appropriate place to begin this work. Typical titles of multicultural education courses
include “Schools in a Multicultural Society,” “Education in a Multicultural Society,”
“Diversity in Education,” and “Perspectives in Education.”

When I turned to the existing literature to learn about the courses specifically
designed to help teacher candidates learn about diversity, I found very little information
about the types of materials teacher educators used in these courses. Instead of
descriptions about course purpose and overall approach, teacher educators mostly write
about specific curricula topics and instructional strategies they find to be particularly
effective with the predominately White students enrolled in their courses.2 Asher’s

(2007) article exemplifies how the existing literature positions teacher candidates and

how multicultural education courses serve as an intervention. Asher drew on her
experiences teaching multicultural education courses to theorize about a pedagogical
approach that enabled White teacher candidates the opportunity to “rethink” how they see
themselves and to help them overcome their own “resistance and related emotional
struggles” (pg. 71). Asher argued that the approach, which is mostly based on self-
reflexivity, is a valuable method for helping teaching candidates learn about themselves
and diversity. In the article, Asher provided specific accounts of how the White teacher
candidates in the course she taught “outed” themselves or revealed their personal
experiences with and relationship to race, religion, and sexuality to convey the value of
this pedagogical strategy.

In this study, I examined the explicit curricula of multicultural education teacher
preparation courses in the state of Michigan. I use the term explicit curriculum to refer to
the types of materials represented on the syllabi of these courses. My analysis of the
explicit curriculum contrasts with understanding the enacted curriculum because I do not
study how teachers actually teach the materials. I also don’t investigate the null or hidden
curriculum. These forms of curriculum refer to the “unintended” learning that occurs in
schools and classrooms (See Eisner, 1994; Bowles and Gintis, 1977). My data sources
included publicly available information about teacher preparation institutions
(population, demographic, economic, and programmatic data). Syllabi of multicultural
education courses and surveys of the instructors of these courses provided the bulk of the
data for this study. I also drew on program documents and information about

institutional and departmental contexts to situate the 14 multicultural education courses.

The findings in this study suggest that the materials used in multicultural
education courses and the approach of courses varied considerably; however, there were
notable patterns among course materials and approaches. For example, I found that
courses were designed to increase teacher candidates’ understanding of the experiences
of people from some minority groups more than others. Courses were also developed to
help teacher candidates acquire information about schooling processes and the context of
schooling. The course materials, such as how topics were presented and contextualized,
also suggest that another objective of these courses was to alter the dispositions of teacher
candidates. Such strategies focused on developing empathetic teachers and teachers who
were self-aware. One notable pattern across these courses is that the development of
pedagogical skills, learning how to teach diverse groups of students, was not a priority
among the courses I studied. I also did not find much evidence indicating that social
activism was an objective of the courses in this study.

Personal Motivation for Studying Courses

My motivation for conducting research on multicultural education courses stems
from my personal experiences teaching a multicultural education course. As a graduate
teaching assistant, I taught the diversity course in a teacher preparation program for five
semesters. Through teaching and the interaction I had with instructors teaching the same
course, I developed a deeper understanding of the complexity of teaching multicultural
content. When I began teaching this course in the fall of 2003, I knew very little about
teaching, and I had little teaching experience. What I did know I had learned from being a
student for more than two decades, my apprenticeship of observation (Lortie, 1975).

Since I had no formal preparation to teach I lacked the knowledge and language to

understand and interpret many of my pedagogical choices. This first became evident to
me during my initial interactions with the other instructors of the course. The instructors
talked about various instructional techniques and strategies to facilitate student learning
that I had never heard of, and I knew even less about how to implement these strategies in
my own class. Even though their jargon made me feel unprepared to teach, my feelings
were intensified because I was unable to understand and relate to their perspectives and
choices. I also believed some of them questioned my legitimacy since, unlike most of
them, I had never gone through a teacher preparation program or become certified as a
teacher.

As a result of my experiences as a teacher in this undergraduate teacher
preparation course, I quickly discovered that teaching was about much more than
understanding specific instructional strategies. Teaching was also not just about helping
students acquire subject matter knowledge. What I learned most fi'om my first
experiences as a teacher was that teaching is both complex and challenging. I also
discovered it was a task with a great deal of uncertainty (Cohen, 1988). I found teaching
to be unpredictable for many reasons but mostly because I could not control how my
students interpreted course materials and what they learned. The students brought with
them a wealth of knowledge and experience that influenced course materials and the
direction of the course. I believe the complexities of teaching were increased by the
curriculum I taught because this course asked students to reflect on their own personal
beliefs and values. However, I don’t have any way of knowing whether my particular

difficulty is specifically tied to this curriculum.

Findings in the literature do not necessarily suggest that multicultural education
courses are harder to teach, but the literature does suggest that teacher candidates resist
learning about diversity issues. The literature equates resistance with Whiteness.
Students are believed to resist diversity and multicultural content because it conflicts with
their experiences and their perceptions about the causes of inequality. In essence, they are
not able to recognize inequality, because they themselves have not experienced it.
Teacher candidates are also described as not willing to consider how socio-cultural
factors influence people’s opportunities for learning and societal success. Learning about
diversity and multicultural education is assumed to require teacher candidates to reassess
their own experiences and how they see themselves. It is also assumed to require them to
reconsider why people succeed and fail in school.

There are a number of studies in the teacher education literature about how to
minimize teacher candidates’ resistance to multicultural content. Brown (2004) found,
for example, that instruction aimed at encouraging students to explore their own cultural
background was effective in minimizing resistance if students did not perceive the
instruction as challenging and threatening to their prior knowledge. Another strategy
found to be effective was cognitive dissonance theory (McFalls and Cobb-Roberts,
2001). Researchers compared students’ responses to a series of questions about a lesson
on White privilege to determine if teaching students about cognitive dissonance theory
affected their interpretation of this concept. By comparing the responses of the
experimental group to the control group, researchers found that students who received the
lesson on cognitive dissonance were better able to articulate responses about White

privilege in ways aligned with the course than students who had not received the lesson.

Rather than provide specific curricular strategies for minimizing White resistance,
there are findings in the literature suggesting that resistance is mediated by factors
beyond race. Among these findings, there is evidence indicating that teacher candidates’
responses are mediated by their cultural-based experiences, including their prior exposure
to diversity. Cockrell and her colleagues (1999), for example, conducted an action
research study to determine the factors that influenced how receptive their students were
to learning about the transformative role of schools. Results from their research indicated
that not all teacher candidates interpreted the purposes of the course similarly and some
students were reluctant to understand schools in transformative terms. The authors
attributed the differences in students’ responses to students’ experiences and exposure to
diversity. The authors also found that the race and gender of teacher candidates mattered
because female and racial minority students were more likely than White males to
identity transformation as a primary purpose of schooling. Findings from a study
conducted by Bullock and Freedom (2006) were similar. They studied students’
perceptions of a diversity course after they made curricular changes to the course.
Through the administration of pre- and post-surveys and interviews, Bullock and
Freedom found that students had different beliefs about the relevancy of the course to
their future work as teachers. While some students reported that the course was important
and relevant to their future teaching practices, others saw it as irrelevant. Bullock and
Freedom also found that students did not resist all curricular topics similarly. The
students in their course were much more resistant to race, social class, and gender than to

disability issues.

Although I did not—from a researcher’s perspective—systematically study the
prospective teachers in the classes while I was teaching them, I did study this course from
a teacher’s perspective. My students taught me a lot about the multicultural materials
included in the course I taught. They helped me rethink some of the materials I used and
increased my understanding of the curriculum by how they responded to it, as illuminated
by the following two examples. During the first semester I taught prospective teachers, I
designed an in-class activity to help them consider the importance and principles of
culturally relevant pedagogy. I placed my students in groups based on their subject matter
preferences. Each group was assigned a hypothetical classroom serving different types of
students. For the assignment, prospective teachers were asked to discus and develop a
lesson for teaching subject matter using a culturally responsive approach. The group
assigned a classroom with a racially diverse groups of students (Whites, Asians, Blacks,
and Hispanics) struggled with the assignment because they were not able to determine
how to develop a culturally relevant lesson for a class with several different racial groups.
This group’s response led me to realize how culturally relevant teaching was
conceptualized in course readings and how our discussions of culturally responsive
pedagogy were essentializing race. I also realized that my assignment did not adequately
capture the complexities of this type of teaching.

During the last semester I taught the course I used clips from three movies—
Blackboard Jungle, Teachers, and Dangerous Minds. Each clip represented teaching and
learning in an urban context at a different historical period. I wanted these clips to help
my students examine and deconstruct how they understood urban schools and

communities. Instead of helping students see how the movies were perpetuating myths,

this activity reinforced the stereotypes many of the prospective teachers held about urban
schools, racial minorities, and poor students. I believe the assignment was ineffective
because I did not design it to account for my students’ prior knowledge and, for some,
their lack of exposure to diversity. I also had not helped students develop the skills they
needed to critically engage with this lesson.

Similarly, my experiences teaching about diversity led me to believe that most of
the prospective teachers I taught found it difficult to interpret course curriculum in ways
that did not involve drawing on their own experiences. As a result, I saw this as an
important way to help them consider ideas they had not previously engaged with and to
help them learn about diversity. I also found that most of my predominately White and
female students wanted to learn course materials because they thought the course would
help them become good teachers. Unlike findings in the literature, I didn’t find that most
of my students were reluctant or resistant to course content. For the most part, they
exhibited a willingness to try on these (sometimes new) ways of thinking or at least
attempted to consider perspectives they had not previously considered.

I’m not sure why I did not find that the prospective teachers I taught were
resistant to my course and the materials I taught. Most, if not all, of the other instructors
teaching the same course discussed and described resistance from their students. As part
of our weekly meetings, several course instructors repeatedly expressed their frustration.
about students’ reluctance to engage with the themes of the course. Some also
complained about students who challenged the legitimacy of their knowledge and course
materials. Instructors’ responses supported the findings I’ve described from the literature.

They believed prospective teachers didn’t accept the course because the materials

contrasted with their experiences and how they thought about social and educational
inequality. Course instructors saw their students as White and middle class and, therefore,
privileged.

Initially I agreed with my colleagues’ opinions about the prospective teachers
enrolled in the course. I had no reason to disagree with them since what they believed
was also evident in the literature. I soon, however, found that some of my colleagues
teaching this course were making unfair generalizations about their students and
marginalizing them. I wondered if these assumptions might be undermining their
abilities to relate to and, possibly, teach their students. The assumptions they made about
the privilege of White students was, for the most part unfounded. Although most students
were White and some had privileged lives, there was a great amount of diversity among
the White prospective teachers who enrolled in the course sections I taught. Some of the
prospective teachers grew up in poor and working class families and others had been
disadvantaged in ways not directly related to their social and cultural characteristics. I
also came to believe that even if students were White and middle class they did not all
interpret course materials by resisting them. Some of the students who were most
resistant to the course were working class and racial minorities, while some of the
students most willing to consider course content had been advantaged by their race and
social class.

I also thought about how their assumptions contrasted sharply with the content of
the course we taught. In our weekly meeting many instructors talked about how they
designed activities and assignments to help prospective teachers consider their

assumptions about racial minorities and other minority groups. They saw these activities

as important because they believed that if future teachers could learn how to recognize
their assumptions they would be better able to minimize unfair and unconscious treatment
of minority students. Course instructors might have thought it was not harmful for them
to think and talk about their White students in discriminatory ways because they were
members of the dominant group rather than racial minorities. They might have also
thought of themselves as experienced teachers who understood the implications of their
assumptions on their classroom practices. Either way I did not feel comfortable
generalizing about my students, particularly in light of the fact that I would have been
modeling behavior that contradicted the course.

There could, of course, be a variety of reasons why my experiences teaching
predominantly White prospective teachers contrast with the literature’s findings about
student resistant and my fellow instructors’ experiences. It could have been the group of
students I taught each semester. Or maybe it was the materials. Each semester I varied
materials and assignments to reflect what I had learned from the previous group of
students. It is also plausible to assume that the prospective teachers I taught were resistant
to the materials and I was not able to detect their resistance. Another reason for the
apparent lack of resistance among my students could have been my approach to both my
students and the course. I remember several instructors describing how they thought it
was essential for them to challenge their students in ways that made the students become
angry and vulnerable. I was not willing to do enact such an antagonistic critical stance
because I felt that it was not my job to marginalize students in order to teach them.

Although I can’t draw definite conclusions about how my students’ social and

demographic differences influenced their interpretations of course materials, I did see

10

patterns among how course instructors prioritized course topics. During the weekly
instructor meetings, I noticed differences among how our differences shaped our teaching
strategies and how we approached the course. Most instructors had been trained as
teachers and had taught K-12 students. A minority of course instructors were similar to
me because they had discipline-based education and no or little teaching experience prior
to teaching this multicultural education course. It didn’t appear that there was a lot of
variation among how instructors thought about the students they taught. It was, however,
evident that some instructors were more willing to voice their experiences with
oppositional students than other instructors.

An obvious difference between course instructors was their commitment to
demographic topics. These commitments appeared to relate to instructors’ social and
culturally based experiences. Course instructors, including myself, mostly preferred to
teach about the demographic categories we had personally experienced. In our weekly
meetings, instructors of color, who were a minority, talked more about race and admitted
a stronger commitment to race than other course topics. White, middle class instructors
also talked about race in terms of privilege more than their working class counterparts.
White instructors who came from poor or working class backgrounds, like me, tailored
the course around issues related to class. I also found that White female instructors were
more likely to talk about and emphasize gender than male instructors. Several male
instructors expressed discomfort about teaching gender issues because of their lack of
knowledge. They apparently also lacked the interest to learn more about the topic.
Perhaps because of my personal background, I often felt that social class was a topic

marginalized by most course instructors. But I also know that other instructors felt that

11

race and gender were not discussed as much as they should have been. Our
interpretations might have been more related to our personal commitments more than the
reality of our discussions and course curricula.

For my dissertation research, I wanted to understand if the knowledge I had
acquired as a result of my teaching a multicultural education course and conversations
with fellow course instructors was unique. My motivation for pursuing this study was
also fueled by the lack of information in the literature about multicultural education
courses. When I turned to the literature to learn about how teacher educators taught
courses like the one I was teaching, what kinds of texts they used, and to learn about how
they thought about multicultural education courses, I found very little information. The
information I did find was mostly about student resistance and strategies for minimizing
resistance. I also found, instead of finding answers to the questions I had developed,
literature focused broadly on why multicultural education should be a necessary
component of teacher education and various definitions and forms of multicultural
education. I describe this literature in Chapter Two.

Although the literature is limited, the few studies about multicultural education
courses suggest that the content and materials of multicultural education courses vary.
For instance, Sheetz and Chew (2002) studied the content of diversity courses taught at
San Francisco State University. They found that the topics covered in the courses and
course materials varied by individual instructor. Sheetz and Chew argued that the one
common characteristic of these courses was that they targeted White prospective teachers
while marginalizing and silencing racial minorities. Through a review of the literature,

Sleeter (2001) described diversity courses as using a variety of pedagogical strategies to

12

help teach students about diversity, including autobiographies, simulations, and debates’ .
Sleeter’s review also revealed that most people who study and write about multicultural
education courses are the teacher educators who teach them

There was also evidence in the existing literature about the effectiveness of
multicultural education courses. Multicultural educators are convinced that a single
course on diversity is not a sufficient intervention for preparing teacher candidates to
teach diverse groups of students (Villegas and Lucas, 2002; Sleeter, 200]). I did not,
however, find a lot of evidence in the literature about how multicultural education
courses affected teachers’ knowledge, their teaching practices, and their abilities to form
relationships with their students. Empirical findings about the short-term effects of how
courses altered teacher candidates’ attitudes and beliefs about diversity were not
conclusive. The findings indicated mixed results (Sleeter, 2001; Weisman and Garza,
2002; Garmon, 2004). Sleeter (2001) argues that there are more positive findings about
the impact of multicultural education courses in studies based on case study and narrative
research designs than experimental designed studies. Sleeter claims the positive results
are a function of teacher educators studying their own course. Teacher educators are more
likely to use qualitative methods and write up positive rather than negative results
because the research reflects their ability to teach. Other studies focused on effectiveness,
described earlier in this Chapter, provided evidence about whether strategies used in
multicultural education courses for minimizing student resistance were effective.

In sum, there are two fundamental reasons why I decided to study multicultural
education courses. For one, my experiences as an instructor of a multicultural education

course led me to want to understand how others taught multicultural education courses

l3

and to learn about the attitudes and beliefs they held about their courses and the students
they taught. I, initially, wanted to find ways to improve my own teaching and, I thought
learning about multicultural education courses and course instructors might help me. I
also thought it would give me the opportunity to discover some of the assumptions I held
about diversity, multicultural education, and teaching and was not able to recognize.
Second, since the existing literature provided so little information about multicultural
education courses, I thought it was important to begin to address some of the existing
gaps in the literature. This research would, therefore, have the potential to inform the
work of teacher educators engaged in preparing teacher candidates for diversity.
The Theoretical Focus I Bring to this Study

As in all research, the development and design of this study was influenced by my
academic background, theoretical preferences, and contextual setting. Prior to entering a
doctoral program in teacher education, I had studied and developed a commitment to
sociology. As an undergraduate student in sociology, I had been taught to think in
structural deterministic ways about social inequality. The theory I learned identified
social structure as the primary force behind societal problems. This led me to view
human action as the result of social forces rather than individual initiative and choice. If I
were to translate my undergraduate experiences into the educational arena, my
perspective would have reflected critical educational theorists, such as Paulo Freire and
Peter McLaren. I did not become interested in studying educational phenomenon until I
began pursuing a master’s degree in sociology and education. As part of the master’s
degree, my coursework mostly focused on institutional theory, which identified education

and schools as social institutions. This type of theory explained the factors that shaped

14

internal schooling processes and how educational policy shaped schools (Weik, 1976;
Meyer and Rowan, 1977). I also learned what different institutional theories revealed
about the purposes and processes of American schools.

My experiences as a doctoral student were much less discipline specific, and one
result of this interdisciplinary preparation was my ability to recognize some of the
assumptions I had developed as a result of my background in sociology. Through my
coursework, I soon began to recognize that understanding human behavior and action in
structural terms limited the contributions individuals made to their lives or individual
agency. Although not directly related to subject matter, I also learned that it was difficult
for me to separate myself from my initial understandings about inequality and the role
social institutions played in the cause and reproduction of inequality.

I approached this study with a perspective that bridged my foundation in
sociology with my doctoral preparation. At the point I engaged in this study, my
theoretical preferences focused on how people’s beliefs and actions were mediated by a
multi-layered context". My drinking is best captured by the work of French sociologist
Pierre Bourdieu (1984). Bourdieu studied how people, in this case the French middle
class, made decisions about lifestyle preferences. Bourdieu’s work illuminated how
individual preferences and judgments reflected social factors and that people’s choices
derive from and reinforce “distinctions” between social class groups. According to
Bourdieu (1984; Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992) the habitus or the matrix of dispositions,
preferences and perceptual schemes structure how people see and interpret their social
environment and, as a result, how they interact within that environment. The habitus is

formed by a person’s formative experiences which is why the family and one’s class

15

background is central to the person’s preferences and life choices. The habitus serves as a
mediator between individual choice and the larger social structure because it structures
the choices people make and it influences the type of cultural capital or resources, such as
knowledge and skills, people bring to the field. A person’s habitus also helps position
her/him within a particular field. The field, as defined by Bourdieu, is the social space or
arena in which individuals act. The field is an arena that is “relationally defined and
hierarchically positioned” (Olneck, 2000). If, for example, a person possesses the cultural
capital valued by a particular field, that person is advantaged because the person can
more readily interact with others in that field and exchange their capital for additional
resources. People who possess the valued capital within a particular field have the
knowledge and traits to effectively navigate and negotiate that space.

I did not directly draw on Bourdieu’s work to design this research and to interpret
this study’s findings. Bourdieu’s theory does, however, inform my thoughts about teacher
preparation and multicultural education more broadly. Bourdieu’s theory suggests that
education is a field comprised of people who interact with one another and within a space
that is structured and defined in particular ways. People enter the educational field when
they begin school. They bring to school cultural capital that was shaped by their habitus
and the forces that influenced it. Within the context of school, a person’s habitus
mediates how she/he experience school and the knowledge and skills they acquire from
their schooling experiences. A person’s habitus also influences how she or he not only
sees the educative process but her or his interactions with others. As students interact
within the educational field they begin to develop conceptions of teaching and ways of

thinking about good teaching that correspond with their own “distinctions.” This theory

16

could be used, for example, to explain why Lortie’s (1975) “apprenticeship of
observation” is such a powerful force that shapes how people teach. Bourdieu’s theory
can also be used to interpret why the course instructors I worked with valued the
demographic topics that corresponded with their own socio-cultural characteristics.
Instructors were better able to recognize the significance of these categories and discuss
them because they were part of their habitus. As instructors of diversity courses, their
habitus interacted with course curricula and contextual factors in ways that made them
feel most comfortable, most at home, with the topics they had personally experienced.

More specific to this study, Bourdieu’s theory suggests that course instructors
engaged in multicultural education shape and also are shaped by the multicultural
education courses they teach. As a result of their prior experiences, instructors bring to
multicultural education courses ways of thinking and acting that have been mediated by
social factors and also by their personal experiences. Instructors’ thoughts and actions
have also been shaped by their schooling experiences. This study does not directly draw
on Bourdieu’s theory, but rather I examine multicultural education courses and how such
courses are a reflection of course instructors’ preferences and interests and how the
current context in which they teach shape course curricula.

Organization of the Dissertation

At this point I have explained my rational for studying multicultural education
courses. I chose to study such courses because of my personal experiences teaching a
diversity course and the lack of information in the existing literature about multicultural
education courses. I also described how my thoughts about this study were influenced by

knowledge and prior experiences.

17

In Chapter 2, I provide an overview of the teacher education and multicultural
education literature that informed this study. This chapter also includes a description of
how I identified multicultural education courses in Michigan, the courses represented in
the study, and the methods I employed to generate and analyze data. To conclude the
chapter, I describe the types of information I am able to report based on the methods I
employed and the limitations of this research.

The findings of my research are reported in the subsequent three Chapters, 3-5. In
Chapter 3, I describe the explicit curricula of the 14 multicultural education courses
involved in this study. This chapter provides an overview of the types of topics included
in course syllabi, the density of these topics, and the kinds of assignments included in
multicultural education courses. In Chapter Four, I identify the strategies reflected in
course materials to cultivate teacher candidates’ dispositions. These two dispositions are
empathy and self-awareness. The range of multicultural education courses in Michigan
are represented in Chapter Five. I describe the explicit curricula of three multicultural
education courses to illustrate the differences among course approaches.

My dissertation concludes with Chapter 6. This chapter provides a summary of
the study’s findings. It also includes a discussion about the content absent from the
multicultural education courses in this study. More specifically, I describe what the
explicit curricula and the materials not included in courses reveal about Michigan’s
multicultural education courses and preparing teacher candidates for working with

diverse groups of students.

18

Chapter 2
Background Literature and Research Methods
The Literature Informing this Study
In Chapter One I described the terms of the literature as a factor motivating me to
study multicultural education courses. Although this literature provided a basis for this
study, it did not necessarily influence its design. In this Chapter, I provide an overview of
the background literature that informed the objectives of my study. This literature, which
lies at the intersection of scholarship on teacher education and multicultural education,
conveys why multicultural education is an important area of study for future teachers. I
also describe literature about how teacher preparation programs account for multicultural
education and why programs fail to account for diversity preparation. Since I was not
able to find typologies that characterize the variation among multicultural education
designed for teacher preparation, I describe two widely cited typologies, namely Banks
(1993b) and Sleeter & Grant (2004), that document the various approaches to
multicultural education used in K-12 schools and classrooms.
Multicultural Teacher Education Literature: T wo Strands
Educational scholars who advocate for integrating diversity and multicultural
content into teacher education programs are attempting to alter how teacher candidates
are prepared for their future work as teachers. Since the inception of programs developed
to prepare people to teach, there have been debates about the content and character of
teacher education. Historically, the literature suggested a tension between preparing
teachers in technical terms and preparation that mirrored academic training grounded in

the liberal arts (see, e.g., Borrowman, 1956). Multicultural education did not begin to

19

surface in the United States as a curricular objective until after the Civil Rights
Movement; it began to become a more prominent force in the teacher education literature
in the mid 1980s. The relationship between teacher preparation and multicultural
education is a central concern in the contemporary literature (Cochran-Smith, 2004;
Dilworth, 1998; Gay, 2005, 2002, 1997; Ladson-Billings, 2005, 2000; Villegas and
Lucas, 2002). Descriptions about why teacher education programs should prepare teacher
candidates for diversity are most prominent. The literature also documents how programs
can best account for multiculturalism.

Multicultural education is identified by its advocates as an important component
of teacher preparation programs due to the demographic differences between teachers and
their students. Banks (2005) used the term “demographic imperative” to signify the
urgency of finding ways to bridge demographic differences. Teacher candidates are
predominately White and female, whereas the students they teach are racially diverse.
The most recent data provided by the US. Department of Education (2007) indicates that
in the 2003-04 school year, more than 83% of teachers were White, nearly 8% Black, 6%
Hispanic, 1% Asian, and 1.4% Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaskan Native and
more than one race. About 75% of teachers were female and 25% male. In contrast, the
student population was 57% White and 43% of students were racial minorities, according
to the most recent data provided by the Department of Education. Appendix A includes a
table illustrating the race of public school students nationwide and by state.

The demographic differences, particularly the racial differences, between teachers
and students, are described in the literature as harmful to the educational experiences and

opportunities of minority groups. Multicultural education is positioned as an intervention

20

or a way to help teacher candidates overcome their deficiencies as a result of their
culturally based experiences. It is assumed that the experiences of White teachers did not
prepare them for teaching diverse groups of students. As stated by Gay (1997), most
teacher candidates “lack cross-cultural and interethnic group interactions” and as a result
students from minority groups are disadvantaged (p. 154). Hollins and Guzman (2005)
argue that the existing literature suggests that this lack of exposure causes teacher
candidates to enter preparation programs with “negative or deficit attitudes and beliefs
about those different from themselves” (p. 511). It is the overall position of teacher
education literature that such beliefs and attitudes cause teachers to think and act in ways
that prevent minority students from receiving an equitable education.

Multicultural education was designed to compensate for the characteristics of
teacher candidates and to prepare them for teaching diverse groups of students. In the
teacher education literature, there are two primary objectives of multicultural education:
1) increase the academic achievement and educational learning opportunities of
elementary and secondary students from minority groups, and 2) create a more equitable
and socially just society. These two goals are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but
there are differences between them. The first goal rests upon the assumption that the key
to increasing students’ learning and opportunities to learn depends on how teachers were
prepared to teach. Hollins and Guzman (2005), who are supportive of this approach,
identify teacher preparation as not providing teacher candidates with the understanding
and skills needed to teach all students. Hollins and Guzman argue that if teacher
candidates were prepared differently, the discrepancy between the educational

performance and attainment rates of racial minorities and low-income students and their

21

White and higher income counterparts would decrease. An example of one popular
pedagogical strategy identified in the literature as important for improving students’
educational opportunities is culturally responsive or relevant pedagogy (Delpit, 1996;
Gay, 2002; Ladson-Billings, 1997; Villegas and Lucas, 2002). Even though the
definition of cultural responsiveness varies, it basically refers to aligning curriculum and
pedagogy with students’ racial and cultural experiences. Advocates of this pedagogical
approach argue that K-12 students are more likely to relate to and understand subject
matter if teachers use culturally relevant techniques and strategies. Such methods are also
described as allowing students to maintain their cultural differences rather than
conforming to the White, middle-class standard that is reflected in most school curricula
and instruction.

The alleviation of social inequality is the other primary objective of multicultural
teacher education. Multicultural education aligned with this tradition is described as a
tool for achieving a more egalitarian and democratic society. This approach to teacher
preparation is most often supported by critical educational scholars because it prepares
teachers to critique and transform society. The philosophy of George Counts (1932) is
integral to this approach because he was one of the first educational scholars identifying
teachers as having a responsibility to the “social order.” He argued that teachers should
be prepared to engage in social transformation. More contemporary critical educational
theorists, such as Giroux and McLaren (1995), advocate for a similar approach. Teacher
preparation that promotes social change is based on the assumption that multicultural
teacher education can inform teacher candidates understanding of inequality. It is

assumed that the acquisition of this knowledge will facilitate teacher candidates’ ability

22

to act on behalf of racial minorities and low income students, in particular, but also on
behalf of minority groups. This approach also assumes that teachers who operate from a
critical perspective will educate their students to recognize and challenge racism and
other forms of discrimination. In essence, multicultural teacher education will change
society because teachers will become social activists and teach their students to also
engage in activism.
Multicultural Education within Teacher Education Programs

Teacher education programs are based on different conceptualizations about how
best to prepare future teachers. One of the most comprehensive typologies that capture
these differences was developed by Feiman-Nemser (1990). Feiman-Nemser used the
term “conceptual orientation” to refer to “a cluster of ideas about the goals of teacher
preparation and the means of achieving them” (p. 1). Since she defined the five
orientations as “espoused rather than enacted” her categorization described philosophical
distinctions among preparation programs rather than examining individual program
practices. The first orientation identified by Feiman-Nemser is the academic orientation.
This orientation emphasizes the preparation of teachers by increasing their knowledge of
subject matter or the liberal arts. This teaching orientation is primarily identified as an
intellectual task. Rather than develop teachers’ understanding of abstract and concrete
materials, the personal orientation focuses more specifically on developing the teacher.
Based on this approach, “learning to teach is construed as a process of learning to
understand, develop, and use oneself effectively” (p. 4). The orientation most commonly
associated with the goals of multicultural education is the critical orientation. Feiman-

Nemser described the critical approach as the combination of “a progressive social vision

23

with a radical critique of schooling” (p. 6). This approach assumes that the primary goal
of teacher education is to promote a democratic society by fostering the development of
teachers. The critical orientation positions the teacher as both “an educator and a political
activist” (p. 6). F eiman-Nemser’s fourth orientation identified teacher preparation in
technical terms. The technological orientation values scientifically-based and proven
strategies for the preparation of teachers. This form also prepares teachers to use
evidenced-based curricula and pedagogy in their future classrooms. In contrast to the
technical orientation, the practical orientation emphasizes what teachers learn from their
direct engagement and involvement with the practices of teaching. This knowledge and
understanding, as stated by F eiman—Nemser, included the “elements of craft, technique,
and artistry that skillful practitioners reveal in their wor ” (1990, p. 10).

Despite my efforts, I was not able to find any evidence in the literature about how
the conceptual approach and frameworks described by F eiman-Nemser (1990) directly
influenced how teacher preparation programs account for diversity. It seems that the
critical orientation is most directly related to the principles of multicultural education, but
none of the approaches would preclude preparing teacher candidates for working with
diverse groups of students. I suspect that some approaches are more conducive to the
inclusion of multicultural education and specific orientations would support particular
goals and objective of multicultural education more than others, but I do not have any
evidence to substantiate my speculations.

F arms of Multicultural Education
To understand the various forms and approaches of multicultural education, I

describe two of the more commonly cited taxonomies of multicultural education in K-12

24

schools and classrooms. Banks (1993) identified five different dimensions of
multicultural education. The development of his taxonomy was based on research
findings, observation, and Banks’ involvement in the field for more than 30 years. The
dimensions are described by Banks as “conceptually distinct” and “highly interrelated”
because each dimension captures differences and nuances and multiple dimensions could
be reflected in an intervention. Content integration is the incorporation of materials
about individuals and groups with various social and cultural demographics to teach
students school content such as academic and subject matter. The second dimension
identified by Banks is the knowledge construction process. This dimension focuses on
how socio-cultural factors including race and social class influence how knowledge is
“created.” Prejudice reduction is Banks’ third dimension. It refers to materials for
altering students’ attitudes and values. Equity pedagogy, the fourth dimension, consists of
“approaches, theories, and interventions” reflected in the literature and research for
increasing the academic achievement of minority students. He labeled the fifth and final
dimension as empowering school culture and social structure. This form of multicultural
education encompasses efforts to alter school culture and social structure to facilitate and
ensure educational equality.

Sleeter and Grant’s (1988, 1999, 2003) multicultural education typology was
initially developed in the mid 19803 through a review of more than 200 publications and
60 books about multicultural education. This classification system, like Banks’ taxonomy
and the conceptual orientations of teacher preparation (Feiman—Nemser, 1990) was not
developed by analyzing curricula and teachers’ practices. Sleeter and Grant’s Teaching

the exceptional and culturally diflerent, which is similar to Bank’s equity pedagogy,

25

accounts for multicultural education consisting of strategies and approaches for
effectively teaching minority groups and the disabled the academic knowledge and skills
valued by the school. Rather than focusing on knowledge and skills, the human relations
approach helps individuals develop “positive relationships” with people who are different
from themselves. This approach mostly focuses on altering people’s beliefs, attitudes and
feelings in ways that reduce stereotypes and helps people learn to communicate more
effectively with one another. It also encompasses materials for helping people develop a
positive understanding of their own socio-cultural characteristics. The third form, single
group studies, is different from the previous forms because it isolates a specific minority,
such as a racial minority group, rather than being inclusive of minority and marginalized
groups. The single group studies approach to multicultural education is also different
from the previous forms described, according to Sleeter and Grant, because it recognizes
the structural forces and factors that cause inequality. For the fourth approach, Sleeter
and Grant drew on the work of Gollnick to identify five goals supportive of the approach
they label multicultural education. These goals are: 1) Promoting the strength and values
of cultural diversity; 2) Promoting human rights and respect for those who are different
from oneself; 3) Promoting alternative life choices for people; 4) Promoting social justice
and equal opportunity for all people; and 5) Promoting equity in the distribution of power
among groups. Sleeter and Grant’s final approach is social reconstruction. This approach
to multicultural education is similar to multicultural education, but it encompasses
objectives and materials that place a greater emphasizes on “oppression” and “structural

inequality.”

26

Banks’ (1993) and Sleeter and Grant’s (1988, 1999, 2003) typologies of
multicultural education consist of some similar dimensions and types, but there are also
differences among how the authors categorize multicultural education. These differences
appear to result from the different types of information and processes captured by each of
the typologies. It appears that Banks’ five dimensions are a mix of content about
multicultural education and processes for achieving equity. As an example, content
integration is a process by which multicultural education is taught and the knowledge
construction process is a content-specific issue. Sleeter and Grant’s (1988, 1999, 2003)
typology, however, describe each of their five dimensions as consisting of both content
and delivery in the forms of curriculum and instruction.

These multicultural typologies provide further evidence about the need to study
the diversity and multicultural content in courses designed to prepare teacher candidates
for teaching diverse groups of students. Both typologies are relevant to this study because
they illuminate the differences among how people think and write about multicultural
education used in K-12 classrooms. If nothing else, the existence of these typologies,
conveys the need to examine how teacher education programs account for multicultural
education and the extent to which courses reflect (or not) these various approaches and
dimensions. Since both of the taxonomies were developed by examining the existing
research and literature on multicultural education, and the authors’ personal engagement
in education, they also suggest the importance of studying the curricular designs of

multicultural education courses.

