A Shifting Paradigm

Abstract

Effective teaching in multicultural settings requires the awareness and ability to adapt to diverse needs and viewpoints. Teachers’ multicultural efficacy may be gained from coursework or interactions within diverse communities. In this study the authors determined preservice teachers’ multicultural efficacy using the Multicultural Efficacy Scale (MES) and its relationship to education and personal characteristics. Study results revealed average levels of multicultural attitudes and efficacy and no relationship to coursework and personal characteristics. The authors did find a significant relationship to political worldviews. Results suggest that other variables may be making personal characteristics less influential on views of diversity.

Keywords

culture diversity teacher beliefs

Preservice Teacher Multicultural Efficacy

Increasing sociocultural diversity in the United States has resulted in shifts in student demographic ratios such that white, middle-class students no longer compose the majority of K-12 learners (Hoffman & Sable, 2006). Over the past few decades public schools in the United States have seen unprecedented growth in the enrollment of students who are culturally, linguistically, and socioeconomically diverse (Klump & McNeir, 2005). The complexity of working with diverse student populations makes critical the preparation of educators who are able to reflect on their perceptions and practices of teaching through a multicultural lens (Delpit, 1995; Derman-Sparks & Brunson Phillips, 1997). Thus, to prepare teachers to reflect on their practice, coursework in diversity has become a standard component of the majority of teacher preparation programs. Because multicultural content is a rather recent addition to the curriculum, there is justification for examining the influence of the coursework on preservice teachers’ perceptions of working with diverse student populations.

Nearly 30 years ago, for the first time, a university in the United States instituted a requirement for integrating diversity teaching within core instruction (Multiculturalism in Higher Education, n.d.). Approximately 15 years later, more than 34% of the U.S. universities had some sort of multicultural content integrated within core instruction, and at least 54% of universities had a multicultural course required for all teacher candidates (Light & Cureton, 1992). A more recent national study of multicultural coursework at the university level conducted by Brisk and colleagues (Brisk, Barnhardt, Herrera, & Rochon, 2002) found that 63% of American universities had diversity requirements for the students enrolled in teacher preparation courses. Brisk et al. reported that 58% of universities required students enrolled in teacher preparation programs to take at least one multicultural course. Another 43% of universities had at least two diversity course requirements for preservice teachers. Thus, diversity coursework has become an integral part of the professional preparation of teachers. Research indicates teachers who are well prepared professionally can make a difference in student achievement (Darling-Hammond & youngs, 2002; Haycock, 1998; Sanders & Rivers, 1996). The potential impact of teacher diversity awareness on student achievement led us to wonder about the multicultural efficacy levels among preservice teachers currently enrolled in a teacher preparation curriculum.

Our research was motivated by a desire to assess the levels of multicultural efficacy of students in a teacher preparation program and to determine whether the participating preservice teachers’ personal characteristics predicted their multicultural efficacy. Our study is unique because it is the first investigation that we are aware of (beyond the instrument validation study) to use the Multicultural Efficacy Scale (MES; Guyton & Wesche, 2005) to assess multicultural efficacy of any group of educators. Furthermore, our study is important because the increasing diversity of student populations, which includes university students, may impact the levels of multicultural efficacy of preservice teachers. Therefore, it is essential we continually monitor preservice teachers to determine how their levels of multicultural efficacy might be changing over time.

Prior to presenting our research methods, results, and discussion, we present a review of the pertinent literature to establish justification for our study. In our review of literature we first define relevant terms and then present research reporting relationships between demographics, personal characteristics, and multicultural education perspectives. Next, we examine several models of university multicultural education and issues related to multicultural education instruction. We conclude our literature review with a discussion of methods and instruments used to assess pre- and in-service teachers’ multicultural perspectives.

Definitions of Terms

Terms such as multicultural education, teacher efficacy, teacher attitude, and teacher experience can have multiple meanings. The dynamic nature of cultures within societies suggests that definitions of these constructs may shift over time. Due to the potential for various interpretations, we determined it to be important to provide operational definitions of these constructs.

In searching the literature we exposed frequent and combined references to teacher expertise, teacher development, and teacher knowledge. The frequent association suggests these constructs are inextricably associated. However, the individual application of each term in the literature indicates each should be operationally defined. Our definitions provide context for these constructs, clarifying our interpretation and application of the terms within our investigation.

In defining multicultural education, we attempt to mirror multicultural education’s diverse theoretical foci, combining several seminal definitions. Bennett, Niggle, and Stage (1990) contend multicultural education is “a democratic approach to teaching and learning that seeks to foster cultural pluralism within culturally diverse societies and an interdependent world” (p. 244). Similarly, Hidalgo, Chávez-Chávez, and Ramage (1996) assert multicultural education has a synergistic core where “writers from education, anthropology, history, philosophy, and other fields are participating intellectually in the ongoing conceptual discovery” (p. 763). From a different perspective, Banks (1993a) divides multicultural education into five concrete categories: personal, cultural, mainstream academic, transformative academic, and school—each of which “are highly interrelated in a complex and dynamic way” (pp. 6-7). Thus, we define multicultural education as a process entailing an inclusive, multidisciplinary approach to teaching that takes into account personal, cultural, and academic influences in which students live. In addition, we contend implementations of multicultural education attend to dynamic environments, preparing students to constantly adjust between two or more seemingly disparate worlds (Nilep, 2006). The need for teachers and students to adjust to their environment is an important consideration as we attempt to understand multicultural education’s relationship to teacher efficacy.

The overlap in the definitions for teacher efficacy found in the literature indicates there is a relatively uniform perception of the construct. Ashton (1985) views teacher efficacy as a “teacher’s belief in their ability to have a positive effect on student learning” (p. 142), whereas Bandura (1997) suggests teacher efficacy is “beliefs in one’s capacity to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (p. 3). In a more detailed description, Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk-Hoy (2001) contend, “A teacher’s efficacy belief is a judgment of his or her capabilities to bring about desired outcomes of student engagement and learning, even among those students who may be difficult or unmotivated” (p. 73). Whereas all three definitions discuss a belief, others such as Barfield and Burlingame (1974) discuss teacher efficacy in terms of specific human qualities, as in “a personality trait which enables one to deal effectively with the world” (p. 10). Combining the perspectives of beliefs and traits, we define teacher efficacy as representative of the levels of confidence and skill teachers have that influence their perceived and actual abilities to help students achieve academic success.

