Riding la Bestiá

Abstract

In this mixed methods study, we examined the responses of 82 preservice teachers to the acclaimed documentary Which Way Home, a film that profiles unaccompanied adolescents who hitchhiked the train system of Central America and Mexico en route to the United States. Using pre- and post-surveys (n = 82) and focus group interviews (n = 13), we found that preservice teachers intellectually grappled with immigration counter-stories and demonstrated two shifts in their thinking about immigration and their future teaching. Nested in the frameworks of critical race methodology and Freire’s critical consciousness model, this study illustrates one approach to exploring immigration.

Keywords

immigration documentary film teacher education counter-narratives undocumented immigrant youth reducing stereotypes social issue critical race theory critical media literacy

Introduction

In the summer of 2014, President Barack Obama requested a $3.7 billion supplemental appropriation from Congress. This appropriation focused on deterrence, enforcement, foreign cooperation, and increasing capacity to house, adjudicate, and repatriate increasing numbers of Central American youth (accompanied and unaccompanied) trying to enter the United States without documentation (The White House, 2014). This appropriation would go to several different departments with drastically different aims, including the Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Health and Human Services. The request expired in the House of Representatives, which preferred an approach focused exclusively on border control. The supplemental appropriation underscored several factors: rising numbers of undocumented youth—often unaccompanied—trying to enter the United States, elected officials unable to find common ground on the issues, and increased media attention on the unfolding situation. The only item both the Obama administration and the Congressional Houses seemed to agree on was that the undocumented youth should not be allowed to enter the United States.

In the study that follows, we report on the ways in which preservice teachers conceptualized this pressing, timely social issue. Recognizing the literature that suggests preservice teachers’ frequently lack content knowledge of important social issues (Journell, 2013), lack cultural awareness of minoritized youth, and resist course experiences devoted to examining social issues (e.g., H. G. Garrett & Segall, 2013; Ukpokodu, 2003), we began this study with two major goals: to increase preservice teachers’ content knowledge of U.S. immigration and to challenge preservice teachers’ negative stereotypes of undocumented immigrants through counter-stories.

As “stories provide the necessary context for understanding, feeling, and interpreting” (Ladson-Billings, 1998, p. 15), stories are central to the design and purpose of this study. To this end, we focused on the stories of children migrating to the United States from Central America and Mexico by selecting the documentary film Which Way Home (Cammisa, 2009) as a shared text for our preservice teachers. Which Way Home chronicled the experiences of children and teens as they rode freight trains (termed “la Bestiá” or “the Beast” by train riders), in their journeys to reach the United States. Using video footage and personal interviews recorded on the trains, in detention centers, and from heritage nations, the producers shared the personal experiences of the youth in ways that are unreported in traditional news outlets. Thus, this documentary provided multiple counter-story accounts of immigration to the United States.

In this study, elementary and middle grades preservice teachers viewed the film together, completed pre- and post-surveys about immigration, and held focus group discussions following the film screening. The following research question guided the study design and implementation: In what ways can immigration counter-stories presented through documentary film influence preservice teachers’ perceptions of immigration?

Literature Review

Immigration and Teacher Education

Traditionally, teacher education experiences focused on social issues have evoked avoidance or resistance from preservice teachers (H. J. Garrett, 2011; H. G. Garrett & Segall, 2013; Kumar & Hamer, 2013; Montgomery, 2013). As a result, critical scholars have called for positioning multiple perspectives of social issues within teacher education coursework in an effort to challenge preservice teacher thinking. To be clear, social issues are not solely scholarly debates which lack relevance for teachers and students. On the contrary, social issues are relevant to preservice teachers and their future students in multiple ways—through classroom teaching, political discourse, and immigrant students’ lived experiences. For instance, immigration is simultaneously part of the U.S. history curriculum, a topic of great debate in the public sphere, and a lived experience for an increasing number of students in U.S. classrooms. Despite the centrality of these social issues in the lives of students in and out of school, Journell (2013) found that many preservice teachers have sizable gaps in their awareness and knowledge of social issues.

In terms of the scholarship related to immigration and teacher education, there has been an increased volume of scholarship on preparing teachers to work with immigrant youth that has coincided with demographic shifts in the United States since the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act (Rong & Preissle, 2009). However, the majority of this scholarship has focused on linguistic needs (Goodwin, 2002; Stevens, 2012). As such, there is little research that identifies preservice teachers’ perspectives on immigration as a social issue, in addition to perspectives associated with language issues (Sox, 2009). Focusing on language acquisition while minimizing teacher perceptions of immigration as a social issue is highly problematic considering the inadequate education policies and limited funding that prevent schools from restructuring the curriculum and implementing programs that address immigrant students’ circumstances (Fix & Passel, 2003; Terrazas & Fix, 2008). Aside from school curriculum and programs, teachers’ beliefs about newcomers are also an important consideration. A recent study found that teachers’ beliefs and attitudes about assimilation and acculturation were correlated to inclusive teaching practices (Hilburn, Rong, Parkhouse, & Turner, 2015). For instance, those teachers who, among other things, opposed rapid assimilation and believed schools and teachers should support heritage language maintenance, tended to employ more inclusive teaching practices such as including multicultural perspectives in their curriculum and viewing students’ life experiences as valuable classroom assets. It stands to reason that preservice teachers with more content knowledge about immigration, and increased exposure to immigration counter-stories, are more likely to understand the complexities of newcomer acculturation and adjust their instruction accordingly.

Furthermore, there is little consensus on newcomer education policy (Powers, 2014) to guide teacher educators, and policies are often made and implemented for political rather than pedagogical reasons (Baquedano-Lopez, 2004). One result is that stakeholders (e.g., newcomer youth and families, teachers, teacher educators) are caught in the middle of the ongoing debate about language, nationalism, and what it means to be an American (Wiley, 2014). Since U.S. schools have been “the most important social institution for absorbing newcomers” (Rong & Preissle, 2009, p. 5), the preparation of teachers is central to providing successful school experiences for immigrant students and their families.

With this context in mind, scholars have increasingly called for teacher education programs to more aggressively address the learning needs of immigrant students beyond the linguistic domain, including the following: utilizing culturally relevant teaching materials, adopting resource perspectives, advocating for newcomer youth, and being informed about immigration (Fránquiz & Salinas, 2013; Hilburn, 2014, 2015; Rong, 2012). Although researchers have asserted that teacher education programs can positively influence candidates’ attitudes and beliefs toward teaching culturally diverse students (Irvine, 2003; Ladson-Billings, 1995, 1999), little research has identified specific pedagogical practices to influence preservice teachers’ perspectives about immigration. In this study, we sought to examine how one practice, viewing and discussing a documentary film, can potentially influence preservice teachers’ perceptions of immigration as a social issue and possibly challenge their perceptions of immigrant youth. As such, we draw on Journell’s (2013) argument that more literature that outlines specific strategies for helping lessen preservice teachers’ knowledge and awareness gaps is needed, and one such strategy could be “exposure to politically themed media, such as documentaries” (p. 343).

Documentary Film in Teacher Education

The use of documentary film in education has garnered much scholarly attention. Seminal books (e.g., Marcus, 2007; Marcus, Metzger, Paxton, & Stoddard, 2010) and numerous journal articles (Buchanan, 2014; Hess, 2007; Marcus & Stoddard, 2009; Stoddard, 2013) have articulated both effective strategies and pedagogical limitations of infusing documentaries into classroom teaching, with some scholarship focused on documentaries in teacher education (Buchanan, 2015; H. J. Garrett, 2011; Journell & Buchanan, 2013; Stoddard, 2010). Collectively, this line of inquiry is aimed at understanding documentary films’ impact on student learning as well as the affordances and constraints of this approach. In particular, work by Marcus and Stoddard (2009), Stoddard (2007), and Marcus et al. (2010) informed our methodology in this study. Their work suggested that documentary film often elicits emotions and empathy from viewers, and that documentary features like primary sources (e.g. interview footage) frequently contribute to viewers’ engagement with film.