27

The Research Design of this Study
Michigan’s Multicultural Education Courses

This study examines the multicultural education courses included in teacher
preparation programs in the state of Michigan. Michigan has 31 state certified teacher
education programss. A list of these programs can be found in Appendix B. Twenty-
three, or 74%, of the programs included a multicultural education course as part of the
undergraduate teacher preparation program requirements. I defined courses as
multicultural if the course descriptions located on websites and program documents
included the terms “multicultural,” “diversity,” or referenced specific demographic
categories, such as race and social class. I included a wide range of courses to account for
the contextual differences of how information about diversity and multiculturalism was
taught in teacher education programs. The most common course titles included the terms
“multicultural” or “diversity.” There were also courses meeting these criteria that were
foundations courses and one course focused on “exceptional students.” I did not include
elective courses and methods courses in this study. Each of the 23 programs had one
course meeting the established definition criteria except one program. This program had
two multicultural education courses.

I examined program websites and documents of the eight teacher preparation
programs that did not have a multicultural education course to determine how the
programs were addressing the state’s diversity requirement. For five of the eight
programs I was not able to find any references in program and departmental documents

about diversity and multicultural education. In the remaining three programs,

28

multicultural education was described as a program priority. Programs were described as
integrating multicultural content across requirements rather than relegated to one course.
The institutional context of the teacher preparation programs in Michigan varied.
Teacher education programs are located at a variety of higher education institutions. I
used the Carnegie Classification System to detemrine institutional typef’ Figure 2.1
illustrates the institutional type of the 31 Michigan institutions with a state-certified
teacher education program. It also compares the 23 programs with a multicultural
education course (REQ) to the 8 programs without a required course (NON).
Figure 2.1

Number of Michigan ’s Preparation Programs by Institutional Type

 

 

Doctorate Masters Baccalaureate

l
l
i
l
i

As displayed by the Figure, most of the 31 state approved teacher certification programs
in Michigan are located at master’s granting universities (14). Nine programs are at
baccalaureate granting colleges and eight at doctorate granting universities. More
master’s degree granting universities and a larger percentage of them have a multicultural

education courses than the programs located at other types of institutions. Of the eight

29

programs without a course, an equal number are located at masters and baccalaureate
colleges. Two of the six programs at doctoral universities do not have a multicultural
education course.

Of Michigan’s 23 teacher preparation programs with a multicultural education
course, 13 are represented in this study. Each of the represented programs had at least one
course instructor teaching the course as a study participant. Turning to these 13 programs,
they also cut across all three institutional types. Figure 2.2 compares the number of
programs represented in the study (REP) with the 23 programs with a required course
(REQ). As displayed below, the distribution of represented programs is similar to the
total number of programs.

Figure 2.2
Comparison of Preparation Programs Represented in Study to Michigan Programs with

a Required Multicultural Education Course by Institutional Type

 

 

‘ Doctorate Masters Baccalaureate

Besides variation among the context of programs there are also differences among
programs in the number of students enrolled in teacher preparation programs. The

program at one institution prepared as few as 20 undergraduate students; the school with

30

the largest number of students served about 6000 teacher candidates in 2004.7 Figure 3.3
displays the range in the undergraduate student population across Michigan’s 31 teacher
preparation programs, both programs with a required course (REQ) and programs without
a course (NON). I designated programs as small if they served 300 or fewer students.
Medium-sized programs served between 301 and 900 students and large programs had
more than 900 students.

Figure 3.3

Number of Michigan ’s Preparation Programs by Student Enrollment Population

 

small medium large

j l
i l
1 i
l Illllllllllllll ’ i
i i
l . i
, i
1 ~ 1
l

 

The majority of Michigan institutions (10) had programs serving between 301 and 900
undergraduates. Seven of the programs served 300 or fewer students; 4 of the 31
programs served more than 900 students. There are also differences among the size of the
programs represented in this study. The multicultural education courses included in
programs with fewer students are less represented in the study, displayed by the Figure

below.

31

Figure 2. 4
Comparison of Represented Programs to Programs with 0 Required Multicultural

Education Course by Student Enrollment Size

12

10

 

small medium large

The demographic characteristics of teacher candidates enrolled in Michigan’s teacher
preparation programs were similar. As displayed in Table 2.1, teacher candidates were
predominately White and female. Eighty-two percent of students enrolled in Michigan
teacher preparation programs were White and 72% female. The race and gender of
Michigan teacher candidates were similar to the characteristics of candidates nationwide
(AACTE, 2001). The programs that did not have a multicultural education course (NON)
had a higher percentage of White students enrolled than programs with a multicultural
education course (REQ). Programs without a multicultural education course, on average,

had more male students than programs with a course, 35% and 25% respectively.

32

Table 2.1

Percent of Michigan ’s Preparation Programs by Race

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REQ NON Michigan
White 79 92 82
Black/African 10 3 8
American ‘
Hispanic 2 .7 2
Asian/Pacific 1 .3 1
American
Other or Unknown 7 4 7

 

 

 

 

Table 2.2 indicates that the percent of White teacher candidates was slightly
higher, among the programs represented in the study (REP) than all 23 programs with a
course (REQ). The percentage of male and female students in these programs was
similar.
Table 2.2
Percent of Teacher Candidates in Programs Represented in Study Compared to

Michigan Programs by Race

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REP REQ
White 86 79
Black/Afiican American 5 10
Hispanic 2 2
Asian/Pacific American 2 1
Other or Unknown 5 7

 

Based on the data presented about teacher preparation programs in Michigan, it is evident
that the institutional and prograrn-level characteristics of programs with a course are, for
the most part, similar to the programs represented in this study. There are more teacher
preparation programs at master’s granting institutions than other institutional types.

Programs at master’s granting institutions are also more likely to have a required

33

 

 

multicultural education course. There are more medium-sized teacher education programs
(301-900) in the state than small (less than 300) or large programs (more than 900).
Medium-sized programs are also more likely to have a required multicultural education
course. Preparation programs, despite their differences, serve demographically similar
students—White and female.

Course Instructors

I determined the instructors engaged in the multicultural education courses at the
23 teacher education programs by reviewing course schedules. Since the courses in this
study had to be taught during the spring 2007 semester, I examined the on-line course
schedules provided by the institutions for that semester. I found the course schedules on
the university, college, or department website. There were a total of 68 instructors
teaching the 23 courses in the spring semester. The number of instructors per course
ranged from 1 to 16. As expected, programs with a large student population had more
course sections and, therefore, more instructors than programs with fewer enrolled
students.

While obtaining the complete list of course instructors, I also collected
information about each course instructor through university and college directories and
departmental websites. I located contact information and job titles for each of the 68
instructors. The majority of instructors were tenure stream (28). Seven instructors were
full professors, 9 Associate, and 12 Assistant Professors. Twenty-five instructors were
graduate students and 15 were adj unct/lecturers.

To recruit instructors to participate in this study, an email invitation consisting of

a description of the study and entailments of participation was sent to instructors in mid-

34

March. Instructors who agreed to participate were asked to email the course syllabus they
were currently using for the multicultural education course they taught directly to me.
Instructors were also asked to reply to the request if they did not plan to participate. Due
to the low response rate after the initial email was sent in mid-March, follow-up emails
were sent at the beginning and end of April. I also sent email requests once per month
from May to August. By the end of May, 54% (3 7) of the instructors had consented to
participate in the study and 25% (17) had replied to my email with a written response
indicating their desire to decline participation. Course instructors who did not participate
were from 10 institutions. Five instructors were from a single institution. Not all
instructors who declined provided a reason for their decision. Of the instructors who did,
the most common response was lack of time. Other reasons ranged from “possible career
change” to differences among the goals of the study and instructors’ teaching philosophy
and practices. One instructor, for example, self-identified as a “constructivist pedagogue”
and, as a result, did not feel that the research methods would capture the materials she
used in her course. Fourteen or 21% of the 68 instructors contacted did not respond to
any participation requests. Appendix C includes a table displaying the number of
participants and non-participants from each of the programs with a required multicultural
education course.

The 37 participating instructors represented 14 multicultural education courses
and 13 teacher education programs. I received a total of 31 course syllabi. The number of
syllabi is less than the total number of instructors because six instructors teaching the

multicultural education course at one of the universities used exactly the same syllabus.

35

Data Generation and Analysis

This study had two distinct phases of data collection. Phase I consisted of the
collection and analysis of course syllabi. Findings from the first phase were used for the
development and administration of the course instructor survey, the second phase.
Although not a separate phase of research, I also collected data to understand the context
of multicultural education courses. Context refers to institutional and departmental
structures and policies. Program websites and documents were examined to understand

the following:

Courses required to fulfill program requirements
Departmental and program mission

Inclusion of programs designed to specifically target specific groups of students
(e.g. urban program)
0 Other diversity requirements and programs for both department and institution

Phase 1: Course Syllabi

The primary purpose of the first phase of data generation and analysis was to
determine the content of multicultural education courses. I examined course syllabi to
understand the purposes of multicultural education courses, course topics and themes,
and the activities and assignments required by the courses. I used course syllabi to
understand course content because the syllabus is the primary text used to represent
course curriculum. Rather than identifying the syllabus as an indicator of student
learning, I understand the syllabus as a discursive and administrative educational
practice. The text and materials on the syllabus are not necessarily indicators of what
students learn about diversity multicultural education. Understanding how courses affect
students, including their understanding of multicultural issues and how to teach are

important, but neither is examined in this study.

36

Prior to data analysis the readings included on each of the 31 course syllabi were
entered into an excel spreadsheet organized by course instructor. The fields on the
spreadsheet included the number of sessions devoted to the reading and the session
number or course session of the required readings. The latter allowed me to determine at
what point in the course the reading was included. I noted the title; if the reading was
from another source, such as a book, that title was also entered. The text type (book, book
chapter textbook chapter, journal article, other article) of each course reading was the
final information recorded for course readings.

I analyzed each component of the course syllabi differently. To determine course
topics, I examined assigned course readings by developing codes using a method between
deductive and inductive coding (Miles and Huberman, 1994). I started coding texts with
a general idea about course topics (deductive), but I also wanted to be flexible in my
approach to allow for changes and additional codes to develop from the course readings
(inductive). Each course reading was assigned between one and three codes depending on
the number of topics it covered. Readings were coded twice. I recoded the readings, after
the initial round of coding, to ensure that the codes were accurate and consistent. The list
of primary codes can be found in Appendix D.

I also developed secondary codes for several of the primary codes. The secondary
codes are also listed in Appendix D. These codes were used to identify how the primary
codes, primarily the social and demographic categories, were represented and
contextualized in course readings. These codes were developed through a coding process
similar to the development of the primary codes. For race, as an example, the secondary

codes included pedagogy, race groups, and descriptions of race. Pedagogy captured

37

readings about race within the context of teaching. I identified readings that spanned five
racial groups: White, African-American, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American. The
race descriptions code was used to signify readings that illuminated how race influenced
social inequality and schooling process and practices.

In addition to identifying individual course topics, I wanted to understand which
of the course topics were most valued in multicultural education courses. I measured
value by topic density. The density of topics was determined by adding the number of
course sessions devoted to each topic. In one course, for example, readings about gender
were included in one course session and readings about social class in two sessions. As a
result social class is a higher density topic than gender in that specific course. I computed
the density per course and also across the 14 courses.

I also analyzed syllabi to understand course purpose. I primarily relied on course
descriptions provided on the first page of syllabi to determine the objectives and goals of
the multicultural education courses in this study. I categorized course goals and
objectives into three broad categories: knowledge, skills, and dispositions. I then used an
inductive coding method to determine the types of knowledge, skills, and dispositions
teacher candidates were expected to learn or acquire from each of the multicultural
education courses.

Finally, the course assignments and activities were examined to ascertain the
types of skills teacher candidates were expected to develop from their involvement in
multicultural education courses. After determining the types of required assignments,

including papers, exams, presentations, and service learning assignments, I looked at the

38

weight of the assignments to understand the types of assignments that were a higher
percentage of students’ overall grade.

Phase 11: Course Instructor Survey

The second phase of the study consisted of administering an on-line survey to
course instructors. The survey was developed to understand the characteristics of course
instructors, how course instructors thought about the multicultural education courses they
taught, and their thoughts about multicultural education courses more broadly. A copy of
the survey can be found in Appendix E.

The instructor survey consisted of both Likert-scale and open-ended questions.
Questions on the survey solicited information about study participants. More
specifically, the survey asked course instructors to describe their social and cultural
background, prior experiences with and exposure to diversity, and their education and
work experiences. Survey questions also required respondents to reflect on the content
and curriculum of the course they taught. Course instructors were asked to indicate their
level of satisfaction with the content and materials they used in their course and to list
those they would like to either add or remove. To gain some insight about the factors that
influence course content, instructors were also asked to describe what has prevented them
from making their desired changes. Survey questions requested course instructors to rank
the degree to which people (students and faculty) and institutional units (department and
Michigan) valued the course they taught. They were also asked to describe how teacher
candidates were exposed to diversity during their teacher education program as another

way to gauge the value of multiculturalism among the faculty and department.

39

Finally, the survey sought to capture respondents’ thoughts on multicultural
education more broadly. Survey respondents had to rank how valued specific
multicultural education course themes and topics. Most of these topics were drawn from
the analysis of course syllabi, Course instructors were asked to rank the importance of
eight social and demographic categories (race, social class, gender, sexual orientation,
disability/special education, language, religion, urban) and to share their beliefs about the
importance of several key multicultural concepts and themes, such as social and
educational inequality, social justice, and pedagogy to name a few. Survey questions
required them to indicate their level of agreement with several key statements about the
texts and assignments used in multicultural education courses. Questions asked course
instructors about the types of characteristics and qualifications instructors thought
described effective teachers of multicultural education courses.

The web-based survey was hosted by Survey Monkey. An email containing a link
to the survey was sent to research participants at the beginning of July. At this time an
email was also sent to the instructors who had not responded to email requests to
encourage them to respond to the survey. To increase the number of survey respondents,
reminder emails were sent approximately every two weeks prior to the close of the survey
at the end of August. Sixty-two percent (n=23) of the instructors who submitted a course
syllabus responded to the survey. Instructors represented 9 of the 13 institutions.

For the initial round of survey analysis I wanted to develop an understanding of
course instructors’ thoughts about their courses and their beliefs about the purpose and
role of multicultural education courses. I also wanted some insight about the

characteristics of course instructors. Basic statistical techniques were performed on

40

Likert-scale questions. Open-ended questions were analyzed using inductive coding to
identify the key themes among the responses of each question.

Second Round of Data Analysis

In Phase I and Phase II of this study data were analyzed to gain a general
understanding of multicultural education courses and the instructors who teach them.
This analysis yielded information about course content, such as the type of topics
included in courses, the density of these topics, and courses assignments.

For the second round of data analysis, I analyzed data differently and, in some
cases, I combined data sources to gain more contextual understanding of courses. Even
though I had developed a general idea about the type of knowledge and skills reflected in
the required course readings and assignments in Phase I, I wanted to understand if
courses materials reflected dispositional objectives. I began this process by examining
the readings that included social and demographic categories to determine if there were
patterns among specific demographic topics. I relied on the secondary codes to see if
there were similarities among how each of the demographic topics was represented in
materials. Since I did not find specific distinctions by topics, I examined the readings
differently. Instead of depending on the primary and secondary codes I had developed, I
looked across the readings about social and demographic categories to determine the
strategies reflected in course readings. By examining across topics, I identified several
strategies suggestive of two dispositions. I also examined course assignments to
understand if course activities supported dispositional objectives.

Since very few studies in teacher education examine program phenomena across

institutions and institutional types, the design of this study was ideal for understanding

4]

institutional effect. I analyzed course topics and themes to determine if there were
specific patterns among diversity content and institutional type. I report some of the
patterns and differences I found in Chapters 3 and 4.

Findings from Phase I and II were merged to construct event and effects matrices
(Miles & Huberman, 1994). These matrices were constructed to determine the factors
that shaped and influenced the content of multicultural education courses. I examined
course content in relation to institutional factors and the characteristics of course
instructors. Since the write up for the dissertation did not focus on how contextual
factors influenced course content, most of the findings from this level of analysis were
not reported.

Case Study Approach

The more I became engaged with the data and acquainted with the courses, the
more the nuances and differences among the 14 multicultural education courses became
evident. Even though all the courses were designed to prepare teacher candidates for
diversity, I knew courses reflected different approaches to multicultural education. I
systematically selected three courses to represent the range of multicultural education
courses in this study. Range refers to variation in course approach and difference in
institutional context. My first step in the selection process was to eliminate the extreme
cases or the courses that were vastly different from the other courses in the study. I
eliminated the course at a small baccalaureate college that mostly focused on disability
and the course at a mid-sized university that included very few readings about schooling.
I also eliminated the program with the greatest number of course sections, which was one

of the courses located at a large research university. This had narrowed my possibilities

42

down to ten programs and 11 courses. In the second step of the selection process, I
examined the remaining programs and courses to find variation among the topics covered
and how topics were presented and organized. Based on these criteria and my desire for
institutional diversity I selected one course representative of a dispositional focus. It was
located at a small liberal arts college. The course also dedicated the second half of the
semester to disability topics. A total of three courses were structured similarly. The next
case I selected contrasted sharply with the initial case because the materials used in this
course were much more specific to pedagogy. This course was located at a large research
university. It was the only course at a doctoral institution that had a pedagogical focus,
but it was the course that best illuminated this approach. Since I wanted the courses to
reflect differences among institutional context, the final case I selected was the course at
a master’s granting institution that reflected the third approach. The materials used in
this course had a critical theoretical and pedagogical approach rather than focusing on
dispositions and pedagogy. Table 2.3 illustrates the number of courses aligned with each
of the approaches.

Table 2.3

Number of Multicultural Education Courses by Course Approach

Course Number of Courses
' ' 'on 5

5
4

 

The three case study sites are similar to the sites with the same approach but they are also
different from these courses. Each approach, as represented in course materials, is fully

developed in the three courses I selected. Rather than a limitation of the selection process,

43

I see this as a strength since it enabled me to provide a richer presentation of the three
approaches

To describe the approaches of multicultural education courses—disposition,
critical theory and pedagogy, and pedagogy as teacher’s work—I relied on findings from
both Phases of data generation and analysis and the second round of data analysis. While
writing-up the cases, I also had to draw on materials to make connections between the
course and course approach. Information from program documents and websites and
institutional data were used in the write-up to contextualize individual programs and
courses.
Limitations of Research

This study, which examines multicultural education courses, is valuable to
educators engaged in multicultural education courses and teacher educators because it
begins to provide some initial insight about the content of multicultural education
courses. As described in Chapter One, the existing literature on multicultural education
courses provides very little information about the course materials used in these courses
and what the materials suggest about course strategies and approaches. Another benefit
of the study’s design is that it encompasses many course syllabi from 14 different courses
and 13 teacher education programs. In teacher education there are few studies that
examine curriculum across institutions and institutional types despite evidence indicating
that such factors are influential (Levine, 2006). This study, unlike most of the research
on multicultural education, examines the explicit curricula of designated courses rather
than relying on existing research articles and publications about multicultural education,

which is strength of the study’s design.

44

Despite this study’s assets, there are also several limitations I would like to
acknowledge. First I want to reiterate that the purpose of this study was to examine the
explicit curricula of multicultural education courses as represented by course syllabi. As a
result of this purpose, I cannot make any claims about how course curricula was enacted
or what teacher candidates learned about diversity and multicultural education and the
skills they developed due to their participation in these courses. Since course syllabi are
the primary means for determining course materials, the presentation and discussion of
materials, and the instructional methods used by course instructor are not known. This,
therefore, is a limitation of the study that results from the number of courses and
instructors participating in the study. I hope to investigate dimensions of the enacted and
implicit curricula of multicultural education courses in the near future.

A second limitation is that the findings reported cannot be generalized to teacher
education programs as a whole. I did not feel comfortable making broad claims about
Michigan’s multicultural education courses due to missing data. In some senses, the
findings cannot even be generalized to individual programs. Since not all course
instructors from the 13 institutions agreed to participate in the study, I cannot draw
definite conclusions about the content of multicultural education courses at institutions
that included more than one section. I do not generalize findings to Michigan’s 23 teacher
education programs despite the similarities I reported among the 14 courses represented
in the study and the state’s programs with a course because there are differences among
the programs not captured by the departmental and instructional characteristics described

in this chapter.

45

The instructor survey was not very helpful. One obvious reason is that not all
course instructors who submitted a course syllabus responded to the survey. As a result of
this discrepancy I did not have comparable information about all participating course
instructors. Of the instructors who did respond to the survey, a few of them did not
address the entire survey or provided partial responses to some of the questions. The
survey also did not illicit the type of information that would have been most helpful for
interpreting and understanding multicultural education courses. This is, therefore, a
weakness of the survey design. Due to the number of respondents, missing data, and the
design of the survey, I decided to use the data cautiously rather than generously. I mostly
used the survey findings to illustrate trends among the course topics and to complement

the findings about the case study sites. ,

46

Chapter Three
The Curricular Topics of Multicultural Education Courses

In this chapter, I describe the explicit curricula of the 14 multicultural education
courses in this study. I examined the course readings, assignments, and activities of the
31 course syllabi submitted by course instructors to determine curricular topics and
themes. All of the course syllabi consisted of readings about a variety of multicultural
and educational topics. Foundational topics about schools and schooling, social and
demographic categories, and pedagogy were the three broad types of information
included in courses. The topics included in each category were not mutually exclusive.
In some cases, for instance, demographic topics intersected with pedagogical themes in
course readings. Many of the social and demographic categories were often discussed
within the context of pedagogical approaches and strategies.

I integrated findings from the analysis of course syllabi with course instructors’
survey responses to illustrate the variability among curricular topics. Some topics were
more prevalent, or dense, than other topics. I determined the density of individual topics
by summing the number of course sessions with readings about each of the topics. The
higher density topics were included in a greater number of sessions than lower density
ones. The density of topics across this set of courses was based on the presence of the
topic and the sum of the total number of sessions in all 14 courses. The density of some
topics varied by institutional type, but overall there were few patterns among course

topics and institutional characteristics.

47

Foundational Content about Schools and Schooling

Multicultural education courses consisted of topics suggestive of the foundations
of schools and schooling. Topics included definitions, frameworks, and theories of
schooling and education and descriptions of school structures. There were, however,
differences among the number and range of topics included in each of the courses. In
some course syllabi only a few topics were represented in course readings and on the
syllabi of other courses readings spanned the range of topics related to schools and
schooling. Differences among the density of foundational topics both within and across
multicultural education courses are displayed in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1

The Distribution of Foundational Topics Among Multicultural Education Courses and

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Course Syllabi

Topic Number of courses Number Range of sessions
of syllabi by syllabi

Policy 11 27 .5 — 4.5

Multicultural 11 15 .33 — 2.25

education

Purposes of 8 23 .5 — 5.98

schooling

History 6 8 .33 — 2.83

Philosophy 3 4 1 — 2.5

 

 

 

 

Policies that Shape Schools and Schooling

Multicultural education courses consisted of readings about school- and national-
level policies. Policy was the densest foundational topic among the courses at large
research or doctoral-granting universities. Course instructors’ responses to the course

instructor survey reveal instructors think policy is an important foundational topic.

48

 

All 11 courses inclusive of this topic had readings documenting how policies
shape schools and schooling. State and school-level policies ranged from school reform
and school choice to testing, tracking, and school funding. Of the policies included in
courses, Table 3.2 illustrates that tracking and school funding are densest and school
choice is the least dense policy topic.

Table 3.2

Policy Topics by the Number of Course Syllabi

Poli T 'c Number of Course S llabi
School F ' 18
T ' 16
Federal licies 15

8
School reform 6
Choice 4

 

Virtually all readings on school funding and tracking identified how these policies
created inequitable schooling conditions. Anyon (2001b) and Biddle and Berliner’s
(2002) work are typical. They described the impact of school funding policies on
different types of students; poor and racial minorities were disadvantaged and white,
middle class students advantaged. An example of an author whose work describes these
discrepancies is Jonathon Kozol, a well-known writer and advocate for altering funding
policies to increase the educational opportunities of low income, racial minorities.
Readings about tracking describe how students from traditionally marginalized
groups, racial minorities and low-income, are more likely to end up in the lower tracks
than White, middle class students (Oakes, 1985, 1997). Placement in the lower tracks is
identified as harmful to the educational opportunities of students because students in the

lower track receive different types of course materials and are taught differently than

49

upper tracking students. The result of these differences, according to Oakes (1985), is that
lower tracked students are unchallenged, perceived by teachers and others as incapable,
and develop negative perceptions of their own abilities.

The third most common policy topic in courses was national policies. National
policies directly related to schooling were found among courses readings. Federal
policies, such as Brown vs. Board, special education legislation, and the No Child Left
behind Act were the national-level policies accounted for in required readings. There
were also policies examined in readings explaining social inequality. In Massey and
Denton’s (1993) The Construction of the Ghetto, for example, federal policies were
described as contributing to racial segregation and inequality.

Definitions of Multicultural Education

The syllabi of multicultural education courses included course readings about the
principles, frameworks, and definitions of multicultural education. This curricular topic
was in the majority of courses and in most courses in a small number of sessions. The
syllabi of courses at large doctoral granting universities and masters’ granting institutions
were more likely to focus on theories of multicultural education than were baccalaureate
granting schools. Course instructors thought theories of multicultural education was on of
the most important foundational topics.

The course readings explaining multicultural education provided different
interpretations of the forms and approaches to achieving education that is grounded in
diversity. Across the various forms, the essence of multicultural education is similar. It is
education that is about and inclusive of the experiences of diverse individuals and groups.

In education, diversity, most often, refers to differences as a result of people’s social and

50

demographic categories, such as their race, social class, and gender. Differences in the
cognitive and physical disabilities of people are also included under the multicultural
education label. It does not typically encompass the myriad of other factors that
differentiate people.

In most of the courses and course syllabi, definitions and frameworks of
multicultural education were most common. (See Human Diversity in Education: An
Integrative Approach, 2006; A flirming Diversity: The Sociopolitical Context of
Multicultural Education, 2004; Multicultural Education is a Pluralistic Society, 2005;
Exploring Socio-cultural Themes in Education: Readings in Social Foundations, 2001). I
assume, since such chapters were primarily positioned at the beginning or near the end of
the course syllabi in most courses, they served to provide teacher candidates ways of
conceptualizing the purpose and goals of multicultural education. Banks’ work
documented the purposes, various forms, and the value of using multicultural education
with the nation’s heterogeneous student population and minority groups, in particular
(Banks, 1993, 19%).

Most readings about multicultural education described this form of education
within the context of K-12 classrooms. An exception was a chapter from Cochran-
Smith’s (2004) Walking the Road: Race, Diversity, and Social Justice in Teacher
Education. This chapter described multicultural education in the context of teacher
education. It discussed teaching philosophies and practices supportive of multicultural

education.

51

Purposes of Schooling and the Influence of History and Philosophy

Virtually all course instructors responding to the survey believed that examining
the purpose and roles of education in a democratic society was an important topic for
teacher candidates enrolled in multicultural education courses. Fewer courses had
readings about the purposes of schooling than readings about policy and theories of
multicultural education, but a greater number of syllabi included such readings.

Among course readings, the purpose of schooling was discussed in the majority of
courses in critical terms. Such readings drew a relationship between social inequality and
schooling processes. Societal needs and structures were identified as shaping schooling
processes. Assigned readings suggestive of a critical approach were written by well-
known critical theorists of education. These authors included Paulo Freire, Joel Spring,
Chet Bowers, Jean Anyon, and Samuel Bowles.

Fewer courses linked education to the needs of a democratic society. Readings
discussed the schooling practices and policies either supportive or in opposition to
democracy. In three courses, readings examined the relationship between standards and
systems of accountability and public education in a democratic society (See Many
Children Left Behind, 2004; Will Standards Save Public Education, 2000). A book used
in two courses was Hochschild and Scovronick’s (2003) The American Dream and
Public Schools. The chapters and excerpts included on syllabi examined how educational
policies, including the purposes of schooling, were shaped by individual, collective, and
group goals.

Two multicultural education courses were inclusive of materials that identified

purposes of schooling as contentious. In one course, instructors used an article by

52

Labaree (1997) that described three competing purposes of schooling—democratic
equality, preparation for work, and social mobility. In the other course, the syllabus
consisted of readings that provided teacher candidates diverse interpretations about the
purpose and roles of schooling. Two of the articles identified how the school reflected
social inequality (Anyon, 2001; Bowles, 2001). The other reading was an excerpt form
Emile Durkheim’s (2001) “Education: Its Nature and Its Role.” Durkheim, as the critical
theorists, emphasized the moral dimensions of education.

Based on findings from the survey, history was one of the least important
curricular topics of multicultural education courses. History was also a low density topic.
Course readings aligned with this curricular topic examined the history schooling, the
historical experiences of minority groups, and societal changes in historical terms. In the
majority of courses, readings described schooling in terms of historical periods. Periods
ranged from the Common School Movement in the mid 17005 to education in the 19905
(For example, see Patton, 2002.) The syllabus of another course included several
readings about the historical experiences of racial minorities rather than specific to
schooling. Readings in the remaining syllabi described the historical changes in the
demographic characteristics of the US. population.

Course instructors identified philosophy as one of the other least important topics
for teacher candidates enrolled in multicultural education courses. As history, philosophy
was a low density topic. Very few readings used in courses were written by educational
philosophers. One exception was the book chapter, “Wide Awakeness and the Moral
Life” (1978) written by the existentialist educational philosopher Maxine Greene. In this

chapter, Greene discussed how educators must recognize the dominating forces shaping

53

individual’s consciousness, and in order to become moral beings they must overcome that
domination. In one course syllabus, readings examined the “philosophical roots of
education” and “pioneers” in the field of education from Levine’s (2002) Foundations of
Education. The course syllabus of two instructors teaching at the same large research
university included various chapters from Weston’s (2000) A Rulebook for Arguments.
This text drew from rhetorical philosophical traditions because it provided teacher
candidates descriptions and strategies for constructing arguments.
Social and Demographic Categories

1 found readings in all 14 multicultural education courses accounting for social
and demographic categories. These categories were also included in the readings of all 31
course syllabi. There were seven different social and demographic categories in the
multicultural education courses involved in this study—race, disability, social class,
language, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and religion. Course readings examined
how social and demographic categories interacted with schooling to influence the
educational experiences and opportunities of students. There were also readings in
courses examining the impact of socio-cultural factors that were not specific to schooling.
Multicultural education courses did not focus on the seven social and demographic topics
evenly. Race and social class were the densest topics. Religion was the least dense. Table
3.3 illustrates the number of social and demographic topics included in courses and

course syllabi.

54

Table 3.3

The Distribution of Social and Demographic Topics among Multicultural Education

Courses and Course Syllabi

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Topic Ntunber of Number of Average Range of
Courses Syllabi Number of Sessions by

Sessions by Syllabi
Syllabi

Race 13 30 3.51 .25-9.82

Social Class 13 29 2.66 .25-7.4

Language 12 25 2.08 .2-7.5

Disability 1 1 26 3.23 .12-16

Gender 10 25 1.45 .25-2

Sexual 9 20 1.1 1 .25-2.3

Orientation

Religion 7 8 .69 .12-1.8

 

 

 

 

 

Readings also did not focus on the experiences of minority and dominant groups to the

same extent. The realities and experiences of people from traditionally marginalized

groups (e. g., racial minorities, females, gay students) were most common. Race was the

only demographic category that consisted of a significant number of readings focused on

the experiences of the dominant group or the White race.

There is variation among the number of social and demographic categories

covered by the multicultural education courses. The average number of demographic

topics is five. The table below displays the variation among the number of social and

demographic categories included in courses.

Table 3.4

Number of Social and Demographic Topics by Course Syllabi

 

 

 

 

 

Number of Tcflcs Number of Syllabi
More than Five 18

Five 4

Less than Five 9

 

 

55

 

 

I thought courses with a greater number of categories would have spent fewer course
sessions on each, but that is not always the case. For instances, one of the courses located
at a large research university consists of several high density socio-cultural categories
among the six categories reflected in course readings. There are also several courses that
dedicated more course sessions to one category than all or most of the other categories
combined.

The course at a small private college consisted of six low density demographic
topics and one high density demographic topic. The six topics with low density were
each included in one of the course’s required books, Bridging Multiple Worlds: Case
Studies of Diverse Educational Communities by Taylor and Whittaker (2003). Each
chapter of the book consisted of a case study examining one of the seven demographic
categories. Disability is the course’s high density topic. Disability is included in a chapter
of Taylor and Whittaker’s book and it is also the primary topic of the course’s other
required text, Levine’s (2002) A Mind at a Time. This book does not directly target
teachers or teacher candidates. Levine includes practical guidelines and strategies for
helping practitioners and parents identify various forms of disabilities. The book also
discusses ways to accommodate the needs of people with several kinds of specific
disabilities, such as language, spatial, and motor sensory disorders.

In contrast to multicultural education courses accounting for breadth, there were
three course syllabi suggestive of depth. These syllabi consist of readings about two of
the seven social and demographic categories. The syllabus of a course at a small college
devoted all course sessions to disability and special education issues, except for one. In

this session, the course included a chapter on linguistic diversity. The other two course

56

syllabi, one at a master’s institution and the other at a doctoral university, include
readings about the same two categories—race and social class. Race and class were both
low density topics of the course at the master’s university. This course consisted of few
readings and, as a result, only a small number of topics. The two topics that dominate the
course are democratic education and the environment. The syllabi of the other courses
with 2 demographic categories represented in course content had both a high and low
density topic. Race had a density of 6.5 and a total of 2 course sessions were inclusive of
social class in one of the courses. Compared to most courses in this study, this course
also consists of very few readings. Most course sessions at the end of the semester are
dedicated to students’ presentations rather than assigned readings.

Course instructors’ thoughts about the social and demographic categories “most
important” for teacher candidates to learn about in the context of multicultural education
courses reflected their presence and density. Race and social class were the demographic
topics with the highest ratings by the greatest number of instructors. Course instructors’
opinions about the value of religion and disability differed. Some instructors thought
religion and disability were valuable, while other instructors thought they were not
important or the “least important” for teacher candidates to learn about. Most instructors
who did not value religion did not include readings about this topic on their syllabus. This
was not the case for the disability topic. Of the instructors who thought it was least
important, most of their courses covered the topic. Language, gender, and sexual
orientation were ranked similarity. Overall more instructors ranked gender as “most

important” compared to language and sexual orientation.

57

Race

Race is the densest curricular topic of the multicultural education courses in this
study. It was also identified by course instructors as” most important” for teacher
candidates enrolled in multicultural education courses. The density of race varies among
multicultural education courses. The density is highest among courses located at large
doctoral universities and lowest at master’s granting universities.

Besides variation in density, there were also differences among how readings
discussed and positioned race. I identified three different ways course readings
contextualized the relationship between race, schooling, and society. Course readings
described race or examined the impact, meaning, and implications of race and racism on
minorities within schools and society. Readings also focused on the experiences of
specific racial groups rather than discussed race more broadly. The third most common
reading about race identified how race affected teachers’ pedagogical choices. In the
Table below, I identify the number of course sessions devoted to readings reflective of
each type.

Table 3. 5

Types of Readings about Race by Number of Course Sessions

T Number of course
Descri ' 56.61

27.69
22.36
Race was primarily described as negatively influencing racial minorities’

 

opportunities to succeed in school. Readings primarily identified the processes and
policies of schools and societal structures as the source of inequality. The readings of

several courses identified school-level policies and practices, such as tracking and school

58

finance, as hindering racial minorities’ opportunities to learn. Readings also focused on
how societal structures and policies contributed to inequality. One course at a regional
university, for example, consisted of a series of readings that documented how race and
racial divisions were reinforced by social institutions (See The Social Construction of
Diflerence and Inequality, 2002). The readings included in this syllabus ranged from
describing racism as inherent in the English language (Moore, 2002) to showing racism
was manifested by societal structures and institutions, including the criminal justice
system (Cole, 2002) and the media (Martinez, 2002; Lichter & Amundsen, 2002). In this
course, there were similar assigned readings about each of the demographic topics.