Two additional constructs prevalent throughout the literature reporting on multicultural awareness and teacher preparation and are associated with teacher success are teacher experience and teacher attitudes. However, specific definitions of these terms have not been found to exist in the reports of the related research. For example, in his discussion of the dimensions of teacher efficacy, Ashton (1984) uses the term “attitude” but does not define it in arguing, “While understanding is limited with regard to the impact of attitudes on behavior, it is clear that attitudes do influence behavior . . .” (p. 29). The consistent application of teacher experience and teacher attitudes in the literature without operational definitions provides a particular challenge in contextualizing outcomes or positions that involve these constructs as variables. We attempt to present operational definitions of teacher experience and teacher attitudes that conform to their use within the literature.

Fullan and Hargreaves (1992) provide a solution to this conundrum in the attempt to define the concept of teacher development as “specific development through in-service or staff development, as well as to more thorough advances in teachers’ sense of purpose, instructional skills, and ability to work with colleagues” (pp. 8-9). In considering this insight, we argue that the assumptions typically associated with teaching attitude and teaching experience have diverted focus from the need for concise and consistent definitions for these two constructs (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005). Pajares (1992) mirrors the definition dilemma by stating,

Articulate conversation must demand not only clarity of thought and expression but also preciseness of word choice and meaning. Educational psychology does not always accord its constructs such precision, and so defining beliefs is at best a game of player’s choice. They travel in disguise and often under alias—attitudes, values, judgments, axioms, opinions, ideology, perceptions, conceptions . . . to name but a few that can be found in the literature. (pp. 308-309)

Exercising the position of Pajares (1992) we apply the “player’s choice” approach and define teacher efficacy as teachers’ perceptions of their instructional effectiveness and define teacher attitude as a teacher’s disposition toward their instructional effectiveness. Finally, we define teacher experience as the time spent developing and enacting teacher attitude through coursework, professional development, and actual teaching practice.

A working definition for teacher expertise is more complex due to its multifaceted nature. In broadening our search by seeking information about teacher knowledge, we were able to approach expertise from a different perspective. Shulman (1993) suggests three types of teacher knowledge: propositional knowledge, case knowledge, and strategic knowledge, whereas Berliner (1993) contends that teaching expertise can be effectively divided into five discreet stages: novice, advanced beginner, competent, proficient, and expert. Combining the perspectives of Shulman and Berliner, we interpret teacher expertise to be defined along a series of hierarchical stages. For our study we use Berliner’s perspective to frame our definition of teaching expertise as an evolution of a teacher’s skills and experience. Therefore, our definitions expand to classify teacher expertise as a set of teaching skills acquired over time, whereas teacher efficacy is the enactment of those skills.

Clearly, the construct of multicultural education is as multifaceted as its name implies and overlaps with the definitions and applications of teacher efficacy, teacher experience, teacher attitudes, teacher development, teacher expertise, and teacher knowledge. The integration of these constructs provides justification for the development of an operational definition for multicultural self-efficacy. We define multicultural self-efficacy as an individual’s beliefs about their ability to address classroom challenges associated with working with culturally and linguistically diverse students. Please note we have intentionally used derivatives of the terms multicultural and diversity interchangeably to increase the readability of our report.

The definitions we have provided will provide clarity for our use and interpretation of these constructs in our study. Moreover, our definitions may be of benefit to others seeking clarity and consistency in their use of these constructs in their research investigating teachers, teacher preparation, and multicultural education.

Personal Factors and Attitudes Toward Multicultural Education

Many factors may influence teachers’ multicultural efficacy, including personal traits such as ethnicity and languages spoken (Kyles & Olafson, 2008), age (Dee & Henkin, 2002), gender (Pettus & Alain, 1999; Turner, 2007), and political inclination (Anderson, Avery, Pederson, Smith, & Sullivan, 1997). Due to the potential influence of personal traits on teacher multicultural efficacy, it is important to determine how these variables might be related. This work is particularly critical because research shows that teachers who hold negative, ethnocentric, and/or racist attitudes toward their students often fail to meet the academic and societal needs of the students they serve (Tse, 2001; Valdes, 2001; Youngs & Youngs, 2001). Therefore, there is justification for examining personal characteristics as variables potentially associated with multicultural perspectives.

Ethnicity

A preservice teacher’s perceptions of diversity education and motivation to engage in multicultural coursework may differ depending on the student’s ethnicity. In a review of research literature on preparing preservice teachers for working in diverse settings, Sleeter (2001) reports that preservice teachers of color “tend to bring richer experiences and perspectives to multicultural teaching than do most white preservice teachers” (p. 94). The study also found teachers of color are more open to multicultural education and look to integrate it throughout the curriculum. Sleeter details how white teachers typically begin their teacher education programs with little cross-cultural experience or knowledge and tend to use colorblindness as a strategy for working in unfamiliar cultures. Furthermore, Sleeter contends white teachers are “ambivalent about their ability to teach African American children, and their feelings of efficacy seem to decline from preservice to in-service stage” (p. 95). By contrast, Sleeter found teachers of color were more culturally aware and were more committed to multicultural education and teaching about social justice. This research has important implications for teaching and provides support for attending to preservice teachers’ ethnicity as a variable influential on their multicultural efficacy.

Language

In addition to their ethnicity, the language(s) teachers speak may potentially influence their perceptions of their effectiveness when working with culturally diverse students. The research exploring the influence of language spoken on the relationships between students of diversity and teacher perceptions of effectiveness is sparse, which brings uncertainty to predicting trends and stating generalizations. However, in one of the few published investigations, Tasan (2001) reports research in which English-speaking elementary teachers’ efficacy for teaching students with varying levels of English proficiency was found to be greater when the educators worked with students with high levels of English proficiency. Tasan’s results did not vary with the ethnic identity of the teachers, as both majority and minority English-speaking teachers felt a stronger sense of efficacy toward students with high levels of English proficiency when compared to students with lower-level English proficiency. However, in a separate study of immigrant teachers’ perceptions of their effectiveness in working with limited English-proficient (LEP) students, Hwang and Vrongistinos (2004) reported immigrant teachers had high levels of efficacy regarding their instructional abilities with LEP students and found the immigrant teachers believed they could have a positive impact on the learning of LEP students.