As teacher educators are tasked with sourcing and utilizing counter-stories with preservice teachers (Solórzano, 1997), some have used documentary film to fulfill that aim. Understanding that documentary films often present counter-story perspectives of events, themes, and issues (Buchanan, 2014; H. J. Garrett, 2011; Marcus & Stoddard, 2009), teacher educators may situate films that offer such perspectives in their courses in an attempt to counter dominant narratives and expand students’ content knowledge. In addition to eliciting emotional responses and facilitating content knowledge, documentaries have also been used to foster preservice teacher thinking related to social issues like racism, public education, and gun control (Bullock & Freedman, 2005; H. J. Garrett, 2011; Journell & Buchanan, 2013; Marcus & Stoddard, 2009; Parkhouse, 2015; Trier, 2013). Supporting this view, Bickmore (2008) argued, “Young citizens can learn to be relatively critical, self-reflexive participants in cultural rituals and popular media, consciously questioning and influencing—though inevitable also influenced by—the discourses surrounding them” (p. 157).

While documentary film research in teacher education that examines social issues continues to develop, we did not locate studies that have analyzed the use of documentary film to examine preservice teachers’ perceptions of immigration. In light of this gap in the literature, we expand documentary film research in teacher education to include the social issue of immigration. We also posit that the method described here can be an effective approach for challenging preservice teachers’ perceptions of immigration while increasing their content knowledge of one social issue.

Theoretical Framework

The significance of critical race theory for teacher education has continued to gain momentum (H. G. Garrett & Segall, 2013; Ladson-Billings, 2009), particularly in relation to unpacking salient social issues (e.g. immigration) with preservice teachers who often resist the process (H. G. Garrett & Segall, 2013; Kumar & Hamer, 2013; Montgomery, 2013). Critical race theory scholarship (e.g., Ladson-Billings, 2009; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Tyson, 2003) has documented how counter-storytelling is central to teaching social issues and resisting the widely perpetuated White, mainstreamed narratives of issues (e.g., popular news media reports of U.S. immigration). In this study, we utilize Solórzano and Yosso’s (2002) definition of counter-storytelling:

A method of telling stories of the people whose experiences are not often told (i.e., those on the margins of society). The counter-story is a tool for exposing, analyzing, and challenging the majoritarian stories of racial privilege. Counter-stories can shatter complacency, challenge the dominant discourse, and further the study for racial reform. (p. 32)

Given the deliberate positioning of filmic immigration counter-stories in this study, a theoretical framework grounded in critical race methodology and critical pedagogy can help explain preservice teachers’ perceptions of immigration and the implications for teacher education. For these reasons, we framed this study using selected seminal works in critical pedagogy and the more recent scholarship of critical race methodology.

As confronting dominant ideologies through storytelling is central to critical race theory (Ladson-Billings, 1998; Solórzano, 1997) and critical race methodology (Solórzano & Yosso, 2002; Yosso, 2002), these two frameworks are fitting for examining how the counter-stories in Which Way Home provoked preservice teacher thinking and influenced their consciousness regarding immigration. Furthermore, we acknowledged the perpetuation of stereotypes in media (Yosso, 2002), including the dominant narrative of immigration to the United States. With this context in mind, we attempted to counter such representations by highlighting the lesser-known perspectives or “experiential knowledge” (Solórzano, 1997, p. 7) of Chicana/o and Latina/o immigrant youth. Grounded in the commitment to counter-story methods, Solórzano and Yosso (2002) developed a critical race methodology approach to research methodology that examines issues related to race using counter-stories to debunk dominant or “Majoritarian” (p. 28) narratives and resist the influences of privilege on whose stories are told. In the same vein, Yosso (2002) used critical race theory themes (Solórzano, 1997) and Paulo Freire’s (1973/2008) critical consciousness model to critique mainstream media’s dominant narratives of culture and race-blaming and, in response, further developed the argument for counter-stories that illustrate the experiences and perspectives of marginalized groups (e.g., Chicana/o and Latina/o youth).

Drawn from the broader scholarship of critical pedagogy, aspects of Paulo Freire’s problem-posing education can be used to analyze preservice teacher thinking in regards to immigration. Freire (1973/2008) described a three-stage model of consciousness development (i.e., a continuum of magical, naïve, critical) useful for understanding preservice teachers’ perceptions of media and generating conscientizacao (i.e., the awakening of critical consciousness), a principal aim of critical pedagogy. Magical consciousness describes individuals who generally accept circumstances and societal inequities and fail to question or problematize oppression. Magical learners are generally silent on issues. Naïve consciousness describes individuals who are more aware than those in the magical stage, yet are mostly focused on one’s self without much awareness of the world around them. Naïve individuals passively regard inequities as episodic rather than recurring structural problems. Critical consciousness describes those who individually, and alongside others, question inequities and oppression as structural problems. Critically conscious individuals are vocal about issues, recognize that they need to know more, and therefore are committed to unpacking structural inequities and engaging in problem-posing (Freire, 1973/2008).

Freire’s critical pedagogy, with the three-stage model of consciousness development, served as one way to understanding the degree to which preservice teachers’ perceptions shifted, if at all, after viewing the film. In sum, we apply Solórzano and Yosso’s (2002) critical race methodology and Freire’s stages of consciousness model to examine preservice teachers’ engagement with the candid stories of Central American and Mexican youth who ride “the Beast.”

Methods

Grounded in the mixed methods design (Creswell, 2008; Plano Clark, Garrett, & Leslie-Pelecky, 2010), we designed a concurrent triangulation approach to answer the research question: In what ways can immigration counter-stories presented through documentary film influence preservice teachers’ perceptions of immigration? In alignment with this approach we implemented both qualitative and quantitative procedures concurrently, equally prioritized each data collection measure, and then integrated the two data types during analysis and interpretation. Characteristic of concurrent triangulation research, consistent findings emerged across the qualitative and quantitative data sets, strengthening our claims (Creswell, 2008; Plano Clark et al., 2010).

We acknowledge the impact of our researcher positionalities toward the social issue of immigration on the study design and implementation. To begin, we are both White, native-born, progressive teacher educators. We teach at a public university located in a new gateway state; meaning that our state has little historical experience with immigration, yet our state’s immigrant population has grown rapidly over the last few decades, growing even faster than the rate of the fastest growing traditional gateway state, Texas (Passel & Suro, 2005; Rong & Preissle, 2009). Immigrants, mostly from Latin American and Asian countries, have diversified the demographics of the state population, sparking debate about the most appropriate immigration policies. Public schools in our state have been caught in the middle of these debates, and also presented educators with both new challenges and new opportunities since the state has “limited experience and infrastructure” for settling newcomers (Fix & Passel, 2003, p. 8). Consequently, immigration has become a contentious issue in our region and, as a result, has led us to focus our teaching and research in this area. Our backgrounds include public school teaching (one elementary and one middle school teacher) and we are both considerably invested in examining social issues in the classroom, especially with preservice teachers. Specifically, we understand the implications of preparing preservice teachers to consider how immigration impacts their teaching and, in a broader sense, the call to prepare teachers who implement culturally relevant teaching practices. In short, while we could have selected any social issue for examination, our identities, public school experience, and community context led us to conclude that immigration is the most salient social issue for preservice teachers at our university at this time. While we are both strongly invested in teaching and research that unpacks immigration and related issues, we must acknowledge that as native-born Americans who also exemplify White privilege, we come from a position that embodies multiple advantages when examining immigration.