An example of the more typical type of content about race and racism included in
courses is reflected in the readings of the course at a small liberal arts college. According
to this syllabus, teacher candidates were required to read about racial discrimination
within the context of schools. One of the assigned readings included a description about
how Blacks in an all White school experienced discrimination as a result of desegregation
policies (Beals, 1994). Another reading described how various school structures and
processes, including teacher expectations and pedagogy, influenced the learning
opportunities of racial minorities (N ieto, 2004). The primary reason I identify these
readings as typical is because they focused on how schools hindered the educational
opportunities of racial minorities rather than contributed to the success of racial
minorities. One exception included in one syllabus was Conchas and Noguera’s (2006)
The Color of Success: Race and High-Achieving Urban Youth. This book described how
racial minorities positively benefitted from their schooling experiences because schooling

processes facilitated rather than banned racial minorities’ educational opportunities.

59

Other readings providing a description of race identified a direct relationship
between race and identity. The topic of racial identity development was mostly found on
the syllabi of large doctoral universities. Of the five multicultural education courses with
readings about this topic, the only course not located at a research university was at a
large master’s granting institution. The syllabi of several different courses included
chapters from Tatum’s (1997) Why are all the Black Kids Sitting Together in the
Cafeteria? In this book, Tatum discussed how the identity development of racial groups
in the US. differed. Those differences, according to Tatum, influenced how individuals
saw their own racial identity and their understanding of race. Tatum also linked the racial
development of Whites to racism.

Although not as prevalent as readings that described race, the second most
common type of reading I identified in course syllabi focused on the experiences and
circumstances of specific racial groups. I use the term, racial groups, to capture each of
the primary races of people in the U.S.—Blacks, Latinos, Whites, American Indian, and
Asian. A larger percentage of course sessions were inclusive of readings about racial
groups at master’s universities than the other types of institutions. Neither of the
multicultural education course syllabi of the courses at two of the smallest colleges
included readings about a specific racial group.

Across the courses, readings accounted for each of the primary racial groups. The
race in most syllabi and courses was the White race. Six multicultural education courses
from both master’s and doctoral universities had syllabi with readings about Whiteness.
Virtually all readings about the White race discussed Whiteness in terms of privilege. In

these readings, Whites were identified as the dominant race and, as a result, White people

60

were described as advantaged. Readings identified Whites as more likely to succeed
because school and societal structures facilitated their academic achievement and success
in society. McIntosh’s (1990) description of the “unearned privileges” and advantages of
Whites best captured the readings about Whiteness. McIntosh’s work was also used in
most courses inclusive of this topic. There was also a series of on-line articles from an
edition of Rethinking Schools (2002) used in two of the multicultural education courses
that focused on Whiteness and White privilege within the context of schools.

The readings included on course syllabi about racial minority groups were similar
to the other types of readings about race. Some were specific to schools and pedagogy,
while others focused more broadly on the experiences of racial minorities. In one of the
large doctoral universities, for example, the syllabus included two assigned readings
about racial minority students. One article focused on the learning needs of low-
perfomring Chinese students and how teachers can accommodate those needs (Lee, 2001)
and the other assigned reading was an excerpt from a book about the schooling
experiences of Mexican and Mexican-American students (Valenzuela, 1999). The syllabi
of two courses at similar institutions also had readings about minority racial groups. One
course syllabus consisted of autobiographical accounts written by racial minorities and
fictional stories about the experiences of minority groups. The other syllabus had a
number of readings about the historical experiences of each of the racial minority
groups—Native Americans, Latino, and African Americans.

Readings that identified race in relation to pedagogy were most dense among the
multicultural education courses at master’s granting regional universities. The

pedagogical implications of race were most often discussed in texts written by teachers.

61

In one of the courses at a research university, for example, there were two such texts—
Paley’s (2000) White Teacher and Michie’s Holler if you Hear Me (1999). Both accounts
were written by White teachers about their experiences working with racial minorities.

Pedagogical readings about race mostly described how teachers could address the
instructional needs of racial minorities. In “The Silenced Dialogue,” for example, Delpit
(1988) drew on her experiences as a teacher and her students’ experiences to advocate for
a pedagogical approach accounting for power and student’s race-based experiences.
Similarly, one course syllabus included a chapter from Bymes’ (2005) Common-bonds-
Anti-bias Teaching about the importance of recognizing and appreciating students’ racial
background and the importance of seeing it as asset rather than a problem. Another
course syllabus included an excerpt from Ladson—Billings’ (1997) Dreamkeepers:
Successful Teachers of African American Children. This chapter, “Seeing Color, Seeing
Culture,” as the previous ones described, emphasized the importance of recognizing the
racial attributes of minority students.

Readings about strategies for minimizing racism were less evident among the
course syllabi. An example of a textbook chapter used in two courses to describe the
importance of teaching about racial prejudice and discrimination was “Creating
Classrooms that Address Race and Ethnicity,” from Human Diversity in Education
(2006)

- Social Class

Social class is a high density topic. This demographic category, as race, is most

dense among research universities and least dense at four of the master’s universities.

Social class is a curricular topic that is often coupled with other social and demographic

62

categories. Many of the readings about class are also inclusive of race. The coupling of
race and social class explain why readings describe similar phenomenon. In contrast to
race, fewer courses had readings examining the experiences of the dominant or elite
classes. In most course syllabi, readings about social class focused on the working class
and poor.

The most typical texts about social class identified schooling processes as
hindering the educational opportunities of poor and working class students and their
abilities to achieve success, similar to the readings focused on race. Readings
documented how social class interacted with schooling and society to reinforce
inequality. One example is McLeod’s (1995) Ain ’t No Makin ’ It. This book or sections
from the book were included on the course syllabi of several instructors teaching the
same course. Findings from McLeod’s book show how various social institutions—
farnily, school, community, and work—contribute to the reproduction of class. McLeod
illustrates how social factors prevent poor White and Black adolescents men from
achieving the “American Dream.”

The social institutions discussed by McLeod, particularly family and community,
were described in other course readings about class. Three courses, all at research
universities, included readings describing a relationship between family and academic
success. Two of the courses had articles and book chapters written by Lareau (1987,
2000), a well-known sociologist of education. Lareau’s work documented how social
class influenced parental involvement. Lareau described how differences in parental
approaches advantaged middle class students and disadvantaged the children from

working class families.

63

Seven of the multicultural education courses had syllabi with course readings
describing pedagogy and instructional strategies for working with poor and working class
students. Similar to race, pedagogical readings mostly identified strategies for increasing
the academic achievement of the poor and working class. In one course, however, an
assigned reading with a more critical approach to educating the working class was Finn’s
Literacy with an Attitude (1999). In this book, Finn described how pedagogy could
enable working class students to become aware of the inequitable and oppressive
conditions they faced as a result of their class status. In turn, teacher could minimize
working class students’ resistance to the knowledge valued by schools.

Most assigned readings about class examined and described the experiences of the
poor and working class rather than being inclusive of the middle and upper class. There
were a handful of readings describing how schooling structures advantaged the middle
and upper-middle classes. An example was an excerpt from Cookson and Persell’s (1987)
Preparing for Power: Cultural Capital and Curriculum in America’s Elite Boarding
School. These authors identify how schooling practices and processes in boarding schools
provided students the tools and strategies to maintain their upper class positions. Cookson
and Persell’s argument is similar to the article by Anyon (1981) used in five of the
multicultural education courses. Anyon studied schools serving a variety of students to
conclude that curriculum, instruction, and school-level policies served reflected and
reproduced students’ class status—elite students were being educated to maintain their
elite positions and working class were being prepared for jobs aligned with their class

status.

64

Although not directly related to schooling, two of the courses included readings
about wealth. One of the courses, for instance, included a series of articles about class in
economic terms. The articles in this course identified a relationship between money and
power (Karp, et al., 2002).

A primary difference between readings about race and social class is that most
courses’ readings about class were grounded in sociological principles and theories.
Several authors, such as Anyon, McLeod, and Cookson and Persell, drew on social
reproduction theories to discuss class within the context of schools. Social reproduction
theories are derived from Marxist critical theory. These theories are most often cited in
sociological literature. Besides readings on social reproduction, readings in one course,
for example, drew on the work of sociologists, including Pierre Bourdieu, to discuss the
social and cultural aspects of class (McLeod, 1995; Lareau, 1987, 2000; Carter, 2003;
Coleman and Hoffer, 1987).

Language

Language is the third densest demographic topic. Course readings about language
minorities identified two types—students whose native language is not English and
students who speak a version of English deviating from the standard form (white, middle
class). Course readings primarily refer to non-native speakers as second language learners
(ESL) and bi-lingual students. Students who spoke a non-standard form of English are
mostly Black and speak Black English or Ebonics. The two courses without readings
about language are located at a master’s university and a research university. Language is

a low density curricular topic in all three of the small colleges.

65

Language is presented and discussed in course readings similar to race and social
class. The experiences of language minorities in schools and how structural factors create
inequities are described and explained in course readings. The pedagogical implications
of language are also discussed in course readings. In contrast to race and social class, a
greater percentage of readings describe language in pedagogical terms. About half of the
course sessions focused on language discussed the topic pedagogically.

For ESL students and non-standard speakers of English, pedagogical readings
explain the importance of helping students learn Standard English by using “culturally
responsive” and “cultural centered” pedagogy. An example of an article used by
instructors at a research university was Sheetz’s (1995) “From Remedial to Gifted.”
Sheetz described a high school program designed to teach native Spanish Speakers
English and also to help them learn academic content. In “Ebonics and Culturally
Responsive Instruction,” Delpit (1997) advocated for a similar approach for Black
students. Delpit identified Black English as a tool for helping students learn how to speak
and write Standard English. Christenson (1990) drew on her personal experiences as
both a student and teacher to discuss how her strategies for teaching language minorities
were culturally responsive.

Overall readings about language minorities identified bi-lingual education as
effective. Bi-lingual education refers to teaching students to learn English and academic
material by using the students’ native language. Such instruction is in contrast to
immersion, which is the integration of non-English speakers in regular classrooms with
few or minimal adjustments. Nieto (2000), for example, described the benefits of hi-

lingual education and how it contributed to an equitable learning environment for ESL

66

students. In another course, research findings identified bi-lingual instruction and
education programs as responsible for increasing the academic achievement and
graduation rates of ESL students (Thomas and Collier, 1997).

Although not specific to pedagogy, Purcell-Gates’ (2003, 1997) writings were
used in two courses and multiple syllabi. Purcell-Gates described the school-based
experiences of an illiterate White, Appalachian family to illustrate a relationship between
language and power. Her work indicated how the negative assumptions of school
personnel impacted the family’s educational opportunities.

Not all readings about language minorities focused specifically on schooling. In
four of the 14 courses, readings examined and discussed language more broadly. In one
course, as an example, the syllabus included readings about how discrimination is
inherent in the English language (Morose, 2002). In another course, the historical
development of Black English or Ebonics was the primarily basis of one of the course
readings on language (Smitherman, 1981).

Disability

The courses inclusive of disability dedicate, on average, a significant number of
course sessions on the topic. The average number of course sessions is increased by the
syllabus of a course at a small college requiring students to engage with disability issues
for 16 of the 17 course sessions. The density of the topic is above average in three other
courses. The department of course at a large research university mandates that 6 course
sessions focus on disability. I found that most course syllabi had less than the six required
sessions, but more sessions were devoted to disability issues in these syllabi than the

majority of syllabi.

67

Readings about disabilities focus on different types of cognitive and physical
differences. Most of these readings explain how students’ disabilities influence teaching
and learning. Teaching students with disabilities is discussed in course readings in
instructional terms, including how to identify, manage, and teach students with
disabilities. (See Teaching Special Students in General Classrooms, 2001; Teaching
Exceptional, Diverse, and At-Risk Students in the General Education Classroom, 2003; A
Mind at A Time, 2002.) Readings mostly described basic strategies and techniques for
addressing the academic needs of disabled students. The pedagogical readings specific
to the other demographic topics discussed teaching and pedagogy in more abstract terms.

Most disability readings promoted inclusion. Inclusion is the placement of
students with disabilities in classrooms with non-disabled students. Textbooks used in
two of the courses were written specifically for teachers working in inclusive classroom
settings (Lewis and Doorlag, 2006; Vaughn, 305, and Schumm, 2003). Both defined.
inclusion and its’ benefits. The texts also provided teachers’ strategies for meeting the
needs students with various disabilities, such as behavioral and communication disorders.
Not all readings advocating for inclusion focused on pedagogy. An exception is a New
York Times article describing how a child with cerebral palsy experienced an inclusive
classroom setting (Belkin, 2004).

Even though most readings discussed disability in terms of pedagogy and
instruction, the experiences of the disabled were described in the readings of some
courses. The syllabus of the course at a small liberal arts college, for example, included
two required books about the experiences of disabled students in school (Sylvester, 2002;

Abeel, 2003). Several syllabi of another course included an article described how various

68

disabilities were historically attributed to marginalized groups to justify discriminatory
practices (Baynton, 2001 ). The readings links the unfair treatment and discrimination
faced by minorities historically to the current prejudice and discrimination experienced
by the disabled. Among other disability readings, how federal special education policies
shaped schooling, particularly the treatment of disabled students, and how this affected
teaching were discussed (Hewards and Cavanaugh (2000; Wang and Reyonlds, 1996).

Gender and Sexual Orientation

The low density of gender both within and across courses contrasted with
instructor’s ranking of gender as the third “most important” demographic topic. The
assigned course readings about gender either broadly focused on the meaning of gender
or more narrowly described how people’s experiences are shaped by their gender.
Gender, unlike most readings about the demographic categories, is identified as a socially
constructed category. Gender differences are described as a function of social
institutions, such as the family, media, and educational system, rather than being the
result of innate differences. In two courses, for example, readings described how the
media representation of women and girls was linked to the social construction of gender
(Butsch, 2002; Witt, n.d.). Johnson’s (2005) The Gender Knot: Unraveling our
Patriarchal Legacy, which is a required course text, examined the implications of living
in a “male-dominated,” “male-identified,” and “male-centered,” society for both males
and females was required in one course. Similarly, articles about male privilege were
included in three multicultural education courses (McIntosh, 1989).

Course syllabi included more readings describing gender differences in the

context of schooling than how such differences influenced teacher’s work. Schooling

69

processes were identified as favoring male students more than females. The most typical
readings conveying these differences are best represented by the Sadkers (2002; 2001;
2000; 1998). These readings provided evidence to highlight how school-level factors,
such as curriculum and instruction, interactions between teachers and students, and peer-
relationships disadvantaged female students’ academically and also influenced their self-
esteem.

In contrast to the other demographic topics, very few course syllabi consisted of
readings describing how to teach students using gender equitable materials and practices.
Besides a few assigned textbook chapters with descriptions of pedagogical strategies,
Orenstein’s (1995) Schoolgirls concluded with a section about gender fair curricula and
classroom practices by describing the teaching practices of a single classroom teacher.

Compared to gender, sexual orientation was a less dense curricular topic. As
gender, masters and doctoral universities were more likely to include readings on sexual
orientation. Gender and sexual orientation were often coupled. Five of the nine courses
included reading that explicitly linked gender and sexual orientation. An article used in
one of the courses at a large research university, for example, identified homophobia as a
result of gender identity and, more specifically, masculinity norms (Kimmel, 2000).

Readings mostly defined sexual orientation and described the discrimination
faced by gay students and people. An article used in two courses about the
discrimination experienced by gay students is Gordon’s (1994) “What do we say when
we hear ‘faggot.”’ Gordon described how gay students were discriminated against by
other students and how teachers did very little to prevent such behavior. In another

course, the course syllabus included a similar type of article. Johnson’s (1998/99) “Out

70

Front” illustrated how pervasive homophobia is within the context of schools. Johnson
drew on her own experiences as a gay teacher to provide practical advice to teachers and
schools about how to challenge homophobia.

Religion

Religion is the least dense demographic topic. Instructors disagreed about whether
religion was a valuable topic for teacher candidates in multicultural education courses.
Some identified it as an important topic and others believed it was the least valuable of all
the demographic categories. Religion was a curricular topic in all three types of
institutions, but it was most common among master’s granting universities.

Course readings primarily described how religious differences played out within
the context of schools. Readings broadly focused on how religion and religious
differences impacted students and classrooms. An example of a reading that discussed
religion in pedagogical terms documented how teachers can respond to and teach about
religious differences in light of the separation between church and state (Cushner,
McClelland, and Safford, 2006).

In two of the coursers, readings focused on specific religions—Islam and
Catholicism. The course located at a research university included three New York Times
articles about the discrimination Muslims faced and how religion shaped their
experiences (Ali, 2006; Cowell, 2006; Schmidt, 2006). Ali, for example, described how
her experiences as a Muslim in rural Canada altered after the events of September 11,
2001. None of the readings about specific religions were directly related to schooling or

teaching and learning.

71

Pedagogy and Teaching Methods

Pedagogy is integral in the readings accounting for social and demographic
differences. I define pedagogy rather broadly to capture any course materials that
described teachers’ classroom work, work with students, or instructional strategies. Based
on this definition, pedagogy and instructional strategies are not synonymous, but rather
instruction is a pedagogical form. Twenty-eight of the 31 syllabi included readings about
pedagogy. As illustrated in the previous section, the meaning of pedagogy varied among
the demographic topics. The readings on disability, for instance, emphasized practical
instructional techniques more than the readings documenting the other six demographic
topics. The pedagogical readings about race, social class, and language were primarily
arguments about the importance of cultural responsive pedagogy. Many of these
readings were written by teachers about their work with diverse groups of students.
Gender and religion were also discussed pedagogically, but not tied to teacher narratives
and strategies labeled as cultural responsive.

Based on the readings included on syllabi, some demographic topics were more
relevant to pedagogical discussions than others. Most of the demographic topics were
dominated by readings that explained and described how demographic categories
interacted with schooling and social structures. Pedagogical discussions were most
common among the readings about language minorities and people with disabilities. The
only demographic topic discussed in the context of subject matter was language. I did not
find any course readings documenting and describing how to teach diverse students

subject matter. traditional school subjects such as science and math.

Although not directly related to pedagogy or teaching methods, five of the
multicultural education courses had syllabi with course readings about teaching and the
teaching profession. It was a low density topic among the 3 courses located at research
universities and the 2 master’s granting universities. The syllabi of the courses located at
the small colleges did not include any assigned readings about the characteristics of the
teaching profession.

The materials about teaching and the teaching profession accounted for a variety
of perspectives and themes. The course with the greatest number of readings about this
topic was located at a research university. Among the readings used in the course, articles
described the characteristics of the profession (Karp, 2007; Spring, 2004a) and examined
the relationship between teaching and teachers’ demographic characteristics (Bunce,
unknown; Viadero, 2001; Sanders, 2002). In one of the other courses, which was also
located at a research university, the readings included discussed the roles and rewards of
teachers’ work (Spring, 2004b; Cohen, 1984).

Pedagogy and the Development of Instructional Skills

Developing teacher candidates’ skills is a common objective of teacher
preparation programs. Typical programs expose teacher candidates to various teaching
methods and helps them develop skills for teaching materials associated with disciplinary
majors (math, English, science, etc.). Instructional skills are typically fostered through
practices and performances. In most programs demonstrations of teaching are required in
venues such as teaching labs and field-based experiences. Developing teacher
candidate’s skills for teaching diverse students would entail having them demonstrate

their teaching. I found little evidence in my analysis of course syllabi that the 14

73

multicultural education courses aimed to developed teacher candidates’ instructional
skills for teaching diverse groups of students. Few readings identified curricular topics in
terms of instructional techniques and strategies. Disability was the exception. The
majority of course readings about disabilities were instructional rather than pedagogical.

Course instructor’s responses to survey questions suggest differences among how
they value developing teacher candidates’ instructional knowledge and skills. A minority
of instructors believed instructional strategies were valuable topics for diversity courses.
A greater number of instructors thought culturally responsive forms of pedagogy were
relevant than specific instructional strategies. Course instructors did not agree about
whether course assignments should reflect traditional academic work or the practical
work of teachers. Instructors who thought practical work was more important than
academic were also more likely to report that the use of course materials reflecting
practitioner’s perspectives was important. The instructors of one course located at a
research university captured the differences among instructors’ thoughts about pedagogy
and instruction. Two of the course instructors believed their course didn’t provide teacher
candidates enough practical training. These instructors wanted to alter course readings
and materials to include more content about pedagogy and instruction and fewer
materials for helping teacher candidates’ learn about their own development, specifically
the influence of their socio-cultural characteristics. The other course instructor did not
share their view. He reported that the course would improve if readings reflected a
greater number of demographic topics.

To understand the types of skills teacher candidates were expected to develop, I

examined the course activities and assignments included on course syllabi. The majority

74

of course assignments reflected traditional academic assignments that assessed teacher
candidates’ understanding of course content. There were, however, a few different types
of activities directly related to developing teacher candidates’ pedagogical and
instructional skills. Table 3.6 displays the type of assignments included in courses
suggestive of pedagogy.

Table 3. 6

Types of Assignments with a Pedagogical Link by Number of Multicultural Education

 

 

 

 

 

 

Courses

Type of Assignment Number of Courses
Presentations 6

Service learning 4
Lesson/Curriculum Planning 3

Facilitate course discussion/lesson 2

 

 

The most typical instructional activities required students to emulate the practical aspects
of teachers’ work. I refer to these assignments as emulating teachers’ work because they
targeted their classmates rather than the students they would most likely teach. They also
required teacher candidates to teach course content rather than helping them develop the
expertise for teaching subject matter to diverse groups of students. In most cases, based
on the assessment criteria included on course syllabi, students gave presentations and
taught course content with limited guidance from course instructors. This suggests that
teacher candidates were not learning specific techniques for presenting materials, but that
these activities primarily served to help presenters and their peers learn course content.
The descriptions of the activities included in syllabi reveal a range of instructional
activities. Teacher candidates enrolled in the course at a small liberal arts college, for

example, were asked to present on a topic about disabilities and special education. At one

75

 

of the mid-sized universities teacher candidates were assigned two different types of
instructional presentations. One required them to develop a position about a topic related
to diversity and multicultural education and to publicly defend their position against an
alternative view. The other instructional assignment in the course asked students to
present a summary of the main points of a chapter from one of the course’s assigned
readings to their peers.

While most of the instructional assignments were directly tied to course readings,
teacher candidates in a few courses were asked to make presentations by incorporating
materials that complimented course content. These assignments allowed teacher
candidates and their classmates to engage with course materials in new ways rather than
regurgitate class content. As the other similar types of activities, the descriptions of these
assignments do not suggest that they were primarily designed to develop teacher
candidates’ skills for teaching. For instance, the introductory course at a large research
university required groups of students to make in-class presentations about how a
contemporary “media representation” of an education topic related to the multicultural
content they were learning about in the course. A similar assignment in a comparable
institution asked teacher candidates to conduct research on how a topic influencing and
shaping U.S. schools, such as school finance and tracking, affected schooling in the
context of another country.

A similar type of assignment required teacher candidates to teach a course
session. At two schools, one mid-sized and the other a large university, teacher
candidates were asked to teach their peers course material. In one of the courses, teacher

candidates had “to develop, coordinate, and supervise class discussions and activities for

76

the course material for an assigned class period.” In another course the assignment was
positioned to students as an instructional development task facilitating teacher
candidates’ understanding of “content delivery” and the “manage[ment] of class

9')

learning. As stated on the syllabus, “you are all in the class so you can learn how to
teach; therefore, you will have at least one, ‘official’ opportunity to teach the class.” The
guidelines of the assignment indicated that teacher candidates would be assessed by four
dimensions: overall preparation, approach, creativity, depth of content/discussion, and
overall use of teaching strategy.”

The development of lesson plans and curriculum units are more directly tied to
teacher candidates’ future work than presentations and the teaching of course content.
This type of assignment tied subject-matter to teacher candidates’ future students. In
contrast to the previous instructional activities, teacher candidates were not required to
teach the lessons they developed. The activity in one of the three courses with this type
of assignment, for example, required students to develop lessons for teaching
multicultural literature. Teacher candidates were asked to select several multicultural
books designed for the age level of the students they planned to teach. The instructional
activity included in another course required students to develop a lessOn about diversity
that incorporated multiple academic subjects. The lesson also had to accommodate the
needs of students with diverse learning abilities. The third assignment allowed teacher
candidates to directly engage with the content of the multicultural education course and
the subject matter teacher candidates planned to teach. For this assignment, teacher

candidates developed a curriculum unit to teach environmental topics to their future

students. The unit required students to integrate environmental issues with academic

77

content by linking the unit with Michigan’s academic learning standards. The template
provided on the syllabus to help teacher candidates develop the unit included the typical
components of curriculum units, such as goals and objectives, concepts, activities, and
assessment criteria.

The objectives of the service and experiential learning assignments varied among
the four courses. Assignment descriptions included on course syllabi revealed differences
among the knowledge and skills teacher candidates were expected to acquire from their
experiences. It as apparent, however, that these activities were primarily designed to help
teacher candidates learn about diverse groups of students and instruction. They were not
designed to help teacher candidates develop instructional skills. One of the courses
located at a doctoral university asked teacher candidates had to spend 15-20 hours during
the semester providing academic assistance to one student or a small group of students in
either a school or community-based setting to fulfill the service learning requirement.
Teacher candidates were expected to journal about their experiences and write a final
paper describing how their experiences tutoring and mentoring a student connected with
course content. Since the final assignment was described as linking course content to
teacher candidates’ experiences, it appears that developing the instructional skills of
future teachers was a marginal goal of the assignment because increasing teacher
candidates’ understanding of social and demographic differences was the course’s
primary objective.

The service learning assignment of a course at a small, liberal arts college had
similar objectives, but targeted different types of students. The syllabus described the

service learning assignment as helping teacher candidates learn about pedagogical issues

78

and classroom management by engaging with special education students in classroom
settings. Students were required to complete three different types of assignments related
to their fieldwork that mostly linked service learning to course content. Even though the
assignment is described in instructional terms on the syllabus, the criteria for assessing
teacher candidates is similar to the criteria used in the previous course. Teacher
candidates were not assessed based on their individual practices and performances with
students, but rather their abilities to interpret their experiences with course content
Besides specific activities and assignments, the assessment criteria included on
course syllabi suggests that teacher candidates are learning how to teach in ways that
value and promote active and cooperative forms of teaching and learning. It is well
documented that people learn how to teach by observing their own teachers or through
the “apprenticeship of observation” (Lortie, 1975). It is, therefore, plausible to assume
that teacher candidates are also learning about pedagogy and instruction from their
participation in these courses. Although I am not able to determine what teacher
candidates learned from the course or how courses were taught, it is apparent that course
requirements, assessment criteria, course descriptions, and the number of cooperative
learning assignments included on syllabi suggest active student involvement rather than
passive forms of learning. Twenty-nine of the 31 syllabi had attendance and participation

requirements. Syllabi included the following terms and phrases to justify this

99 66 99 66

requirement: “seminar course, active engagement,” “learning community, not a
lecture-based course,” and participation as an “equity-issue.” Most of the descriptions
about classroom participation described a relationship between course structure and the

objectives of participation. As an example, student participation in the class discussions

79

of one course was equated with course quality, “such discussion is open to diverse
perspectives, but more than this, it depends for its success on the regular, constructive
engagement of all members of the class.”

Intellectual Development

Although most of the assignments included in multicultural education courses
reflected traditional academic work rather than the development of teacher candidates’
instructional skills, some assignments related more directly to the work of teachers than
others. Based on the descriptions and assessment criteria of the more traditional academic
assignments, multicultural education courses primarily seek to develop teacher
candidates’ abilities to identify and examine educational-related issues. Course
assignments also were designed to help teacher candidates learn how to communicate
their ideas and thoughts effectively. On one course syllabus, an instructor identified how
written assignments were valuable for the preparation of teachers. She stated, “I feel very
strongly that teachers should be able to write, and therefore think clearly and effectively,
so I will push you and coach you to do so.”

All 14 multicultural education courses and the 31 course syllabi included written
assignments. There were three different types of written assignments—critical analysis,
reflection, and inquiry-based papers. The written assignments described as developing
teacher candidates’ analytical skills were often identified as promoting critical thinking
skills. The description provided by one course instructor signifies why critical analysis is
different from other types of written work. As part of the description of the critical essay
assignment, he wrote that the assignment is “not simply reflective journals, what I call ‘1-

papers,” but rather students are required to develop a “stance” and provide evidence in

80

support of that stance. There was a range of analytical assignments in the course syllabi
supportive of this description. Some assignments asked teacher candidates to develop a
response to a question initiated by the instructor and others were dependent on student-
initiated questions.

In one of the courses located at a master’s university teacher candidates had to
write a three part essay about the type of classroom that supported the needs of a “diverse
and sustainable democratic society.” In Part 1, teacher candidates had to draw on course
readings to articulate their “vision” of democratic schooling. The second part required
them to analyze the current state of schooling in the US. in relation to their vision and in
the final section of the paper teacher candidates had to delineate the type of social change
required for the classroom to become reality.

An instructor at one of the larger schools also asked teacher candidates to engage
in critical analysis. In this course, which he identified as being based on a problem-based
approach, teacher candidates were provided three different problems faced by classroom
teachers throughout the semester. They had to respond to the problems by drawing on
course materials and their own personal knowledge. They also had to depend on their
own instincts because the instructor did not provide students the information necessary to
address the questions,

First, to do so would diminish the initiative you need to become a

thoroughly educated student as well as the initiative you will need to

become an outstanding beginning teacher. Second, these problems have

more than one acceptable response (as well as countless clearly wrong

answers) and I don’t know them all or all the resources you would need to

craft these acceptable responses. I expect you to follow wherever your

best reasoning leads in pursuit of crafting the best response to each
problem.

81

There were also written activities promoting reflection and helping teacher
candidates develop the skills to become reflective practitioners. Within the context of
multicultural education courses, reflection differs from critical analysis because it is not
dependent on the development of an argument. The most common type of reflective
course assignment required teacher candidates to record their reaction to course readings.
In most courses with this type of assignment, teacher candidates responded to texts and
readings in preparation for class. As an example, teacher candidates enrolled in one of the
courses located at a large research university had to write a short response to each of the
assigned readings in a “reflection journal” and bring the journal to each class session. An
assignment included in another course asked teacher candidates to submit weekly
responses to the assigned readings. At a variety of other schools, both masters and
doctoral universities, teacher candidates were asked to reflect on their peers’ reflections
on course readings. For instance, teacher candidates in one course had to engage in
“threaded discussions” about course content. The instructor initiated the discussion by
posting a question. Students had to write responses to two of their classmates’ reflections
after posting their own response to the question. In one of their responses they had to
pose an additional question to create an “authentic” discussion. By authentic the
instructor means responses based on “listening” to their classmates rather than simply
recording “individual thoughts.”

There were two additional types of reflective-based assignments included on
course syllabi. In 18 of the course syllabi teacher candidates were required to write
educational and cultural autobiographies. This assignment was different from the other

type of reflective activities because students had to use course materials to interpret their

82

personal and educational experiences. In most cases, the assignment was positioned as
requiring students to re-think or reassess their experiences in light of knowledge they
acquired from the course. At one of the doctoral universities, for example, students
were asked to write a paper about how their schooling experiences were shaped by their
cultural characteristics and, in turn, how their schooling experiences influenced and
shaped them. A similar type of reflective activity, but not dependent on students’
personal experiences, was included in one of the courses at a master’s universities.
Teacher candidates had to reflect on the content of a movie with an educational theme to
describe the educational trends and strategies used in the movie and to emphasize the role
of parents and community members.

In nine of the multicultural education courses, one of the course assignments was
an inquiry or research-based activity which is the third and final written type of
assignment I found among course syllabi. In these courses students were asked to
conduct individual and group research projects about course topics and multicultural
content. This assignment was most common among courses located at doctoral and
master’s universities. At least one of the syllabi representing the courses at research
universities required students to engage in research and half of the master’s universities
included this type of assignment.

The research projects varied among the nine courses. In one course teacher
candidates conducted a “student study.” For this project, students were asked to observe
and interview a student to learn about the student’s “background, knowledge, and in and
out of school experiences.” In other courses teacher candidates were asked to interview

teachers, students, or people from a racial group different from their own or observe

83

classrooms with diverse groups of students. And two of the research assignments
required students to engage in library research.
Multicultural Education Course Curricula, Diversity, and Pedagogy

In this chapter I’ve provided an overview of the explicit curricula represented by
the syllabi of the multicultural education courses in this study. The readings of most
courses provide teacher candidates the opportunity to learn about the contextual factors
that influence schools and schooling. A greater number of readings document the
intersection between social and demographic topics and schools or how such topics
reflect or reinforce social inequality more than readings about contextual factors.

Based on my analysis of course syllabi, it appears that the courses in this study
were primarily designed to increase teacher candidates understanding of diversity. In the
context of these courses, diversity is not defined broadly. It is defined in terms of social
and demographic categories, and more specifically race, social class, disabilities,
language, gender, sexual orientation, and religion. As previously described, the variation
among the density of demographic topics indicates that not all diversity topics were
valued equally. The two topics with the highest density both within and across the
courses were race and social class. These two topics also were reported by the greatest
number of course instructors to be the “most important” demographic topics for teacher
candidates to learn about. Religion was the least dense topic and, as a result, it is not as
integral to the preparation of teacher candidates. .

It appears that courses were also designed to help teacher candidates consider the
relationship between pedagogy and students’ social and demographic characteristics.

Rather than focus on specific instructional strategies for teaching students and subject

84

matter course readings mostly focused on culturally responsive approaches or principles
supportive of such approaches. One exception was disability. Readings about disability
were more specific to instruction. The extent to which courses focused on pedagogy
varied by course and also by topic. Disability and language were the two demographic
topics most relevant to pedagogical discussions in the courses in this study.

Besides objectives linked to knowledge, the content of the multicultural education
course syllabi suggests developing teacher candidates’ skills is also an important
objective of courses. Within the context of these courses, skill development is evidenced
by written course assignments emphasizing critical analysis, reflection, and inquiry.
Even though most courses included some type of assignment suggestive of pedagogy,
these assignments mostly relate to the presentation of course content rather than
accounting for the subject matter and type of students teacher candidates will teach in the
future. As a result of the type of assignments included and not included in courses it is
apparent that multicultural education courses were not designed to help teacher

candidates develop the instructional skills needed to teach diverse groups of students.

85

Chapter 4
The Cultivation of Dispositions in Multicultural Education Courses

In the previous Chapter, I described the curricular topics and assignments
included in Michigan’s multicultural education courses. In this Chapter, I build on those
findings to describe how the curricula of multicultural education courses consist of
strategies for cultivating teacher candidates’ dispositions. For purposes of this study, I use
the term dispositions to extend beyond attitudes and beliefs to account for the
characteristics and qualities of people. I determined dispositional strategies by
identifying patterns among the course readings specific to social and demographic topics.

The cultivation of teacher candidates’ dispositions is based on the assumption if
teacher candidates had more information about differences their negative attitudes would
change to positive attitudes. This objective also assumes developing teacher candidates
abilities to engage in critical analysis and reflection will enable them to recognize their
beliefs and attitudes towards minorities. As a result of increasing teacher candidates’
knowledge and views of differences, it is assumed that teacher candidates will engage in
equitable rather than discriminatory practices. Epistemologically, the design of these
courses rests on the assumption that racism and other prejudices are expressions of
ignorance. If negative dispositions are expressions of ignorance, then the proper
educational approach is to increase teacher candidates’ knowledge and their abilities in
ways that promote awareness.