Teacher ethnicity and spoken language each influences how teachers perceive and work with culturally diverse student populations. The association of both ethnic identity and languages spoken on teachers’ multicultural perspectives suggest there may be a corresponding relationship with their multicultural efficacy. The possible relationship provides support for assessing both ethnicity and spoken languages as indicators of preservice teachers’ preparedness to teach in multicultural settings.

Age

The research examining the relationship between age and multicultural perspectives is mixed. In their study examining the relationship between the age and diversity, Dee and Henkin (2002) report cultural diversity attitudes of preservice teachers prior to their entry into multicultural education courses were generally positive. Yet the older respondents saw less social value in diversity than did younger respondents. Dee and Henkin suggest that “this finding may reflect a general tendency toward more conservative views among older respondents that may be manifest in a more cautious outlook toward the impact of diversity on social institutions” (p. 36). In contrast, Pettus and Allain (1999) did not find a significant age-dependent differential in preservice teachers’ multicultural attitudes. The majority of the respondents in Pettus and Allain’s investigation were between 18 and 25 years of age (50 of the 60 respondents), which suggests the homogeneous subject base might not have varied enough to reveal a relationship between age and multicultural attitudes. The lack of definitive conclusions of the influence of age on multicultural perspectives suggests additional research examining the relationship between these variables is warranted.

Gender

Gender equity continues to be a prominent issue in multiple facets of society, which suggests gender is most likely related to views about diversity and multicultural education. In her investigation exploring the relationship between preservice teachers’ gender and their multicultural attitudes Turner (2007) found women scored higher on personal and professional diversity beliefs measures than their male peers. The difference between women and men was apparent both before and after a course on diversity, with participants of both genders reporting increases in diversity awareness measures. In a similar study exploring gender and multicultural perspectives, Pettus and Allain (1999) found women indicated more favorable attitudes than men toward diversity and multicultural education issues. The research reporting significant relationships between gender and perspectives of diversity provides justification for the inclusion of gender as a critical variable in studies of multicultural awareness.

Political Worldview

Conservative political views tend to be aligned with the perspective that America is represented by Western culture and English language, whereas more liberal political views are more likely to embrace diversity (Jenks, Lee, & Kanpol, 2001). In a study examining the relationship between views on multicultural education and political inclination of social studies teachers, Anderson and colleagues (1997) reported teachers who favor assimilation (conformity to a Western perspective) were resistant to multicultural education and tended to maintain conservative political affiliations. Although the study by Anderson and colleagues assessed social studies teachers, a relatively narrow segment of the population, the outcome does suggest political affiliation is a factor that may be an indicator of multicultural attitudes. Therefore, political affiliation is a construct worth considering when examining the multicultural attitudes of preservice teachers.

Multicultural Education: Models and Instruction

The primary objective of preservice teacher multicultural education is to prepare educators who are competent and cognizant of diversity in their daily practices (Barry & Lechner, 1995; Walker, Shafer, & Iiams, 2004) because teachers who hold negative, ethnocentric, and racist attitudes toward their students often fail to meet the academic and societal needs of the students they serve (Tse, 2001; Valdes, 2001; Youngs & Youngs, 2001). The importance of multicultural education in teacher preparation programs continues to increase because “the racial, ethnic, socio-economic, cultural, and linguistic orientations of students are more varied now than ever in the past” (Milner, Flowers, Moore, Moore, & Flowers, 2003, p. 63). The demographics of PreK-12 schools located in the United States have changed dramatically and are continuing to become more diverse, which illuminates the need for teachers to be open-minded, understanding and able to respond to the education needs of a broad range of students.

To meet the needs of a growing diversity of students the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) has instituted a requirement for multicultural course work (NCATE, 2006). The broad interpretation and resulting implementation of this requirement has lead to a wide range of responses among teacher education programs. Furthermore, in response to the NCATE requirements, universities have expanded their perspectives of diversity, which has influenced preservice teachers’ coursework and efficacy (Ketterer, Phillips, King, & Hilber, 2008). A growing proportion of colleges of education report they require specific courses, or integrated class work, focused specifically on instructional strategies to promote teachers’ multicultural teaching efficacy (Menken & Antúñez, 2001). It is apparent teacher education students who take multicultural classes are more culturally responsive and better prepared to enter the profession (Sleeter, 2001; Walton, Baca, & Escamilla, 2002).

The variability in approaches to multicultural education may be used to explain the range in the levels of multicultural efficacy of students exiting teacher education programs. Moore (1996) reports that preservice teachers’ preparation in multicultural education is influenced by the focus on multiculturalism in teacher education courses, personal learning experiences, models of culturally diverse teaching, and encouragement by other educational professionals. Cho and DeCastro-Ambrosetti (2005) note changes in attitudes, awareness, and appreciation of other cultures in a study of a single multicultural course for preservice teachers. Similarly, Morales (2005) contends preservice teachers’ understandings of democracy, equity, diversity, and social justice increases after taking a diversity course utilizing narrative pedagogical methods. Contrasting evidence reveals that preservice teacher perspectives are influenced by many factors and that a single multicultural course had minimal impact on preservice teacher’s multicultural perspectives (Banks, 1993b; Locke, 2005). Ambosia, Sequin, and Hogan (2001) suggest the effectiveness of multicultural education on changing preservice teacher’s attitudes is constrained by vague course goals and objectives. The research on multicultural education indicates the associated course content and structure are critical to enhancing preservice teachers’ capacity to work with diverse student populations.

Instructional methods courses in teacher preparation programs are commonly used to raise preservice teachers’ attention toward the needs of culturally diverse learners (Avery, 2003; Barba, 1993; McGinnis & Davis, 1995; Saury & Alexander, 2003). However, multicultural content may also be delivered using a range of courses within the curriculum such as language arts, social sciences, and humanities classes (Kubota, Austin, & Saito-Abbott, 2003; Pandit & Alderman, 2004; Warren, 2006). Multicultural learning activities in language arts courses, such as reflective writing, enabled students to challenge preconceived notions about cultures (Brindley & Laframboise, 2000; Lawrence, 1998). In social studies courses multicultural content may be explored through student dialogue with people from historically marginalized groups to gain insights and examine cultural presuppositions (Hyland & Noflke, 2005). Courses in dance, music, popular media, and visual art have been found to be effective for teaching undergraduate students about other cultures (Goldberg, 2006; Howard-Hamilton & Hinton, 2004). The reporting of a variety of approaches for effectively preparing teachers with content in multiculturalism suggests it is possible to attain diversity education from many sources within the curriculum.