In relation to the impact of our political leanings on our pedagogical decision-making, we recognize the film selection in this study is inherently biased, value-laden, and emotionally charged as it problematizes the current state of immigration in the United States. As teachers and researchers, we are also committed to the foundational goals of critical race theory and strive to teach in such a way that these goals guide our instructional planning and the lines of our research. In particular, our commitment to teaching that presents counter-stories, nested in critical race methodology (CRM), was paramount as we designed and implemented this study. Like Yosso (2002), we challenge the widely accepted deficit representations of Chicana/os and Latina/os in mainstream media. And in terms of policy, we both take positions that challenge the existing policy context regarding immigration and oppose the harmful political rhetoric that is demeaning and dehumanizing toward newcomers, whether those newcomers have documentation or not.

Participants

All undergraduate and graduate preservice teachers enrolled in elementary and middle grades social studies methods courses at one mid-sized public university in the southeastern United States during the Fall 2013, Spring 2014, and Fall 2014 semesters were recruited to participate. On average, five courses were invited each semester. Courses had between 15 and 25 students enrolled for an average of 100 students eligible for participation each semester. An invitation was sent to all eligible preservice teachers through their respective social studies methods instructors. Participation in this study was voluntary, and each instructor offered extra credit for participation. We purposefully targeted elementary and middle grades preservice social studies teachers since these groups have less often been included in documentary film research than secondary preservice teachers. A total of 82 preservice teachers out of approximately 300 attended screenings and focus groups. All participants who attended completed institutional review board (IRB) consent forms to allow their responses to be included in the study. Everyone who attended a film screening participated in the focus group immediately following. Because students were given the option of attending, their attendance was completely self-selected. They were not required to attend the screening or focus groups as a part of their course. For a description of preservice teacher demographics, see Table 1.

Table 1.

Participants.

Undergraduate	52
Graduate	30
	Total: 82
Elementary grades	73
Middle grades	9
	Total: 82

At the time of their participation, all participants were enrolled in a social studies methods course. As our participants were drawn from across five different instructors in elementary and middle grades education, there were a wide range of approaches used to teach immigration across the courses involved in the study. In regards to the five instructors, two of the instructors served as researchers and the other three instructors offered this documentary screening as an extra course experience but did not take part in the research.

Instruments

We used pre- and post-surveys (n = 82) and focus groups (n = 13) as data sources. To construct the survey instrument, we conducted an initial review of the literature. Numerous researchers have illustrated best practices and empirical research methods for examining social issues using documentary film (e.g., Buchanan, 2014; Marcus & Stoddard, 2009). Like Yosso’s (2002) methodological approach, the pre- and post-surveys in this study used 12 identical items to measure any change resulting from the media engagement. Responses were anonymous as there were no identifiers to connect data and individuals in the surveys or focus groups. Participants were given a random code to complete the pre- and post-surveys.

Our survey had four sections: immigration in general, immigration as it relates to education and preservice teachers’ future teaching, immigration policy, and, for the post-survey only, perceptions of the documentary film (see Appendix A). The immigration policy items were designed based on a 2013 Pew Center Survey about immigration, and the items about the film were developed from prior research about using documentary film in teacher education (Journell & Buchanan, 2013). In September and October 2013, we field tested this survey with three faculty members and eight students. We also conducted a think aloud field test with two students, in which the students completed the survey and talked us through how they interpreted each question (Ericsson & Simon, 1993). We then revised the survey based on their feedback. To analyze the survey data, we compiled the data into tables and used descriptive statistics to draw conclusions about areas in which participants changed their views before and after viewing the documentary.

We also facilitated focus groups (n = 13) after each documentary screening with a total of 82 participants. The focus group discussions focused on filmic counter-stories which aligned with the central goal of critical race methodology, presenting stories that counter dominant narratives (Solórzano & Yosso, 2002). Methodologically, this aligns with our CRM approach in that we wanted to also draw on the experiential knowledge of the participants in the study in addition to the experiential knowledge of the characters in the film. The focus groups served more than just eliciting the preservice teachers’ responses to the documentary; they actually facilitated the preservice teachers’ responses to and understandings of the documentary and issues of immigration. Thus, our focus groups served methodologically as a data collection instrument and pedagogically as a tool to facilitate discourse and promote understanding. Like the survey responses, the focus group data did not include any identifiers.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data were iteratively collected over a three semester period by offering four to six documentary screenings each semester. The workflow for each participant at each screening was as follows: completed IRB permission forms and were provided with a random number, completed an online pre-survey using the random number, viewed the documentary film, completed an online post-survey using the random number, and participated in a focus group.

To qualitatively analyze the focus group data (see Appendix B), we employed Glaser and Strauss’ (1967) constant comparative analysis in four stages. In the first stage, we inductively coded the data without applying the theoretical framework. We coded two focus groups line-by-line simultaneously and developed an initial codebook of 17 codes. Then we each coded data from two focus groups independently; after which we met again to confirm inter-rater reliability, clarify any coding discrepancies, and finalize our codebook. In the second stage, we coded the remaining data and compared codes within and across focus groups. In the third stage, we organized the codes into more highly conceptual themes and applied the Freirean and CRM frameworks to the analysis. To facilitate the transition from codes to themes, we graphically organized the coded data and applied the theoretical frameworks. This approach allowed us to combine similar codes (e.g., combining data coded as “exercising empathy” and “affective responses”) and to move from more concrete codes (e.g., “identifying dominant narrative as problematic”) to more conceptual categories (e.g., “grappling with counter-stories”). Finally, we checked all existing data against the themes to locate counter-examples and used the themes to confirm and complicate the theoretical framework of CRM and Freire’s stages of consciousness.

There are limitations to this study. First, participants were self-selected. This may have skewed the data in favor of those participants with a particular interest in immigration. Had all participants enrolled in social studies methods classes been required to attend a screening, it may have painted a more complete picture of the influence of the screening. Second, study data were ascertained by participants’ self-reports, which can provide different data from researchers’ observations or other measuring instruments. Third, we did not follow participants over time, thus we cannot make arguments about the persistence of these findings. This is a limitation with other documentary film research (e.g., H. J. Garrett, 2011; Journell & Buchanan, 2013; Stoddard, 2009). We somewhat mitigated this limitation by collecting data iteratively over three semesters. However, we are unable to make claims about the long-term influence of these screenings on teachers’ beliefs about immigration as a social issue, or how it relates to teaching practices. Future studies that followed participants over time would add much-needed longevity perspective about the persistence of using documentary film in teacher education. Finally, because the participants were drawn from five different methods courses, they received varying instruction and emphasis on the social issue of immigration as well as the skill of critical media analysis. It is possible that these different types of participation in social studies methods before viewing the documentary might have shaped the preservice teachers’ participation in the focus groups and their viewing of the documentary in ways that we were unable to account for in data analysis. Future work on this topic could track participants’ perspectives through a single methods course by examining how course readings, class discussions, field experiences, and documentary film screenings each contribute to influencing preservice teachers’ perspectives on immigration.

Findings

Grappling With Immigration Counter-Stories

Before we illustrate our participants’ responses to the filmic counter-stories, we first describe what participants identified as the dominant narratives of U.S. immigration and the contributing sources to these narratives. Participants described the dominant narratives of U.S. immigration as follows: immigrants are primarily adult men from Mexico; immigrants’ primary motivation for entering the United States is to seek work to escape poverty; immigrants are hard workers who send remittances to families in their home countries; many immigrants are illegal border-crossers who should be deported; immigrants should come to the United States by pursuing a legal path to citizenship that is easily accomplished; and immigration often creates negative repercussions for the U.S. economy and border security. Participants revealed that mainstream media, including reality television and political pundits, family, and friends contributed to their knowledge of dominant narratives of immigration.

In this study, the film Which Way Home challenged some of the characteristics of the dominant narratives by presenting counter-stories of undocumented immigrants, such as illustrating the viewpoints of youth, not adults; showing footage of immigrants being motivated to enter the United States for family reunification or educational opportunities, not work; demonstrating the high degree of complexity involved in the legal process of U.S. immigration; and challenging idealized notions of the United States as a destination for immigrants. The following excerpts offer samples of participant perceptions of the dominant narratives:

Participant A:

I think for me, most of what I hear from either my parents or friends or just on the news or in the articles, they were always like “Everyone who wasn’t born in America should be deported or put back where they came from.”