I argue that empathy and self-awareness are the two dispositional qualities

fostered and promoted by the curricula of the 14 multicultural education courses in this

86

study. This Chapter begins with a description of the four strategies used in course
readings that evoke empathy and, as a result, position empathy as a valuable trait of
teachers who work with diverse groups of students. The skills supportive of an
empathetic teacher are also discussed. An examination of the explicit curricula indicates
that the two strategies supportive of self awareness relate to increasing teacher
candidates’ understanding of how their own experiences have been shaped by their social
and demographic characteristics. This chapter concludes with a discussion about how the
assumptions underlying the strategies for cultivating empathy and self-awareness are
problematic.
Cultivating Empathetic Teachers

An empathetic disposition enables people to understand and relate to people who
are different fi'om themselves. More simply, people who are able to empathize can
understand what it means to walk in someone else’s shoes. In the context of multicultural
education courses, cultivating empathy among teacher candidates consists of preparing
them to consider the experiences and realities of diverse groups of students as seen by the
students themselves. An empathetic teacher would be able to bridge the socio-cultural
differences between themselves and their students. Since teacher candidates are
predominantly White, female, middle class and heterosexual, this disposition is a
particularly important aspect of preparing teachers for teaching minority students.

The curricula of multicultural education courses promote and foster empathy to
help teacher candidates understand people who are different from themselves. Since the
majority of teacher candidates enrolled in multicultural education courses are White, the

cultivation of empathy is dependent on helping teacher candidates understand and

87

identify with racial minority students. I found several different types of strategies that
encouraged teacher candidates to be compassionate and sympathetic of racial minorities
and also the experiences and perspectives of other minority groups. Such strategies
assume that information about various minority groups, particularly the hardships and
obstacles faced by them will appeal to teacher candidates’ emotions and cultural
definitions of fairness. This understanding is also assumed to create a foundation for
teacher candidates to draw upon when they teach diverse groups of students. The
cultivation of empathy is also evidenced by skills emphasizing developing teacher
candidates who can critically analyze and reflect on social and educational issues. These
skills support the practices of empathetic teachers because they allow teachers to learn
about minority groups and identify the assumptions they hold about minorities.
Evoking Empathy through the Narrative Accounts of Teachers

Narratives written from the perspective of practicing teachers are one of the most
common strategies used in course materials to evoke empathy. These narratives also
convey to teacher candidates the importance of pedagogy and teaching practices derived
from teachers who empathize with their students. Teachers’ narratives also illustrate the
struggles diverse groups of students, particularly students from minority groups, face as a
result of their social and demographic characteristics. Of the 14 multicultural education
courses, 9 of the courses included courses readings written by teachers about their
experiences teaching diverse groups of students. None of the course syllabi with readings
reflective of this strategy were located at small baccalaureate colleges. All the remaining
courses, except for one located at a master’s and one at a doctoral university, consisted of

readings written by teachers about their work.

88

The characteristics of the teacher narratives included in courses are similar. Most
were written by White female teachers about their experiences teaching racially and
economically diverse groups of students. In most of the accounts written by teachers,
empathy is an evident trait because teachers talk about how their pedagogy accounted for
the cultural background and experiences of the students they taught. The experiences
teachers draw on and write about are, for the most part, based on distinguishing how
teaching diverse groups of students differs from working with mainstream students.
Instead of focusing on typical and benign classroom experiences, course readings written
by teachers emphasized the hardships and disadvantages students faced as result of their
families and communities. In one of the courses at a research university, for example, the
course syllabus consisted of two readings reflective of this approach. In both narratives
teachers described how their pedagogical strategies were linked to the knowledge and
experiences their students brought to school. One narrative was written by a teacher
working with poor, racial minorities in an urban context. Johnson (1995) described how
the pedagogy and instruction she used in her classroom incorporated the community-
based experiences of her students. Johnson’s article documented how she drew on the
violence and death surrounding her students’ to help them learn. Johnson also wanted her
students to gain a critical understanding of their circumstances as a result of their race,
social class, and geography. The other narrative included in the syllabus is similar
although it is written by a teacher working in a rural environment. Stumbo (1992) writes
about how her efforts to help rural, Appalachian students become literate and effective
writers also aimed to help them develop a strong Appalachian identity. Rather than

identifying the negative aspects of students’ Appalachian community, the teacher

89

discussed how her pedagogy and teaching methods emphasized the strengths of the rural
region to help students challenge negative stereotypes about Appalachians.

Three of the instructors teaching the multicultural education course at one of the
large doctoral universities incorporated chapters from Landsman’s (2005) A White
Teacher Talks about Race. Landsman wrote about the differences between her
experiences as a White, middle class woman and the racially diverse and poor students
she taught at an alternative high school in an urban community. Chapter by chapter
Landsman shares the injustices faced by her students due to the assumptions teachers and
others have about them due to their socio-cultural characteristics. Landsman’s
descriptions indicate how her teaching and pedagogical choices reflect her ability to
recognize the experiences of her students and to empathize with them. In one chapter she
described how her students were reluctant to go to a bookstore due to fears of being
accused of stealing. She respects their fears and decides to cancel the field trip. In another
chapter, as a way to learn about her students’ lives, she asked female students to write
about their experiences as women and to share their stories with her and their peers.

Fostering empathy among teacher candidates was also displayed by the number of
course readings describing how traditional teaching practices did not accommodate
students’ differences and, as a result, harmed their educational opportunities. This type
of narrative illustrated why empathy, compassion, and sympathy are particularly
important qualities of teachers who teach minority students. For instance, an article
written by Delpit (1988), which was included in two of the courses located at research
universities, described how teachers’ pedagogy and instruction should be inclusive of

students’ cultural background. Delpit includes several anecdotes in the article to show

90

how racial minority students are “silenced” and marginalized by White teachers who use
traditional pedagogical practices. Another example is a book chapter written by Purcell-
Gates (2002) about the schooling experiences of a student from an illiterate Appalachian
family who is struggling to achieve in school. Purcell-Gates draws on Donnie and his
family’s experiences with the school to describe how the assumptions made by teachers
and other school personnel harm Donnie’s educational opportunities. Purcell-Gates’ work
with Donnie illustrates how he is capable of learning if provided the right instructional
strategies and a teacher who understands his needs and cares about him.

There were also narratives accounts written by teachers that focused on how
language minorities and gay students were harmed by pedagogical and instructional
practices not reflective of empathy. Both Christenson (1994) and Ballenger (1992), the
authors of readings included in the syllabi of instructors teaching at large public
universities, wrote about their experiences as teachers to discuss strategies for teaching
students who speak a non-standard form of English. Christenson cites her own personal
experiences growing up in a working class family to advocate for instruction that does
not denigrate students who do not speak White, middle class standard English. Both
Christenson and Ballenger wrote about how their efforts to accommodate for the
language and communication patterns of minority speakers valued students’ speech. In
the same course, Gordon (1994), who is a high school teacher, discussed how students
who were gay or perceived as gay faced discrimination in school and how teachers did
little to prevent it. Gordon encourages teachers to prevent these types of acts by

considering the effects of homophobia and discriminatory acts on gay students.

91

Although most teacher narratives emphasized pedagogical practices and
instruction dependent on empathy, there were several narratives assigned in one course,
in particular, focused more on methods than student characteristics. This course was
required by one of the teacher education programs at a large doctoral university. The
course syllabus labeled several course readings about teaching pedagogy and methods as
“records of teaching practice.” These records consisted of a series of websites, which
included videos and narratives, developed by teachers about several of the topics taught
in the course, such as accountability, race, curricula, and subject specific pedagogical
strategies.8 One of the sites included on the syllabus was developed by Joan Cone, a
teacher in a racially and socioeconomic diverse urban high school. Cone’s site consisted
of a description of her efforts to improve the academic achievement of her students. She
particularly emphasized her efforts as an English teacher to “construct students as
achievers” and to advocate against the tracking policies in her school. Cone’s site,
furthermore, described and in some cases demonstrated lessons she had used with her
students, including articles she had written about her work and other articles supportive
of her teaching methods and philosophy. Although Cone’s pedagogy recognized the
cultural background of her students, her presentation emphasized teacher’s work to a
greater extent than the disadvantages her students faced as a result of their social and
demographic characteristics.

To summarize, teacher narratives were inclusive of several demographic topics.
Although there are differences among teacher’s narrative accounts, the narratives inform
teacher candidates about empathetic practice. Most narratives reveal the practices of an

empathetic teacher or include teaching methods, such as culturally relevant or responsive

92

teaching approaches, based on empathetic practices. Teacher narratives evoke empathy
because most of the accounts written by teachers illuminate the challenges diverse groups
of students experience in schools and communities.

Evoking Empathy by Listening to Voices and Perspectives

Rather than only depending on teachers’ perspectives of minority groups,
multicultural education courses also had course readings written by and about people
from marginalized groups. Seven of the multicultural education courses included
readings aligned with the strategy for evoking empathy that required teacher candidates
to learn about minorities through their personal accounts and descriptions of them.
Similar to teacher accounts, this strategy appeals to teacher candidates’ emotions. The
types of stories and narratives included in these readings exposed teacher candidates to
the experiences and perspectives of people representing a variety of social and
demographic categories. Rather than encompassing all categories, readings mostly
examined the socio-cultural characteristics contrasting with the typical teacher
candidate—racial minority, poor and working class, and homosexual.

I found the voices and perspectives of minority groups included in course syllabi
in multiple literary forms. One form was autobiographical accounts. These
autobiographies and memoirs consisted of descriptions about the schooling experiences
of minorities or their experiences more broadly. The syllabus of the course located at a
small liberal arts college, for example, consisted of three autobiographical accounts. In
the memoir, Warriors Don ’t Cry, Beals (1994) described her experiences as one of the
nine students who integrated a Southern junior high school in the late 19508. Beals’

memoir focused on the adversity she faced as one of the only Black students in an

93

otherwise all White school. The memoir also illustrated how Beals and her Black peers
coped and overcame racism. The two other autobiographical readings provided teacher
candidates an opportunity to learn about the schooling experiences of students with
learning disabilities. Sylvester’s (2002) Legacy of the Blue Heron (2002) documented the
impact of his undiagnosed learning and behavioral disabilities as a student during the
19503. In contrast, Abeel’s (2005) memoir, My Thirteenth Winter, illuminated the
difficulties she faced in seventh grade as a result of her learning disability diagnosis.

The course materials included in the introductory multicultural education course
at a doctoral university included a mix of literary forms that conveyed the difficulties and
hardships minorities faced in a society based on White, middle class norms. This course
syllabus included an excerpt from the memoir Woman Warrior written by Maxine Hong
Kingston (1989). Kingston, a well-known writer, described how her experiences growing
up as a Chinese American conflicted with her Chinese heritage. Kingston’s memoir also
documented the tension between what she learned in her home from her Chinese mother
and American culture and social institutions. The course syllabus also consisted of
several poems, essays, and excerpts from novels that reflected the voices and perspectives
of racial minorities, including Native Americans, Asian and Asian Americans, and
Afiican Americans. The fictional pieces included in the courses were written about
minorities by people representative of those categories. One of the assigned short stories
was written by Sandra Cisneros, a Chicano and feminist writer. Cisneros wrote about
how a Mexican woman’s experiences were mediated by her gender, race, and social

class. Cisneros’ story represents the hardship faced by Mexican American women due to

94

culturally based values and practices. It also represents people’s abilities to challenge and
overcome these norms and pressures.

Across the courses, the majority of course readings directly focused on how social
and demographic characteristics influenced and shaped peoples lives. In a course located
at a master’s university teacher candidates were required to read in a novel that expanded
the type of material that is typically associated with multicultural education. In Ishmael,
a fictional novel, Daniel Quinn (1995) presents a series of “philosophical dialogues
between man and gorilla” to describe some of the “global problems” currently facing
“human civilization.” He ties these “global problems” to environmental and ecological
issues. Although this book does not directly relate to schooling, the man represents a
teacher and the gorilla his student. The book, despite its topics, is similar to many of the
other course readings because it provides teacher candidates an opportunity to examine
ecological and social problems in ways that reflect an inquiry-based approach to teaching
and learning.

A third literary form included in multicultural education courses to evoke
empathy among teacher candidates are journalistic accounts about minority groups. In
contrast to the autobiographical accounts, memoirs, and other literary forms described,
these non-fictional accounts represent the experiences of minority groups as
sensationalized and stereotypical. The accounts are also unconnected to social and
educational theory. The two books written by journalists and included in two of the
multicultural education courses relied on the methods and tools of social scientists. Both
authors interviewed and observed the children and adolescents they describe in their

books. Neither journalistic account specifically focused on school but rather examined

95

how children’s experiences were shaped by relationships and characteristics of their
environments.

Peggy Orenstein’s (1994) Schoolgirls is one of the two books written by a
journalist. This book is used in two of the multicultural education courses and included in
four course syllabi. In the book, Orenstein described the experiences of two groups of
middle-school-aged adolescent girls. One group of girls is White, middle class, and
suburban and the other group consists of poor Black and Hispanic girls living in a city.
Orenstein documented how both groups of girls, despite the differences among them,
were disadvantaged by their gender. Her findings, which are based on observations and
interviews with the girls and their families, conveyed how race and social class
intersected with gender to influence the disadvantages faced by each group of girls. The
types of stereotypical differences claimed by the author included White, middle class
suburban girls suffering from eating disorders and psychological issues and Black and
Latina urban girls’ experiences with gangs, drug addicted mothers, and involvement with
the foster care system.

Alex Kotlowitz ’s (1992) There are No Children Here is the other required reading
written by a journalist. It is included in the syllabus of a multicultural education course at
a master’s university. This book, as the previous journalistic account, is based on
interviews and observations. Kotlowitz wrote about the experiences of two young
brothers growing up in a Chicago housing project by emphasizing how their context or
environment disadvantaged them. Kotlowitz’s description illustrated how the boys’ lives

were shaped by poverty and the other consequences of living in an urban community.

96

Violence, drugs, and neglect are identified by Kotlowitz as shaping the brothers’ choices
and as influencing their chances of survival.

Instead of journalistic accounts in book form, the syllabus of a course located at a
doctoral university used several recent newspaper articles to supplement chapters of the
required textbook. The articles, primarily from The New York Times, focused on a range
of course topics. Most newspaper articles were specific to social and demographic
groups. Very few of the assigned articles were about schools, teaching, or learning. The
majority depicted how people’s socio-cultural characteristics influenced how people
understand themselves and how others view them. In contrast to Schoolgirls and There
are No Children, these newspaper articles did not provide a sensationalist view of
people’s cultural based experiences nor did they focus on stereotypical characteristics and
attributes of minority groups. But rather the content of most articles tried to undermine
and complicate existing stereotypes. One example is Levin’s (2005) “Up from the Holler:
Living in Two Worlds, at Home in Neither,” illustrated the tension experienced by a rural
native of Kentucky whose current position as a lawyer contrasted sharply with her
childhood class status. Another Times article used in the course described the
experiences of a women who was raised by lesbian mothers (Dominus, 2004).

Course readings inclusive of the perspectives and voices of minority groups
suggest the cultivation of empathy because they increase teacher candidates
understanding of differences. Since these types of readings are being used in a teacher
preparation course they send the message that teachers need to learn about minorities in
order to teach them. Learning about difference and being open to that understanding is

fundamental to an empathetic disposition. This goal is particularly evident by the number

97

of course readings, non-fiction and fiction, not focused on teaching and learning but
rather providing teacher candidates insight about how race, gender, and social class
matter. Even the readings focused on schooling do not specifically relate to pedagogy and
teaching methods, which further suggest dispositional objectives rather than only aiming
to increase teacher candidates’ knowledge. As teacher narratives, many of these readings
provided evidence about how discrimination limits people’s opportunities. One
difference between readings written by minorities and the teacher narratives included in
multicultural education courses is that the former readings are more likely to show how
people cope and overcome obstacles rather than fail because of them. Another difference
is that the success represented in the readings written by minorities is not dependent on
external intervention, such as effective teachers and equitable schooling process, but
result from individual agency and initiative.
Evoking Empathy through Social Science Research

Another type of reading I identified in the syllabi of multicultural courses that is
suggestive of the cultivation of empathy is based on social science research methods and
findings. The readings aligned with social science research principles also support the
assumption that more information about why people fail will lead to teaching practices
based equity rather than prejudice and discrimination. Since research is often equated
with reality, the readings reflective of this strategy might be interpreted as more
legitimate by teacher candidates than narratives and anecdotes. There are differences
among the social science research texts and the other types of strategies that evoke
empathy. Whereas the other strategies are primarily based on descriptions either written

by or about individuals from minority groups, books and articles derived from social

98

science research are expository. These readings identified the features of schools and
society as responsible for the inequitable conditions faced by individuals and groups from
traditionally marginalized groups. More concisely, instead of learning about
discrimination and its consequences, social science texts explain the cause of
discrimination. The findings presented in course readings based on social science
methods primarily identify the school and various other social institutions as the source
of the problems facing minority groups and, therefore, minorities are portrayed as the
victim of such institutions.

Five multicultural education courses had a syllabus with at least one reading
based on social science methods. This type of reading was more common among courses
at doctoral universities than the courses located at other types of institutions. Rather than
consisting of a broad array of methodologies, course readings were primarily based on
qualitative methods. Readings were also dominated by ethnographic research, which is a
particular qualitative method that provides more in-depth and story-like representations
of individuals and groups. These representations are not only presenting teacher
candidates with information about minority groups, but they also explain the sources or
causes of inequality for the particular group being studied. As an example, several
chapters from Heath’s (1983) Ways with Words were required in one of the courses at a
large research university. Heath’s ethnographic study of how Black and White working-
class children developed language and literacy skills indicated that the school does not
value the cultural based knowledge and experience they acquire from their homes. The
school reflects White and middle class norms and, as a result, minority students are

disadvantaged.

99

Another book guided by social science research principles is McLeod’s (1995)
Ain ’t No Makin ’ It. In this book, McLeod concludes that the interaction between
structural factors and individual characteristics are responsible for social inequality.
Rather than focus solely on the school as many of the course readings, McLeod described
how various social institutions (e.g. family, community, school) interacted with
individual choice to reinforce or reproduce social reproduction. His ethnographic study
focused on poor White and African-American males residing in an urban housing project.
McLeod reported findings about how the opportunities of the boys he studied were
limited by their immediate environment, including how people perceived them as a result
of their socio-cultural characteristics. The boy’s opportunities were also negatively
affected by their interaction with family and peers and the schools they attended. Even
though many of the boys in the study were motivated to achieve in school and had a work
ethic conducive to success there were, according to McLeod, too many factors against
them. McLeod argued, based on the findings in the book, that social reproduction is a
legitimate theory that should be expanded to focus on how race, gender, and social class
influenced the reproduction process.

Although in fewer courses, there were also readings in some syllabi about
. foundational topics that were not based on ethnographic methods but a number of other
qualitative methodologies. The course syllabus used by an instructor at a master’s
university included a chapter from Oakes’ (2005) Keeping Track: How Schools Structure
Inequality. Oakes studied the implications of tracking on high school students’ learning.
She also wanted to understand what tracking taught students about their place or role in

society. She found that racial minorities and lower class students were overrepresented in

100

the lower tracks, while middle class and the majority of students in the upper tracks were
White, wealthier students. Oakes argued that tracking serves to reinforce class status
because it discriminates against racial minorities and poor students. In another syllabus of
a course at a similar institution, teacher candidates were required to read excerpts from
the social foundation textbook, Socio-cultural Themes in Education: Readings in Social
Foundations (2001). The findings in several assigned chapters were based on qualitative
methods. Two articles, for example, examined how students’ social class influenced their
schooling experiences. Both Rist’s (2001) “Student Social Class and Teacher
Expectations: The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy in Ghetto Education” and “Social Class and
School Knowledge” by Jean Anyon (2001) documented how teacher expectations and
school-based practices contributed to the disadvantages experienced by poor and working
class students.

Overall the readings based on social science research principles and methods are
similar. The readings identify and explain why various minority groups, but particularly
the poor and working class and racial minorities, are disadvantaged. Even though social
science research texts are expository, they also depict how socio-cultural characteristics
relate to inequality and the unfair treatment of people in both schools and society. These
findings have the potential to convey to teacher candidates the importance of recognizing
how both cultural and structural factors influence student’s educational opportunities.
They also indicate the need for teachers to teach students in ways that are culturally

relevant and that account for student’s experiences to undermine inequality.

10]

Evoking Empathy by Exposing Teacher Candidates to Differences

The final strategy suggesting the cultivation of empathy as a course objective is
exposing teacher candidates to people who are different from them. In the context of this
set of courses this strategy emphasized racial differences. Most of the exposure activities,
such as experiential learning and research projects, were designed for White teacher
candidates to interact and engage with racial minorities. These assignments are based on
the assumptions that teacher candidates are White, that they have not had a lot of
interaction with minorities and, as a result, that they have stereotypical beliefs about
minorities. Exposing students to differences is also assumed to begin to compensate for
teacher candidates’ lack of experience by providing them the opportunity to directly
engage with racial minorities. Exposure is, therefore, a strategy used to help teacher
candidates recognize and challenge the assumptions they hold of minorities.

This activity also reflects dispositional objectives because, as with the other
strategies, it emulates empathetic practice. It suggests to teacher candidates they must
learn about and recognize differences in order to effectively teach minority students. In
one of the courses at a large research university, the syllabus described the “real world
experiences” gained by teacher candidates through their interaction with minorities as a
valuable way for teacher candidates to learn about diversity and multicultural content. In
this course, students were required to engage with students by participating in service
learning. Service or experiential learning is the most typical way teacher candidates are
exposed to difference in this set of courses. As illustrated in Chapter 3, the type of
service learning experiences in the courses varied. In some syllabi the development of

instructional skills and pedagogical knowledge were emphasized more than building

102

personal relationships with students, which was the primarily purpose in other courses.
While service learning is often identified as a way to help people, in this case, teacher
candidates were expected to learn how to connect “theory with practice.” This ability
suggests a link between the acquisition of knowledge and the creation of empathetic
teachers. The description included in the syllabus of one instructor illustrates the
relationship between helping teacher candidates develop a greater understanding of
course content and cultivating dispositional qualities:

Direct involvement in community service is a way to connect academic

theories of diversity, power, and opportunity with the practices of the real

world of education, and thus deepen one’s understanding of these theories

and of schooling. It is also a way to think about and enact, to some extent,

a teacher-identity that includes being a public citizen.
Although being a teacher and also a “public citizen” does not directly relate to developing
empathetic teachers, it does suggest that service learning provides teacher candidates the
opportunity to recognize the inequalities that exist within schools and society and to act
upon that knowledge. This is one of the few courses that explicitly referred to cultivating
a commitment to political engagement as a course objective. In another course syllabus
service learning is described as promoting “personal growth.” I assume, based on course
content, “personal growth” includes altering how teacher candidates understand
themselves and how they interpret demographic differences.

There are a few additional course assignments included in course syllabi also
dependent on exposing teacher candidates to minorities. In four of the multicultural
education courses teacher candidates were required to conduct research in schools and

classrooms. In one of the courses, which was located at a large doctoral university, for

example, teacher candidates were asked to conduct a “student study.” This study was

103

described in the course syllabus as helping teacher candidates gain “a more elaborate
understanding of the background, knowledge, and in and out schooling experiences” of a
student enrolled in their practicum classroom. The assignment of a course at a master’s
university required teacher candidates to interview the teacher and students in the
classroom they observed. This assignment was described as helping students’ understand
the teacher’s “major concerns, struggles, and triumphs” and to learn about students’
thoughts of how their social and demographic characteristics influenced them and what
they learned fiom school.

Instead of school and classroom-based assignments, assignments in two of the
multicultural courses asked teacher candidates to learn about minorities by engaging in
research. In one course, teacher candidates were required to conduct a “field study” of a
racial/ethnic group that is both “different” and “unfamiliar” to them. The syllabus
indicated that teacher candidates had to interview someone from a racial group they had
“stereotypes or preconceived notions about.” The criteria teacher candidates were
provided to write up their findings mostly asked them to describe their “thoughts” and
“feelings” about the interview, and particularly asked students to describe what they had
learned about race. The assignment did not ask them to connect what they learned to
teaching and learning or schooling processes.

In a course located at a master’s institution, a similar type of assignment was
included on the syllabus. In this course, the assignment was labeled as a “multicultural
dialogue.” Based on the description provided in the syllabus, teacher candidates were
asked to have a conversation with “an individual who comes from an “ethnic/cultural

background” different from than your own.” In the description, “ethnic/cultural

104

background” was equated with the primary racial groups in the US. (African American,
Asian American, European American, Latino, or Native American) rather than
accounting for various cultural identity markers. As the other assignments described,
rather than analyzing interview materials, teacher candidates had to write about their
“feelings” and describe how they were both similar and different from the racial minority
they interviewed. The assignment also asked teacher candidates to write about what they
learned about themselves by interviewing a racial minority. They were specifically asked
to describe their “comfort level,” “perceptions,” “bias,” and “stereotypes.” The focus on
self-reflection and analysis supports dispositional aims rather than skill development and
knowledge acquisition.

The techniques for cultivating empathy by exposing teacher candidates to
differences are suggestive of empathy because teacher candidates learn about minorities
by listening and engaged with them. Creating empathetic teachers is particularly evident
by the activities not targeting students and schooling, but focusing on racial minorities.
These activities emphasized how teacher candidates can learn about themselves and
minorities by learning about minorities’ perspectives and views. These assignments
assume if teacher candidates learn about minorities they will overcome their stereotypes
and prejudices. The two types of assignments in courses targeting students and schools
were described as helping teacher candidates learn more directly about their future work
as teacher. It is also apparent these activities were designed to help teacher candidates
recognize their beliefs and attitudes and to understand the importance of empathetic

practice.

105

The Four Strategies for Evoking and Cultivating Empathy
There are four strategies included in the explicit curricula of multicultural
education courses that are suggestive of the cultivation of empathy. These strategies—
teacher narratives, voices and perspectives of minorities, social science research, and
exposure—are each dependent on helping teacher candidates learn about minorities to
alter how they understand them and their experiences. These strategies to varying degrees
convey how minorities’ experiences are shaped by inequality and injustice rather than the
result of individual ability and initiative. This type of information is assumed to contrast
with White teacher candidates’ knowledge about society and schooling. I argue that the
curricular design of multicultural education courses emphasizes teacher candidates’
recognition of hardships and inequality in the hope that teachers will draw on this
information during their future work as teachers. These curricular strategies signify the
need for empathetic teachers or teachers who are compassionate, sympathetic, and open
and willing to learn from their minority students and care for them.
Developing Self-Awareness as a Course Goal
Self-awareness is the other dispositional trait reflected in the curricula of
multicultural education courses. Based on the type of content included on syllabi, self-
awareness refers to helping teacher candidates recognize how their own experiences have
been shaped by their cultural identity or how their socio-cultural characteristics have
influenced them. The following quote, which I found on a syllabus, captures why self

awareness is an objective of multicultural education courses:

106

Instead of mastering and refining methodologies, teachers and

administrators should approach education by examining their own

perspectives about school, society, and emancipation. Rather than attempt

to escape from their own ideologies and values, educators should confront

them critically so as to understand how society has shaped them as

individuals, what it is they believe, and how to structure more positively

the effects they have upon students and others. Put another way, teachers

and administrators, in particular, must attempt to understand how issues of

class, gender, and race have left an imprint upon how we think and act.

The cultivation of self-awareness is based on the assumption that teachers who are
able to recognize how their thoughts and actions, including their own prejudices, are
related to their social and cultural characteristics will be more effective teachers of
diverse groups of students. Teachers who are self-aware are assumed to be better able to
understand students’ needs and how those needs relate to students’ socio-cultural
characteristics. Self-awareness is also assumed to relate to teachers’ abilities to empathize
with their students. Self-awareness facilitates teachers’ effectiveness in the classroom
because the skills supportive of self-awareness are also assumed to enable teachers to
recognize their actions and the implications of them. As stated by a course instructor in
one course syllabus, “Good teaching is built on thoughtful self-awareness.”

Whereas empathy is based on helping teacher candidates understand minorities,
self-awareness is directed at teacher candidates’ understanding of their own culturally-
based identity. Similar to empathy, developing teacher candidates’ recognition of how
their demographic characteristics have influenced them is reflected in the course readings
and activities included on course syllabi. I found evidence in the curricula of eight of the
14 multicultural education courses to suggest that developing teacher candidates

understanding of self or their self-awareness is a course objective. In the context of these

courses, self-awareness and recognition are positioned as helping teacher candidates

107

understand how their own identity has been influenced by their social and demographic
characteristics. Race is the one demographic topic most emphasized in course readings.
In the following sections, 1 describe the two strategies linking course content and
assignments with self-awareness. One strategy relates to increasing teacher candidates
understanding of their race and the other is more specific to developing teacher
candidates’ skills.
Self-Awareness as Racial Privilege

In multicultural education courses, teacher candidates learn about self-awareness
by engaging with course materials documenting teachers’ attempts to understand how
their lives have been shaped by their social and cultural characteristics. Course readings
directly related to self-awareness do not account for the seven social and demographic
categories identified in Chapter 3. Most readings suggestive of self-awareness are about
racial-awareness. The readings included on course syllabi convey to teacher candidates
how race influences and impacts one’s experiences and worldview. These readings
discuss Whiteness, and since the majority of teacher candidates are White, readings
suggest self-awareness rather than increasing teacher candidates understanding of race.
Course readings and texts document how White teachers and people not directly engaged
in schooling have developed an understanding of the impact of their race on how they see
themselves. Teachers describe the relationship between self-realization and their
pedagogical choices and instruction.

Of the eighteen multicultural education course syllabi and the courses with
materials about privilege, all focus on White privilege. The readings that discuss the

relationship between one’s race and teaching were written by White teachers about how

108

their race and racial identity have influenced their experiences and how they teach. Such
narratives also consist of teacher candidates elaborating on their personal journeys
towards obtaining self-awareness and describing how becoming conscious of their
privilege has been a liberating experience. In other words, teachers’ understanding of
their Whiteness has led them to change how they think about themselves and others.
Gary Howards’ (1999) We Can ’t Teach What We Don ’t Know is an example of an
assigned reading documenting the relationship between White privilege and teaching.
This book is a required reading of one of the courses at a master’s university. In his book,
Howard described how his personal recognition of his racial identity, as someone who is
privileged and unaware of that privilege, led him to commit himself and his teaching to
the principles of multicultural education. Howard’s book is geared towards helping other
White teachers and teacher educators follow a similar journey. The excerpt below
captures Howard’s understanding of why it is important for White teachers to become
self-aware:

Too often we as White educators have seen the problems as “out there”

and we have conceptualized our role as one of ‘helping minority students.”

Seldom have we helped White educators look deeply and critically at the

necessary changes and growth we ourselves must achieve if we are to

work effectively with the real issues of diversity.
Howard’s quote indicates that self-awareness is necessary for teachers to work with “the
real issues of diversity.” Furthermore, adverbs such as “deeply” and “critically” in
conjunction with “changes” and “growth” conveys how self-recogrrition is not a simple
process, but signifies substantial transformation. To convince readers about the privileges

and dominance of Whites, Howard, in one chapter of his book, described how knowledge

defined as legitimate is derived from White norms and values. Howard also argued that

109

self-awareness will facilitate teacher candidates’ ability to engage in “transformationist
pedagogy,” a form of multicultural education defined by Howard as being based on a
commitment to equity dependent on teachers’ understanding and recognition of their
racial and cultural attributes.

Howards’ book is not the only required reading suggesting the importance of self-
awareness. Several course instructors teaching the same course required teacher
candidates to read Landsman’s (2005) A White Teacher Talks about Race. Landsman
juxtaposes her privilege as White and middle class with her disadvantage as a woman to
the realities of her students, whom are racial minorities and poor. The examples
Landsman provided illustrate how her self-awareness enabled her to empathize with the
obstacles her students face due to their socio-cultural characteristics. She also equates this
self-recognition with her pedagogy. Another example of a course reading about the
relationship between race, teacher identity, and pedagogy is Marilyn Cochran-Smith’s
(2004) book, Walking the Road: Race, Diversity, and Social Justice in Teacher
Education. Cochran-Smith identifies herself as a White teacher educator supportive of
teacher education that promotes social justice. The book, which is a compilation of
articles, included details about her efforts to transform her courses and teacher education
programs to account for diversity and social justice. One example of how Cochran-Smith
positions her Whiteness, self-awareness, and pedagogy is found in the chapter, “Blind
Vision,” In this chapter, Cochran-Smith described how her self-reflection led her to the
realization that course texts and pedagogy were reflective of Whiteness rather than racial

diversity. This realization led her to change the materials she used in her course and how

110

she taught teacher candidates to ensure her students were exposed to the voices and
perspectives of minorities.

There were also readings in several multicultural syllabi that addressed Whiteness
and privilege more broadly. Such articles, which were not written by teachers, exposed
teacher candidates to materials describing how people who are White are advantaged or
privileged by their race. One claim made by the authors, among many, is that Whiteness
undermines individual ability and merit. The most popular author referenced in course
syllabi about Whiteness is Peggy McIntosh. McIntosh, a noted feminist writer and
activist, writes about the “unearned advantages” of White people. McIntosh reflected on
her own realization or self-awareness about White privilege and how her Whiteness
provided her a level of comfort and security not experienced by racial minorities. In the
article, “White privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack” McIntosh (1989) included a
checklist to illustrate the myriad of ways she has experienced privilege. To convey the
relationship between privilege and power, McIntosh draws similarities between male
domination and White privilege.

The types of readings included on course syllabi about self-awareness mostly
described self-understanding in racial terms. The materials suggest that White teachers
need to understand how their Whiteness has influenced their worldview and opportunities
because their race privileges them. This privilege prevents White people from
recognizing how race affects racial minorities. These readings serve as anecdotes to help
teacher candidates realize the importance of self-awareness and to learn how teachers
have developed an understanding of their racial privilege. In several courses self-

awareness is discussed in pedagogical terms. The authors of these readings argue that

111

White teachers working with minority students must understand their racial privilege and
the relationship between that privilege and their pedagogical choices.
Self-Awareness as Analysis and Reflection

Nearly all instructors, according to course survey responses, thought activities to
help teacher candidates understand how their culturally-based experiences influenced
them was an important component of multicultural education courses. As described in
Chapter 3, a number of the non-instructional course activities aimed to develop teacher
candidates’ abilities to think in analytical and reflective ways and to learn how to
communicate their thoughts effectively. Both critical analysis and reflection are skills
related to facilitating teacher candidates’ understanding of self. These skills relate to self-
awareness because teacher candidates can utilize these abilities to interpret their own
lives. Although both skills cut across several of the course assignments, there are two
types of assignments that encourage teacher candidates to engage in self-examination.
Such assignments asked teacher candidates to write autobiographical accounts and to
develop and articulate statements about their teaching philosophy.

Assignments based on self-examination serve multiple goals. They not only help
teacher candidates develop an understanding of how their socio-cultural characteristics
have influenced them, but they also simultaneously reinforce students’ knowledge of
course content, and their abilities to analyze and reflect on multicultural topics. In two of
the multicultural education courses located at research universities, for example, teacher
candidates had to write a paper about how their educational experiences were shaped by
their social and demographic characteristics. In one of the courses students were asked to

write the educational autobiography in two parts. At the beginning of the semester,

112

teacher candidates wrote an essay about the factors they believed explained their
educational success and their route to college. For the second part of the assignment, they
were required to reinterpret and rewrite their initial essay by drawing on course concepts
and themes. I can’t predict what students learned from the course, but based on the topics
included in courses readings it is apparent that teacher candidates were asked to reassess
their schooling success to illustrate how their success was not solely based on merit, but
was also a result of schooling practices and processes that advantaged them.