It is apparent that exposure to multicultural education can come from a course structured to specifically address issues of diversity, courses integrating diversity issues into the traditional curriculum, and through the use of different instructional approaches. It is reasonable to expect students who take more college-level courses are more likely to have exposure to multicultural content and, therefore, will report higher levels of multicultural awareness. This possibility provides support for assessing the number of college-level courses, the number of multicultural courses, and the number of courses that focus on multicultural issues (e.g., sociology, anthropology, and political science) as proxies for multicultural preparedness.

Measures of Multiculturalism and Multicultural Efficacy

Research shows teachers’ beliefs are predictors of their behavior (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005) and are influential on their perceptions, judgments, and practices (Bandura, 1986; Dewey, 1933). Therefore, identifying the nature of teachers’ beliefs, attitudes, and values are paramount to understanding their future choices, decisions, and effectiveness regarding issues of diversity, social justice, and equity (Bowser-Brown, 2007; Brown, 2004; Pajares, 1992; Rokeach, 1968). The relationship between beliefs and practice makes the assessment of teachers’ perspectives critical to the development of curriculum that will enhance their effectiveness with multicultural student populations. The assessment of preservice teachers’ multicultural perspectives can be achieved in a number of ways, including through the use of surveys with open-ended questions, interviews, and selected response instruments.

Our search of the literature revealed reports of more than 30 assessment instruments designed to assess pre- and in-service teachers’ multicultural awareness and their corresponding pedagogical practices. Ten of these instruments were specifically designed to be used with preservice teachers and have had a number of applications in research. For instance, Barry and Lechner (1995) used the Multicultural Attitude Questionnaire to assess preservice teachers’ awareness of multicultural educational issues and their expectations for working in diverse classrooms. In an investigation of the influence of teacher education programs on preservice teachers’ general awareness of cultural differences, Milner and colleagues (2003) utilized the Cultural Diversity Awareness Inventory. Combinations of instruments have also been applied in research such as the study conducted by Oginga Siwatu (2007), who used two measures, the Culturally Responsive Teaching Self-Efficacy Scale and the Culturally Responsive Teaching Outcome Expectancy Scale, to examine preservice teachers’ efficacy and anticipated effectiveness for working with English language learners.

Through our comprehensive search of the literature, we found three published instruments that assess preservice teachers on aspects of multicultural perspectives that are consistent with our research interests. The three instruments we located were the Cultural Diversity Awareness Inventory (Larke, 1990), the Multicultural Attitude Questionnaire (Barry & Lechner, 1995), and the MES (Guyton & Wesche, 2005). We selected the MES (Guyton & Wesche) for our study because the MES was developed most recently and, therefore, takes into account more of the current issues associated with preparing teachers to work in multicultural environments. The dynamic, situational, and contextual issues associated with multicultural education require instruments that can measure the construct in concert with the zeitgeist of diversity education and educational environments.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

The goals of our research were to assess the levels of multicultural efficacy of a sample of preservice teachers and to determine how their perceptions might be related to their personal characteristics. On the basis of our research goals and review of the literature we developed the following three research questions to guide our investigation. Our research questions asked:

Research Question 1: What were our participating preservice teachers’ multicultural attitudes and efficacy?

Research Question 2: Was there a relationship between the number of college-level courses and the type of coursework and levels of multicultural attitudes and efficacy for our study participants?

Research Question 3: How do our participants’ personal characteristics and worldviews influence their levels of multicultural attitude and efficacy?

We formed two hypotheses that we tested in our study. We first hypothesized that as students completed more college-level courses or specifically completed more multicultural courses they would have higher levels of multicultural efficacy because they were more likely to be exposed to content that would heighten their awareness and preparation for working with diverse populations. Second, we hypothesized that personal characteristics such as age and gender would be related to levels of multicultural efficacy because differences in individual traits lead to different cultural experiences that are reflected by these characteristics, which then influence how preservice teachers perceive their capacity to effectively work with diverse populations.

Method

Our sample was drawn from the population of undergraduate education students enrolled at a metropolitan university in the Western United States. We recruited students taking preservice teacher coursework from four undergraduate classes to participate in our study. Approximately 215 students were asked to volunteer for our study, and 88 responded by completing our surveys.

Our participants had an average age of 24.95 (SD = 7.10), with an average duration of college study at 2.9 years (SD = 1.10); 68 were female and 20 were male, 88% were Caucasian, and 5% were Latino/a, with the remaining 7% dispersed among Asian, African American, and Native American categories. The majority of the participants indicated they were from suburban communities (n = 50) followed by a nearly equal number from urban (n = 18) and rural communities (n = 20). Approximately 5.7% of the participants reported their socioeconomic status (SES) to be “Lower,” 37.5% as “Lower Middle,” 40.9 % as “Middle,” 14.8% as “Upper Middle” and 1.1% as “Upper.” The majority of the participants (73.9%) reported they did not speak any other language besides English, whereas 19.3% reported speaking Spanish and 6.7% reported other languages. The majority of the participants (70.5%) indicated they had taken at least one multicultural course or had taken at least one sociology or anthropology course, whereas only 44.5% indicated they had taken at least one political science course.

Instruments

Demographics

We generated a demographics instrument to gather a range of personal characteristics that have been hypothesized to be associated with multicultural efficacy. Participants were asked to provide information related to their age, educational history, religiosity, and political philosophy. We asked participants to rate their levels of religiosity on a 10-point scale ranging from Not at all religious to Very religious. We used a similar 10-point scale for political philosophy ranging from Liberal to Conservative.

Multicultural Efficacy Scale (MES)

We used the MES (Guyton & Wesche, 2005), a 35-item Likert-type scale, to measure facets of our participating preservice teachers’ multicultural perspectives. The instrument is divided into three subscales that are used to assess individual experience in multicultural environments, attitudes toward teaching in multicultural conditions, and efficacy for teaching in multicultural environments. The Experience With Diversity subscale begins with a definition of “diversity” and contains seven items. The instructions for this first subscale ask users to respond to questions such as, “I went to school with diverse students as a teenager” using a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from never to frequently. According to Guyton and Wesche, this subscale is for comparative purposes and is not intended to be scored to contribute to the measure of multicultural efficacy.