Participant B:

You just constantly hear how such a bad thing it is; you never see anything positive about it. But seeing it from the eyes of a child it seems a whole lot different.

And how two preservice teachers countered the xenophobic thinking embedded therein:

Participant C:

The only reason why we’re citizens is because we’re born on this soil. Because I mean we’re born on this soil makes us a citizen, but if they can come here and want to live here and want to contribute to the good of the country, why aren’t they allowed to?

Participant D:

Not all Latino families that immigrated to the United States are from Mexico. I think that’s a common misconception that if they speak Spanish they’re from Mexico. This documentary is a good example that immigration that extends south of Texas is not just from Mexico.

While work to disrupt the dominant narratives occurred in each focus group, the discussions were clearly difficult and discomforting to the participants. This intellectual grappling (Sizer & Sizer, 1999) was evidenced in their frequent emotional responses (e.g., sadness, guilt, shock, crying), their efforts at exercising perspective recognition (Barton & Levstik, 2004) toward the children and adolescents in the film and immigrants in the United States, and their attempts (or resistance) at unpacking their own privilege (Galman, Pica-Smith, & Rosenberger, 2010). In every focus group, the preservice teachers recognized the absence of multiple perspectives of immigration in the media through collective reflection (Agarwal, Epstein, Oppenheim, Oyler, & Sonu, 2010). As one student explained, “There is always more than one side to a story and I don’t feel like it is ever the multiple sides of the story on immigration.” Their troubling of the dominant narratives across the focus groups suggests that the film disrupted the preservice teachers’ initial perceptions of immigration. Across the focus groups, participants dedicated the majority of their exchanges to discussing the stories of the youth. Representative responses included “I was surprised to see how they had this idea of this dream they just wanted to achieve in America, but it wasn’t all that they had anticipated” and “This has given me a perspective from a child.” Sometimes this grappling occurred with specific scene analysis and other times when analyzing specific individuals portrayed in the film. As one student explained, “It’s very different once you get a face to put, because you can, like, throw statistics at people all day, but then when you have a face to go with a statistic, it makes it more personal.” Another explained,

But, I think it was nice to see a first-hand perspective from the immigrant’s standpoint because, I know what I always hear in the news it’s [immigration] a negative thing, “all these immigrants are coming.” They’re just coming to America to do all this so they [news] paint them in a very negative light.

Prefaced with self-reported emotional connections (e.g., sadness, guilt), the participants deliberated the hardships the youth experienced en route to the United States, such as detainment, violence, and unfulfilled expectations of the United States. At the same time, however, their emotions or blaming did not necessarily translate to a shift in perceptions of immigration for everyone.

Despite exercising perspective recognition toward immigrant youth, which appeared to expand their thinking in regards to the larger issue of immigration, findings revealed that many participants continued to express deficit, stereotypical thinking about the families and heritage nations of the immigrant youth portrayed in the film. Participants mostly blamed the youths’ hardships on irresponsible family choices or naïveté of the youth rather than on deep-rooted, systemic issues. In particular, participants expressed anti-immigrant perceptions regarding the method and motivations for coming to the United States via the train. Preservice teachers frequently resisted specific counter-story content (e.g., children seeking adoption, families separated geographically) by expressing either blatant stereotypical notions or more subtle microaggressions (Kohli & Solórzano, 2012) toward individuals, families, or other countries represented in the film. At times their microaggressions were couched in the form of “othering” (Kohli & Solórzano, 2012) the immigrant youth and their families. Typical responses included the following: “Yeah, if I left home, my parents would like [pause] I couldn’t just leave home. My dad would send out the world looking for me”; “It’s sad. It’s kind of depressing that they’re not loved more than that . . . provided for better”; and “They have no concept of what family is, minus mom or grandmother . . . .” The following focus group exchange also exemplifies this type of stereotypical thinking:

Participant E:

It’s not like all the immigrants are the nicest. They feel like you owe them something.

Participant F:

I think there’s always good and bad.

Participant E:

Right, some people are good, and some people are trying to abuse it.

Participant F:

You have those children who are truly trying to come and better themselves and then others who are coming just to take advantage of it.

And this second exchange that represents perhaps the most troubling example of stereotypical thinking:

Participant G:

I just don’t see how the parents . . . [pause]. . . I don’t have kids but I don’t see how the parents would just be like, “Ok, go. Try to go. Hey, you might be killed, but try to go.”

Participant H:

It’s gotta be so bad, you know what I mean? I have a 12-year-old son, and I can’t imagine how bad it would have to be to be like, “Alright, see you later!”

Participant G:

They’re only making . . . they’re not even making $5 a day to support a family, a family of at least 4 if not 5.

(Agreement from others.)

Participant I:

That’s the thing I mentioned to [Participant G] during the movie— ‘Well why do they keep having kids?’

Participant H:

There’s no birth control . . .

Participant I:

See if I didn’t have money I would think [pause] I don’t know, that’s just the way we think. “Hey, we don’t have money; we’re not having a kid.”

Participant G:

But here we have that opportunity not to have kids. Here you have condoms, you have birth control, you have the morning-after pill. (Agreement from others.) And you’re not getting raped left and right going down the road.

There are clearly troubling statements in this exchange that express outright deficit perspectives. Yet a deeper examination reveals that even in this troubling conversation, focus group members attempted to interrogate their own deficit views. Speaker G, for instance, begins with anger about familial separation but when presented different views by Speaker H, begins to question what factors could contribute to familial separation. She then begins to answer her own question by identifying the hardships associated with poverty that could lead to drastic decisions. While Speaker G has certainly not reached the critical dimension of Freire’s (1973/2008) stages, these first small attempts at interrogating her own deficit views are a step toward criticality and exemplify what we mean by grappling with counter-stories.

In summary, the focus groups illustrated how many preservice teachers struggled with the immigration counter-stories. While many of the participants worked to reconcile these positions from a position of empathy and understanding, many participants often presented reactions of blatant stereotypical thinking or more covert microaggressions. Such grappling appeared to cause two distinct shifts in thinking.

Shifting Perceptions of Immigration as a Social Issue

Two of the primary aims of this study were to increase participants’ content knowledge of immigration and to counter immigration stereotypes. Participants evidenced shifting perceptions of the social issue of immigration in three areas: moving from a neutral position toward a disapproving position about U.S. immigration policy, challenging their own personal or community perceptions of immigration, and reporting being more informed about immigration and/or a new or renewed intellectual interest in learning more about this social issue.

In the first shift, participants moved from a neutral position toward a disapproving position about U.S. immigration policy (see Tables 2-3). While it was not necessarily our intention to change participants’ perceptions of public policy, this was a finding supported by both focus group and survey data. Prior to the screening, almost half of the participants (38 out of 82) took a “neutral” position to the survey item, “Immigration policy in the U.S. works pretty well and requires only minor changes.” After the viewing only 23 participants selected neutral while 54 of the 82 participants disagreed or strongly disagreed with U.S. immigration policy. Analysis of the focus group data also highlighted this shift in thinking toward policy. This participant’s statement about taxation reflects challenges to U.S. immigration policy and the mainstream view that undocumented immigrants do not pay taxes: “I mean if you’re so concerned about taxes, why don’t you make it an easier, faster process for them to become citizens so they can pay taxes?”

Table 2.

Pre-survey Data: Opinion on Immigration Policy.