The other educational autobiographical assignment was similar, but was more
specific to teaching. Rather than require students to reflect on their educational success,
in this course teacher candidates were asked to describe their thoughts about education. In
the course syllabus, the assignment was described as complementing course materials
about “the history of education in America and the varying ideological forces that have
influenced our ways of teaching and learning.” This assignment, therefore, asked teacher
candidates to reflect on the relationship between their beliefs and their future teaching
practices.

In one of the other courses, also at a large research university, teacher candidates
were asked to write a cultural autobiography rather than one specific to schooling and
education. In one course syllabus, for example, the purpose of the assignment was to help
teacher candidates “reflect” on how “aspects of [their] culture have influenced [their]
schooling experiences and what [their] schooling experiences have taught [them] about
[their] identity.” In the syllabus, culture was equated with social and demographic topics.
Teacher candidates were also asked to illustrate how their “assumptions” have been

influenced by their socio-cultural characteristics and how they have been “privileged”

113

and “disadvantaged” by their socio-cultural characteristics. In this course there were
differences among how much weight instructors placed on connecting their
autobiography to their future work as teachers. In a few of the syllabi used in the course,
for instance, the assignment was also described as helping teacher candidates understand
their assumptions of schooling in addition to social and demographic topics. Other course
syllabi placed a greater emphasis on the relationship between diversity and teaching. As
stated on one syllabus, “reflecting upon how your personal experiences have shaped your
own assumptions. . .is an essential part of becoming the kind of teacher capable of
appreciating and activating the educative value of difference/diversity.”

The other type of assignment related to facilitating teacher candidates’ self-
awareness emphasized teaching more than facilitating teacher candidates’ understanding
of their cultural backgrounds. This type of assignment was included in two of the
multicultural education courses. One course was located at a master’s university and the
other at a doctoral institution. To fulfill the requirements of these assignments, teacher
candidates were asked to develop and write an essay about their teaching philosophy. In
one course teacher candidates were asked to draw on course materials and theories. The
assignment at the other course was more clearly related to cultivating teacher candidates’
self-awareness. For this assignment teacher candidates were asked to write a “practical
philosophy of education.” As stated on the syllabus, “I have used the term ‘practical
philosophy’ in order in encourage you to ground your philosophy in your personal
experiences, rather than abstract theory.”

Multicultural education courses facilitated teacher candidates’ self-awareness in

two ways. Course readings included on syllabi encouraged students to understand how

114

their socio-cultural characteristics, particularly their Whiteness, privileged them. Several
courses had course assignments that required students to analyze and reflect on their
educational and cultural based experiences. Such assignments allowed teacher candidates
to examine how multiple demographic topics and various factors influenced them, shaped
their understanding of diverse students, and their relationship to teaching.
The Problems of Empathy and Self-Awareness

I identified various strategies in the explicit curricula of multicultural education
courses that promoted and fostered empathy and self-awareness. The empathetic
disposition is identified in the literature as particularly important for teachers working
with racial minorities (See McAllister and Irvine, 2002.) Empathy is a dispositional
quality that enables teachers to transcend their own culturally-based experiences to
identity with and understand the experiences of people from marginalized groups. In the
courses involved in this study, empathy was reflected in course readings by four different
strategies—teachers’ narrative accounts, the voices and experiences of minorities, social
science research, and exposure to differences. The strategies for cultivating empathy are
based on the recognition that social and demographic characteristics matter. They matter
among minority groups because such characteristics create barriers and obstacles that
serve to prevent minorities from achieving schooling and societal success due to societal
forces, schooling policies and structures, and individual prejudices.

The other dispositional quality I identified in course materials is self-awareness.
As empathy, self-awareness is a quality identified in the literature as beneficial for
teachers working with diverse groups of students (Grant & Gillette, 2006). Within these

courses, there were two different strategies that suggested self-awareness. These

115

strategies were racial awareness and assignments that required teacher candidates to
engage in self-examination. Self-awareness supports empathy because they are both
based on the assumption that acquisition of knowledge equals changes in teacher
candidates’ behavior and dispositions. As described, self-awareness is different because it
requires teacher candidates to examine and evaluate themselves rather than minorities.
Self-awareness facilitates teacher candidate’s ability to empathize with minorities
because awareness is dependent on the recognition of the role of social and demographic
topics. Being self-aware also enables teacher candidates to recognize their prejudices and
preferences in ways that will facilitate their ability to relate to and teach their future
students.

Every educational intervention is based on assumptions about the nature of the
intervention and its recipients. Within the context of Michigan’s multicultural education
courses, the dispositional objectives I’ve described are based on the assumption that
teacher candidates are the same. Teacher candidates are assumed to be White and
privileged. This is evidenced by the curricula used in the courses. The cultivation of
empathy is dependent on helping teacher candidates learn about minorities. Most
readings included in courses either describe minority groups or provide descriptions of
how best to teach minority students. The readings related to helping teacher candidates
develop self-awareness focus on White privilege. Teacher candidates read about White
privilege and White teachers’ descriptions of their Whiteness. If teacher candidates were
not assumed to be White and privileged, then empathy and self-awareness would be less
evident in course readings or not relevant to the content of multicultural education

courses.

116

Although it is not surprising that multicultural education courses target White
teacher education students, assuming that all teacher candidates are the same is
problematic. As described in Chapter 2, multicultural education was designed to
accommodate the demographic differences between teachers and the student population.
In Michigan, the majority of teacher candidates are White and, therefore the majority of
students enrolled in these courses are also White. If Whiteness is equated with
homogeneity, then the diversity that exists among teacher candidates is ignored. Besides
the small percentage of teacher candidates whom are not White, all White teacher
candidates have not had privileged lives. There are differences among White teacher
candidates and efforts to alter and cultivate teacher candidates’ dispositions should not
ignore the differences that exist. The socio-cultural factors that vary among teacher
candidates, such as social class and gender, are not reflected in course readings. The
emphasis on differences as social and demographic also excludes other forms of
adversities that might facilitate teacher candidates’ ability to learn about minorities and to
learn to engage in empathetic practice. Teacher candidates might also think about self-
awareness differently if they had the opportunity to engage in materials that extended
beyond race.

The strategies reflected in course materials are also based on the assumption that
the reinforcement of difference is an effective tool for promoting empathy and self-
awareness. This assumption about difference has the potential to undermine dispositional
objectives because it can intensify stereotypes and prejudices rather than alleviate them.
Multicultural education courses consist of curricula that highlight differences between

teacher candidates and minority students to illustrate the importance of social and

117

demographic characteristics. By emphasizing differences and excluding similarities,
teacher candidates may develop an understanding of minority students that prevents them
from recognizing the similarities among themselves and diverse students. There are
findings in the literature indicating that exposing students to differences through service
learning is not an effective way to help teacher candidates alter their attitudes and
believes about minority groups because, and in some cases it intensifies teacher
candidates’ stereotypes of minorities (O’Grady & Chappel, 2000). If the content used in
courses only emphasizes how differences result in marginalization, there is also the
possibility that teacher candidates will be less inclined to empathize with their students,
but will pity them instead. Pity, which can stem from care, can lead teachers to hold low
expectations of students and, as a result, hinder their educational opportunities.

Within the context of multicultural education courses, the focus on difference
might also be problematic because it encourages teacher candidates to generalize what
they learned from course readings to all people with similar characteristics. If teacher
candidates have limited knowledge and exposure to diverse groups of people prior to the
course, they might be inclined to believe that course readings capture the realities of all
minorities. For instance, research is generally identified as a more legitimate source of
information than literary forms and individual narratives. Most of the findings described
in the course readings based on social science research methods are primarily qualitative
and, more specifically, ethnographic research. The generalization of findings from
ethnographic studies to groups and individuals who have similar characteristics is
generally not advisable because such studies were not conducted for such purposes. This

is not only the case for findings in readings based on social science methods, but can also

118

be applied to other course strategies that promote empathy. If teacher candidates make
assumptions and generalizations about minorities based on what they learned in a
semester-long multicultural education course they can not, most likely, engage in
empathetic practice. For teachers to truly engage in empathetic practice they would need
to learn about how individual students’ interpret their lives and not make assumptions

based entirely on students’ social and demographic characteristics.

119

Chapter 5
The Three Approaches of Multicultural Education Courses

In Chapter Three, 1 described the explicit curricula of multicultural education
courses. Chapter Four explained how course readings and activities were suggestive of
the empathetic disposition and self-awareness. As discussed in both chapters, there were
patterns among how curricular topics were positioned and described. There was also
variation among how individual multicultural education courses accounted for
foundational and pedagogical topics. Neither chapter provided an overall description of
the courses in this study, but rather findings were presented by comparing and contrasting
readings and assignments across the 14 courses.

To illuminate the range of multicultural education courses in Michigan’s teacher
preparation programs, I describe how the courses in this study reflect three different
course approaches. The three approaches —disposition, critical theory, and pedagogy—
developed from my analysis of course syllabi. To highlight the approaches, I describe the
context and curricula of a course that represents each approach. I also incorporate
findings from the course instructor survey to reveal the characteristics and perspectives of
the course instructors who teach the three courses.

The three approaches of multicultural education courses described in this chapter
were determined and derived from course syllabi. I analyzed course syllabi to determine
if there were patterns among how courses accounted for diversity and multicultural
content. I examined, among other factors, the topics and assignments included in courses
and how topics were conceptualized and presented in course readings. As a result, the

three approaches capture what courses emphasize and the distinctions between courses.

120

There are materials suggestive of one approach replicated in courses characterized by and
supportive of another approach. The dispositional approach, for example, is a distinct
approach but readings suggestive of the cultivation of dispositions were found across
course types. It is how dispositional content is contextualized in the course that reveals a
course’s overall approach. The three courses described in this Chapter were selected
because the courses represent the variability among the content and characteristics of the
14 courses in this study. The courses were also selected because they provide an ideal
representation of each course approach. A detailed description of the case study selection
process, included the selection criteria, is included in Chapter 2. The courses represent
variance in course structure and organization and also department and institutional
context. In the following descriptions, I discuss how the selected courses compare to the
multicultural education courses with the same approach.

A Multicultural Education Course with a Dispositional Approach
Context

Rivers College is a small private liberal arts college). The campus, which is
mostly residential, serves about 2000 undergraduate students. Compared to the other
colleges and universities in Michigan with a teacher education program, Rivers has one
of the Whitest campuses. Nearly 90% of students attending Rivers are White. There are
slightly more female than male students at Rivers, which is the case among college
students nationwide.

The teacher education department at Rivers appears to mirror the characteristics
of the college. The department is mostly composed of White and female students. The
department has one of the smallest student populations among the state’s teacher

education programs. In 2004, about 150 undergraduate students were enrolled in the

121

elementary and secondary teacher preparation programs. The programs at Rivers are
described in program documents as “connecting the very best of the liberal arts tradition
with the most recent research in preservice teacher education.” This description suggests
that the programs address the liberal arts tradition by relying on curricula and methods
that are scientifically based. To meet program objectives, teacher candidates are prepared
to engage in four processes: observation, inquiry, reflection, and creativity. The program
are also described as preparing teachers for a student-centered approach to teaching. Such
an approach is also fundamental to Rivers’ educational philosophy. Rivers claims to be
“devoted to the philosophy of students first.” Based on institutional and program
documents, student diversity is core to both the College and departmental missions. At
the departmental level, preparation is described as developing teachers to teach in urban
and diverse settings and providing them the knowledge and skills to meet the needs of
diverse groups of students. Statements made by the instructor of the multicultural
education course also suggested that diversity preparation was a central focus of the
department. The course instructor described “every course” in the teacher education
program as addressing “some sociopolitical aspects of education” and based on defining
teaching as “a practice not discrete or divorced from communities.”

The mission of the department aligns with the description of the program
provided in the course syllabus. As stated in program documents, the mission of the
teacher education program at Rivers is “to foster the development of morally and
ethically grounded teachers who advocate for and engage with learners and communities
to support positive individual grth and societal change.” The departmental mission is

articulated by five “Habits of Mind” As listed on the course syllabus, the five

122

characteristics of “beginning teachers” valued and promoted by departmental curricula

and policies are:

0 thoughtful and caring learner-teachers, open and eager to know and to be
known and to respect self and others;
curious, critically thinking risk-takers and problem-solvers;
perspective-takers, seeking out, valuing and incorporating different
viewpoints and positions about learners, learning, teaching and subject
matter;

youth advocates, desiring a more fair, equitable and democratic society;
morally, ethically-grounded deliberators, living and working with
integrity.
These “Habits of Mind” mostly reference cultivating the dispositional qualities of teacher
candidates. Even the use of the phrase, “Habits of Mind,” suggests characteristics that are
beyond attitudes and skills, but relate to teachers’ characteristics and qualities.

The multicultural education course at Rivers College was not unique, but included
similar types of materials and strategies found in several of Michigan’s multicultural
education courses. The curriculum of Rivers’ course mostly consisted of readings about
how social and demographic categories shaped students’ schooling experiences. Four
demographic topics—race, special education, social class, and language—were reflected
in course readings. In comparison to other multicultural education courses, this course
covered fewer topics. Other types of topics included in the course at Rivers related more
directly to the social, historical, and political context of education and US. schools,
which were also covered in several other courses. Course assignments and activities
reflected the range of assignments included in multicultural education courses. Teacher

candidates were required to engage in service learning, write up research findings, and

reflect on their work throughout the semester.

123

One difference between the course at Rivers and the majority of multicultural
education courses in this study is that the course at Rivers was designed to discuss and
support a case-study approach. This approach to educating teacher candidates about
diversity and multiculturalism was included in two of the other multicultural education
courses. Based on the requirements listed in Rivers’ syllabus, teacher candidates engaged
in readings about the purposes of case studies and why case studies were relevant to
teacher preparation and the future work of teachers. They also read about strategies for
developing their own case studies. The required course readings were similar to case
studies because they were narrative accounts written about or by people from minority
groups. Other courses had similar types of reading but such readings were not as
frmdamental to the course.

At Rivers, as the majority of multicultural education courses in this study, the
course was not an introductory course. It was also not a course teacher candidates were
expected to enroll in at the end of the program. The course was developed for students
after they had officially enrolled in the teacher preparation program. Only five of the 14
multicultural education courses in this study were introductory courses that students
could take prior to majoring in elementary or secondary education. Most teacher
candidates enrolled in the course at Rivers during their sophomore year after they had
passed Michigan’s basic skills test. Students were also not able to enroll in the course
until they had completed the introductory course, which provided students an overview of
effective teaching practices and information about curriculum.

During the spring 2007 semester, the multicultural education course at Rivers was

taught by Professor Carlyle, an Associate Professor who was also Chair of the

124

Department. Professor Carlyle reported that she initially became involved in multicultural
education because she believed that “understanding, valuing, and hearing diverse
perspectives are essential for a democratic project for an equitable society.” At the time
of the survey, Professor Carlyle had been teaching courses with multicultural content for
eight years, which is the same number of years she had been teaching at the college level.
She had more teaching experience with multicultural content than most participating
instructors. As most of the instructors in this study, she had also taught K-12 students.
Unlike the majority of instructors, however, her primary academic research interests were
secondary education curriculum rather than topics directly related to diversity and
multiculturalism. Professor Carlyle described herself as White, middle class, and female,
which mirrors the demographic characteristics of teacher educators nationwide.

The multicultural education course at Rivers emphasized dispositional aims much
more than pedagogy and instructional methods. The methods and processes of teaching
were not a priority in the course or emphasized to the extent they were in other courses.
The strategies and approaches of the course materials, particularly the readings included
on the course syllabus, suggested dispositional objectives. The readings about social and
demographic topics included strategies for cultivating empathetic teachers and teachers
who were self-aware. Most course assignments exposed teacher candidates to minority
groups and facilitated their analytical and reflection skills, which are supportive of
dispositional objectives.

In Chapter 4 I described the strategies included in the readings and assignments of
a course syllabus suggestive of empathy and self-awareness. The cultivation of empathy

is based on the assumption that learning about the experiences and realities of minority

125

groups will encourage teacher candidates to become compassionate and sympathetic of
their students. It is assumed that such characteristics will translate into how teachers teach
diverse groups of students. Whereas the empathetic disposition is dependent on the
student, self-awareness relates more directly to the development of teacher candidates.
Self-awareness, within the context of diversity education, refers to increasing teacher
candidates’ understanding of how their culturally-based experiences have shaped and
influenced them. This disposition is based on the assumption that a teacher who is self-
aware is more effective with diverse groups of students because they acknowledge how
students’ lives are shaped by their social and demographic characteristics.

Dispositional Objectives Support Key Departmental Goals

The curriculum of Rivers’ multicultural education course is described on the
course syllabus as being aligned and shaped by departmental policy that is suggestive of
dispositional objectives. The content of the multicultural education course is identified by
Professor Carlyle as addressing two of the departments’ “Habits of Mind.” The two
“Habits of Mind” are self as learner-teacher and preparing teachers to advocate on behalf
of their students and society. Each “Habit of Mind” is linked to course content by the
learning outcomes it addresses.

Based on the learning outcomes delineated in the syllabus, preparing teacher
candidates to become a learner-teacher is dependent on cultivating a teacher candidate’s
ability to empathize and self-awareness. One learning outcome described teachers as
people who “are aware of their own subjective positions and of the need to learn about
people, events, ideas and perspectives that are unfamiliar and perhaps in sharp contrast

with their own beliefs and experiences.” Self-awareness is evidenced in this outcome

126

because it references teacher candidates who recognize their “subjective positions.” This
outcome also conveys empathy because it identifies “the need” for students to learn about
people’s differences and other types of differences.

Two additional outcomes supportive of developing a learner-teacher reveals
dispositional objectives more directly related to the work of teachers. One of the
outcomes stated that teacher candidates in the course would be prepared to “operate from
a capital rather than a deficit model of understanding students and students’ prior
knowledge and teachers would leverage students’ prior knowledge rather than asking
children to adapt.” This outcome also reflected the department and program mission for
developing teachers who teach with a student-centered approach. This type of teaching
assumes an empathetic teacher because teachers must learn about their students, draw on
students’ knowledge, and value their contributions in order to teach them. Rather than
assuming empathy, the other outcome suggests self-awareness. It refers to preparing
teachers to have the “mindset of teacher-researcher.” This “mindset” aligns effective
teaching with “collecting and analyzing information” about their “practice” and an
understanding of self. Although the fourth outcome of the “Habit of Mind” was not
directly related to cultivating teacher candidates’ empathy and self-awareness, it signified
a commitment towards teaching “any child, regardless of race, social class, ethnicity, or
exceptionality.” Overall the learning outcomes supportive of learner-teacher suggest that
the course fosters and promotes teacher candidates who teach by understanding their
students and themselves.

Professor Carlyle described the course she taught as preparing teachers to

advocate for their students and society, which was the second “Habit of Mind” the course

127

was identified as addressing. The four learning outcomes delineated in the syllabus as
supportive of teacher advocates included skills and knowledge suggestive of cultivating
teacher candidates’ dispositional qualities. Advocates are teachers who are “skillful
verbal and written communicators” and who are able to “utilize a variety of strategies to
access resources that will help them teach diverse learners. They are also teachers,
according to the learning outcomes in the syllabus, who draw on “the available assets and
resources of the community.” Advocates also recognize how “their day-to-day instruction
is affected by a multitude of forces outside the classroom, such as national politics, state
mandates, local economic booms and busts, and teachers can also develop strategies to
leverage these forces for the benefit of their students.” Overall these outcomes suggest
that the skills and knowledge related to developing a teacher advocate are based on
facilitating teacher candidates’ understanding of their students so they can engage in
teaching practices that account for their students’ context. Among the learning outcomes,
self-awareness is related to understanding the contextual forces that shape and influence
teachers’ work more than self-awareness as cultural or racial-awareness.
Goals and Objectives

The multicultural education course at Rivers was designed to address six goals.
These goals mostly emphasized increasing teacher candidates’ knowledge about the
foundations of education and schooling. One of the six referred to developing teacher
candidates’ skills. None of the goals referenced or suggested dispositional objectives, but
this is not surprising because very few courses explicitly identified dispositional
objectives. The first goal listed on the syllabus identified the course as exposing teacher

candidates to information about the historical foundations of US. public schooling.

Teacher candidates in the course, according to the second goal, would learn “multiple
perspectives” about the purpose of education. The third goal described the course as
helping teacher candidates consider the “complexities and tensions” of education that
supports the principles of a “democratic society” with a particular focus on the
importance of ensuring equal opportunity for diverse groups of people. Increasing
students’ understanding of political and “legal mandates” was described as the fourth
goal. Goal Five identified the course as helping teacher candidates understand “learning
differences and the responsibility and possibilities of teachers to make accommodations
to create inclusive classrooms.” The final course goal emphasized developing teacher
candidates’ research and communication skills.
Topics and Themes

Although the dispositional focus of the course is not evidenced by course goals,
the dispositional approach is exemplified by the strategies reflected in assigned readings
and its case-study format. The course readings also aligned with course goals. Readings
examined and described foundational topics such as the historical context of education,
purposes of education, and schooling in a democratic society. There were four
demographic topics included in course readings. Three of the demographic topics in
Rivers’ course were taught during the first half of the semester and the fourth was the
only topic in the second part of the course. For the first part of the semester, the course
was described on the syllabus as providing teacher candidates “multiple perspectives
about race, etlmicity and the role of culture in schooling.” During the latter part of the

semester, readings focused on students with learning disabilities.

129

Professor Carlyle’s multicultural education course, as represented by the course
syllabus, was based on a case-study approach. This format supports the cultivation of
teacher candidates’ disposition because it models the principles of empathetic practice.
The course included readings that educated teacher candidates about the case-study
approach, its importance and relevancy to understanding diversity, and how this approach
related to the work of teachers. Nieto’s (2000) Affirming Diversity: The Sociopolitical
Context of Multicultural Education is a required course reading. This book consists of
individual case studies that document the experiences, perceptions, and voices of students
from a variety of minority groups. The cases complement required course materials
about theories of multicultural education and the structural and cultural forces that cause
inequality and influence teaching and learning. Professor Carlyle describes Nieto’s book
as “integral to the course and to understanding how to research, write and think
constructively about culture and schooling.” It is also identified as a “necessary resource”
for the case study assignment because it discusses case study approaches.

The case study format and Nieto’s book foster and promote dispositional
objectives linked to the department’s “Habits of Mind.” A case-based approach, more so
than other forms of inquiry, conveys information about a person or a select group of
people by illuminating particular aspects of their lives. The description provided by
Nieto (2000) about the value of the case study approach captures the essence of the
relationship between this approach and the cultivation of dispositions. Nieto described
case studies as ways to deliver “the voices of students” and “the experiences of students
from disempowered and dominated communities” that are often “unheard.” Nieto

described the case studies she included in her book as conveying “students’ pain and

130

conflict” and also their “determination and hope.” This type of representation signifies to
teacher candidates the importance of learning about their future students. In this course, it
also provides teacher candidates an understanding of how socio-cultural factors shape
students’ educational opportunities and academic learning.

The description and purposes of case studies, as described by Nieto, are replicated
by the types of readings included in Rivers’ course syllabus. Such readings documented
the experiences and circumstances faced by racial and ethnic minorities and students with
learning disabilities in ways that fostered and promoted empathy. Three of the required
books supported the strategy for evoking empathy based on learning about the voices and
perspectives of minorities. One book is a memoir focused on race and racial
discrimination. This book documents a Black student’s experiences integrating an all-
white Southern high school in the South in the late 19505 (Beals, 1994). Two of the other
narrative accounts focused on the schooling experiences of the disabled. The narrative
accounts illustrated how schools did not address the academic needs of students with
learning disabilities (Sylvester, 2002; Abeel, 2003). Compared to the other multicultural
courses in this study, few courses consisted of similar types of readings about students
with disabilities. Most disability readings focused on pedagogy and instruction.

Another book used in the course similarly supports dispositional objectives is
Bartoletti ’s (2005) Hitler ’s Youth: Growing up in Hitler’s Shadow. This non-fiction
book documented how German adolescents from 1933 to 1945 engaged with and
supported the goals of Hitler’s Third Reich. On the syllabus, Professor Carlyle described

this book as “unconventional” for this type of course, but identified it as relevant because

131

it made an explicit connection between schools and society. This book, as with similar
types of readings, revealed how individual experiences were shaped by social context.

The majority of course readings about demographic topics reflected dispositional
objectives, but there was one required reading that addressed a demographic topic
pedagogically. The reading did so by describing how practitioners working with people
living in poverty must be able to empathize with their experiences. This book was Payne
et al.’s (2005) Bridges Out of Poverty: Strategies for Professional and Communities. On
the course syllabus, it was described as “provid[ing] useful strategies and insights for
professionals who work with youth and families within the context of generational
poverty. Payne provides useful constructs and practical advice for educators.” Payne’s
description of the book she co-authored conveys how the book is supportive of
cultivating an empathetic disposition. The book is identified as helping practitioners
understand “how different their world is from [people living in poverty].” The strategies
for working with poor people model empathetic practice because they convey the
importance of not only recognizing the effects of poverty, but describing how that
recognition must be dependent on compassion and sympathy, both of which suggest the
importance of an empathetic disposition.

Course topics not directly relevant to the dispositional approach were not
pedagogical, but most focused on increasing teacher candidates’ understanding of
traditional foundational topics. One of the first few topics included in the course readings
listed on the course syllabus, for example, was about the historical context of education
and US. schooling. As another example, teacher candidates were also expected to read

Meier’s (2000) Will Standards Save Public Education? Meier’s book conveys the

132

relationship between educational policies and the needs and purposes of the US. as a
democratic society.
Assignments and Activities

The assignments included on Rivers’ course syllabus reflect and support
dispositional objectives. There were a number of assignments linking skill development
to the format of the course. For the case study assignment, teacher candidates were asked
to study a diversity topic. Teacher candidates were required to interview people and
conduct library research on a minority group to fulfill the requirements of this
assignment. Components of this assignment were based on exposing teacher candidates
to racial minorities, which is one of the four strategies in course readings suggestive of
the cultivation of empathy. The exposure strategy was also evidenced by the course’s
service learning requirement. For this assigmnent, teacher candidates had to spend 12
hours during the semester in a special education classroom. The two assignments related
to service learning were a course presentation about a special education topic and a
written paper explaining how teacher candidates’ classroom-based experiences related to
course materials. Rather than directly related to dispositional objectives, the other written
assignments in the course helped teacher candidates develop reflection skills. Students in
the course were asked to write a reflective journal about the course and course readings.
They also had to reflect on course materials to write a paper about the history of
education and for the final paper. For this paper, teacher candidates were asked “to
articulate their emerging educational philosophy and values based upon experiences in

this course.”

133

Rivers’ Course Promotes Dispositions

In contrast to most of the multicultural education courses in this study, the
departmental context of Rivers’ course suggests that preparing teacher candidates for
diversity is a program priority. Program documents and materials describing program
priorities emphasized multicultural preparation. The course instructor provided
information that supported program descriptions. Professor Carlyle described how
multicultural content was a thread throughout Rivers’ preparation programs.

The course at Rivers College represents the courses designed primarily for
dispositional objectives. The case study format of the course supports dispositional
objectives. Course materials are particularly suggestive of cultivating empathetic
teachers. Even though the explicit curriculum of the course is suggestive of both
dispositional objectives, strategies supportive of empathy are most apparent in course
readings and activities. Two of the four strategies—listening to the voices and
perspectives of minorities and exposure to differences—were reflected in course content.
There were very few readings in this course that discussed pedagogy and the work of
teachers. The absence of such materials is additional evidence that the course aims to
cultivate the dispositions of teacher candidates.

A Multicultural Education Course with a Critical Approach
Context

The institutional and departmental characteristics of the multicultural education
course at Valley University contrasts sharply with the context of Rivers’ course. Valley’s
undergraduate student population is about 10 times greater than Rivers. There are about

19,000 undergraduate students who attend Valley. Valley is a master’s granting

134

institution meaning that it offers both undergraduate and master’s degrees. The school is
also more racially diverse than Rivers. About 30% of undergraduate students enrolled at
Valley are racial minorities. According to program documents, about 90% of the students
who attend Valley are Michigan residents and the majority of students reside in seven
near-by counties.

The teacher education department at Valley is also in contrast with Rivers’
department. It mirrors the institutional context of Valley. Whereas Rivers served a small
number of teacher candidates, the department at Valley had one of the largest teacher
candidate populations in Michigan. About 6000 undergraduates were enrolled in the
program in 2004. The demographic characteristics of the enrolled students reflect the
national average. The majority of teacher candidates at Valley are female (72%) and
White (80%).

Valley’s teacher education department is guided by a conceptual framework
linking program objectives with societal needs. The framework is “[Valley] prepares
caring professional educators for a diverse and democratic society.” In support of the
framework, faculty developed eight goals to represent their collective vision of teacher
preparation. The eight goals consisted of increasing teacher candidates’ knowledge and
developing their skills to teach and, although, none of the goals precluded a focus on
diversity, one of the goals specifically addressed how the program prepared teacher
candidates for diversity:

Students from [Valley’s] Teacher Education programs are prepared to

teach students with a range of needs. These include differences in gender,

culture, race, class, economic level, learning style, patterns of ability and

handicapping conditions. Students are prepared to address diverse needs

within a classroom that recognizes and builds on the strengths in both
individuality and community.

135

This goal suggests that teacher candidates are provided the knowledge and skills to teach
demographically diverse students. I was not able to locate specific goals or objectives in
program documents illustrating how Valley addressed its diversity goal. The
multicultural education course is the only course and program requirement I found
focused on diversity and multicultural education. The comments provided by instructors
on the instructor survey reveal that there are few opportunities for teacher candidates to
engage with multicultural topics besides the course they teach. Course instructors agreed
that field placements might expose teacher candidates to diversity, but that was
dependent on the type of schools teacher candidates were placed. Instructors disagreed
about whether and the extent to which diversity was included in the curriculum of
required courses and integrated across program components and requirements.

There were 8 instructors teaching the multicultural education course at Valley at
the time this research was conducted. Five of the 8 instructors declined to participate in
the study. The instructor who provided a reason for her decision to decline participation
indicated that the study did not align with her “constructivist pedagogical approach.”
Whereas most of the non-participating instructors were faculty, the three participating
instructors were adjunct faculty. All three were also white males. Instructors Smith and
Williams were both practicing teachers with master’s degrees. They also both grew up in
middle class families. Instructor Edwards, who had obtained a Ph.D. in 1999, described
his family’s class status as working class.

There were differences among why course instructors’ became involved with
multicultural education courses and the length of their involvement. Instructor Edwards

had taught courses with multicultural content for the past 15 years, Williams six years,

136

and Smith, at the time of the survey, had the least experience teaching multicultural
education course content. Instructor Smith had been involved in diversity courses for
three years. Instructor Edwards initially became involved in multicultural education as a
graduate student. Instructors Smith and Williams began teaching multicultural education
courses because they were high school teachers directly engaged in issues related to
course content. Instructor Smith teaches in an urban context. He has also written about
his involvement in educational reform projects.

Valley University’s multicultural education course included many of the themes
and topics as the course at Rivers College and the other multicultural education courses
represented in this study. Even though course topics in the three courses varied by course
instructor, course readings were inclusive of demographic topics and several additional
foundational topics. The course also included readings about pedagogy. The course at
Valley, in comparison to several of the courses in this study, approached multicultural
education much more abstractly and in theoretical terms. This course examined both the
causes and implications of educational inequality and social issues. Valley’s course
assignments, in comparison to the course at Rivers, consisted of assignments that
reflected traditional academic work more than the practical work of teachers.

The amount of variation among the three course syllabi reveals that the course
was structured to allow individual instructors to develop and design their own course.
This type of variation is not found among any of the other multicultural education courses
in this study. The course instructors of three of the multicultural education courses used
either the same syllabus or very similar course syllabi. At one of the research universities

where graduate students mostly taught the course, a conceptual framework developed the

137

purpose of the course and its objectives. Instructors of this course were given the liberty
to select readings and materials that aligned with the framework, but instructors included
many of the same readings and course assignments. In at least one of the courses,
instructors were required by the department chair to use the same textbook but could
select additional readings to supplement the textbook chapters.

Although the three course syllabi were different, the materials included on the
syllabi suggested a multicultural education approach grounded in critical theory. Critical
theory is evidenced by the authors of the course readings and how course topics and
themes were discussed and represented in required readings. More specifically, the
course conveys an approach that illustrates a relationship between the processes within
schools and social inequality. Readings illuminated how schools reinforce social
inequality and fail to support and reflect democratic practices and processes. The course
materials signify teaching and pedagogical strategies as ways teacher candidates can
accommodate social inequality. The pedagogical strategies discussed in this course were
more intimately derived from critical theory than the pedagogy and instruction reflective
of the two other course approaches. The critical approach was also apparent by course
assignments. The assignments were described as developing teacher candidates’
intellectual abilities and their skills to engage in critical analysis and reflection.

Goals and Objectives

The description of Valley’s multicultural education course provided in. the course
catalogue suggests a critical approach to educating teacher candidates about diversity and
multicultural education. The course is described as “a study of the interactive relationship

between schools and society.” The course description also places “special emphasis on

138

educational equity and the theoretical foundations of multicultural education.” Both the
“interactive relationship” referred to in the description of this course and the reference to
theory suggest an approach that deviates from Rivers’ dispositional focus. Rivers’ course
focused on the experiences of minorities and Valley’s course is described as helping
students gain an understanding of the processes linking schools with social inequality.

The objectives and goals of the course provided on the syllabi of course
instructors aligned with the programs’ course description. Instructor Williams described
the course as providing teacher candidates information about what “[teachers] actually do
in schools and classrooms.” He also stated that “not all of it is good” to refer to the
current teaching practices and schooling process that are harmful to minority students
because they serve to reinforce inequality. Rather than only focus on the relationship
between schools and society, Instructor Williams described the course as helping students
learn “what [teachers] could do to change it.” His rationale for examining the current
state of schooling and the potential of schooling and education is to provide teacher
candidates an understanding of the possibilities of education. As stated on Instructor
William’s syllabus, “We do this in the hope that one day we will actually do what they
tell us we should be doing in schools, e.g., facilitating thoughtful citizenship and
promoting social justice.” The reference to social justice is another indicator of the
course’s critical approach. Critical educational theory is often linked to social
transformation rather than accommodating differences. This course syllabus was one of a
few syllabi that identified social justice as a curricular objective.

Instructor Williams drew on an excerpt from Howard Zinn’s Failure to Quit to

explain how he conceived of teaching and learning in his course section. He did not

139

identify the course as objective or neutral, but he instead described the content of the
course as being shaped by his beliefs and values. He also referred to himself as not a
“neutral teacher.” As stated in the quote by Zinn included in his syllabus, “I have a point
of view about war, about racial and sexual inequality, about economic injustice—and this
point of view will affect my choice of subject, and the way I discuss it.” Zinn also
positioned students as active participants in the learning process rather than passive
receipts of information. This type of learning, according to an excerpt from Zinn’s quote,
is based on a certain type of relationship between teachers and their students.

I ask you to listen to my point of view, but I don’t expect you to adopt it.

You have a right to argue with me about anything, because, on the truly

important issues of human life there are no ‘experts. I will express myself

strongly, as honestly as I can, and I expect you to do the same. I am not

your only source of information, or ideas. Points of view different from

mine are all around, in the library, in the press. Read as much as you can.

All I ask is that you examine my information, my ideas and make up your

own mind.