The second subscale assesses attitudes toward teaching in multicultural conditions and is also composed of seven items with instructions to users asking them to respond to questions such as, “Children should be taught mostly by teachers of their own ethnic and cultural background” using a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from agree strongly to disagree strongly. The third subscale assesses efficacy for teaching in multicultural environments using 20 items, 19 of which ask users to respond to items such as, “I can help students to examine their own prejudices,” on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from I do not believe I could do this very well to I am quite confident that this would be easy for me to do. The final item of the efficacy subscale instructs users to select one of five possible responses to the statement, “Choose the position which most closely reflects your strongest beliefs about teaching” and provides responses such as, “All cultural groups should be recognized for their strengths and contributions.”

Guyton and Wesche (2005) provide a guide for scaling items and composite scores (for the Attitude and Efficacy subscales) allowing researchers using the MES to interpret outcomes and frame results in context. Guyton and Wesche recommend scaling individual item scores such that 1 or 2 (disagree strongly or disagree somewhat) indicate a low score, a 3 (agree somewhat) represents an average score, and a score of 4 (agree strongly) is representative of a high score. Applying the item scaling to the compose scores for attitude signifies that values between 0 and 15 represent low attitudes, 16 and 24 average attitudes, and 24 and 28 positive attitudes. Similarly, for efficacy scores from 0 to 54 indicate low efficacy, 55 to 66 denote average efficacy, and 67 to 80 convey high level of efficacy.

In their study validating the MES, Guyton and Wesche (2005) conducted their analysis on the basis of the responses of 626 undergraduate and graduate teacher education students recruited from several geographic regions in the United States. Their original instrument contained 160 items and five subscales. Based on the outcomes of reliability analysis, two subscales were removed and the remaining 80 items were scrutinized for inclusion, resulting in the published 35-item MES instrument. The authors report a Cronbach’s alpha of .89 for full instrument. The reported reliability analysis using Cronbach’s alpha was .77 for the Experience subscale, .72 for the Attitude subscale, and .93 for the Efficacy subscale. This indicates medium to high levels of instrument subscale stability. The stability of the instrument and the validation using undergraduate and graduate teacher education students make this instrument appropriate for use with our sample of preservice teachers.

In addition to their scoring guide Guyton and Wesche (2005) also provided a guide for scaling item and composite scores allowing researchers using the MES to interpret outcomes. The scoring begins with reverse coding the negatively phrased items. Guyton and Wesche recommend scaling individual item scores such that 1 or 2 (disagree strongly or disagree somewhat) indicate a low score, a 3 (agree somewhat) represents an average score, and a score of 4 (agree strongly) is representative of a high score. Applying the item scaling to the compose scores for attitude signifies that values between 0 and 15 represent low attitudes, 16 and 24 average attitudes, and 25 and 28 positive attitudes. Similarly, for efficacy scores from 0 to 54 indicate low efficacy, 55 to 66 denote average efficacy, and 67 to 80 convey high level of efficacy.

Item 35 of the MES is intended to provide descriptive data of the sample participants in terms of their conceptualizations of multiculturalism. Each item’s five responses represent a multicultural perspective that includes tolerance, assimilation, pluralism, multiculturalism, and advocacy. In scoring Item 35 Guyton and Wesche (2005) examined the outcomes in terms of percentages. In their instrument validation study, Guyton and Wesche reported about 40% of responses reflected multiculturalism, with the remaining conceptualizations dispersed down to the 8% that reflected advocacy.

Data Collection

All data collection took place online using Zoomerang, an internet-based survey provider. To assure continuity between the demographics and multicultural efficacy surveys we combined them to form a composite survey. Although the instruments were combined into a single survey, we designed the interface so that the tools appeared on different screens, giving the user the impression that the surveys were unique. In accordance with our IRB (institutional review board) protocol we structured the demographic survey such that participants had the option of declining to answer specific questions. However, we required responses to all the MES items.

We developed a web page that included general information about our study and a link for those who opted to participate. The link led to our Zoomerang-based consent form, which provided detailed investigation information, a link to our surveys, and a link back to the university’s home page. By selecting “Agree to participate” the students were linked to our survey; if they selected “Decline to participate” they were lead back to the university’s home page. Once the participants completed the survey they were redirected to a “Thank you” web page.

We collected data over a 3-week period. We visited four undergraduate College of Education courses ranging in size from 15 to approximately 100 students and requested the participation of the enrolled teacher education majors. The instructors of the courses posted the URL for our survey welcome web page on their course web sites. One week later we provided a reminder e-mail to the instructors to distribute to their students. We ceased data collection once it became apparent that we were not going to recruit any more participants, which was determined to be 4 days of no additional survey activity.

Results

We began our analysis by calculating the reliabilities of the three MES subscales and of the MES as a whole, using our sample. The Experience subscale was found to have a Cronbach’s alpha internal reliability coefficient of .76, which is consistent with the value reported in the instrument validation study. The Attitude subscale was found to have a Cronbach’s alpha of .68, which is slightly lower than the .72 reported in the validation study. The Cronbach’s alpha for the Efficacy subscale as found to be .91, which is again very consistent with the value reported in the instrument validation study. The Cronbach’s alpha internal reliability coefficient for the composite instrument was found to be .89, which is the same value that the authors report in their instrument validation study (Guyton & Wesche, 2005).

Levels of multicultural efficacy

Our first research question asked, “What were our participating preservice teachers’ multicultural attitudes and efficacy?” We answered this question by calculating the mean of the composite attitude and efficacy scores. Our results revealed that our participants held a mean multicultural attitude score of 23.89 (n = 88, SD = 2.74). Applying the scoring guidelines provided by Guyton and Wesche (2005) we interpreted this score to indicate that the mean multicultural attitude of our participants was on the upper level of average.

We repeated our analysis for multicultural efficacy and found the average to be 63.57 (n = 88, SD = 8.04). Again, we consulted the scoring guide of Guyton and Wesche (2005) to interpret this outcome. The results indicate that our participants held an average level of multicultural efficacy.