Item	Response categories
Item	Strongly disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly agree
Immigration policy in the United States works pretty well and requires only minor changes	16.05% (13)	33.33% (27)	46.91% (38)	3.7% (3)	0% (0)
Undocumented immigrants in the United States should not be allowed to stay in the country	9.88% (8)	19.75% (16)	40.74% (33)	22.22% (18)	7.41% (6)
Undocumented immigrants in the United States should be given a path to citizenship, if they meet certain requirements	2.47% (2)	6.17% (5)	9.88% (8)	58.08% (47)	23.46% (19)
Legal immigration to the United States should be kept as its present level (not increased or decreased)	6.17% (5)	24.69% (20)	61.73% (50)	7.41%(6)	0% (0)
Undocumented immigrants under 30, who were brought to the United States as children, should be provided a path to citizenship	1.23% (1)	2.47% (2)	18.52% (15)	38.27% (31)	39.51% (32)

Table 3.

Post-Survey Data: Opinion on Immigration Policy.

Item	Response categories
Item	Strongly disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly agree
Immigration policy in the United States works pretty well and requires only minor changes	28.05% (23)	37.8% (31)	28.05% (23)	4.88% (4)	1.22% (1)
Undocumented immigrants in the United States should not be allowed to stay in the country	8.54% (7)	29.27% (24)	36.59% (30)	24.39% (20)	1.22% (1)
Undocumented immigrants in the United States should be given a path to citizenship, if they meet certain requirements	1.22% (1)	1.22% (1)	12.2% (10)	57.32% (47)	28.05% (23)
Legal immigration to the United States should be kept as its present level (not increased or decreased)	10.98% (9)	29.27% (24)	54.88% (45)	2.44% (2)	2.44% (2)
Undocumented immigrants under 30, who were brought to the United States as children, should be provided a path to citizenship	0% (0)	7.32% (6)	12.2% (10)	45.12% (37)	35.37% (29)

In the second shift, many participants expressed changes in their personal views of immigration and immigrants as a result of viewing the documentary (see Tables 4-5). Most often, this shift was expressed by participants cautiously admitting xenophobic views toward immigrants prior to viewing the film, and remorse about their previous positions. The following two quotes are representative:

I wish more people could have that perspective [toward immigrants]. It kind of makes me feel bad about some of the preconceived notions I’ve had about some people. I’m not going to lie that I haven’t thought something poorly about somebody.

Like [the other focus group member], I changed some of my answers on that [post-survey] too, cause I kind of had maybe formed an attitude or certain sort of, like, perception toward it before and then afterwards it was kind of like there is a bigger picture and a behind-the-scenes to it that I hadn’t seen before.

Table 4.

Pre-Survey Data: Opinion on Immigration in General.

Item	Response categories
Item	Strongly disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly agree
Immigration is a complex issue with many perspectives	1.22% (1)	3.66%(3)	1.22%(1)	35.37%(29)	58.54% (48)
I am informed about current immigration trends in the United States	1.22% (1)	24.39% (20)	43.9% (36)	26.83% (22)	3.66% (3)
I have extensive personal or professional experience with immigrants	4.88% (4)	43.9% (36)	30.49% (25)	17.07% (14)	3.66% (3)

Table 5.

Post-Survey Data: Opinion on Immigration in General.

Item	Response categories
Item	Strongly disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly agree
Immigration is a complex issue with many perspectives	0% (0)	1.22% (1)	1.22% (1)	20.73% (17)	76.83% (63)
I am informed about current immigration trends in the United States	2.44% (2)	15.85% (13)	31.71% (26)	37.8% (31)	12.2% (10)

Evidence also suggested that the documentary spurred participants to rethink and even challenge xenophobic perceptions as they are expressed in participants’ local communities. For instance, this participant was working to overcome her own deficit views of immigrants that she acquired in her small town community:

I grew up in southeastern NC and I’ve always had a very different perspective of it [immigration] because I’m from a really small town and I’ve always looked at it from a very American point of view. Like, sometimes it’s not looked at in the best light. But I’ve always gotten different views, I’m not saying that’s what I believe, but that’s what I’ve heard in my town. [pause] But this [documentary] has given me a perspective from a child, and since I care for children so much [pause] It was different for me at least.

In their third shift in their perceptions of immigration, participants overall felt more informed about the topic of immigration and many participants expressed an intellectual interest to learn more about this social issue. Survey data suggested that participants expressed a higher self-reported knowledge level about immigration after viewing the documentary. In response to the survey item, “I am informed about current immigration trends in the U.S.,” in the pre-survey, 25 agreed or strongly agreed. After viewing the documentary, half of the participants (n = 41) agreed or strongly agreed. Survey data about Which Way Home supports these claims. Seventy-seven of 82 participants agreed or strongly agreed with the survey item, “This film increased my content knowledge of immigration.” In addition to perceived higher knowledge levels about immigration, many participants expressed new or renewed interest in this topic. The following two quotes are representative:

I think it [the documentary] helped me, and also spurred, I guess more, I want to learn more about it [immigration]. Because usually with politics I just shut it off because it’s usually negative anyway, or I don’t understand it, or they talk in circles. But seeing something like this I want to learn more about it. I want to know about the perspectives of both sides without people arguing about it.

I think just getting to know what preconceived notions I already have and how to deal with them and how I can help my kids to better understand, [pause] because I don’t understand immigration or what they would have to go through. [pause] I can’t help them if I don’t understand even a little bit of where they’re coming from. So, watching this and wanting to research more about it or learn more about, or maybe even talk to people who have immigrated before. I think is something that I could definitely utilize.

These three shifts in thinking illustrated that viewing the documentary Which Way Home was, by and large, an effective tool for enhancing participants’ content knowledge of immigration as a social issue and challenging preservice teachers’ thinking about immigration. Despite this, many participants still expressed deficit, stereotypical thinking or microaggressions in the focus group meetings after the viewing. Thus, coupling social issue documentaries with more texts, and supporting these texts with intensive discussion facilitated by a methods instructor, has the potential to increase preservice teachers’ content knowledge and intellectual interest in social issues as well as challenging stereotypes.

Shifting Intentions for Future Teaching

In the third finding, our analysis of the data suggested that many participants reaffirmed, or reconsidered, culturally relevant teaching dispositions and attitudes. In particular, participants identified the following dimensions during the surveys and focus groups: participants more strongly agreed with the notion of incorporating students’ voices and lived experiences in their instruction, with becoming more informed about social issues like immigration, with teaching the topic of immigration, with exhibiting perspective recognition (as evidenced by care and empathy toward immigrant students), and committing to “learn more about their students’ backgrounds, cultures, and experiences” (Ladson-Billings, 2006, p. 36).

In relation to culturally relevant pedagogy, this participants’ statement was echoed throughout the focus groups, “You need to understand their [students’] backgrounds and where they came from.” Others connected their future intentions for teaching to their own lack of knowledge about immigration:

It [the documentary] definitely makes you aware of the fact that you don’t know what all students come into your classroom with [and] you can make assumptions that aren’t the best. But you have no idea where they’re coming from and what they’ve been through. There are nine year-olds that have faced way harder tasks than I have in my 21 years. So it’s just something you have to consider that you don’t know what’s going on in their family life or what all emotionally they’re going through outside of the work they have to do just for your class.

Pre- and post-survey data also suggested shifts in participants’ intentions for future teaching in terms of seeking out counter-stories to improve instruction (see Tables 6-7). Participants expressed greater interest in seeking out immigration counter-stories to inform their teaching following the film. In the pre-survey, 30 participants agreed, 46 participants strongly agreed, and five stayed neutral for the survey item, “As a future teacher, I will seek out lesser-known stories related to immigration to better inform myself and improve my teaching.” In contrast, on the post-survey, there were no neutral responses, 22 agree responses, and 60 out of 82 participants strongly agreed. An implicit message embedded in this survey prompt is the notion that being more culturally aware of students, via counter-stories, leads to more effective teaching. As such, this supports one of our aims in this study—combatting stereotypes and improving cultural awareness through counter-stories.

Table 6.

Pre-Survey Data: Intentions for Future Teaching.