This quote suggests that Instructor Williams encourages his students to engage in critique
or critical analysis instead of accepting course materials and his opinions about schooling
and social inequality. Instead of students absorbing and regurgitating course materials,
Zinn’s quote indicates that teacher candidates should critique, analysis, and question the
course.

Instructor Edwards’ syllabus begins with an explanation about the purposes of
schooling instead of providing a basic overview of course goals and objectives. His
description revealed how schools reinforce social inequality by defining five key terms—
cultural capital, social reproduction, ideology, myth of merit, and social capital. The

meanings of these terms were derived from books and other readings that are supportive

of interpreting educational phenomenon in critical structural terms or based on theory

140

derived from Marxism. Instructor Edwards claims that schools reflect society and, as a
result, reproduce inequality rather than alleviate it. The structural factors of schools and
the types of knowledge valued by schools, according to Edwards, reflect the “cultural
capital,” or the knowledge and skills, for example, of the advantaged. The result is that
schools contribute to “social reproduction” rather than leveling the playing field.
“Ideology,” is a key term used by Instructor Edwards to explain why social
transformation does not occur. Ideology is defined on the syllabus as “the self-serving
interpretation of reality that powerful groups use to make their dominance seem
legitimate and that preserves social cohesion in the face of clear inequalities.” The “myth
of merit” is an example of a dominant “ideology” discussed by Edwards that contributes
to the reproductive function of schools. People believe their success is based on their
abilities, but it is actually a function of their social standing, according to Instructor
Edward’s description.

Besides the critical terms and concepts used by Instructor Edwards to explain the
purposes of his course, he identifies two theses as guiding the course. The primary course
thesis suggests links social forces to individual failure. The thesis from Rose’s Lives on
the Boundary is, “More often than we admit, a failed education is social more than
intellectual in origin.” This type of thinking is fundamental for a critical Marxist
interpretation because it positions social structure rather than individual initiative and
motivation as the source of inequality. In contrast to this structural explanation, the
“course sub-thesis” attributes the persistence of educational inequality as the result of

individual apathy. As articulated by Ron Edmonds,

141

We can, whenever and wherever we choose, successfully teach all

children whose schooling is of interest to us. We already know more than

we need to do that. Whether or not we do it must finally depend on how

we feel about the fact that we have not so far.

The sub-thesis identifies individual action as the solution to educational inequality.
Within the context of a multicultural education course, this quote suggests that the
behavior and actions of teachers are necessary for ending educational inequality.

The course objectives delineated by Instructor Smith were also supportive of the
course description. Instructor Smith included course objectives that aimed to increase
teacher candidates’ knowledge about “the patterns between schooling and personal and
social situation factors.” He described “critical analysis” as fundamental to course
concepts and the theoretical perspectives of the course. Three of the additional course
objectives included on Instructor Smith’s syllabus was also supportive of developing
teacher candidates’ skills for engaging in critical analysis. These objectives included:

0 To conceptualize informed opinion about educational goals, policies

and practice,

0 To make informed, normative judgments about the aims of education,

and practice, both orally and in writing, and

0 To defend judgments with reasoned argument and evidence from the

relevant course scholarship and their own experience.
Topics and Themes

The readings of Valley’s multicultural education courses mostly focused on
foundational topics about schooling. Within the context of this course’s critical approach,
inequality is demographically based and, it is explained in terms of school and societal
structures. There were similar topics among the three course syllabi, but the materials

used to address the topics varied. Smith’s syllabus included readings about three

demographic categories, whereas Instructor Williams’ readings were inclusive of four

142

and the readings in Instructor Edwards’ course accounted for five demographic topics.
There was also some variation among how course instructors approached the topics in
critical terms. The curriculum of Instructors Smith’s course focused more on increasing
teacher candidates’ understanding of theory, whereas the other two course instructors had
a theoretical focus, but also included a number of readings about critical pedagogy.

Course readings about social and demographic categories primarily emphasized
how schooling and societal structures disadvantaged minority students and, in some
readings, how such structures benefitted non-minority students. One topic included in
Instructor William’s course was school funding. School funding was identified in a
required reading as one of the factors contributing to educational inequality. Kozol’s
(1992) Savage Inequalities, the required reading about this topic, described the impact
and implications of the discrepancies in school funding between poor racial minorities
residing in an urban community and their White, suburban communities. The book,
according to the description in the syllabus, was used to discuss the causes of “savage
inequalities” and was also described as a tool for discussing how to resolve educational
inequalities.

The second part of Instructor’s Edwards course was devoted to readings
examining the relationship between schooling and social inequality. He described the
readings in this section of his course as documenting how “students experience social
inequality in school and society and the structures that perpetuate inequality.” The course
included several different topics to illuminate this relationship. One topic was tracking
(Oakes, 1985) or the structures in school that differentiate students and instruction. In

Edwards’ course, tracking is positioned as a tool that perpetuates disadvantage. Teacher

143

candidates were also asked to read about how school structures, specifically how the
curriculum of schools, prepared students in ways that mirrored and reproduced students’
social class (Anyon, 1981). This was also an assigned reading in Instructor Smith’s
course. Instructor Edwards assigned a book describing the experiences of two Black
children living in an urban housing project and the obstacles they faced as a result of their
environment. Even though Kotlowitz’s (1991) There are No Children Here did not
directly focus on schooling, the descriptions included in the book signified how various
social institutions, such as family and community, shaped the boys and their choices.

Instructor’s Smith syllabus had similar types of readings about race and social
class. Teacher candidates were asked to read about how segregation and segregated
schools negatively impacting the educational opportunities of racial minorities (Applied
Research Center, 2000). There were a number of other assigned articles about race and
racism from the Public Broadcast Service’s (PBS) website in Smith’s syllabus. These
articles identified race as a socially constructed category and described the myths
surrounding race and the causes of racism.

Another course topic representative of the critical approach was privilege.
Readings about this topic were included in all three course syllabi. Privilege was
discussed in terms of Whiteness. Instructor Edwards, for example, assigned two readings
about privilege (McIntosh, 1989; Wise, 2005). These readings identified privilege as a
function of power. Instructor Williams included similar readings on his syllabus to reveal
how existing social structure advantaged Whites.

In contrast to the other two sections of Valley’s courses and all but one of the

multicultural education courses in this study, Instructor Smith’s syllabus included

144

readings that discussed the environment as a social issue. Teacher candidates were asked
to consider the ecological consequences of peoples’ actions and behaviors on the
environment (Quinn, 1995). Also related to ecological matters, there were two articles in
the course describing the principles of sustainable and democratic societies (Cavanaugh
& Mander, 2006; Shiva, 2002/03).

Besides readings explaining inequality and the impact of inequitable schooling
structures on minorities, there were a number of readings focused on pedagogy. A few of
these readings focused specifically on pedagogical practices that harmed minority
students. In Instructor Smith’s syllabus, for example, readings documented how
ideologies—deficit thinking and blaming the victim— shaped the educational
opportunities of minority students (Ryan, 1971; Valencia, 1997). Most pedagogical
readings in Valley’s syllabi drew on critical theory to discuss strategies for meeting the
needs of minorities, improving students’ educational opportunities, and alleviating social
inequality. Instructor Williams’ syllabus defined critical pedagogy as an ethical teaching
approach. William’s course syllabus included Finn’s (1999) Literacy with an Attitude.
Finn’s book builds on the work of Paulo Friere, a critical educational theorist and activist,
to discuss a pedagogical approach for teaching working class students. This approach is
described by Finn as facilitating working class students’ understanding of their class-
based oppression to minimize student resistance and social reproduction. The course also
included critical pedagogical reading focusing on curricular topics. An example is
Bigelow’s (2000) “How Might a Teacher Encourage Students to Appreciate those Who
Fought for Social Justice.” In this article, Bigelow advocates for developing lessons about

people who have engaged in social justice. Bigelow suggests that teachers include this

145

topic by using a pedagogical strategy that requires students to investigate their own
families’ stories and history.

Instructor Edwards’ course syllabus included readings about pedagogical
solutions to social inequality. Readings in this course also provided teacher candidates
information about strategies not specific to teaching. Edwards linked critical pedagogy to
teaching methods that corresponded with students’ cultural characteristics or culturally
relevant forms of pedagogy. Instructor Edwards’ used narratives written by teachers
about their critical pedagogical practices (Johnson, 1995; Stumbo, 1989). The course also
consisted of readings about teaching and school practices there were supportive of
democratic principles (Meier and Schwartz, 1995; Wood, 1992). One course reading
discussed the multicultural education approaches used in K-12 schools and classrooms
(Banks, 1993). Three of the course readings, which were not specifically linked to
teaching and schools, documented the value of “civic action” and “social capital”
(Barber, 1989; Putnam, 2000; Pappano, 2001).

Assignments and Activities

The assignments included in Valley’s multicultural education course supported a
critical multicultural approach because they focused on the intellectual development of
teacher candidates. More specifically, course assignments primarily aimed to developed
teacher candidates’ analytical skill and ability to critically reflect on educational issues.
The activities also aimed to reinforce teacher candidates’ understanding of course
curriculum. All sections of Valley’s multicultural education course included a
“mandatory assignment.” This assignment was most likely a departmental data collection

strategy for state and national accreditation. The assignment required students to

146

“evaluate, critique, and analyze the relationship of schools and teaching to larger social
issues using current social and educational theory (as discussed in this course)” The
criteria used to assess the assignment more clearly convey its purpose and illustrate how
it is directly linked to the purpose of the course. These criteria include: 1) Communicates
clearly and effectively in writing; 2) Articulates an informed and thoughtful position on
the purpose of schools in/for a diverse and democratic society; and 3) Understands the
ethical dimensions of teaching in/for a diverse and democratic society.

Even though the departmental assignment is a required component of the course,
Instructor Smith tailored it to account for his inclusion of environmental content.
Instructor Smith labeled the departmental assignment a “vision statement/critical analytic
essay.” Based on the description of the assignment included in Smith’s syllabus, teacher
candidates were required to reflect on course materials and to engage in critical analysis
about democratic forms of schooling and inequality. Part I required students to draw on
course texts to present a “vision of schooling in a diverse and sustainable democratic
community.” Besides basic definitions of the key terms and a discussion of how their
vision would impact teachers’ ethical responsibilities, teacher candidates had to address
the following set of questions,

What would schools look like in a diverse and sustainable democratic

community? If we are to have a community that is biologically,

linguistically and culturally diverse, sustainable and democratic, what

must schools do to help ensure its success? How will they be organized?

What principles will guide the curriculum and pedagogy and why? In

short, what would the purposes of public schools be?

For the second part of the assignment, teacher candidates were required to “critically

examine” how public schools currently operate in relation to their vision by incorporating

147

course readings about how inequality is justified and how school organization and
practices support inequality.

Most of the other assignments included in Valley’s three syllabi were also
dependent on critical analysis and reflection. In Instructor William’s course, for
example, teacher candidates had to draw on course content to respond to the following
statement:

Education then, beyond all other devices of human origin, is the great

equalizer of the conditions of men, the balance-wheel of the social

machinery. . . . It [education] does better than to disarm the poor of their

hostility towards the rich; it prevents them from being poor.

The other written assignments included in Instructor Williams’ syllabus were based on
the problem posing method. He identified this method as a tool used by “critical
educators” and, as a result, an “appropriate technique for this class.” The problem posing
method is based on the assumption that understanding the “roots of a problem” is
essential to determining the problem’s solution. This method is described on the syllabus
as requiring “a lot of introspection, reflection, and critical thinking.”

The assignments in Instructor Edwards and Smith’s syllabus were different from
Instructor William’s assignments. Instructor Edwards assessed students with two exams,
a mid-term and final. The syllabus did not include a description about the nature or
purpose of the exams. The description of another assignment suggests a relationship
between reflection, self-growth, and citizenship. Teacher candidates were asked to
document their reaction to course readings to prepare for class. Instructor Edwards
described this task as “a large part of the course” and as providing teacher candidates the

opportunity for monitoring [their] own growth and perspectives and knowledge regarding some

very important issues for every citizen and teacher.” Mr. Smith’s course included an

148

assignment reflective of the practical work of teachers. Teacher candidates were asked to
develop a curriculum unit. The unit on environmental content is described on the
syllabus as reinforcing teacher candidates’ understanding of ecology. It is also described
as facilitating teacher candidates’ abilities to teach their future students about the
environment and crucial concepts such as “consumerism,” “individualism,” and “justice.”
Valley’s Course Conveys Critical Theory and Practice

The curriculum of Valley’s multicultural education course suggest a course
approach aligned with critical theory. Teacher candidates in the three course sections
were asked to consider the factors that created inequitable schooling conditions for
minority students. These conditions were described in terms of schooling processes, such
as tracking, school funding, and curriculum and, as a result of social structures that
privileged dominant groups and marginalized minorities. There were also readings
included in the course about critical pedagogy. Such readings illustrated how specific
pedagogy and instructional strategies, including culturally relevant and responsive forms
of pedagogy, could facilitate student learning. There was also evidence to suggest that
helping teacher candidate recognize their role in promoting social justice was integral to
the work of teachers. This objective, however, did not appear to be a primary component
of the course because there were very few readings across the three syllabi about social
justice and how to prepare K-12 students to engage in social activism. Valley’s course
assignments primarily emphasized traditional academic work rather than activities that
reflected the practical work of teachers. The type of assignments and how they were

described by instructors indicate that they primarily sought to facilitate teacher

candidates’ critical engagement with course ideas and materials.

149

Not only is the approach of Valley’s course in contrast to the course at Rivers’
College, but the context of the course is very different. Valley’s teacher education
department serves far more students than Rivers. I did not find much evidence among
Valley’s program documents indicating diversity and multicultural education were
integral to undergraduate teacher preparation programs. It was identified as a
departmental goal, but my review of program documents and the responses of course
instructors suggested that preparing teacher candidates for diversity was not fundamental
to program requirements.

A Multicultural Education Course with an Approach Grounded in Pedagogy
Context

Oak University is one of Michigan’s large doctoral granting universities.
Compared to Michigan institutions with a teacher education program, Oak has one of the
most racially diverse student populations. About 35% of undergraduate students are racial
minorities and 65% are White. The campus also has a large international student
population.

The racial diversity among students at Oak is not reflected in the race of students
enrolled in the undergraduate teacher education program. The program, as for most of the
preparation programs in this study, is mostly populated by White students. Eighty-tlrree
percent of the undergraduate students in education are White, 6% Black, 4% Hispanic,
2% Asian, 1% American Indian/Pacific Islander, and the race of 4% of students is
unknown. The teacher education program at Oak serves fewer students than the
programs located at Michigan’s three other large research universities. In 2004 the

program served about 350 undergraduate students.

150

The elementary and secondary teacher preparation programs at Oak are guided by
a departmental mission that identifies preparation in terms of the characteristics of
teachers and teaching. Oak’s mission is to prepare “school teachers who are capable of
and committed to a lifetime of inquiry in teaching and to a powerful education for all
students in our diverse society.” The rrrission’s reference to the needs “for all students”
suggests that preparing teacher candidates for diversity is an important objective of Oak’s
programs. If, as commonly believed in teacher education, teacher candidates need to be
prepared for working with diverse students in specific ways, I found little evidence that
multicultural education is integral to Oak’s program. Diversity appears to be important
rhetorically, but as for the course at Valley, I did not find much evidence suggesting that
multiculturalism is a departmental priority. As was the case for the instructors at Valley,
Oak’s instructors identified teacher candidates’ field placements as a possible source for
exposing them to racial and cultural diversity. Instructors also thought teacher candidates
might learn about multicultural content in method courses. One course instructor was
unsure about whether teacher candidates were exposed to multicultural content
throughout the program. He stated, “It is supposed to be a thread through all courses,
especially methods but I don't know if this really happens.” I did not find evidence
among program documents and websites substantiating diversity as integral to the whole
program.

Based on my review of program documents I did, however find that Oak
University’s teacher preparation program had two courses aligned with this study’s
definition of a multicultural education course. It is the only program in Michigan that had

two multicultural education courses. The presence of two such courses signifies a greater

151

program commitment to diversity than most programs Rather than describe both
courses, in this Chapter I focus on the multicultural education course designed for teacher
candidates after they’ve been officially admitted to the program. The other course was an
introductory course. I made the decision to focus on the former course and not the latter
because it better illuminated the range of course approaches. The introductory course
was reflective of the dispositional approach.

I found no evidence in Oak’s syllabus or among instructors’ survey responses
indicating that the content of the multicultural education course was influenced by
departmental requirements, as for components of the course at Rivers and Valley. The
structure of Oak’s course was different from most courses in this study because course
instructors engaged in the course used exactly the same syllabus. This was the only
course with multiple sections in which instructors appeared to have little individual
control over the explicit curricula of the course they taught. But it is not apparent
whether the department mandated a shared syllabus or whether the decision was made by
the faculty advisor and course instructors. The instructors of two other multicultural
education courses had very similar course syllabi because one of the instructors of each
course had not previously taught the course.

The organizational structure of Oak’s course might be related to the
characteristics of the instructors teaching the course. Of the six instructors teaching
during the spring of 2007, five were graduate students and the sixth was the faculty
member who advised the course. Only one other course in this study, which was also
located at a research university, had a similar course structure. The majority of courses

represented in this study with multiple sections were taught by adjunct or tenure-stream

faculty. A shared syllabus might also reflect the department or program’s commitment to
ensuring that teacher candidates across the program were exposed to similar curricular
topics and themes.

There were differences among how instructors at Oak interpreted the construction
of the course syllabus. The instructors who were not satisfied with course content
reported that they had little control over materials in the course. One instructor, for
example, described herself as not being the courses’ “decision maker” to explain why the
course did not better align with her understanding of the types of materials she believed
should be used in multicultural education courses. Both instructors dissatisfied with
course materials thought the course should focus more on the practicalities of teaching.
The instructor stated that the course should include “more work on what the work of
teaching is, and how equity concerns intersect with attempts to teach academic content.”
The instructor satisfied with the course described the construction of the syllabus as a
collaborative process. He did not express similar sentiments about the purpose of the
course, but instead believed the course would improve if course readings accounted for a
greater number of demographic topics.

Three of the six instructors of Oak’s course responded to the instructor survey. All
three instructors who responded had recently been awarded master’s degrees and were, as
all but one course instructor, doctoral students. Compared to most instructors involved in
the study, the three participating instructors had less college teaching experience.
Demographically these instructors were similar to the characteristics of the instructors
involved in this study. Two of the instructors of Oak’s course were white females,

Instructors Napier and Jones. Instructor Napier self-identified as working class and

153

Instructor Jones upper middle class. Both Instructors became involved in courses with
multicultural education content because course content related to their academic interests.
Instructor Knapp was a white middle class male. He reported that he taught the course
because he believed it was important for the preparation of teachers.

Oak’s multicultural education course included course materials about social and
demographic topics and schooling processes. The course covered three demographic
t0pics—race, social class, and language. Several readings in the course examined how
the demographic categories interacted with schools and schooling. Most course materials
focused on teaching and including pedagogical strategies for addressing the needs of
racial minorities, the working class, and language minorities. Oak’s emphasis on
pedagogy contrasts with the course approaches represented by the courses at Rivers and
Valley. The focus on teaching is best exemplified by Oak’s required readings titled
“records of teaching practices.” These records consisted of descriptions of practicing
teachers working who worked with diverse groups of students. This is the only course
that systematically included readings and texts written by teachers or about teacher’s
work for discussing most course topics. Course assignments were more relevant to
teacher development and teaching practice than to the development of intellectual skills.
The course also consisted of readings and activities suggestive of empathy and self-
awareness.

The course at Oak represents a multicultural education course approach that
emphasizes pedagogy and teachers’ work. Even though pedagogy was a curricular theme
in the two other course approaches, within the context of this course, most readings

conceptualize social and demographic topics in terms of pedagogy and teaching methods.

154

I use the term teacher’s work in conjunction with pedagogy to discuss this approach
because it conveys a focus on teachers rather than schools and society. In comparison to
the multicultural education courses with this approach, the course at Oak represents a
more balanced approach to teacher’s work than the other courses. Readings in one course
reflective of a pedagogical approach, for example, almost entirely focused on
instructional strategies for disabled students. This course included content addressing
how to identify, manage, and meet the needs of students with disabilities. An example of
a course with more foundational information about teaching was located at a master’s
university. The readings in this course primarily discussed teaching and pedagogy, but
did not include examples of pedagogical and instructional strategies as the course at Oak.
Goals and Objectives

The objectives and goals of Oak’s multicultural education course suggest the
course is intimately tied to preparing teachers for working with diverse groups of
students. In the syllabus, the course is described as helping teacher candidates learn how
to “act” and “think” in ways beneficial to the educational experiences and opportunities
of students from traditionally marginalized groups. The course description also indicates
that teacher’s actions are not always beneficial to diverse students. As stated in the
syllabus, “teachers can work in ways that either exacerbate or ameliorate... children’s
opportunities to learn.” To facilitate teacher candidates’ ability to work with diverse
students, the course provides teacher candidates the opportunity to engage with materials
indicative of the “teaching dilemmas” faced by teachers working with minorities. The
course also asks teacher candidates to ”configure their professional realities in ways that

allow them to recognize, take advantage of, and build upon the varieties of cultural

155

knowledge and resources they and their students bring to school.” The reference to both
“they” and “their students” suggests course materials aim to help teacher candidates
understand both themselves and the students they will teach. This goal points to strategies
suggestive of self-awareness and the empathetic disposition. The course is, furthermore,
positioned as helping teacher candidates recognize the “complexities of teaching” and to
consider the professional aspects of the teaching profession.

In support of the course objectives, the five primary goals delineated on the
syllabus focused primarily on increasing teacher candidates’ understanding of key
educational and multicultural education topics. The first and second goals referred to
helping teacher candidates learn about the historical and political contexts of schooling,
how school structures, such as tracking and curricula, affect students’ learning
opportunities and how the “culture and organization of schools” are informed by the
“socio-historical context.” A “working understanding” is a phrase used in conjunction
with the descriptions of each of these goals. The use of this phrase suggests that teacher
candidates should acquire knowledge that informs their practice or the practicalities of
teaching.

The relationship between the course and the pedagogical approach is further
exemplified by the subsequent three course goals:

0 To examine how the context and the internal culture and organization

of schools produce structured differences in students’ opportunities to
learn and, moreover, analyze via records of practice how teachers
might intervene in ways that reduce these differential opportunities
and maximize all students’ opportunities to learn;

0 To develop a preliminary sense of how successful interventions rest, in

part, on teachers’ abilities to learn from and build upon the differences
that students bring to school — in essence, how teachers can use

students’ knowledge, backgrounds, networks, and referents as central
instructional resources;

156

0 To elucidate how the ability of teachers to act as described in #4 above
is not only linked to key elements of teachers’ work but to how
teachers think about that work, their students, and themselves.

These goals explicitly convey course objectives pedagogically. Teacher candidates will
learn about ways to teach diverse groups of students by studying the practices of teachers
“via records of practice.” Appropriate pedagogical strategies are identified as student-
centered and culturally relevant. The sixth and final course goal listed on the syllabus
identified a relationship between teachers’ conceptualization of their work and how they
see their students and themselves or dispositional objectives.
Topics and Themes

The pedagogical approach of Oak’s course is apparent by the course’s use of
“records of teaching practices” and other course materials requiring teacher candidates to
examine how teachers engage with diverse groups of students. In the course, “records of
teaching practices” were websites developed by teachers to describe their pedagogy and
instructional strategies. The course also consisted of research-based records or journal
articles written by or about teachers’ work with minority students. Some course readings
focused broadly on the benefits of culturally relevant pedagogy and other readings
identified effective pedagogical strategies for specific minority groups. Several course
readings described teachers’ work as it related to and accommodated students and their
cultural background (Lampert, 2001; Phelan, Davidson, and Yu, 1993). Teacher
candidates were also required to read several chapters from Shultz (2003) Listening: A
Framework for Teaching across Diflerences. In this book, Shultz described teachers who

used listening as a pedagogical tool and examined the implications of this approach for

minority students. Listening is identified by Shultz as a tool that can inform how teachers

157

think about and understand their students, the dynamics in their classrooms, and larger
social and cultural factors that affected students. An assigned “research record of
practice” is also indicative of pedagogy aligned with culturally relevant pedagogy. In this
particular “record of practice,” Skilton (1994) described and advocated an approach that
encouraged teachers to align classroom curriculum with students’ urban context.

The readings included in Oak’s course syllabus illuminated how social and
demographic topics influenced and shaped teacher’s work. Many of the readings linking
pedagogical strategies to specific demographic topics were written by teachers about their
classroom practices. Readings spanned three demographic categories—race, social class,
and language. These three topics were among the highest density topics in the 14
multicultural courses. In this course, readings about linguistic diversity and language
minorities were densest. The readings about language minorities mostly consisted of
strategies to address the learning needs of students who speak non-standard English and
who were English language learners. The “record of teaching practice” used for one
course session described a pedagogical strategy to facilitate the academic performance of
low-performing Chinese students (Lee, 2001).

There were several other readings about language minorities that identified the
benefits of bi-lingual instruction for students learning to speak the English language. The
readings consisted of both empirical evidence and rhetorical claims to suggest that bi-
lingual education is the most effective type of instruction for ESL students (N ieto, 2000;
Thomas and Collier, 1997). One of the assigned readings, for example, described the
success of a high school Spanish program developed to help Latinos learn English

through their native language (Sheets, 1995). The other “record of teacher practice” used

158

to illustrate bi-lingual instruction was a website developed by Ms. Capitelli, an
elementary classroom teacher, about the research-based program she used with the
students in her bi-lingual classroom (Capitelli, 2006). On the website Ms. Capitelli
described the pedagogical strategies she used with her students, including how she
encouraged students to interact and learn from one another and her use of video to
facilitate student’s learning of English.

In contrast to the readings about language, the materials on race and social class
focused more on pedagogy rather than describing specific teaching methods and
strategies. Three of the six articles about race were written by White teachers about their
experiences working with racial minority students (Hannsen, 1998; Michie, 1999; Paley,
2000). One of the White teacher narratives, as an example, was written by a high school
teacher about her experiences teaching English in a diverse high school. The teacher
reflects on how the curriculum used in the school and teachers’ instructional practices
reflected institutional racism (Hannsen, 1998). One of the readings not specific to the
White race examined the needs of Mexican and Mexican American students attending a
US. high school. Based on findings from an ethnographic study, Valenzuela (1999)
argued that the practices of the school did not align with the academic and social needs of
Mexican students. Due to students’ racial and cultural heritage students needed teachers
who cared for them by learning about and drawing on their cultural assets to teach them.
The course also consisted of a reading about race not connected to teacher’s work. This
reading described how racist policies contributed to the segregation of racial minorities in

urban communities (Massey and Denton, 1999).

159

Both readings about social class documented how schooling structures
contributed to the reproduction of class status. Lareau (1987) described how the
relationship between social class and parental involvement privileged middle class
students and disadvantaged the children of the working class. The article written by
Anyon (1981), which was also used in the course at Valley, suggested that the curriculum
and structures of schools mirrored the social class background of students.

Besides readings about the implications of students’ demographic characteristics
on teachers’ work, the course also focused on contextual and schooling factors that
influenced student learning and teaching. The one structural or organizational course
topic that was discussed pedagogically in course readings was tracking. Assigned
readings defined tracking as a school-level policy and organizational structure with direct
implications for minority students’ opportunities to learn (Hallinan and Oakes, 1994).
The readings used in the course also documented how tracking influenced the work of
teachers (Rist, 2000; Cone, 2006). Both teachers’ expectations and perceptions of their
students were influenced by students track placement. Tracking was described as
particularly harmful to students placed in the low-performing tracks, most of whom were
racial minority and low-income students. Tracking was also a topic exemplified by one
of the courses “record of teaching practice.” This record provided teacher candidates a
forum to read about classroom instruction in classrooms with mixed ability students
(Cone, 2006). The record is a website developed by Ms. Cone, a high school English
teacher, about her efforts to detrack the high school where she teaches and her reasons for
advocating against tracking. Ms. Cone’s website includes video, articles, and lesson plans

describing the negative effects of tracking on students and descriptions of her

160

pedagogical and instructional strategies for teaching minority students with mixed
abilities.

Another course topic identified on the syllabus as shaping teachers’ work is
accountability. On the syllabus, accountability is expressed in terms of “systems of
accountability and the accountability of teachers.” One course reading is a research
article about the impact of standardized testing on urban students (Diamond and Spillane,
2004). Accountability is also a topic examined in the course by a “record of teaching
practice. The website, “Negotiating the Fifth Grade Math Curriculum: Compliance and
Revision,” was developed by Ms. Hurley (2006) about her efforts teaching mathematics
to elementary students. As part of the website, Ms. Hurley discussed how she met the
demands of the school’s mandated math curriculum and also tailored the curriculum to
the individual needs of her students. She described her pedagogical approach in relation
to her “professional stance” that was based on “reflective questioning, continual learning,
and openness to not knowing."

Assignments and Activities

The assignments required in the multicultural education course at Oak were
mostly written assignments developing teacher candidates analytical and reflection skills.
The content of the assignments were different from those included in the other two
courses because they required teacher candidates to analyze and reflect on the work of
teachers and themselves. Two of the assignments also asked teacher candidates to
reinterpret their initial response with course materials. One such assignment asked
teacher candidates to analyze a case study description of a teacher’s pedagogical

practices. The students were asked to respond to the case at the beginning of the semester

161

and to reinterpret their initial response near the end of the course by using the information
they had learned from the course. Another written assignment was inquiry-based. For this
assignment, teacher candidates had to engage in a “student study” by studying one of the
students in their practicum classroom. The assignment asked them to interview and
observe the student in the classroom to acquire “a more elaborate understanding of the
background, knowledge, and in and out of school experiences” of the student. The
guidelines of this assignment described it as not only serving to increase teacher
candidates’ knowledge of a particular student, but as helping teacher candidates learn
about themselves through the process. As stated on Oak’s syllabus “You will document
and analyze what you learned in the interest of learning about yourself and how you think
about your future work as a teacher.”

Self-awareness was also one of the objectives of the assignment requiring teacher
candidates to write an educational autobiography. Based on the description in the
syllabus, teacher candidates had to write an autobiography about the trajectory of their
own education. The assigned asked them to identify the factors they believed explained
their academic performance in primary and secondary school and their matriculation to
[Oak University]. This assignment is similar to the analysis of the case study because
teacher candidate wrote a draft at the beginning of the semester and reanalyzed the initial
piece by using course materials and the knowledge they had acquired from the course.

Oak’s Course Focuses on Pedagogy and the Work of Teachers

Oak’s multicultural education course is part of a program at a large research

university. The department claims to value preparing teachers for working with diverse

groups of students. The course represents an approach dominated by pedagogical

162

materials. My description of the course highlights how the curricular topics represented
in course readings and the assignments of the course emphasized pedagogy and teacher’s
work. Pedagogy was conceptualized in terms of culturally relevant approaches. Readings
described strategies for meeting the needs of language minorities. The assigned readings
about race and social class focused to a greater extent on pedagogy than specific
instructional strategies. The course incorporated five “records of practice” to illuminate
pedagogical aspects of teachers work. These records also illustrated factors that situate
and shape teachers’ practices, such as tracking and accountability.

The content of the course assignments included on the syllabus were supportive of
the practical work of teachers and dispositional objectives. Teachers were asked to
examine teaching by analyzing a case study, and to study a student through an inquiry-
based project. Self-awareness was evidenced by the education autobiography. I did not
find evidence to suggest that this course sought to develop teacher candidates’
instructional skills to teach diverse groups of the students. None of the assignments asked
students to engage in practices and demonstrations that allowed them to test their
understanding of course materials.

Interpreting the Approaches of Michigan’s Multicultural Education Course

The three multicultural education courses described in this chapter reflect the
range of courses approaches in this study. The contextual differences of the courses
illuminate differences among how departmental goals and objectives support and value
preparing teacher candidates for diversity. The courses also reflect variation in
institutional context. Rivers is located at a small liberal arts college, Valley at a large

master’s degree granting institution, and Oak is one of the state’s research universities.

163

At Rivers, teacher candidates were asked to learn about various minority groups in ways
that supported dispositional objectives. Valley’s course presented teacher candidates
multicultural content grounded in critical theory. In Valley’s course, teacher candidates
learned about how schools reflect social inequality and how teachers can engage in
practice that mitigates inequality. The course at Oak University emphasized teachers’
work, particularly how teachers’ pedagogy is shaped by student’s demographic
characteristics and contextual factors, including school structures and policies.

The dispositional approach, as reflected by the course at Rivers and similar
courses, primarily sought to expand teacher candidates’ understanding of difference to
challenge their racist and discriminatory attitudes and beliefs. Such courses aimed to
cultivate empathetic teachers and teachers who possessed self-awareness. Courses with
dispositional objectives included few readings directly related to teaching and pedagogy,
whereas the pedagogical course approach was dominated by such readings. In these types
of courses, teacher candidates learned about diversity by examining how teachers have
accommodated the needs of diverse students. Courses dominated by the pedagogical
approach mostly discussed the benefits of culturally responsive forms of teaching, except
for courses with readings focused on students with disabilities. Readings about
disabilities were more specific to instruction. The pedagogical course approach did not
include providing teacher candidates information about how they could teach their
students in transformative ways. The course approach most aligned with social justice
was the critical course approach. Even in these courses, however, few readings focused
explicitly on social justice and activism. The critical course approach identified the

school as a mechanism that reinforced inequality and teaching was identified as a way to

164

accommodates and compensate for inequality. The critical and pedagogical approaches
differ because the former emphasizes theory and the latter practice.

The distinctions among the course approaches become more apparent by
highlighting how race was represented in the readings of the three courses. Race was a
curricular topic in all three courses. It was also the densest course topic. In the context of
the dispositional approach, teacher candidates enrolled in the course at Rivers were asked
to read a memoir about the discrimination experienced by racial minorities as a result of
desegregation. In this course, therefore, students were asked to learn about the
experiences of racial minorities. At Valley, teacher candidates engaged in a variety of
course materials about race. They were asked to learn about the relationship between
power and White privilege and how Whites are advantaged by their race. Other course
readings about race were mostly specific to how race interacted with social and schooling
structures, such as tracking and school finance, to create disadvantages for racial
minorities. In contrast to the course at Rivers, Valley’s course positioned race in terms of
power and social inequality. As for the readings included in the course at Oak, which
reflected the pedagogical approach, teacher candidates were asked to read narratives
written by White teachers about their experiences teaching racial minorities. Readings in
the course also identified pedagogical strategies for accommodating racial minorities. As
expected, race in this course was primarily discussed in pedagogical terms.

The curricular approaches I described encompass the range of multicultural
education approaches identified by Sleeter and Grant. Each of the courses represent one
or multiple aspects of the five approaches identified by Sleeter and Grant, which are

described in detail in Chapter 2. Since courses include aspects of various approaches

165

none of the diversity courses in this study align with any particular approach. The
pedagogical approach, for instance, most closely relates to Sleeter and Grant’s teaching
the exceptional and culturally different approach. I argue that these types of courses were
designed to facilitate teacher candidate’s understanding of how to teach minority students
the knowledge valued by the school. The pedagogical strategies supportive of
multicultural education aligned with the exceptional and culturally different approach
includes culturally relevant and responsive forms of pedagogy. Such strategies are
primarily discussed in course readings as facilitating minority students’ abilities to learn.
Teaching the exceptional and culturally different is also evidenced by courses in this
study that include readings that document instructional strategies for meeting the needs of
the disabled. Overall this type of multicultural content is densest among courses with a
pedagogical emphasis, but readings with descriptions of strategies for addressing the
academic needs of students are found in most courses.