As recommended by Guyton and Wesche (2005) we also examined the frequencies and percentages of Item 35 of the MES. This item is an assessment of participants’ perspectives of the purpose for multicultural teaching. Our results were very consistent with those reported by Guyton and Wesche about the teacher education students in their instrument validation study (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Participants’ Views of the Purpose of Multicultural Teaching Compared to Those Reported by Guyton and Wesche (2005)

Purpose	Frequency	Measured percent	Percent reported by Guyton and Wesche (2005)
Tolerance	23	26.1	25.6
Assimilation	18	20.5	15.3
Pluralism	9	10.2	9.2
Multiculturalism	29	33.0	41.9
Advocacy	9	10.2	8.1
Total	88	100.0	100.0

Influence of coursework

Our second research question asked, “Was there a relationship between the number of college level courses and the type of coursework and levels of multicultural attitudes and efficacy for our participants?” To answer this question we ran a correlational analysis using number of years of college, number of multicultural courses, number of sociology or anthropology courses, number of political science courses, and the scores for multicultural attitudes and efficacy. The only significant correlation that was exposed was between the number of college courses and multicultural attitudes, r =.35, p < .01. The result suggests that the longer students are in college their attitudes toward multicultural situations become more positive.

Personal characteristics and worldviews

Our third research question asked, “How do our participants’ personal characteristics and worldviews influence their levels of multicultural attitude and efficacy?” To address this question, we ran a series of ANOVAs (analyses of variance) using the measures of personal characteristics as the factor and the measures of multicultural attitude and efficacy as the dependent variables. We tested for relationships to multicultural attitude first and then repeated the tests for multicultural efficacy.

Our ANOVA results for gender, ethnicity, SES, primary community (rural, suburban, urban), second language, college major/minor, and multicultural attitude were not significant. Similarly, all the ANOVA tests of differences in multicultural efficacy based on personal characteristics were found to be insignificant. This indicates that our participants’ multicultural attitudes and efficacy did not vary based on differences in their personal characteristics.

Our worldview measures of religiosity and political philosophy were measured on a 10-point scale. We asked participants to rate their religiosity from 1 = no religion to 10 = strongly religious. A similar scale was used to ask participants to rate their political philosophy from liberal to conservative. Because of the scale, we used correlation analysis to determine whether there was a relationship between levels of religiosity, political philosophy, multicultural attitude, and multicultural efficacy. Our analysis revealed political philosophy to be significantly correlated with multicultural attitude, r(88) = –.28, p < .01. This suggests that as political philosophies become more liberal there was an increase in participants’ levels of multicultural attitude. No other significant relationships were revealed.

Utilizing the MES subscale for multicultural experience, we conducted regression analysis to determine its predictive value on perspectives of diversity. We set the Multicultural Experience subscale as the independent variable, and multicultural attitude and multicultural efficacy were identified as dependent variables. We ran two separate analyses for each of the dependent variables. Our results revealed multicultural efficacy was significantly related to multicultural experiences, r(88) = .34, p < .01. This indicates that as personal experiences with multiculturalism increase there is a corresponding increase in multicultural efficacy. Our analysis failed to reveal a significant relationship between multicultural experience and multicultural attitude.

Discussion

This study is the first that we are aware of that applied the MES (Guyton & Wesche, 2005) in formal empirical research beyond the instrument validation study. In our research we were seeking to determine levels of preservice teachers’ multicultural attitudes and efficacy. We also sought to expose possible relationships between our participants’ college-level coursework and personal characteristics and their levels of multicultural efficacy and attitudes. Research on pre- and in-service teachers has revealed a wide range of variables associated with their perceptions of diversity, such as ethnicity and languages spoken (Kyles & Olafson, 2008), age (Dee & Henkin, 2002), gender (Pettus & Alain, 1999; Turner, 2007), and political inclination (Anderson et al., 1997). In addition, coursework with multicultural content or themes has been shown to influence preservice teachers’ perceptions of diversity (Lowenstein, 2003; Sleeter, 2001).

Our results indicated that our participants held a high-average level of multicultural attitude and an average level of multicultural efficacy. In addition, our participants’ responses were consistent with that of the teacher education students from the instrument validation study in their perceived purpose for multicultural education. This outcome was not unexpected since the instrument used to assess the perceptions of diversity, the MES, was developed and validated using a similar population of college students (Guyton & Wesche, 2005). This suggests the participants in our sample were within the anticipated levels of multicultural attitude, efficacy, and perceptions for the purpose of multicultural education and for populations of preservice teachers.

Our results were inconsistent with our expectations that multicultural coursework would influence perspectives of diversity. In contrast with previous research (Lowenstein, 2003; Sleeter, 2001), our study failed to reveal evidence for an influence of multicultural education on preservice teachers’ perspectives of diversity. Our results are more supportive of the position of Ambosia et al. (2001), who contends multicultural education is perhaps too vague to significantly influence preservice teachers’ multicultural perspectives. In addition, the lack of relationship between coursework and perceptions may support the notion that many other factors are at play in the development of multicultural awareness and coursework has minimal influence on this development (Banks, 1993a; Locke, 2005). The greater influence of other factors on preservice teachers perceptions of diversity could explain why the number of multicultural courses was not found to be related to our participants’ multicultural perspectives.

In our examination of the influence of our participants’ personal characteristics and worldviews on their perceptions of diversity, only political philosophy was found to be significantly associated with multicultural perspectives. This outcome is consistent with the research of Jenks et al. (2001) who reported more liberal political views were associated with increased propensity to embrace diversity. However, our research failed to confirm previous investigations reporting multicultural perspectives being associated with personal characteristics such as gender (Pettus & Alain, 1999; Turner, 2007), age (Dee & Henkin, 2002), ethnicity, and languages spoken (Kyles & Olafson, 2008). The lack of significant association with personal characteristics may be due to our sample population as a whole being more culturally sensitive and having more exposure to diversity than similar populations in the past. It may be possible that U.S. college students are increasingly exposed to a wide range of multicultural conditions in society and through media such as the internet, music, movies, television, and sports. This is consistent with the findings of Howard-Hamilton and Hinton (2004), who report increases in student awareness of diversity through the use of popular media. The increased exposure to multicultural situations may be influencing attitudes toward diversity, trumping personal characteristics as variables significantly associated with perspectives of diversity.

The fact that we found few associations with perspectives of diversity and at the same time found average to high-average levels of multicultural efficacy and acceptance is very encouraging. We may have actually gathered evidence of a shift in the multicultural paradigm. It is possible that the personal characteristic variables that have been previously identified as predictors of multicultural views are being surpassed by other variables that are less individualized and more ubiquitous.

Limitations

There are several notable limitations of our study. First, we made an effort to recruit as many teacher education students as possible, but ultimately participants were self-selected. However, the consistency of our results with those of Guyton and Wesche (2005) suggests that we most likely gathered data that are representative of teacher education students.