Item	Response categories
Item	Strongly disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly agree
As a future teacher, I will seek to understand my students’ immigration journey	0% (0)	0% (0)	1.23% (1)	27.16% (22)	71.6% (58)
As a future teacher, I will consider the perspectives of students, families, and community members relevant to immigration	0% (0)	0% (0)	1.23% (1)	16.05% (13)	82.72% (67)
As a future teacher, I will seek out lesser-known stories related to immigration to better inform myself and improve my teaching	0% (0)	0% (0)	6.17% (5)	37.04% (30)	56.79% (46)
Preservice teachers should consider multiple perspectives related to immigration in their teacher education program	0% (0)	0% (0)	3.7% (3)	28.4% (23)	67.9% (55)
Utilizing documentary film is an effective way to learn about immigration in teacher programs	0% (0)	0% (0)	7.41% (6)	35.8% (29)	56.79% (46)

Table 7.

Post-Survey Data: Intentions for Future Teaching.

Item	Response categories
Item	Strongly disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly agree
As a future teacher, I will seek to understand my students’ immigration journey	0% (0)	0% (0)	0% (0)	20.73% (17)	79.27% (65)
As a future teacher, I will consider the perspectives of students, families, and community members relevant to immigration	0% (0)	0% (0)	0% (0)	17.07% (14)	82.93% (68)
As a future teacher, I will seek out lesser-known stories related to immigration to better inform myself and improve my teaching	0% (0)	0% (0)	0% (0)	26.83% (22)	73.17% (60)
Preservice teachers should consider multiple perspectives related to immigration in their teacher education program	0% (0)	0% (0)	1.22% (1)	21.95% (18)	76.83% (63)
Utilizing documentary film is an effective way to learn about immigration in teacher programs	0% (0)	0% (0)	6.1% (5)	18.29% (15)	75.61% (62)

Participants’ initial survey responses on many of the other survey items demonstrated a generally pro-immigration stance toward teaching immigrant students and utilizing immigrant counter-stories. However, these pro-immigration survey responses stand in stark contrast to many of the conversations we observed in the focus groups. As such, we cast a cautious eye toward the survey responses, given the recorded microaggressions and stereotypes voiced in the focus groups. We also recognize the mismatch that occurred between their survey response notions about future teaching as compared with their grappling with counter-stories and perceptions of immigration as a social issue.

Discussion

We selected a film that illustrated a social issue that we believed to be essential for preservice teachers to examine (Hess, 2007, 2009). The evidence included in the documentary helped to expand preservice teachers’ knowledge of U.S. immigration as a social issue while also providing a medium for discussing the significance of immigration and the experiences of immigrant students for their teaching. Creating such spaces for dialogue confirms earlier scholarship by teacher educators who recognize the value of dialogue about issues among preservice teachers (Agarwal et al., 2010; Kumar & Hamer, 2013). Recognizing Yosso’s (2002) critique of deficit representations of Chicana/os and Latina/os in media, we also acknowledge that the popular media portrayal of immigration to the United States is stereotyped and laden with xenophobic and inaccurate portrayals of immigrants who migrate from countries south of the United States. Thus this documentary screening served the dual-purposes of promoting content knowledge of an important social issue, immigration, and challenging negative stereotypes through immigration counter-stories.

Using Which Way Home to illustrate immigration counter-stories accomplished these two pedagogical goals, though not to the degree that we hoped. First, this study increased preservice teachers’ self-reported knowledge of a contemporary social issue, which has been called for in the literature (e.g., Journell, 2013). Second, the film also pushed preservice teachers to reconsider, or to reaffirm, commitments to culturally relevant teaching dispositions and practices. Building preservice teachers’ content knowledge of social issues and reinforcing culturally relevant pedagogical approaches simultaneously must be considered a victory in teacher education programs which are expected to accomplish so much in such a short period of time (e.g., Labaree, 2004). This study then supports the literature of using documentaries as valuable tools for teacher educators (H. J. Garrett, 2011; Journell & Buchanan, 2013; Stoddard, 2010). It is not clear whether the preservice teachers’ viewing or subsequent discussions had a greater influence on participants’ perceptions about immigration. Yet, we believe that like other documentary film research (e.g., Buchanan, 2015; Stoddard, 2010), our decision to allow film discussion created a space for the preservice teachers to think aloud about the counter-stories while also deliberating the larger, more complex aspects of immigration threaded into the film. Additionally, it is likely that the use of a pre- and post-survey prompted deeper thinking and that the post-survey helped the preservice teachers to gather their thoughts before dialoguing within their focus group. We propose that these methodological and pedagogical tools worked in tandem to elicit preservice teacher thinking and engagement with this social issue.

That said, participants’ self-reported shift in being informed about immigration calls for more examination. The increase from pre- and post-survey responses in regards to being informed of immigration seemed to suggest that preservice teachers considered the documentary to be a wholly reliable source for gaining knowledge about immigration. Another implicit message in this finding was that viewing a single documentary made participants knowledgeable about immigration. Yet, as the scholarship of documentary film has suggested (Hess, 2007; Marcus & Stoddard, 2009), viewers should recognize the limitations of documentary film (e.g., value-laden) when considering the many stories which exist in regards to immigration. Did viewing the documentary substantively increase participants’ content knowledge about immigration, or were participants merely being passive viewers who unquestioningly accepted what was presented by the filmmakers?

In the focus groups that followed the film viewing, the preservice teachers discussed the film content with varying degrees of criticality. On the one hand, they compared content in the film with what they identified as the primary sources of their political information regarding immigration—mainstream news outlets, television, and friends and family—while articulating the dominant narratives of contemporary U.S. immigration. This proved to be a pivotal point in many conversations as participants often contrasted popular media stereotypes with immigrants’ stories in the film. These conversations illustrated that participants were aware of the dominant narrative and were willing to critique this narrative when confronted with counter-stories. On the other hand, confronting dominant narratives only went so far for many participants. For instance, while almost all participants empathized with the key figures in the documentary, only a few participants were able to move beyond deficit, stereotypical thinking on some topics such as familial separation. And while many participants maintained their deficit views to at least some degree, nearly all participants seemed amenable to the notion that they do not know the whole story about immigration, that dominant narratives provide incomplete representations, and that the experience of viewing the film prompted them to learn more. In short, we were optimistic that preservice teachers were inclined to critique the mainstreamed stories regarding contemporary immigration after viewing this film, but were challenged to continue to push preservice teachers’ criticality in new directions beyond what we were able to accomplish through the documentary screening.

Implications

This study has implications for teacher educators and for the scholarship of critical race methodology and documentary film.

Implications for Teacher Educators

Research that is grounded in the tenets of critical race theory and critical race methodology can continue to guide teacher educators to refocus how we teach immigration in teacher education; in particular, how immigration as a social issue can be broached within the overall structure of teacher education programs. Evidence here suggested that critical media analysis embedded within teacher education experiences can support content knowledge and reaffirm the critical work most often introduced in social foundations courses. The next steps in promoting awareness of social issues like immigration are to identify and initiate programmatic alignment between foundations coursework, methods coursework, field experiences, and ancillary experiences such as documentary screenings. To illustrate, educational foundations coursework could focus on immigration through multiple lenses, such as culturally relevant pedagogy, the role of immigration in the history of education, and differentiation. Methods instructors could continue this work by focusing on how to teach immigration and the experiences of immigrants—in history, civics, current events, and literature, to name just a few. When negotiating field placements, programs could seek out university–school partnerships that provide preservice teachers with opportunities to work in schools and neighborhoods with immigrant families. Ancillary experiences such as documentary screenings, guest speakers, and lecture series could support this learning programmatically.