The multicultural education courses in this study do not only emphasize
pedagogical strategies for helping minority students acquire valued knowledge, but in
some courses, particularly among courses reflective of the critical approach, pedagogy is
discussed in terms of inequality, and to a lesser extent social transformation. The
readings of courses supportive of the critical approach draw an explicit relationship
between structural factors and social inequality. Some of these readings describe specific
demographic groups and other examines demographic diversity more broadly. These
types of materials are suggestive of aspects of three of Sleeter and Grant’s approaches to
multicultural education—single group studies, multicultural education, and social

reconstruction. However, I argue that that the inclusion of these types of readings and

166

increasing teacher candidates’ understanding of social inequality is not necessarily
promoted among courses in ways that reflect all the principles of each approach. There
are not a lot of skill development activities included in the courses suggestive of
cultivating teacher candidate’s commitment to social change and transformation. One
exception is written activities that emphasize critical analysis. As a result, materials
reflective of these three approaches are much less common among Michigan’s
multicultural education courses.

Sleeter and Grant’s (2003) human relations approach is also evident among the
courses and course approaches I describe in this chapter. It appears that the courses in
this study are most supportive of the human relations approach. Even though there are
differences among how courses aim to develop teacher candidates who are receptive to
differences, courses suggestive of the dispositional, critical, and pedagogical approach
include materials that highlight the importance of learning to recognize diversity and how
to communicate across differences. In essence, this approach signifies the importance of
tolerance and acceptance. The human relations approach is the one approach that is most
directly related to altering people’s beliefs and attitudes toward differences by reducing
their stereotypes.

The deviations among the curricular approaches of the multicultural education
courses in Michigan and Sleeter and Grant’s (2003) typology most likely result from the
differences among the purposes and processes of our work. Sleeter and Grant studied
multicultural education within the context of K-12 classrooms. I studied courses designed
to prepare teacher candidates for diversity. The five approaches Sleeter and Grant

documented were not based on the study of existing curriculum, but rather they relied on

167

existing research literature and. their direct involvement in multicultural education to
develop their typology. My study of the explicit course curriculum of diversity courses
is, therefore, an important initial step for determining what counts as multicultural
education in diversity courses and the curricular design of these courses.

Even though the three approaches described in this chapter might not be inclusive
of all the curricular objectives and principles identified by Sleeter and Grant (2003), my
examination of multicultural education courses reveals the importance of studying
existing curricular designs. This type of endeavor can serve as a valuable resource for
teacher educators engaged in multicultural education. By comparing and contrasting
curriculum with Sleeter and Grant’s typology, teacher educators can gain some initial
insight about the structure and content of how they approach the multicultural education
courses they teach Teacher educators can also begin to understand the potential
limitations of their philosophy and approach and, as a result, they can develop new and
different possibilities.

The identification of multicultural education courses with particular approaches
also has implications for future inquiry and research. The findings from my analysis of
course syllabi, including my description of the three course approaches, convey a need to
understand the effects of each’of the three approaches on how teacher candidates
understand diversity and how that understanding does or does not translate into teacher
candidates’ future practice. This type of information would be valuable for teacher
educators who teach multicultural education courses and the teacher education
community. Researchers must also examine how the enacted and implicit curriculum

alter and shape course content and approach. Finally, insight about whether the

168

approaches I’ve identified are replicable in different contexts would provide much
needed information about the factors that influence and shape how teacher candidates are
prepared to teach diverse groups of students. This understanding would also help
educational scholars consider the strengths and limitations of Sleeter and Grant’s

typology of multicultural education.

169

Chapter 6
What’s Absent from Multicultural Education Courses?

My engagement with the courses in this study has led me to critically examine
how I think about multicultural education courses and, more broadly, how teachers
should be prepared for teaching diverse groups of students. Prior to conducting this
research, I did not see the value of helping teacher candidates in diversity courses
develop skills for teaching. I thought preparation should consist of facilitating teacher
candidates’ ability to think critically about teaching and learning. The multicultural
education course I taught was designed to cultivate teacher candidates’ dispositions, and I
believed that was the most appropriate curricular objective. It appears that the thoughts
of many of the instructors in this study aligned with mine. I am now not so certain that
my approach was the best one, but I don’t have any empirical evidence about how
differences among curricular design and approach impact teacher candidates’
understanding and future practice.

I knew very little about multicultural education courses before conducting this
study. What I knew I had basically learned from the course I taught. I was surprised by
some of the study’s findings because they contradicted with my thoughts and
experiences. Since I assumed courses were similar to the course I had taught, I had not
anticipated that the course materials and objectives would vary to the extent that they did.
I also found it quite interesting to learn that race was the densest topic both within and
across courses. This was surprising to me because I had often heard my fellow course
instructors about how race was undervalued in our course and among preparation

programs. Similarly, since courses were designed for teacher candidates I had assumed

170

that virtually all readings would have focused on schooling. This, however, was not the
case.

Conducting this study has also helped me recognize the types of information I
wish I knew more about and had been able to capture in this study. I would have liked to
learn more about course instructors, including their impressions of course curricula and
how they perceived the students they taught. Findings from the survey provided some
insight about instructors’ perceptions, but the survey did not reveal instructors’ beliefs
and attitudes. The findings in this study suggest that examining how instructors taught
course curricula and teacher candidates’ response to curricular topics and the differences
among course approaches is vital.

Overview of Findings

Teacher preparation programs are designed to provide teacher candidates with
the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to become effective teachers. The multicultural
education courses in this study were also designed to support such goals. The explicit
course curricula, as represented by course syllabi, consisted of materials for increasing
teacher candidates’ understanding of topics about the foundations of schooling and
pedagogy. Readings on syllabi accounted for topics differently, and not all course topics
were valued equally within and among the courses. Syllabi also revealed how courses
sought to develop teacher candidates’ skills. In this set of courses, skill development
was, for the most part, related to the academic and intellectual development of teachers
and not directly related to developing teacher candidate’s instructional skill or abilities to

use specific teaching methods. Empathy and self-awareness were the two dispositions

l71

reflected most prominently in the content of the multicultural education courses in this
study.

The findings in this study also indicate that these courses are constructed on the
belief that increasing teacher candidates’ knowledge of educational topics intersects with
skill development to suggest dispositional objectives. Within the context of multicultural
education courses, dispositional goals were not cited in course descriptions, but rather
dispositional goals were conveyed by the types of information and strategies of the
course readings about social and demographic topics. Dispositional objectives also
derived from the types of skills multicultural education courses sought to develop. In
Chapter Four, I illuminated the strategies suggestive of course materials that were
supposed to foster and promote the empathetic disposition and the development of
teachers who recognize the implications of their own socio-cultural characteristics.

Differences in the explicit curricula of these 14 multicultural education courses
are indicative of three dominant course approaches—dispositional focus, critical theory,
and pedagogy. These approaches, which are described in Chapter 5, capture different
curricular designs and differences among the types of materials emphasized in courses.
Even though most of the courses had components suggestive of dispositional objectives,
one course approach almost exclusively focused on developing teacher candidates’
dispositions. The second approach drew from critical theory to include multicultural
content that addressed social inequality and how schooling structures support rather than
challenge social differentiation and marginalization. The third and final approach focused
to a greater extent on how teachers’ work is shaped by contextual factors rather than

comprised of descriptions of minority groups.

172

In this final chapter, I draw on teacher education and multicultural education
literature to discuss the themes that were only minimally reflected in these syllabi. More
specifically, I argue that the explicit curricula of multicultural education courses are not
apparently focused on preparing teachers how to teach diverse groups of students. Syllabi
do not include assignments in which teacher candidates are required to learn about
teaching subject matter to diverse groups of students nor are they required to engage in
activities that would enable them to develop the necessary knowledge and skills. Courses
are also apparently not intended, based on my analysis of course syllabi, to cultivate
teacher candidates’ commitment to social activism. The intersection of knowledge,
skills, and dispositions within the context of multicultural education courses support
multicultural education types that are predominately based on understanding that
differences matter and coming to terms with the implications of that knowledge; the
curricular foci that are missing relate to content knowledge, pedagogical skills for
working with diverse students, and dispositions for engaged in social activism.

The Impact of Teacher Preparation Programs on Learning to Teach

Existing literature about how people lean to teach typically addresses specific
curricular objectives and skills teacher candidates should learn as part of their
professional preparation. Wilson, Floden, and F errini-Mundy’s (2002) examination of the
exiting research literature on teacher preparation highlighted the particular aspects of
preparation programs that are often discussed and debated in the literature. The review
conducted by Wilson, Floden, and F errini-Mundy examined teacher education literature
to determine, among other questions, if preparation grounded in subject matter,

pedagogical preparation, and field or student teaching experiences affected teacher

173

quality. The authors found evidence suggesting that all three aspects of teacher
preparation influenced teachers’ abilities to teach. Among Kennedy’s (1991) findings
from a study she conducted of teacher preparation programs, she concluded that what
teacher candidates learn from programs is mediated by the beliefs and knowledge they
bring to their preparation. Kennedy also reported the “the content and character of
programs is more likely to matter” (p. 17) than other components of teacher preparation
programs. Kennedy stated, “Differences among teacher candidates at the end of their
preservice programs seemed to be influenced by the conceptual orientation of the
program, but not so much by the structural arrangement of the program” (p. 17). By
“structural arrangements” Kennedy refers to factors such as the length of the program and
the sequence of program requirements. By “conceptual orientation,” Kennedy means
differences among the approaches of teacher preparation programs. In Chapter 2 I
described five different conceptual orientations of teacher preparation programs (F eiman-
Nemser, 1990).

It appears that the characteristics of teacher preparation programs matter and they
do influence how teachers learn to teach. The existing literature also reveals that the
program approach or how programs position knowledge, skills, and dispositions is
significant and not whether programs should address these objectives when preparing
teachers. As argued by Kennedy (1991) it is not enough for teachers to understand

subject matter and to have a repertoire of strategies and techniques to draw from,

174

Teachers need not only understand the content deeply, but also to know

something about how that content is taught and learned. If they learn of

specific teaching techniques without understanding their rationale and

without help in adapting them to particular students and classroom

situations, they will be unable to make lasting changes in their practice.

On the other hand, they do need a set of skills and dispositions that enable

them to pull off new methods of teaching. (p. 17).

It is also important to note, as stated by Feiman-Nemser and Remillard (1995),
that learning to teach is more than “first acquiring knowledge and then applying it in the
field” (p. 1). But rather, learning to teach is a complex endeavor that results from teacher
candidates’ experiences prior to involvement in a preparation program, what they learn
from professional preparation, and their first few years as teachers.

The Limitations of Multicultural Education Courses

Findings from my analysis of the explicit curricula of multicultural education
courses suggest that courses are not providing teacher candidates with the kinds of
experiences that are aligned with findings about the type of preparation needed for
teacher candidates to effectively meet the needs of diverse groups of students. Due to the
design of my study I cannot determine or predict what teacher candidates learned from
the 14 multicultural education courses involved in this research. Findings in this study do,
however, provide evidence about the explicitly stated purposes of multicultural education
courses based on course syllabi and some survey data. Findings also reveal the types of
information included in course readings, the skills reflected in course assignments, and
what these suggest about dispositional objectives. In the following sections I draw on my

findings about multicultural education course curricula to illuminate the course materials

supportive of preparing teachers for diversity, as identified in the literature. More

175

importantly, I also draw some conclusions about the knowledge, skills, and dispositions
that appear to be absent from the multicultural education courses in this study.
Knowledge

The syllabi of the multicultural education courses in this study suggest that
courses required teacher candidates to read about foundational topics, demographic
topics, and pedagogy. The curricular topics reflected in course readings reveal that
teacher candidates were exposed to some information aligned with Grant and Gillette’s
(2006) description of the types of knowledge teacher candidates should acquire from
preparation programs to effectively teach minority students. The syllabi did not, however,
include readings describing how teachers working with diverse groups of students teach
subject matter and specific strategies for teaching subject matter.

Grant and Gillette (2006) draw on findings from the existing literature to describe
how preparation programs should educate teacher candidates about diversity. They claim
that it is important for teacher candidates to learn about the “larger social context in
which [teachers] are working” (p. 293). Grant and Gillette define context in terms of
social and political forces, such as government regulations and social inequality. Eight of
the 14 courses I studied included a significant number of course readings about
contextual factors such as those recommended by Grant and Gillette. Within these
courses, the specific contextual factors in readings varied, but context accounted for the
social, historical, and political aspects of schooling. Fewer courses had readings about the
relationship between schooling and education in a democratic society. More specific to
schooling, five courses included several readings about how structures and policies shape

schools.

176

Another topic important for teacher candidates to learn about, according to Grant
and Gillette (2006), is culturally relevant pedagogy. Grant and Gillette identified five
principles of culturally relevant pedagogy. Preparing teachers to understand minority
students’ knowledge and skills as resources for learning rather than barriers to overcome
is one of the principles. This pedagogical approach is also dependent on helping teachers
understand the importance of varying instruction for diverse students and having high
expectations of students despite their demographic differences. Teachers engaged with
culturally responsive pedagogy did not limit their interaction to classroom students,
according to Grant and Gillette, but also interacted with families and communities, and
that is therefore, another principle of culturally relevant teaching. Grant and Gillette also
described culturally responsive teachers as teachers who were self-aware in terms of
understanding their own social characteristics and being able to recognize the
implications of their teaching practices on the students they teach. As stated by Grant and
Gillette, culturally responsive teachers must be “willing to be introspective about
themselves and their teaching, monitor their beliefs and actions for bias and prejudice,
and be unafraid to teach about the “isms” (p. 294).

Seven of the 14 courses included readings aligned with aspects of Grant and
Gillette’s principles of culturally relevant pedagogy. Among the materials used in
courses, teacher candidates were asked to read texts describing the significance of
culturally responsive pedagogy or readings suggestive of themes and topics supportive of
this approach. Readings highlighted several social and demographic topics, including
race, social class, and language, to describe the benefits of pedagogical strategies that

accounted for students’ background experiences and knowledge. Courses also consisted

177

of readings, particularly those written by classroom teachers, with examples of teachers
using a cultural relevant teaching approach based on self-understanding and recognition
of their teaching practices.

I did not find any readings on syllabi that specifically addressed effective teaching
strategies and methods for teaching most academic subjects to diverse groups of students
despite the literature indicating the importance of helping teacher candidates understand
the relationship between subject matter and diverse groups of students (Kennedy, 1991).
A few of the readings written about culturally responsive pedagogy accounted for
teaching students literacy skills. There were no articles in course syllabi specific to
English or the range of subjects taught in school. Even readings primarily about students
with disabilities, most of which were instructional-based, included general information
about meeting the needs of the disabled rather than ways to help disabled students learn
specific course content.

To summarize and conclude this section on the knowledge component of these
courses, the findings from this study suggest that multicultural education courses aim to
increase teacher candidates understanding of difference and diversity. Course readings
also provide information about the contextual factors influencing schools and teaching. In
the courses, for the most part, teaching methods were discussed in general and broad
terms rather than specific to subject matter, and apparently not in terms of teaching
diverse students.

Skills
Developing teacher candidates’ abilities to teach is an important objective of

preparation programs. It is also important that preparation programs afford teacher

178

candidates the opportunity to develop skills for working with diverse groups of students.
The existing literature indicates that it is not enough for teacher candidates to learn about
pedagogical strategies, but to be effective teachers of diverse groups of students; teachers
must also have the appropriate skills. Kennedy (1991) claims that one of the reasons why
diversity courses might not impact teachers’ practices is because diversity content is
discussed in one course and teaching methods in another course. I found a similar pattern
among the multicultural education courses in this study. Even though teacher candidates
were provided with much information about teaching diverse students in diversity
courses, they were not provided opportunities to engage in instructional activities that
allowed them to put the theories and information they learned from the course into
practice.

The types of skills developed in courses mostly emphasized the intellectual
development of teachers, several of which Grant and Gillette (2006) identified as
important for teachers working with diverse students and particularly minorities. One of
the most usual skills emphasized in teacher preparation is the skill of reflective thinking.
Grant and Gillette claimed that programs should facilitate teacher candidates’ abilities to
reflect on their instruction. They defined a “reflective practitioner” as an educator who
thinks about their teaching, engages in research, and alters instruction to create a “more

democratic, ethical, and student-centered classroom” (p. 296). There were a

number of required assignments across the courses that asked teacher candidates to
reflect on course content and diversity issues suggestive of particular aspects of Grant
and Gillette’s “reflective practitioner.” Such assignments required teacher candidates to

draw on course curriculum to interpret their thoughts about diversity and their personal

179

experiences. Four of the multicultural education courses, for example, required teacher
candidates to draw on course curricula to critically reflect on their own education and
culturally based experiences. In contrast, most reflective assignments were separated
from the actual work of teachers. Such assignments asked students to write their
thoughts about course content rather than reflect in analytical ways about teaching and
teaching methods. Even though the assignments related to students’ experiential or
service learning activities, did not specifically focus on teaching, teacher candidates were
asked to reflect on their experiences by relaying on course content.

Developing teacher candidates’ abilities to communicate effectively with different
groups of people is another skill described by Grant and Gillette (2006) as important for
preparing teachers to work with minority students. They argue that teachers should be
able to engage with people both within and external to the school, including fanrilies and
community members. I found evidence in three of the courses to suggest that developing
teacher candidates’ abilities to communicate with educational stakeholders was a course
objective. Materials in two of the courses were designed to help teacher candidates’
develop informed opinions about educational issues and learn how to effectively
communicate their beliefs. This type of communication appears to emphasize advocacy
to a greater extent that the ability to communicate with people across differences, as
described by Grant and Gillette.

Grant and Gillette stated, “Pedagogical skill or the ability to successfully
implement teaching strategies to meet the educational and social needs of students is a
key factor in effective teaching” (p. 296). Based on information in the syllabi, the

multicultural education courses in this study did not develop teacher candidates’

180

pedagogical or instructional skills. As described in Chapter 3, the instructional activities
included in some of the multicultural education courses simulated teaching in diverse
settings; however the settings were really not diverse. Teacher candidates presented
course materials and facilitated course sessions that were not directly relevant to their
future work as teachers. For example, teacher candidates taught their peers or they
developed curriculum materials that they did not have the opportunity to enact. In most
cases the types of skills teacher candidates were required to engage with mostly related to
helping them and their peers demonstrate mastery of course materials.

As the development of pedagogical skills, there were not a lot of opportunities in
multicultural education courses, based on the information provided in syllabi, for teacher
candidates to engage with classrooms. Five of the courses included an experiential
component, but in these courses assignments were primarily papers requiring teacher
candidates to reflect on and analyze their experiences rather than help them develop
specific instructional and classroom management skills. The assignments, furthermore,
reflected dispositional objectives, more than skill development because such activities
exposed teacher candidates to diverse groups of students to help them reassess their
understanding of minorities and schooling process, as explained in Chapter 4.

Since the multicultural education courses in this study did not provide teacher
candidates the opportunities to engage and experiment with instruction based on
culturally relevant principles, the curricular design of multicultural education courses
contradicts findings in the literature about how people learn to teach. Kennedy (1991)

asserts that one reason the integration of multicultural topics and instructional methods

181

might not occur more readily is due to the lack of understanding about how this can be
done effectively. As stated by Kennedy,

Pedagogical research and theory is not conclusive about what teachers

should do with the range of students they face in their classrooms, nor

about what teachers should do when faced with children who come from

remarkably different cultural backgrounds than their own (p. 15).
Based on the design of this study I can not draw any conclusions about how programs, as
a whole, accounted for diversity education. It is possible that methods courses and other
program components linked diversity education with teaching methods. There is also the
possibility that teacher candidates had opportunities to develop skills to teach minority
students as part of their field placements and practicum. I can argue, however, that the
types of skills evidenced by the assignments included in course syllabi reveal that
multicultural education courses do not facilitate teacher candidates’ development of
pedagogical and instructional skills.
Dispositions

Like knowledge and skills, dispositional objectives are an important aspect of
teacher preparation. Based on the existing literature, it is difficult to understand what is
meant by the term disposition. The term is often conflated with beliefs and attitudes or
behavioral characteristics. Even though discussions about dispositions are not new to
teacher preparation, the recent adoption of the term by the National Council for the
Accreditation of Teacher Education (N CATE) in 2002 has resulted in a flurry of debates
about its meaning and how preparation programs should be designed for assessing and
cultivating dispositions. Borko, Liston, and Whitcomb (2007) identified NCATE’s

incorporation of the term as a way for them to convey the importance and their

commitment to “the moral and ethical development of teachers” (p. 359) in addition to

182

knowledge and skills”). As part of Damon’s discussion about how to assess dispositional
qualities, he (2007) interpreted NCATE’s definition to refer to the “moral beliefs and
attitudes” of teachers and also teachers’ tendency to be guided by them” (p. 366).

Given the evidence about how beliefs and attitudes inform how teachers learn to
teach it is not surprising that dispositions are particularly important for teachers working
with minority students (Kennedy, 1991). White teacher candidates are believed to enter
teacher preparation programs with beliefs and attitudes about minority students that
negatively impact their abilities to teach them (Talbert-Johnson, 2006). Villegas (2007)
argued that teacher candidates beliefs about cultural diversity, particularly the low
expectations they have of racial and ethnic minorities, negatively impacted students’
learning opportunities. Villegas also claimed that even if teacher candidates had the skills
to teach in culturally responsive ways, they must also have “the dispositions to teach all
students equitably (that is, the tendency to act in ways that support learning for all
students) and beliefs that lend support (or serve as barriers) to that disposition” (p. 375).
Similar conclusions were drawn by Dee and Henkin (2002) who stated that teacher
candidates working with culturally diverse student populations must exhibit dispositional
traits indicating an openness for “confronting and dealing with the ambiguities and
psychological risks associated with learning about their own culture and those of others”
(p. 36). The claims in the literature suggest that preparation programs must alter the
dispositional qualities that prevent teachers from effectively teaching minorities and to
cultivate the dispositional qualities of teacher candidates that would improve the learning

experiences and opportunities of minorities.

183

One of the primary purposes of the multicultural education courses in this study,
based on my analysis of course syllabi, was to cultivate teacher candidates’ dispositions.
The readings included in syllabi revealed strategies for altering teacher candidates’
beliefs and attitudes about people from marginalized groups. I argued that these strategies
extended beyond altering individual attitudes and beliefs, to the transformation of teacher
candidates. In the context of the 14 courses in this study, as documented in Chapter 4,
transformation was about developing empathetic teachers who were compassionate and
sympathetic of differences. Courses were also designed to help teacher candidates
become conscious of their own experiences and understandings. I did not find that
transformation referred to developing an activist disposition for teachers to engage in
political and social change. In that sense, these courses conform mostly to Sleeter &
Grant’s classification of the human relations approach to multicultural education.

Empathy

Cultivating empathetic teachers is one objective of the multicultural education
courses I studied. I defined empathy as an ability to relate to and understand a person’s
experience as that person understands and sees them. This quality allows teachers to
transcend the differences between them and their students as a result of cultural
differences. The readings in the multicultural education courses in this study promoted
and fostered the development of an empathetic disposition through four strategies——
teacher narratives, the voices and perspectives of people representing minority groups,
social science research, and by exposing teacher candidates to diversity. All four

strategies rest upon assumptions about how to increase teacher candidates’

184

understandings of minority groups by appealing to teacher candidates’ beliefs and
attitudes.

The existing literature identifies empathy as an important trait of teachers who
teach diverse groups of students. McAllister and Irvine (2002) documented how findings
in the literature reveal that empathetic teachers are beneficial to students’ academic and
social needs. McAllister and Irvine also identity empathy as an essential characteristic for
teachers engaged in culturally responsive pedagogy. Empathetic teachers are “better able
to modify pedagogy and curricula to fit their students’ needs” because of their abilities to
relate emotionally to their students (p. 434). McAllister and Irvine found that teachers’
beliefs about empathy supported findings in the literature. The teachers they studied
believed empathy was “an implicit part of being a caring, supportive, and responsive
teacher with their culturally diverse students” (p. 442). The teachers in the study,
according to McAllister and Irvine, also believed that empathy shaped how they
interacted and taught diverse groups of students.

The teacher education literature generally agrees that dispositions are pivotal
factors in teacher effectiveness, however, the literature does not identify empathy as the
most important or effective disposition. There is no necessary connection between
empathy and dispositional appropriateness for teaching. The literature points to attitudes
and beliefs, which do not necessarily mean empathy. More nuanced research and
analysis is needed to specify exactly what form of disposition is associated with
effectiveness. For the moment most teacher preparation programs are designed as though
empathy and self-awareness, which is discussed in the following section, are the only

dispositions that are appropriate for effective teachers.

185

Self-awareness

Among the multicultural education courses in this study, self-awareness was a
course objective evidenced by course materials. My interpretation of curricular topics and
activities led me to define self-awareness in terms of understanding how cultural
attributes have shaped and influenced an individual’s experiences and perceptions. In
these courses. self-awareness was primarily equated with racial awareness. The readings
included in courses required teacher candidates to examine how their White race
provided them advantages and opportunities not afforded to racial minorities. Readings in
6 courses described the implications of being White and, the direct implications of
Whiteness in relation to teaching and pedagogy were discussed in the syllabi of fewer
courses. I did not identify similar types of readings specifically focused on how other
social and demographic categories, such as gender and social class. influenced teachers to
the same extent.

The existing literature on the characteristics of effective teachers suggests that
self-awareness is an important dispositional quality of teachers. Gannon (2004) found,
for example, self-awareness/self-reflectiveness was one of the characteristics of a student
he taught who was particularly receptive to diversity content. Garmon defined self-
awareness/self-reflectiveness as an understanding of “one’s own beliefs and attitudes, as
well as being willing and/or able to think critically about them” (p. 205). Swartz (2003)
claims that based on existing findings in the literature there is a relationship between
people’s ability to teach and their willingness to understand how their cultural attributes

influence them. Swartz description of the literature indicates that teacher’s level of self-

186

awareness affects their knowledge and understanding of their students and their “level of
connection to students” (p. 262).

Self-awareness is also identified by Grant and Gillette (2006) as important for
teachers working with diverse groups of students. Grant and Gillette claim that teacher
educators must “assist teacher candidates in examining the knowledge and beliefs about
the world they bring to the program and support them as they struggle with new ideas and
as they are exposed to different beliefs” (p. 294) Rather than link self-knowledge to
students’ academic learning, as is most often the case, Grant and Gillette cited Jersild
(1955) to present evidence about the relationship between teachers’ self-awareness and
how that understanding affects students awareness and self-acceptance.

Social Activism

Despite references in the literature to multicultural education approaches that
prepare teacher candidates to engage in social activism (e.g., Sleeter & Grant, 2003;
Banks, 1993), I did not find evidence among the course syllabi that courses had a
curricular goal of cultivating candidates engagement in social activism. Thinking of
teacher preparation in terms of social critique and activism was initially reflected in the
work of George Counts (193 2). Counts advocated for teacher preparation that would
develop teachers to engage in activities to create a more equitable society. Multicultural
teacher education that is supportive of this approach assumes that preparing teachers to
critically analyze social inequality will translate into behavior that leads to a commitment
toward social change and engagement in social activism

Based on my analysis of the explicit curricula included in the 31 course syllabi,

there were not a lot of course materials directly identifying and addressing social change

187

and activism. In some courses, particularly courses aligned with the critical theory
approach, teacher candidates engaged in readings about social inequality and how it
shaped the processes and policies of schools. Teacher candidates were also asked to
examine pedagogy for minimizing inequality. In these courses and across course
approaches, courses also consisted of readings written by well-known critical theorists
such as Paulo Freire. There was, however, not a lot of evidence based on the curricular
approaches and designs of the courses to conclude that course objectives were linked to
social activism. Social justice was not found among most course descriptions and
objectives. Activities and assignments were also not supportive of facilitating teacher
candidates’ commitment towards social change and activism. It is possible that courses
included assignments and activities not recorded on course syllabi suggestive of
cultivating teacher candidates’ commitment to social activism. It is also possible that
course instructors discussed curricular topics and course materials in ways that promoted
social change. I can not, however, draw any conclusions of the enacted and implicit
course curricula due to the design of this study.

There is evidence in the existing literature that suggests social change and social
activism are not typical of multicultural education in teacher preparation programs.
Findings from one study suggest that very few teacher candidates thought the purpose of
multicultural education was to promote social change (Goodwin, 1994). Instead most
teacher candidates thought the goal of multicultural education was to increase their
understanding of diversity and “affective outcomes or to change the way people feel
about others or about differences” (p. 122). The type of multicultural education identified

by education students is reflective of three of the approaches described by Sleeter and

188

Grant (1988), according to Goodwin1 1. Teaching the exceptional and culturally different
is an approach based on identifying and understanding differences as a means to help
minority and disabled students learn academic content. The human relations approach
was the other approach most related to teacher candidates’ beliefs about multicultural
teacher education. The human relations approach accounts for affective outcomes. Since
teacher candidates did not define multicultural education in relation to critique and social
change, the other three approaches—single studies, multicultural education, and social
reconstruction, did not align with the beliefs held by teacher candidates in Goodwin’s
study.

The findings in this study suggest similar results. Although empathy and self-
awareness would not preclude developing teachers who were committed to social
activism, these two dispositions are more aligned with approaches of multicultural
education that are not aimed at promoting social change, but rather accommodating
differences. As I’ve described, both empathy and self-awareness are desired dispositional
traits because they enable teachers to recognize the cultural attributes of their students
and teach them more effectively. Both, but particularly empathy, are dependent on a level
of understanding and acceptance that challenges prejudice beliefs, negative attitudes, and
discriminatory acts, which supports Sleeter and Grant’s human relations approach. If
courses were to prepare teachers to engage in social activism, course materials would
have needed to extend beyond the classroom to account for how teacher candidates could
engage in alternatives that challenged the existing status quo. The course materials and
courses’ dispositional objectives, to a great extent, suggest the opposite. The explicit

curricula of the courses indicate that multicultural education courses promote

189

understanding and skill development that are grounded in learning how to survive in the
existing system. This is not surprising given that teacher candidates are just learning how
to teach.

From my experience as a teacher of a diversity course, I have the impression that
teacher candidates interpreted the objectives of my course primarily in terms of Sleeter
and Grant’s (2003) human relations approach. This was not my intent nor did I realize it
at the time, but as I thought about my course in light of the findings from this study, I
believe students thought being nice and respectful would resolve educational disparities. I
strongly believe my students wanted to help their future students learn subject matter, in
spite of their differences, and my course basically indicated that minority students can
learn if provided the right accommodations. The curriculum of my course didn’t,
however, provide students much information or skills for addressing those needs. I also
believe most students in my course identified course content as suggestive of empathy
and self-awareness, even though they would not use those terms. I am not too confident
that students left my course identifying the relationship between these two dispositional
qualities and the effective teaching practices.

In conclusion, the intersection between the knowledge, skills, and dispositions
reflected in the 14 multicultural education courses in this study suggest courses were
designed to broaden teacher candidates understanding of diverse groups of people and to
help them understand how contextual factors influence teaching and learning.
Multicultural education courses also reflected strategies of empathy and self-awareness
for helping predominately White teacher candidates overcome the negative beliefs and

attitudes assumed they held about minority groups. Teacher candidates were exposed to

190

pedagogical strategies, and they read about how practicing teachers engaged with their
students and developed their practice aligned with empathy and self-reflection. The
courses in this study did not, however, provide teacher candidates with the opportunities
to practice skills to teach subject matter effectively to diverse students. As argued by
McAllister and Irvine (2002), dispositional qualities may be necessary for teachers who
teach in diverse contexts; it is, however, not sufficient for effective teaching.

Endnotes

 

' I use the terms multicultural and diversity interchangeably.

2 I provide several examples in this chapter of readings about particular
pedagogical strategies used in multicultural education. See Brown, 2004; McFalls and
Cobb-Roberts, 2001; Bullock and Freedom; Cockrell, et. al., 1999; Lea, 2004; Gullavan,
2005.

3 I found two additional instructional strategies used by teacher educators (Lea,
2004; Gullavan, 2005). Both of these strategies focus on helping teacher candidates’
recognize their cultural attributes.

4 My understanding of the theory I describe in this section was influenced by the
theory that guided a study I conducted with Dorothea Anagnostopoulos and Kevin Roxas.

5 During the fall of 2006 Michigan had 31 active certified teacher preparation
programs and in the Spring of 2007 there were 33 active certified teacher preparation
programs. I only include the 31 programs certified at the time of this study.

6 The Carnegie Classification System of Institutions of Higher Education is the
“leading framework for describing institutional diversity in US. higher education.” In

this study, I primarily use the classification to describe “what is taught

191

 

(Undergraduate/Graduate Instructional Program classification)” (See
http://www.camegiefoundation.org/classifications/).

7 Data were drawn from Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. Data
from twenty-nine of the 31 programs are included because two of the programs are not
represented in the database.

8 The “record of teaching practice” websites included in this course syllabus were
developed with and hosted by The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching and Learning. This site is located at http://gallery.carnegiefoundation.org.

9 I do not use the name of colleges and universities to protect the identity of
research participants. I also use pseudonyms for course instructors.

'0 Several articles cited in this section were included in a special series of Journal
of Teacher Education focused on the role and meaning of dispositions in teacher
education. My intentions were not to present the debate about dispositions but rather to
provide a basis for why dispositions are integral to teacher education and teacher
preparation. As a result of this objective, I selected to cite articles that were most helpful.

11 The five approaches of multicultural education identified by Sleeter and Grant

are also described in Chapter 2.

APPENDIX A

Race of K-12 Public School Students by State
Table A -1

Race of Public School Students by State

 

American
Total Indian! Asian! Black, White.
students Alaska Paclflc non- non-
State mpomd‘ Native Islander Hispanic Hispanic Hispanic
1’01th SW: 48,810,818 594,663 2,241 .808 9,641,407 8,376,855 27,755,884
Alabama 739,663 5,729 7.520 20.479 266.587 439.348
Alaska 133.288 35.393 9,245 5.648 6,151 76,851
Arizona 1,094,454 67,498 27,1 1 1 426,696 56.863 516.286
Arkansas 474,206 3,089 6.558 32,132 109.144 323.283
California 6,187,782 50,758 723,097 3,003,521 494,957 1 .915.449
Colorado 779.826 9.173 25.444 211.171 46.444 487,594
Connecticut 575,059 2.062 20.427 88,655 78.860 385.055
Delaware 120.937 408 3.442 1 1.100 39,345 66,642
District of Columbia 76.876 79 1,104 8,136 64,073 3,484
Florida 2,675,024 7,927 59,594 639,035 640,462 1,328,006
Georgia 1,559,378 2,339 43.810 135.010 611.723 766.496
Hawaii 182.818 1.085 133,133 8,163 4,323 36,114
Idaho 261.982 4.173 4.130 33,599 2,639 217,441
Illinois 2,073,990 3,948 79.264 393.070 428,207 1,169,501
Indiana 1,035,014 2,628 12,595 59.387 128.896 831.508
Iowa 483,482 2,877 9,360 28.145 24.646 418,454
Kansas 454,001 6,707 10.897 55.117 39.099 342,181
Kentucky 641,753 1,106 5,871 13,157 67,939 553,680
Louisiana 654,526 5.1 15 8.492 13,490 290,576 336,853
Maine 195,498 1,057 2,686 1.846 3,964 185,945
Maryland 860,020 3,487 44.956 65.613 327,968 417,996
Massachusetts 957,004 2,941 45,064 125,087 80,443 703,469
Michigan 1,733,559 16,675 42.071 75.786 352,734 1,246,293
Minnesota 839.243 17.400 47,972 45.145 71.742 656.984
Mississippi 494,954 887 3.884 6.952 253.203 230.028
Missouri 917.705 3.690 14.528 29.001 167.171 703.315
Montana 145.416 16.422 1.658 3.484 1.306 122,546
Nebraska 286,646 4,751 5.199 32.887 21.716 222.093
Nevada 412,395 6.679 30.010 138,652 45.721 191,333
New Hampshire 205.767 645 3,965 5.692 3.549 191,916
New Jersey 1 .395,602 2,493 104.962 253.710 246.065 788,372
New Mexico 326.758 36.210 4.153 176.538 8.246 101,611
New York 2,815,581 13.968 195.425 566.273 557,253 1,482,662
North Carolina 1 .416.436 20.463 29.812 118.505 446.279 801.377
North Dakota 98.283 8.483 931 1 .673 1.523 85.673
Ohio 1,791,019 2,574 25,030 43.414 305,567 1,414,434
Oklahoma 634,739 120,122 10.622 56.375 69.090 378,530
Oregon 537.948 12.986 26,367 85,461 17,041 396,093
Pennsylvania 1,830,684 2,678 45.438 117.877 296,177 1,368,514
Rhode Island 153,422 990 4.733 26.559 13.162 107.978
South Carolina 698.349 2.205 9.1 19 28.216 281.395 377.414

193

Table A-1 (cont’d).