The nature of the MES instrument limited the participants to selected response items. Their response gave us insight into how they perceived their multicultural attitudes and efficacy but did not provide us with details as to why they responded the way they did or whether their responses are reflective of their actions. Furthermore, the instrument did not provide us with insight into the quality of their multicultural experiences, or coursework. Interviews and observations of participants may provide more detailed data of their multicultural perspectives. A mixed-methods approach combining the MES and interviews would be an excellent tool for future research.

Finally, even though our sample was nearly representative of teacher education student populations, it was limited to a single institution. The insignificant relationships among many of our personal characteristics variables and multicultural perspectives may be inaccurately generalized to the greater population. Our findings may not be reflective of those associated with other student populations from institutions located in more rural or urban environments or geographic locations. To verify trends, differences, and consistencies would require collecting and comparing data of teacher education students attending a range of institutions. A comparison of student populations from a range of institutions located in a variety of environments would be a salient topic for future investigation.

Conclusion

As school and educational environments continue to increase in diversity it is essential for teachers to be prepared to effectively work with students from a variety of cultural backgrounds. Therefore, knowing how personal traits, worldviews, and coursework are related to preservice teachers’ perspectives of diversity provides direction for the development and implementation of appropriate curriculum. We were encouraged to find our participants had high-average levels of multicultural attitudes and average multicultural efficacy and that these measures were nearly consistent regardless of coursework or personal characteristics. We posit the lack of detection of associations is reflective of a new paradigm in which exposure to multicultural perspective and customs and the increased diversity of society through media overshadow previously influential variables. The result is a population of teacher education students who are much more consistent in their attitudes and efficacy for multicultural conditions. We argue that more work lies ahead, but we also contend that we have exposed evidence indicating progress toward greater awareness and understanding of working with diverse populations by teacher education majors.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

These graduate student authors’ names appear in alphabetical order and the order of the names is not to denote the individual level of contribution. All students essentially contributed the same amount of effort to this project.

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.

Bios

Louis S. Nadelson is an associate professor in the College of Education at Boise State University. His scholarly interests include inservice and preservice teacher professional development, program evaluation, multidisciplinary research, and conceptual change. Nadelson brings a unique perspective of research, bridging experience with practice and knowledge of theory to explore a range of interests in teaching and learning.

The co-authors were graduate students in a doctoral level quantitative research course. They contributed a diversity of perspectives and insights to this work, using their experience in K-12 education, teacher professional preparation and development, and work in multicultural environments.

References

Ambosia

Sequin

Hogan

(2001). Assessing performance-based outcomes of multicultural lesson plans: A component within a comprehensive teacher education assessment. Multicultural Perspectives, 3(1), 15-22.

Anderson

Avery

Pederson

Smith

Sullivan

(1997). Divergent perspectives on citizenship education: A Q-method study and survey of social studies teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 333-364.

Ashton

(1984). Teacher efficacy: A motivational paradigm for effective teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 35, 28-32.

Ashton

(1985). Motivation and teacher’s sense of efficacy. In Ames

Ames

(Eds.), Research on motivation in education: The classroom milieu (Vol. 2, pp. 141-174). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Avery

(April, 2003). Using research about civic learning to improve course in the methods of teaching social studies. Paper presented at the Conference of the Education in Democracy for Social Studies Teachers: An Institute for Florida Teacher Educators, Gainesville, FL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED475581)

Bandura

(1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.

Banks

(1993a). Multicultural education: Historical development, dimensions, and practice. Review of Research in Education, 19, 3-49.

Banks

(1993b). The canon debate, knowledge construction, and multicultural education. Educational Researcher, 22(5), 4-14.

10.

Barba

(1993, April). Multicultural infusion: A strategy for science teacher preparation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Atlanta, GA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED356229)

11.

Barfield

Burlingame

(1974). The pupil control ideology of teachers in selected schools. Journal of Experimental Education, 42(4), 6-11.

12.

Barry

N. H.

Lechner

J. V.

(1995). Pre-service teachers’ attitudes about and awareness of multicultural teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(2), 149-161.

13.

Bennett

Niggle

Stage

(1990). Preservice multicultural teacher education: Predictors of student readiness. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6, 243-254.

14.

Berliner

(1993). Teacher expertise. In Moon

Shelton Mayes

(Ed.), Teaching and learning in the secondary school (pp. 107-113). New York, NY: Routledge.

15.

Bowser-Brown

(2007). An Assessment of Preservice Teachers’ Multicultural Perspectives and Technology. In Carlsen

McFerrin

Price

Weber

Willis

D. A.

(Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2007 (pp. 694-697). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

16.

Brindley

Laframboise

(2000). The need to do more: Promoting multiple perspectives in preservice teacher education through children’s literature. Teacher and Teacher Education, 18(4), 405-420.

17.

Brisk

M. E.

Barnhardt

Herrera

Rochon

(2002). Educators’ preparation for cultural and linguistic diversity: A call to action. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teachers.

18.

Brown

K. M.

(2004). Assessing preservice leaders’ beliefs, attitudes and values regarding issues of diversity, social justice, and equity: A review of existing measures. Equity & Excellence in Education, 37(4), 332-342.

19.

Cho

DeCastro-Ambrosetti

(2005, December). Is ignorance bliss? Attitudes toward multicultural education. The High School Journal, 89(2), 24-28.

20.

Darling-Hammond

Bransford

(2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

21.

Darling-Hammond

Youngs

(2002). Defining “highly qualified teachers” What does “scientifically-based research” actually tell us? Educational Researcher, 31(9), 13-25.

22.

Dee

Henkin

(2002). Assessing dispositions toward cultural diversity among preservice teachers. Urban Education, 37(1), 22-40.

23.

Delpit

(1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York, NY: The New Press.

24.

Derman-Sparks

Brunson Phillips

(1997). Teaching/learning anti-racism: A developmental approach. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

25.

Dewey

(1933). How we think. A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process (Rev. ed.), Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.

26.

Fullan

Hargreaves

(1992). Teacher development and educational change. New York, NY: Routledge.

27.

Goldberg

(2006). Integrating the arts: An approach to teaching and learning in multicultural and multilingual settings (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

28.

Guyton

E. M.

Wesche

M. V.

(2005). The Multicultural Efficacy Scale: Development, item selection, and reliability. Multicultural Perspectives, 7(4), 21-29.

29.