This critical analysis of social issues beyond teacher education foundations courses speaks to the idea that teacher education programs should strive to cultivate a sociocultural consciousness among preservice teachers. Done well, this cultivation begins with course experiences that facilitate their thinking about the students they will teach as individuals, and ultimately, reroute deficit, stereotypical thinking (Garcia, Arias, Murri, & Serna, 2010; H. G. Garrett & Segall, 2013; Kumar & Hamer, 2013). We concur with scholars who have suggested that teacher education programs should offer strategies like those outlined here to help preservice teachers unpack their assumptions about students and their families while learning more about the lives of their future students (e.g., Garcia et al., 2010).

Given that “social reality is constructed by the formulation and the exchange of stories about individual situations” (Ladson-Billings, 1998, p. 15), implementing programmatic experiences like the ones described in this study are important for three reasons. First, counter-stories are essential for troubling preservice teachers’ perceptions of whose stories count and why, regardless of the topic presented (Brown & Brown, 2010; Tyson, 2003). Second, these programmatic experiences can provide counter-stories of immigration that challenge and complicate the social reality of U.S. immigration. This approach may disrupt the widely accepted notions of who migrates to the United States and for what reasons. Third, the counter-stories in this film presented the experiences of adolescents and young children that may mirror preservice teachers’ own students’ experiences. We believe that this type of critical thinking in teacher education can lead preservice teachers to explore why both stereotypes and counter-stories of immigration are essential to understand, even if immigrant youth are not enrolled in the participants’ future classrooms. Documentaries that depict the experiences of young people may challenge preservice teachers’ thinking about their future students (Garcia et al., 2010). Thus, creating ancillary experiences like documentary screenings that depict youth, focus on social issues, and reinforce culturally relevant dispositions may also elicit more critical thinking among preservice teachers in relation to the formal school curriculum. If teacher educators utilize materials that present social issues as topics to discuss and deliberate (Agarwal et al., 2010), preservice teachers may be challenged to identify their perceptions of social issues, positioned to trouble stereotypes, and prompted to reconsider the implications for their future teaching.

Implications for Scholarship

Using Freire’s (1973/2008) continuum of critical consciousness and principal aim of conscientizacao, we can better understand the change and resistance identified in the preservice teachers’ survey responses and focus group discussions. Moreover, his model helped us conceptualize the ways in which preservice teachers fell along the continuum from magical to naïve and to critical, a long process in how thinking changes over time (if at all). While we valued and strived for developing conscientizacao among our preservice teachers, we recognize the limitations of our methods, particularly the brevity of our contact, for challenging consciousness from one stage to the other. In relation to this model, we recognized some small shifts in preservice teacher thinking as evidenced in the surveys and discussions, yet we were unable to plot significant progress (e.g., within a stage or from one to another) in such a brief period of study. Likewise, while significant progress in regards to their stages of critical consciousness (Freire, 1973/2008) did not occur, we believe this model can provide a reference for teacher educators to understand preservice teacher thinking in regards to social issues, particularly when a social issue is analyzed over the course of a semester, or even programmatically. Nevertheless, our goal in teacher education is not to measure significant development from stage-to-stage; but instead to design and implement experiences rooted in the goals of critical race methodology and critical pedagogy that might problematize the dominant narrative or “awaken their consciousness” (Freire, 1973/2008, p. 38) about immigration and, through their uncomfortableness, complicate or reroute their thinking about immigration and their teaching.

Theoretically, this study affirms critical race methodology (Solórzano & Yosso, 2002) and culturally relevant pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1995) for discerning preservice teachers’ perceptions of social issues related to teaching. While Freire’s three-stage model of consciousness was a helpful analytical tool and theoretical conceptualization, it did not encompass the complexity or wide range of preservice teachers’ responses to the film. As “the ideology of racism creates, maintains, and justifies the continual production of entertainment media images” (Yosso, 2002, p. 53), we are challenged in teacher education to identify and utilize media that amplifies the stories of immigration, particularly in contrast to popular media representations of Mexican and Central American immigrants to the United States, and disrupts mainstreamed notions of immigrant status, who immigrates to the United States, how, and why.

Conclusion

In this study we illustrated the efficacy and limitations of using documentary counter-stories to accomplish two important aims simultaneously: promoting content knowledge of an important social issue and challenging negative stereotypes through counter-stories. We assert that teacher educators should thoughtfully utilize counter-story texts like documentaries to challenge preservice teachers’ perceptions of social issues like immigration, increase their content knowledge, and reaffirm culturally relevant pedagogical perspectives. Future research directions include exploring different social issues via documentary film (e.g., race, class), presenting immigration counter-stories in texts other than film, and conducting a similar study in different contexts or with different documentaries.

In conclusion, teacher education experiences like those illustrated here represent what Freire (1973/2008) describes as transformative work. Through such work, we hope not only to problematize the U.S. immigration narrative, but to elicit critical thinking among our preservice teachers. This thinking is born from entering a dialogue which exposes the limitations of the dominant narrative, amplifies counter-stories, and encourages preservice teachers to reroute their thinking about social issues, that their teaching might be transformed.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Appendix B

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Lisa Brown Buchanan is an assistant professor in the Watson College of Education at the University of North Carolina Wilmington where she teaches a variety of undergraduate and graduate courses in elementary teacher education. Her teaching and research interests include elementary social studies, literacy, and unpacking controversial topics with preservice teachers.

Jeremy Hilburn is an assistant professor in the Watson College of Education at the University of North Carolina Wilmington. His research interests are broadly related to immigration and social studies education. His primary line of inquiry is social studies curriculum and pedagogy specific to immigration and immigrant students in new gateway states. In particular, examining how immigration is conceptualized by teachers, represented in curriculum and media, and how these relate to teacher practices.

References

Agarwal

Epstein

Oppenheim

Oyler

Sonu

(2010). From ideal to practice and back again: Beginning teachers teaching for social justice. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 237-247.

Baquedano-Lopez

(2004). Traversing the center: The politics of language use in a Catholic religious education program for immigrant Mexican children. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 35(2), 212-232.

Barton

K. C.

Levstik

L. S.

(2004). Teaching history for the common good. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bickmore

(2008). Social justice and the social studies. In Levstik

L. S.

Tyson

C. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of research in social studies education (pp. 155-171). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

Brown

K. D.

Brown

A. L.

(2010). Silenced memories: An examination of the sociocultural knowledge on race and racial violence in official school curriculum. Equity & Excellence in Education, 43, 139-154.

Buchanan

L. B.

(2014). From Freedom Riders to the Children’s March: Civil rights documentaries as catalysts for historical empathy. Social Education, 78(2), 91-95.

Buchanan

L. B.

(2015). Elementary preservice teachers’ navigation of racism and whiteness through inquiry with historical documentary film. Journal of Social Studies Research, 40(2), 137-154.

Bullock

P. L.

Freedman

D. M.

(2005). (Re)visions to a secondary teacher education course: Trials and triumphs in attempting to disrupt hegemonic understandings and performances of education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 135-149.

Cammisa

(2009). Which way home [Motion picture]. USA: HBO Films.

10.

Creswell

J. W.

(2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

11.

Ericsson

K. A.

Simon

H. A.

(1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (Rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

12.

Fix

Passel

J. S.

(2003, January). U.S. immigration: Trends and implications for schools. Presentation at the National Association for Bilingual Education NCLB Implementation Institute, New Orleans, LA.

13.

Fránquiz

M. E.

Salinas

(2013). Knowing English is not enough! Cultivating academic literacies among high school newcomers. The High School Journal, 96(4), 339-357.

14.

Freire

(2008). Education for critical consciousness. London, England: Continuum. (Original work published 1973).

15.

Galman

S. A.

Pica-Smith

Rosenberger

(2010). Aggressive and tender navigations: Teacher educators confront whiteness in their practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 225-236.

16.

Garcia

Arias

M. B.

Murri

N. J.

Serna

(2010). Developing responsive teachers: A challenge for demographic reality. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 132-142.

17.

Garrett

H. G.

Segall

(2013). (Re)considerations of ignorance and resistance in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 64, 294-304.