American
Total Indian! Asianl Black,

students Alaska Pacific non- White,
suite rsportsd’ Native isiandsr Hispanic Hispanic non-Hispanic
South Dakota 122.012 12.775 1.258 2,401 1.902 103.676
Tennessee 953.907 1 .730 13.541 36.670 239.422 662.544
Texas 4,525,394 15,045 141,893 2,048,989 667,216 1,652,251
Utah 508.258 7.770 15.522 62.723 6.558 415.685
Vermont 95.822 417 1,496 957 1.424 91.528
Wrginia 1,193,378 3,812 61,526 91,557 322,791 713,692
Washington 1,020,311 27.208 83.085 139.005 58.514 712.499
West Virginia 280.866 329 1.802 2.045 13.915 262.775
Wisconsin 875.174 12.692 31,104 59,012 91.606 680.760
Wyoming 84.409 2.985 903 7,591 1.258 71,672

 

SOURCE: US. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,
Common Core of Data (CCD), "State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary/Secondary

Education," 2005—06, Version 1a.

194

APPENDIX B

List of Michigan’s 31 State Certified Teacher Preparation Programs

Adrian College

Albion College

Alma College

Andrews University

Aquinas College

Calvin College

Central Michigan University
Concordia University
Cornerstone University

Eastern Michigan University
Ferris State University

Grand Valley State University
Hillsdale College

Hope College

Lake Superior State University
Madonna University

Marygrove College

Michigan State University
Michigan Technological University
Northern Michigan University
Oakland University

Olivet College

Saginaw Valley State University
Siena Heights University

Spring Arbor University
University of Detroit Mercy
University of Michigan- Ann Arbor
University of Michigan-Dearbom
University of Michigan-Flint
Wayne State University
Western Michigan University

195

APPENDIX C

Number of Study Participants and Non-Participants by Institution
Table A-2

Number of Study Participants and Non-Participants by Institution

Institution Number of Number not Total number of
participating participating instructors
instructors

A 1

B 1

C 1

D 1 1

E 2 1

F 1

G 1

H l

I 3 5

J 1 4

K 1

L l

M 7

N 1 2

O 1 2

P 12 4

Q l

R 2

S 1

T 1

U 1

V 1

W 5 2

Total 37 32

196

H

O\

©\)~H——NHO\wW\]—s—:MW———wN—AHH

APPENDIX D

Course Syllabi Primary and Secondary Codes
Table A-3

List of Primary and Secondary Codes

Primary codes Secondary Codes

Curriculum

Democratic education

Multicultural education

Environment/ecology

Gender Description
Focus (male, female)
Pedagogy

Global/international

History of schooling/education

Language Description
Pedagogy
Type (ESL, Non-standard)

Multicultural education

Pedagogy

Policy Accountability
Choice
Federal legislation
School funding
school reform
Testing
Tracking

Purposes of schooling/education

Schools and schooling

Philosophy

Privilege

Race Description
Pedagogy
Racial groups (White, African

American/Black, Native American, Asian
Hispanic)

197

Table A-3 (cont’d).

Primary Codes
Religion

Sexual orientation

Social class

Primary codes
Special education

Teacher education

Teacher-self (written by teacher)
Teaching profession

Urban

Secondary Codes

Description

Pedagogy

Type

Description

Pedagogy

Focus (Heterosexual, Homosexual)
Description

Family

Pedagogy

School

Focus (Poor, Working, Middle, Elite)
Secondary Codes

Description

Pedagogy

1.98

APPENDIX E

Survey for Instructors of Multicultural Education Courses
1. Multicultural Course Content

In this section, you will be asked a series of questions about the content
(concepts/themes) of the undergraduate education course you teach with multicultural
content. You will also be asked to share your own personal beliefs about multicultural
education courses for teacher candidates. It is important that you answer each of the
questions. The open-ended questions are particularly important to the overall goals of this
research.

1. How satisfied are you with the content (concepts/themes) of this course?
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neither satisfied or dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied

2. If you were able to make changes to the content of this course, what would you add?

3. If you were able to make changes to the content of this course, what would you
remove?

4. What has prevented you fi'om making these changes?

5. Rate the following categories from 1-8 (1=Most important and 8=Least important) to
indicate your own personal beliefs about how important each of these categories are for
teacher candidates enrolled in a multicultural education course?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Race/ethnicity
Gender
Sexual orientation
Social class
Disability/ special education
Language
Religion
Urban

199

6. Indicate how important you believe the following themes and concepts are for teacher
candidates enrolled in a multicultural education course: (1=Very important and 5=Not
important at all)

Multicutluralism/

Multicultural ideas/theories
(defrnitions, frameworks)

Critical ideas/theory and pedagogy
Social inequality

Educational inequality

Privilege

Oppression/marginalization

Purpose/role of education in a
Democratic society

Education for social justice

Role of policies (state, federal, local)

Role of school structures (such as tracking)
Identity

Role of culture

Philosophy

History

Psychology

Inclusion/mainstreaming of
Special education students

Culturally responsive curricula/pedagogy

Instructional strategies

200

7. Any additional comments about course content? (optional)

2. Course Materials

In this section, you will be asked about the materials you use in the course. Materials
include texts, assignments, activities, and any additional resources you use with your
students. As the previous section, it is important that you answer each of the questions.
The open ended questions are particularly important to the overall goals of this research.

8. How satisfied are you with the texts (books, articles, videos, etc. you use in this
course?

Very satisfied

Satisfied

Neither satisfied or dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied

9. If you were able to change the texts you use in this course, what would you add?
(Provide specific titles, if applicable)

10. If you were able to make changes to the content of this course, what would you
remove? (Provide specific titles, if applicable)

11. What has prevented you from changing these texts?

12. Indicate how much you agree with the following statements about materials for a
multicultural education course that serves teacher candidates:

Strongly Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Don’t
Agree Disagree Know

Most course texts used in multicultural courses should be fiom a practitioner’s
perspective.

It is important for course texts to provide students a strong theoretical based in
multiculturalism.

Teacher candidates should be required to consider how their own culturally-based
experiences have influenced them.

Materials should be designed to challenge teacher candidates’ prior knowledge of
individuals who are different from themselves.

201

Materials should be designed to allow students to express a range of opinions about
course content.

It is important for course assignments to reflect the practical work of teachers (such as
lesson planning, development of curriculum units).

It is important for course assignments to reflect traditional academic assignments (such as
critical analysis, essay assignments, research papers).

Experiential/service learning is an effective way to help teacher candidates overcome
stereotypical understandings of marginalized groups.

Experiential/service learning is an effective way to help teacher candidates learn course
content.

13. Any additional comments about course materials?

3. Characteristics of Course and Students
14. Indicate how the following people and institutional units regard the course you teach:

Highly Value Under Do not
Value Value Value at all

Students enrolled in your course

F aculty/other instructors in your department
Departmental administration

College

University

State of Michigan

15. In addition to the course you teach, how are teacher candidates exposed to diversity
and/or multicultural issues as part of their teacher preparation program?

16. How are teacher candidates enrolled in your course exposed to diversity/multicultural
issues outside (in addition to) their teacher preparation program?

17. Any additional comments about course characteristics and/or students? (optional)

202

4. Instructor Characteristics

18. Based on your own personal beliefs, indicate how much you agree with the following
statements about instructors of multicultural courses for teacher candidates:

Strongly Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Don’t
Agree Disagree Know

Instructors who teach about diversity/multicultural issues should have a personal
commitment to social justice.

Instructors should encourage students to become social activists.
Instructors should encomage students to have diverse opinions about course topics.

Instructors of diversity/multicultural education courses face resistance form their students
because of the type of content they teach.

The most qualified instructors of diversity/multicultural content are people who are
members of racial minority groups.

The most qualified instructors of diversity/multicultural content are people who can relate
to the students they teach.

Course instructors should have K-12 teaching experience.

Instructors may be at a personal disadvantage in their departments for teaching
diversity/multicultural courses (as compared to subject and methods course, for example).

19. Any additional comments about instructors of multicultural content? (optional)

Background
20. What is your race?

21 Are you?
Female
Male
Transgendered

203

22. What was your social class background as a child?
Poor
Working
Middle
Upper Middle
Elite

24. How would you characterize your political views?
Far left
Liberal
Middle of the road
Conservative
Far right

25. What is the highest degree you’ve earned?

Bachelor’s

Master’s

Ed.D.

Ph.D.

Professional degree beyond bachelor’s (M.D., J .D., etc.)
26. In what year did you receive your highest degree?

27. In what discipline/field did you receive your highest degree? (Please be specific if
your degree is in Education)

28. How many years have you taught at a college/university?
29. How many years have you taught courses with multicultural content?
30. Why did you initially become involved in courses with multicultural content?
31. What are your primary academic interests?
32. Have you ever taught in a K-12 educational setting?
Yes
No

33. Any additional comments about your background you feel are important to share?
(optional)

204

REFERENCES

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (2001). Survey of teacher
education enrollments by race/ethnicity and gender. Washington, DC: AACTE.

Abeel, s. (2003). My 13'” winter: A memoir. New York: Orchard Books.

Ali, A. (2006, June 10). The person behind the Muslim. New York Times. Retrieved
April 4, 2008, from www.nytimes.com.

Anyon, J. (1981). Social class and school knowledge. Curriculum Inquiry. 11(1), 3-42.

Anyon, J. (2001a). Social class and school knowledge. In J. H. Strouse (Ed.), Exploring
socio-cultural themes in education: Readings in social foundations (pp. 127-
156). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill-Prentice Hall.

Anyon, J. (2001b). Inner cities, affluent suburbs, and unequal educational opportunities.
In J. Banks and C. Banks, (Eds.), Multicultural Education (4th ed., pp. 85-98).
New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Applied Research Center. (2000). 46 years afier Brown v. Board of Education: Still
separate, still unequal (ARC Research Brief). Oakland, CA: Applied Research
Center.

Asher, N. (2007). Made in the multicultural (U .S.A.): Unpacking tensions of race,
culture, gender, and sexuality in education. Educational researcher. 3 6(2), 65—73.

Banks. J. (1993a). The canon debate, knowledge construction, and multicultural
education, Educational Researcher, 22(5), 4-14.

Banks, J. (1993b). Multicultural education: Historical development, dimensions, and
practice. Review of Research in Education. 19, 3-49.

Banks, J ., & Banks, C. (Eds.). (2003). Multicultural education, issues and perspectives.
(5th ed.). New Jersey: Wiley and Sons.

Barber, BR. (1989). Public talk and civic action: Education for participating in a strong
democracy. Social Education, 53(6), 355-56, 370.

Bartoletti, S. C. (2005). Hitler youth: Growing up in Hitler’s shadow. New York:
Scholastic.

Baynton, DC. (2001). Disability and the justification of inequality in American History.

In P. Longrnore & L. UmUmanski (Eds.) The new disability history: American
perspectives (pp. 33-57). New York: The New York University Press

205

Beals, MP. (1994). Warriors Don’t Cry. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Belkin, L. (2004, September 12). The lessons of classroom 506. New York Times.
Retrieved April 4, 2008, fiom www.nytimes.com

Biddle, J ., & Berliner, D. (2002). Unequal school funding in the United States.
Educational Leadership. 5 9(8), 48-59.

Bigelow, B. (2000). How Might a Teacher Encourage Students to Appreciate those Who
Fought for Social Justice? Rethinking Schools Online, 15(1). Retrieved April 14,

2008 from http://www.rethinkingschools.org[archive/15 Ol/Her0151.shtml.

Borko, H., Liston, D., & Whitcomb, J .A. (2007). Apples and fishes: The debate over
dispositions in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(5), 359-364.

 

Borrowman, M. (1956). The liberal and technical in teacher education: A historical
survey of American thought. New York: Teachers College Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Translated
by R. Nice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

Bowles, S. (2001). Unequal education and the reproduction of the social division of
labor. In J. H. Strouse (Ed.), Exploring socio-cultural themes in education:
Readings in social foundations. (2mI ed., pp.120-126). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.

Bowels, S., & Gintis, H. (1977). Schooling in capitalist America: Education reform and
the contradictions of economic life. New York: Basic books.

Brown, EL. (2004). What precipitates change in cultural diversity awareness during a
multicultural course: The message or the method? Journal of Teacher Education,
55(4), 325-340.

Bullock, RA. and Freedmon, DA. (2005). (Re)visions to a secondary teacher education
course: Trials and triumphs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 235-149.

Butsch, R. (2002). Five decades and three hundred sitcoms about gender and class. In
T.E. (Ed.), The Social construction of dijfkrence and inequality (2nd ed., pp 413-
417.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Bymes, DA. (2005). Common-bonds-Anti—bias teaching: Anti-bias teaching in a
diverse society. (3rd ed.). Wheaton: MD: Association for Childhood Education
International.

206

Capitelli, S. (2006). Learning fiom our conversations in English: Using video in the bi-
lingual classroom as a tool for reflection on English language learning and
teaching. Retrieved April 4, 2008 from Carnegie F oundation, Inside Teaching
Web site, http://gallery.camegiefoundation.org/.

Carter, PL. (2003). Black cultural capital, status positioning, and schooling conflicts for
low-income African American Youth. Social Problems, 50(1), 1-50.

Cavanaugh & Mander (2006). Ten principles for sustainable societies. Retrieved April 4,
2008 from Intercontinental Cry Web site, http://intercontinentalcry.com.

Christenson, L. (1990). Teaching standard English: Whose standard? The English
Journal, 79(2), 36-40.

Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). Walking the Road: Race, Diversity, and Social Justice in
Teacher Education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Cockrell, K.S., Placier, P.L., Cockrell, D.H., & Middleton, J. N. (1999). Conring to terms
with “diversity” and “multiculturalism” in teacher education: Leaning about our
students, changing our practice. Teaching and Teacher Education. 15, 351-366.

Cohen, D. (1984). The condition of teacher’s work. Harvard Education Review, 5 4, 11-
15.

Cohen, D. (1988). Teaching practice: Plus ca change. East Lansing, MI: Institute for
Research on Teaching.

Cole, J. (2002). No equal justice: Race and class in the American criminal justice
system. In T.E. Ore (Ed.). The Social construction ofdijfrrence and inequality
(2"d ed., pp 329-338). New York: McGraw Hill.

Coleman, J ., & Hoeffer, T. (1987). Public and private high schools: Schools, families,
and communities. New York: Basic Books.

Conchas, G. Q & Noguera, RA. (2006) The Color of Success: Race and High-Achieving
Urban Youth. New York: Teachers College Press.

Cone, J. (2006a). Co-constructing low achievement: A study of a senior class in an urban
high school. April 4, 2008 from Carnegie Foundation, Inside Teaching Web site,
http://gallery.carnegiefoundation.org/.

Cone, J. (2006b). Constructing urban high school students as high achievers. Retrieved

April 4, 2008 from Carnegie Foundation, Inside Teaching Web site,
http://gallery.camegiefoundation.org/.

207

Cookson, P.W. & Persell, CH. (1987). Preparing for Power: Cultural Capital and
Curriculum in America ’s Elite Boarding School. New York: Basic Books.

Counts, G. (1932). Dare the school build a new social order? New York: John Day
Company.

Cowell, A. (2006, October 22). For multicultural Britian, uncomfortable new clothes.
New York Times. Retrieved April 4, 2008, fi'om www.nytimes.com.

Cushner, K.H., McClelland, A., & Safford, P. (2006). Human diversity in education: An
Integrative approach. (4“1 ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Damon, W. (2007). Dispositions and teacher assessment: The need for a more rigorous
definition. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(5), 365-369.

Dee, J .R., & Henkin, AB. (2002). Assessing dispositions toward cultural diversity
among preservice teachers. Urban Education, 3 7(1), 22-40.

Delpit, L. (1997) Ebonics and culturally responsive instruction: What should teachers
do?. Rethinking Schools Online, 12(1), Retrieved April 14, 2008,
http://www.rethinkingschools.org.

Delpit, L. (1996). Other people 's children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York:
New Press.

Delpit, L. (1988). The Silenced Dialogue: Power and Pedagogy in Educating Other
People’s Children. Harvard Educational Review, 58(3), 280-298.

Diamond, J .B., & Spillane, J .P., (2004). High-Stakes accountability in urban elementary
schools: Challenging or reproducing inequality? Teachers College Record.
106(6), 1145—1176.

Dilworth. M.E. (Ed.). (1998). Being responsive to cultural difikarences: How teachers
learn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Durkheim, E. (2001). Education: Its nature and its role. In J. H. Strouse (Ed), Exploring
socio-cultural themes in education: Readings in social foundations. (2"d edition,

pp.49-61). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Donrinus. S. (2004, October 24). Growing up with mom and mom. The New York Times.
Retrieved April 4, 2008, from www.nytimes.com.

Eisner, E.W. (2001). Educational imagination: 0n the design and evaluation of school
programs. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

208

Feiman—Nemser, S. (1990). Conceptual orientations in teacher education. Retrieved
April 8, 2008 from Michigan State University, National Center for Research on
Teacher Learning Web site, http://ncrtl.msu.edu/.

Feiman-Nemser, S. & Rerrrillard, J. (1995) Perspectives on Learning to Teach. Retrieved
April 8, 2008 from Michigan State University, National Center for Research on
Teacher Learning Web site, http://ncrtl.msu.edu/.

F inn, P.J. (1999). Literacy with an Attitude: Educating working class children in their
own self interest. Buffalo, NY: State University of New York.

Garmon, MA. (2004). Changing preservice teachers’ attitudes/beliefs about diversity:
What are the critical factors? Journal of Teacher Education, 55(3), 201-213.

Gay, G. (2005). Politics of teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(3), 221-
228.

Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher
Education, 53(2), 106-1 16.

Gay, G. (1997). Multicultural infusion in teacher education: Foundations and
applications. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(1), 150-177.

Giroux, H. A. and McLaren, P. (1995). Teacher education and the politics of
engagement: The case for democratic education. In In P. Leistyna, A. Woodrum,
& S.A. Sherblom (Eds.), Breaking flee: The transformative power of critical
pedagogy (pp. 301-331). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review.

Golhrick, D.M., & Chinn, RC. (2005). Multicultural education in a pluralistic society.
(7th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Gordon, L. (1994). What Do We Say When We Hear ‘Faggot’? In B. Bigelow (Ed.),
Rethinking our classrooms: Teaching for equity and justice (pp. 86-87).
Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools.

Grant, C.A., & Gillette, M. (2006). A candid talk to teacher educators about effectively
preparing teachers who can teach everyone’s children. Journal of Teacher
Education. 5 7(3), 292-299.

Greene, M. (1978). Wide-Awakeness and the moral life In M. Green, Landscapes of
Learning (pp. 45-52). New York: Teachers College Press.

Goodwin, AL. (1994). Making the transition from self to other: What do preservice

teachers really think about multicultural education. Journal of Teacher
Education, 45(2), 119-131.

209

Gullavan, NP. (2005). Helping teachers unpack their “invisible knapsacks.”
Multicultural Education. 13(1), 34-39.

Hallinan, M.T., & Oakes, J. (1994). An exchange between Maureen T. Hallinan and
Jeannie Oaks on the Subject of Tracking. Sociology of Education, 67(2), 79-91.

Hannsen, E. (1998). A white teacher reflects on institutional racism. Phi Delta Kappan,
79(9), 694-698.

Hewards, W. and R. Cavanaugh (2000). Educational equality for students with
disabilities. In J. Banks and c. Banks (Eds.) Multicultural Education (4th ed., pp.
295-321). New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Hochschild, J .L. and Scovronick, N. (2003). The American Dream and Public Schools.
New York: Oxford University Press.

Hollins, E. and Guzman, M.T. (2005). Research on preparing teachers for diverse
populations. In M. Cochran-Smith and KM. (Eds.) Studying teacher education:
The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education. (pp. 477-548).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of fieedom. New
York: Routledge.

Hurley, M. (2006). Negotiating the fifih grade math curriculum: Compliance and
revision. April 4, 2008 from Carnegie F oundation, Inside Teaching Web site,
http://gallery.carnegiefoundation.org/.

Jennings, T. (2007). Addressing diversity in US teacher preparation programs: A survey

of elementary and secondary programs’ priorities and challenges from across the
United States of America. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(8), 1258-1271.

Jersild, A. (1955). When teachers face themselves. New York: Teachers College Press.

J ohnson, A. (2005). The gender knot: Unraveling our patriarchal legacy. Philadelphia,
PA: Temple University Press.

Johnson, J .A. (1995). Life after death: Critical pedagogy in an urban classroom.
Harvard Educational Review, 65(2), 213-230.

Johnson, A. (1998/99). Out Front. Rethinking Schools Online, 13(2). Retrieved April 4,
2008 from http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/13_02/gay.shtml.

Karp. S. (2007). Why we need to go beyond the classroom. In B. Bigelow (Ed)

Rethinking our classrooms: Teaching for equity and justice. Milwaukee, WI:
Rethinking Schools.

210

Karp. S., Lowe, R., Miner, B. (Eds.). (2002). Funding for justice: Money, equity and the
future of public education. Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools.

Kennedy, M. M. (1991). Some surprising findings on how teachers learn to teach.
Educational Leadership, 49(3), 14-17.

Kimmel, MS. (2000). Masculinity as homophobia: Fear, shame, and silence in the
construction of gender identity. In M. Adams, Z. Ximena, H.W. & Hackman
(Eds.) Readings for diversity and social justice (pp. 213-219). New York:
Routledge.

Kozol, J. (1992). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s Schools. New York: Harper
Perennial.

Labaree, D. (1997). Public goods, private goods: The American struggle over educational
goals. American Education Research Journal, 34(1), 39-81.

Ladson-Billings. G. (1997). Dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of A fiican American
children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2005). Is the team all right? Diversity and teacher education.
Journal of Teacher Education, 56(1), 229-234.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2000). Preparing teachers to teach African American students.
Journal of Teacher Education. 51 (3), 206-214.

Lampert, M. (2001). Teaching students to be people who study in school. In M. Lampert
Teaching Problems and the Problems of Teaching (pp. 265-325). New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.

Lareau, A. (2000). Home advantage: Social class and parental intervention in
elementary education (2"d ed.). Lanham, MA: Rowman and Littlefield.

Lareau, A. (1987). Social class differences in farnily-school relationships: The
importance of cultural capital. Sociology of Education, 60(2), 73-85.

Lee, C. D. (2001). Is October Brown Chinese? A cultural modeling activity system for
underachieving students. American Educational Research Journal, 38(1), 97-
141.

Levine, A. (2006). Educating school teachers. Washington, DC: Education Schools
Project.

Levin, T. (2005, May 19). Up from the Holler: Living in two worlds, at home in neither.
The New York Times. Retrieved April 4, 2008, from www.nytimes.com.

211

Levine, M. (2002) A Mind at a Time. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Lewis, R.B & Doorl , DH. (2006). Teaching special students in general education
classrooms (7 ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.

Lichter, S.R., &, Amundson, DR. (2002). Distorted reality. Hispanic characters in TV
entertainment. In T.E. Ore (Ed.), The Social construction of difference and
inequality (2nd ed., pp 386-399). New York: McGraw Hill.

Lortie, D. C. (1975). School teacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

Martinez, E. (2002). Seeing more than Black and White: Latinos, Racism, and the
Cultrual Divide. In T.E. Ore (Ed.). The Social construction of dijfkrence and
inequality (2"d ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Massey. D. & Denton, N. (1993). The construction of the ghetto: American apartheid
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

McAllister, G., & Irvine, J .J . (2002). The role of empathy in teaching culturally diverse
students: A qualitative study of teacher’s beliefs. Journal of Teacher Education,
53(5), 433-443.

McFalls, EL. and Cobb-Roberts, D. (2001). Reducing resistance to diversity through
cognitive dissonance instruction: Implications for teacher education. Journal of
Teacher Education. 52(2), 164-172.

McIntosh, P. (1988). White privilege and male privilege: A personal account of coming

to see correspondences through women ’s work in women ’s studies. (Working
paper 189). Wellesley, MA: Wellesley College Center for Research on Women.

McIntosh, P. (1989). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. Peace and
Freedom, 10-12.

McLeod’s (1995) Ain ’t No Makin ’ It: Aspirations and Attainment in a Low-Income
Neighborhood. Oxford: Westview Press.

Meier, D., & Wood, G. (2004). Many children left behind. Boston: Beacon Press.

Meier, D. and Schwartz, P. (1995). Central Park East Secondary School: The hard part is
making it happen. In M.W. Apple & J .A. Beane (Eds.). Demographic Schools
(pp. 26-40). Buckingham: Open University Press.

Meier, D. (2000). Will standards save public education. Boston: Beacon Press.

212

Melnick, S.L. and Zeichner, KM. (1998). Teacher education’s responsibility to address
diversity issues: Enhancing institutional capacity. Theory into Practice, 3 7(2),
88-95.

Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as
myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340—363.

Michie, G. (1999). Holler if you hear me. New York: Teachers College Press.

Miles, M. & Huberman, J. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebooks
(2"d ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Mondale, S. & Patton, S. (Eds.). (2002). School: The story of American public
education. Boston: Beacon Press.

Moore, R (2002). Racism in the English language. In T.E. Ore (Ed.), The Social
construction of dijfirence and inequality (2"d ed., pp 426-437). New York:
McGraw Hill.

Nieto, S. (2004). A flirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural
education. (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Nieto, S. (2000a). Linguistic diversity in multicultural classrooms. In S. Nieto,
Aflirming Diversity: Creating Multicultural Communities (pp. 189-217). New
York: Addison, Wesley, and Longrnan.

Nieto, S. (2000b). Placing equity front and center: Some thoughts on transforming
teacher education for a new century. Journal of Teacher Education, 51 (3), 180-
1 87.

Oakes, J. ( I 985). Keeping Track New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Oakes, J. (1997). Tracking: Why schools need to take another route. In B. Bigelow (Ed.),
Rethinking our classrooms: Teaching for equity and justice (pp. 178-181).
Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools.

O'Grady C., & Chappell B.. (2000). With, not for: The politics of service learning in
multicultural communities. In C. Ovando, P. McLaren. The politics of

multiculturalism and bilingual education: Students and teachers caught in the
cross fire (pp. 208—224). Boston: McGraw Hill.

Olneck, M. (2000). Can multicultural education change what counts as cultural capital?
American Education Research Journal, 3 7(2), 317-348.

Ore, TE. (2002). The Social Construction of Dijference and Inequality. (2nd ed.). New
York: McGraw Hill.

213

Orenstein, P. (1994). Schoolgirls: Young women, self-esteem, and the confidence gap.
New York: Anchor Books.

Orstein, A.C., & Levine, D. U. (2006). Foundations of Education. (9th ed.). Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.

Pappano, L. (2001). The connection gag: Why Americans feel so alone. New Brunswick,
NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Payne, R.K, Devol, P., & Dreussi Smith, T. (2001) Bridges out of Poverty: Strategies for
Professionals and Communities. Higlands, TX: Aha! Process.

Paley, V. (2000) White Teacher. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Phelan, P., Davidson, A.L., & Yu, H.C. (1993). Students’ multiple worlds: Navigating
the borders of family, peer and school cultures.” In P. Phelan & A.L. Davidson
(Eds.) Renegotiating cultural diversity in American schools (pp. 51-87). New
York: Teachers College Press.

Price, L. and Valli, L. (1998). Institutional support for diversity in preservice teacher
education. Theory into Practice, 37(2), 114-120.

Public Broadcast Service (n.d.). Race—The power of an illusion. Retrieved April 4, 2008
fi'om http://www.pbs.org/race.

Purcell-Gates, V. (2003) As soon as she opened her mouth: Issues of language, literacy,
and power. In L. Delpit (Ed). The skin that we speak: Thoughts on language and
culture in the classroom (pp. 121-142). New York: New Press.

Purcell-Gates, V. (1997). Other people ’s words: The cycle of low literacy. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.

Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York:
Simon & Schuster.

Quinn, D. (1995). Ishmael: An adventure of the mind and spirit. New York: Bantam
Books.

Rist, R. (2001). Student social class and teacher expectations: The self-fulfilling
prophesy of ghetto education. In J. H. Strouse (Ed.), Exploring socio-cultural
themes in education: Readings in social foundations (pp. 176-202). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Merrill-Prentice Hall.

Ryan, W. (1971). Blaming the victim. Vintage: New York.

214

Sadker, D. (2000). Gender equity: Still knocking at the classroom door. Equity &
Excellence in Education, 33(1), 80-83.

Sadker, D. & Sadker, M. (1998). Failing at fairness: Hidden lessons. In T.M. Shapiro
(Ed.) Great divides: Readings in social equality in the United States. Mountain
View, CA: Maysfield Publishing.

Sadker, D. & Sadker, M. (2001). Gender bias from colonial America to today’s
classrooms. In J. Banks and C. Banks (Eds). Multicultural Education (4"1 ed.,
pp.125-151). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Sadker, D. & Sadker, M. (2002). Missing in Interaction. In T.E. Ore (Ed.), The Social
construction of diflerence and inequality (2“‘1 ed., pp. 278-291). New York:
McGraw Hill.

Sander, J. (2002). Something is missing from teacher education: Attention to two
genders. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(3), 241-44.

Schmitt, E. (2006, January 8). A man does not ask a man about his wife. New York
Times. Retrieved April 4, 2008, fi'om www.nytimes.com.

Schultz, K. (2003). Listening: A fiamework for teaching across dijfizrences. New York:
Teachers College Press.

Sheetz, RH. (1995). From remedial to gifted: Effects of culturally centered pedagogy.
Theory into Practice, 34(3), 186-93.

Sheetz. RH. and Chew, L. (2002). Absent from the research, present in our classrooms:
Preparing culturally responsive Chinese American teachers. Journal of Teacher
Education, 53(2), 127-141.

Shiva, V. (2002/03). Ten principles of justice, sustainability, and peace. Earthlight
Magazine, 47. Retrieved April 4, 2008 from www.earthlight.org.

Shor, I. (1992) Empowering education: Critical Teaching for social change. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

Sleeter, C. (2001). Preparing teachers for culturally diverse schools: Research and the
overwhelming presence of whiteness. Journal of Teacher Education, 5 2(2), 94-
106.

Skilton, SP. (1994). Elementary school curricula and urban transfonnation. Harvard
Education Review, 64(3), 309-331.

Sleeter, C. E., & Grant, C. (1988). Making choices for multicultural education: Five
approaches to race. class, and gender. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

215

Sleeter, C. E., & Grant, C. (1999) Making choices for multicultural education: Five
approaches to race. class, and gender (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.

Sleeter, C. E., & Grant, C. (2003) Making choices for multicultural education: Five
approaches to race, class, and gender (4th ed.). New York: Wiley.

Smitherman, G. (1981). (Ed.). Black English and the education of black children. Detroit,
MI: Wayne State University.

Smolen, L.A., Colville-Hall, S., Liang, X., and MacDonald, S. (2006). An empirical
study of college of education faculty's perceptions, beliefs, and commitment to the

teaching of diversity in teacher education programs at four urban universities.
The Urban Review, 38(1), 45-61.

Spring, J. (2004a). American education. (9th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Spring, J. (2004b). American schools (6'h ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Strouse, J .H. (Eds.). (2001). Exploring socio-cultural themes in education: Readings in
social foundations. (2“d ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Stumbo, C. (1989). Teachers & teaching: Beyond the classroom. Harvard Educational
Review, 59(1), 87-98.

Swartz, E. (2003). Teaching white preservice teachers: Pedagogy for change. Urban
Education, 38(3), 255-278.

Sylvester, H. (2002). Legacy of the blue heron: Living with learning disabilities.
Farmington, ME: Oxton House Publishers.

Talbert-Johnson, C. (2006). Preparing highly qualified teacher candidates for urban
schools. Education and Urban Society, 39(1), 147-160.

Tatum, 3D. (1997) Why are all the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? New
York: Basic Books.

Taylor, L.S. & Whittaker, CR. (2003). Bridging Multiple Worlds: Case Studies of
Diverse Educational Communities. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Thomas, W.P. & Collier, V. (1997). School Eflectiveness for language minority
students. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
Retrieved April 4, 2008 from www.ncela.gwu.edu.

US. Department of Education. (2007). The condition of education. Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Statistics.

216

Valencia, RR. (1997). Conceptualizing the notion of deficit thinking, In R. R. Valencia,
The evolution of deficit thinking: Educational thought and practice. (pp. 1-12).
Washington, DC: The Palmer Press.

Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S. Mexican youth and the politics of
caring. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press

Vaughn, S., Bos, C.S., & Schumm, J .S. (2003). Teaching exceptional. Diverse, and at-
risk students in the general education classroom. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Viadero, D. (1996). Culture clash. Education week. 15(29), 42-45.

Villegas. AM. (2007). Dispositions in Teacher Education: A look at social justice.
Journal of Teacher Education, 58(5), 370-380.

Villegas, A.M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers:
Rethinking the curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 20-32.

Wang, C. M. & Reynolds, M. (1996). Progressive Inclusion: Meeting New Challenges in
Special Education. Theory Into Practice, 35(1), 2-25.

Weick, K. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1-21.

Weisman, EM. and Garza, SA. (2002). Preservice teacher attitudes toward diversity:
Can one class make a difference? Equity and Excellence in Education, 35, 28-34.

Weiss, D. (2002). Confronting white privilege. Rethinking Schools Online, 16(4).
Retrieved April 4, 2008, from http://www.rethinkingschools.org.

Weston, A. (2000). A Rulebook for Arguments. Indianapolis: IN: Hackett Publishing.

Wilson, S.M., Floden, R.E., & Fenini-Mundy. J. (2002). Teacher preparation research:
An insider’s view from the outside. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(3), 190-
204.

Wise, T. (2002). Membership has its privileges. Rethinking Schools Online, 16(4).
Retrieved April 4, 2008, from http://www.rethinkingschools.org.

Wise, T. (2005). White Like Me: Reflections on Race fiom a Privileged son. New York:
Soft Skull Press.

Witt, S.D. (n.d.) The influence of television on children’s gender role socialization: A
review of the literature. Retrieved April 4, 2008, from

217

http://sociomedia.ibelgique.com/the%20influence%20of°/o20television%200n%20
children.htm.

Wood, G.H. (1992). Schools that Work: America’s most innovative public education
programs. New York: Dutton.

Zeichner, K. (2003). The adequacies and inadequacies of three current strategies to

recruit, retain, prepare, and retain the best teachers for all students. Teachers
College Record, 105(3), 490-519.

218

   

iiiiiiliiiiiiijiililiiii