Haycock

(1998). Good teaching matters: How well-qualified teachers can close the gap. Thinking K-16, 3(2), 1-17.

30.

Hidalgo

Chávez-Chávez

Ramage

J. C.

(1996). Multicultural education: Landscape for reform in the twenty-first century. In Sikula

Buttery

T. J.

Guyton

(Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 761-778). New York, NY: Macmillan.

31.

Hoffman

Sable

(2006). Public elementary and secondary students, staff, schools, and school districts: School year 2003-04 (NCES 2006-307). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006307.pdf

32.

Howard-Hamilton

M. F.

Hinton

K. G.

(2004). Using entertainment media to inform student affairs teaching and practice about multiculturalism. New Directions for Student Services, 108, 25-35.

33.

Hwang

Y. S.

Vrongistinos

(2004, May). Immigrant teachers’ teacher efficacy. Part of this paper was presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Society, Chicago, IL.

34.

Hyland

Noflke

(2005). Understanding diversity through social and community inquiry: An action research study. Journal of Teacher Education, 56, 367-381.

35.

Jenks

Lee

Kanpol

(2001). Approaches to multicultural education in preservice teacher education: Philosophical frameworks and models for teaching. The Urban Review, 33(2), 87-105.

36.

Ketterer

J. J.

Phillips

T. M.

King

N. M.

Hilber

C. B.

(2008, February). Multicultural competency in higher education as a component of NCATE standard IV accountability. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, New Orleans, LA. Retrieved from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p207292_index.html

37.

Klump

McNeir

(2005). Culturally responsive practices for student success: A regional sampler. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

38.

Kubota

Austin

Saito-Abbott

(2003). Diversity and inclusion of sociopolitical issues in foreign language classrooms: An exploratory survey. Foreign Language Annals, 36(1), 12-24.

39.

Kyles

Olafson

(2008). Uncovering preservice teachers’ beliefs about diversity through reflective writing. Urban Education, 43(5), 500-518.

40.

Larke

P. J.

(1990). Cultural diversity awareness inventory: Assessing the sensitivity of preservice teachers. Action in Teacher Education, 12(3), 23-30.

41.

Lawrence

S. M.

(1998). Research, writing, and racial identity: Cross-disciplinary connections for multicultural education. The Teacher Educator, 34(1), 41-53.

42.

Light

Cureton

(1992). The quiet revolution: Eleven facts about multiculturalism and the curriculum. Change, 24(1), 24-29.

43.

Locke

(2005). Institutional social and cultural influences on the multicultural perspectives of preservice teachers. Multicultural Perspectives, 7(2), 20-28.

44.

Lowenstein

(2003). Readings of diversity from an undergraduate foundations course. Multicultural Education, 11(2), 15-22.

45.

McGinnis

J. R.

Davis

R. T.

(1995, March). Researching the induction of intending elementary science teachers in multicultural settings: The science methods component. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Science Teachers Association, Philadelphia, PA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED392860)

46.

Menken

Antúñez

(2001). An overview of the preparation and certification of teachers working with limited English proficient (LEP) students. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.

47.

Milner

R. H.

Flowers

L. A.

Moore

J. L.

Flowers

T. A.

(2003). Preservice teachers’ awareness of multiculturalism and diversity. The High School Journal, 87(1), 63-70.

48.

Moore

(1996, February). Empowering student teachers to teach from a multicultural perspective. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Chicago, IL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED394979)

49.

Morales

(2005). Changing student’s ideas of social justice through narrative pedagogy (Doctoral Dissertation, Boise State University, 2005). Dissertation Abstracts International, 67, 146.

50.

Multiculturalism in Higher Education. (n.d.) Encyclopedia of education. Retrieved from http://www.answers.com/topic/multiculturalism-in-higher-education

51.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2006). NCATE unit standards. Retrieved from http://www.ncate.org/public/unitStandardsRubrics.asp?ch=4#stnd4.

52.

Nilep

(2006). Code switching in sociocultural linguistics. Colorado Research in Linguistics, 19, 1-22.

53.

Oginga Siwatu

(2007). Preservice teachers’ culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy and outcome expectancy beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(7), 1086-1101.

54.

Pajares

M. F.

(1992). Construct teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307-332.

55.

Pandit

Alderman

(2004). Border crossings in the classroom: The international student interview as a strategy for promoting intercultural understanding. Journal of Geography, 103(3), 127-136.

56.

Pettus

Allain

(1999). Using a questionnaire to assess prospective teachers’ attitudes toward multicultural education. Education, 119(4), 651-658.

57.

Rokeach

(1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values: A theory of organization and change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

58.

Sanders

W. L.

Rivers

(1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement (pp. 1-15). Knoxville: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center.

59.

Saury

R. E.

Alexander

(2003). Story and healing in action: New methods for fostering heart-to-heart dialogue about race. Multicultural Education, 11(2), 49-54.

60.

Shulman

L. S.

(1993). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. In Moon

Shelton Mayes

(Ed.), Teaching and learning in the secondary school (pp. 125-133). New York, NY: Routledge.

61.

Sleeter

C. E.

(2001). Preparing teachers for culturally diverse schools: Research and the overwhelming presence of whiteness. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(2), 94-106.

62.

Tasan

A. P.

(2001). Teacher efficacy and diversity: Implications for teacher training. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association., Seattle, WA.

63.

Tse

(2001). Why don’t they learn English? Separating fact from fallacy in the US language debate. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

64.

Tschannen-Moran

Woolfolk-Hoy

(2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.

65.

Turner

(2007). Multicultural teacher attitudes and cultural sensitivity: An initial exploration of the experiences of individuals in a unique alternative teacher certification program. Unpublished master’s thesis, Notre Dame University, Notre Dame, IN.

66.

Valdes

(2001). Learning and not learning English: Latino students in American schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

67.

Walker

Shafer

Iiams

(2004). Not in my classroom: Teacher attitudes towards English language learners in the mainstream classroom. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 2(1), 130-160.

68.

Walton

P. H.

Baca

Escamilla

(2002). A national study of teacher education preparation for diverse student populations. Retrieved from http://crede.berkeley.edu/research/pdd/2.les.html

69.

Warren

C. S.

(2006). Incorporating multiculturalism into undergraduate psychology courses: Three simple active learning activities. Teaching of Psychology, 33(2), 105-109.

70.

Youngs

(2001). Predictors of mainstream teachers’ attitudes toward ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), 97-118.