18.

Garrett

H. J.

(2011). The routing and re-routing of difficult knowledge: Social studies teachers encounter When the Levees Broke. Theory & Research in Social Education, 39(3), 320-347.

19.

Glaser

B. G.

Strauss

A. L.

(1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

20.

Goodwin

A. L.

(2002). Teacher preparation and the education of immigrant children. Education and Urban Society, 34(2), 156-172. doi:10.1177/0013124502034002003

21.

Hess

D. E.

(2007). From Banished to Brother Outsider, Miss Navajo to an Inconvenient Truth: Documentary films as perspective-laden narratives. Social Education, 71, 194-199.

22.

Hess

D. E.

(2009). Controversy in the classroom: The democratic power of discussion. New York, NY: Routledge.

23.

Hilburn

(2014). Challenges facing immigrant students beyond the linguistic domain in a new gateway state. The Urban Review, 46(5), 1-27. doi:10.1007/s11256-014-0273-x

24.

Hilburn

(2015). Asset-based Civics for, with, and by immigrant students: Three sites of enriched teaching and learning for immigrant and native-born students. Theory & Research in Social Education, 43, 372-404. doi:10.1080/00933104.2015.1064843

25.

Hilburn

Rong

X. L.

Parkhouse

Turner

(2015). Teaching immigrants inclusively: Social studies in a new gateway state. Social Studies Research and Practice, 10(1), 41-64. Available from http://www.socstrpr.org

26.

Irvine

J. J.

(2003). Educating teachers for a diverse society: Seeing with the cultural eye. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

27.

Journell

(2013). What preservice social studies teachers (don’t) know about politics and current events—and why it matters. Theory & Research in Social Education, 41(3), 316-351.

28.

Journell

Buchanan

L. B.

(2013). Confronting educational politics with preservice teachers: Reactions to Waiting for Superman. Action in Teacher Education, 35, 252-271.

29.

Kohli

Solórzano

D. G.

(2012). Teachers, please learn our names!: Racial microaggressions and the K-12 classroom. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 15, 441-462.

30.

Kumar

Hamer

(2013). Preservice teachers’ attitudes and beliefs toward student diversity and proposed instructional practices. Journal of Teacher Education, 64, 162-177.

31.

Labaree

(2004). The trouble with Ed schools. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

32.

Ladson-Billings

G. J.

(1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory Into Practice, 34(3), 159-165.

33.

Ladson-Billings

G. J.

(1998). Just what is critical race theory and what’s it doing in a nice field like education? Qualitative Studies in Education, 11, 7-24.

34.

Ladson-Billings

G. J.

(1999). Preparing teachers for diverse student populations: A critical race theory perspective. Review of Research in Education, 24, 211-247.

35.

Ladson-Billings

G. J.

(2006). Yes, but how do we do it? In Landsman

Lewis

C. W.

(Eds.), White teachers/diverse classrooms: A guide to building inclusive schools, promoting high expectations, and eliminating racism (pp. 29-42). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

36.

Ladson-Billings

G. J.

(2009). Race still matters: Critical race theory in education. In Apple

Gandin

(Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of critical education (pp. 110-122). New York, NY: Routledge.

37.

Ladson-Billings

G. J.

Tate

W. F.

(1995). Towards a critical race theory of education. Teachers College Record, 97, 47-68.

38.

Marcus

A. S.

(2007). Celluloid blackboard: Teaching history with film. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

39.

Marcus

A. S.

Metzger

S. A.

Paxton

Stoddard

J. D.

(2010). Teaching history with film: Strategies for secondary social studies. New York, NY: Routledge.

40.

Marcus

A. S.

Stoddard

J. D.

(2009). The inconvenient truth about teaching history with documentary film: Strategies for presenting multiple perspectives and teaching controversial issues. The Social Studies, 100, 279-284.

41.

Montgomery

(2013). Pedagogy and privilege: The challenges and possibilities of teaching critically about racism. Critical Education, 4, 1-21.

42.

Parkhouse

(2015). Presenting Precious Knowledge: Using film to model culturally sustaining pedagogy and youth civic activism for social studies teachers. The New Educator, 11(3), 204-226.

43.

Passel

J. S.

Suro

(2005). Rise, peak and decline: Trends in U.S. immigration 1992-2004. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.

44.

Pew Research Center. (2013). Polling report: Immigration. Retrieved from http://www.pollingreport.com/immigration.htm

45.

Plano Clark

V. L.

Garrett

A. L.

Leslie-Pelecky

D. L.

(2010). Applying three strategies for integrating quantitative and qualitative databases in a mixed methods study of a nontraditional graduate education program. Field Methods, 22, 154-174.

46.

Powers

J. M.

(2014). From segregation to school finance: The legal context for language rights in the United States. Review of Research in Education, 38, 81-105.

47.

Rong

X. L.

(2012). Advocacy-oriented teacher education in new gateway states. Teacher Education and Practice, 25(4), 580-584.

48.

Rong

X. L.

Preissle

(2009). Educating immigrant students in the 21st century: What educators need to know (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

49.

Sizer

T. R.

Sizer

N. R.

(1999). The students are watching: Schools and the moral contract. Boston, MA: Beacon.

50.

Solórzano

D. G.

(1997). Images and words that wound: Critical race theory, racial stereotyping and teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 24(3), 5-19.

51.

Solórzano

D. G.

Yosso

T. J.

(2002). Critical race methodology: Counter-storytelling as an analytical framework for educational research. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 23-44.

52.

Sox

A. K.

(2009). Latino immigrant students in southern schools: What we know and still need to learn. Theory Into Practice, 48, 312-318.

53.

Stevens

L. P.

(2012). Immigrant populations: Teacher preparation for diversity. In Banks

J. A.

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of diversity in education (pp. 1132-1135). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

54.

Stoddard

J. D.

(2007). Attempting to understand the lives of others: Film as a tool for developing historical empathy. In Marcus

(Ed.), Celluloid blackboard: Teaching history with film (pp. 187-214). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

55.

Stoddard

J. D.

(2009). The ideological implications of using “educational” film to teach controversial events. Curriculum Inquiry, 39, 407-433.

56.

Stoddard

J. D.

(2010). Socratic seminar: A model for film discussion in the social studies. In Heilman

Amthor

Missias

(Eds.), Social studies and diversity education: What we do and why we do it (pp. 288-291). New York, NY: Routledge.

57.

Stoddard

J. D.

(2013). Hillary: The movie, The History Channel, and the challenge of the documentary for democratic education. Teachers College Record, 115, 1-32.

58.

Terrazas

Fix

(2008). Gambling on the future: Managing the educational challenges of rapid growth in Nevada. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.

59.

Trier

(2013). Challenging Waiting for Superman through detournement. Journal of Popular Film and Television, 41(2), 68-77.

60.

Tyson

C. A.

(2003). A bridge over troubled water: Social studies, civic education, and critical race theory. In Ladson-Billings

(Ed.), Critical race theory perspectives on the social studies: The profession, policies, and curriculum (pp. 15-26). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

61.

Ukpokodu

O. N.

(2003). The challenge of teaching a social studies methods course from a transformative and social reconstructionist framework. The Social Studies, 94(2), 75-80.

62.

The White House. (2014, July 8). Emergency supplemental request to address the increase in child and adult migration from Central America in the Rio Grande Valley Areas of the Southwest Border. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/07/08/fact-sheet-emergency-supplemental-request-address-increase-child-and-adu

63.

Wiley

T. G.

(2014). Diversity, super-diversity, and monolingual language ideology in the United States: Tolerance or intolerance? Review of Research in Education, 38, 1-32.

64.

Yosso

T. J.

(2002). Critical race media literacy: Challenging deficit discourse about Chicanas/os. Journal of Popular Film and Television, 30(1), 52-62.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.08 MB

0.05 MB

0.02 MB