Abstract
The effects of professional teacher dispositions on student development have been widely documented. Yet there is limited discussion of the impact of socially just dispositions. The present study critically examines the relationship between justice-oriented mind-sets in preservice teachers and their perceptions of teaching in urban schools. Using critical interpretive case study, we analyze a series of journal reflections from a diverse group of prospective teachers to determine whether exposure to service-learning opportunities within an urban school influenced their views about urban schools and students. As a result of the findings from the study, recommendations for teacher education are addressed.
Professional dispositions in education is of paramount importance as the demographics of the U.S. student population continue to shift and change in dynamic ways. Due to the growing diversity in public schools, justice-oriented approaches to teacher education have gained increasing attention among scholars and educators alike. Research on teacher dispositions has broadly concluded that the behaviors and attitudes in preservice teachers strongly influence the impact that educators have on student development (Howard & Milner, 2014; Thompson, 2013). Knowing this, we say confidently that if candidates are to become effective teachers of all students, especially racially, ethnically, linguistically, and economically diverse learners, they must adopt and apply justice-oriented teaching dispositions (empathy, critical consciousness of privilege, sense of responsibility to address injustice, etc.; Kaur, 2012; as cited in Chubbuck & Zembylas, 2016).
The concept of justice-oriented dispositions overlaps largely with practices grounded in culturally sustaining pedagogy (CSP; Paris & Alim, 2017). The idea of CSP is quite different than that of traditional resource- and asset-based conceptualizations (e.g., funds of knowledge, culturally relevant pedagogy, culturally responsive teaching, etc.). CSP moves beyond the oversimplified affirmation of diversity and inclusion, criticizing surface-level exposure to “the other” through commonly used foods and festival approaches to multicultural education (Banks, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 1994); and instead, it promotes the consistent maintenance of cultural pluralism and multiculturalism as an everyday part of schooling shaped by the evolving and ever-changing lived experiences of diverse youth and their communities (Paris, 2012). Teacher candidates who readily adopt justice-oriented dispositions have a heightened sense of awareness of and critical sensitivity to the social and political inequities that exist among marginalized students and are more inclined to model practices closely aligned with the principles of CSP. Educators who hold justice-oriented dispositions tend to value advocacy over assessment, relationships over rules, and togetherness over tolerance.
In this article, we contend that engendering a justice-oriented mind-set in preservice teachers demands dispositional changes, shifting and fluid perceptions of cultural diversity, and transformative understandings of students and their communities. We argue that teacher candidates who are exposed to intentional service-learning experiences in context-specific educational settings have the potential to develop a justice-oriented lens for viewing urban schools and the students they serve from a culturally pluralistic vantage point. The premise of the current study was to understand whether service-learning participants (SLPs), involved in a critical service-learning project within an urban middle school, transformed their perceptions about urban schools and the students who attend them after having participated in the project. It is our belief that this focus helps us to contribute to the larger conversation on teacher education (Milner & Lomotey, 2014) by specifically addressing how teacher preparation programs can ensure that every teacher who enters an urban school is dispositionally prepared to deliver effective instruction to all students (Howard & Milner, 2014).
To begin, this article provides a brief overview of the literature on service-learning and justice-oriented teacher education. Next, Villegas’s (2007) dispositional framework is used to examine justice-oriented teaching dispositions among SLPs. Upon analyzing these findings, we conclude with recommendations for teacher preparation programs on preparing preservice teachers to teach in increasingly diverse schools.
Literature Review
Service-Learning and Teaching Dispositions
According to the National and Community Service Trust Act (Corporation for National & Community Service, 2003), service-learning is a method of engaging students or other participants in learning and development through active participation in thoughtfully organized around the needs of a community partner. Often, service-learning develops out of a partnership between K-12 schools and institutions of higher learning with the community; the overarching goal of service-learning is to facilitate the development of civic responsibility, while being integrated into and enriching the academic curriculum.
Service-learning has become increasingly popular in colleges and universities around the country as an experiential learning pedagogy that engages students in authentic ways to understand curriculum and to develop a more in-depth understanding of the communities in which they live. In fact, Learn and Serve America (2012) explains that service-learning has the potential to “engage students in the educational process by encouraging them to apply their learning to solve real-life problems . . . And, by seeing the work they do benefit those around them, they become actively contributing citizens and community members” (para. 1). This pedagogical approach also has the potential to help university students to better understand underlying social inequities and to seek ways to actively advocate for underserved populations (Mitchell, 2008).
Considerations for Appropriate Engagement
Despite the possible benefits of using a pedagogy that includes service-learning with university students, researchers caution against the ill-informed use of service-learning as a pedagogical practice. Kahne and Westheimer (1996) point out that engaging in service-learning often promotes a variety of ideological, political, and social agendas if instructors and participants are not careful in their practice, which requires critique of both social structures and schooling experiences.
Butin (2007) advises that those interested in developing service-learning partnerships must be wary of the types of programs that engage in the service just for the sake of providing a novel pedagogical approach. Like Kahne and Westheimer (1996), Butin (2005) recommends that university students engaged in service-learning must also be challenged to reconsider the “taken-for granted” (p. 179) quality of the structures and practices that, beforehand, seemed all too “normal.” Hence, service-oriented learning moves beyond the status quo of putting students in disadvantaged communities and becomes a vehicle for critically questioning students’ viewpoints and analyzing how they think about society and the relationships that exists with these social inequalities and barriers.
Developing Justice-Oriented Teachers
Much is said of the possibilities service-learning holds in improving the understandings and experiences of novice teachers. As an example, Wade (1995) surveyed a group of teachers-in-training and found several outcomes produced by service-learning. The majority of participants (82%) reported increased self-efficacy and almost 50% reported increased self-esteem. Among the service outcomes, the study revealed 67% of the candidates increased their knowledge of others (usually not like them). Other research echoes Wade’s (1995) call to implement service in teacher training courses (Coffey, 2010; Cohen & Kinsey, 1994; Shor, Cattaneo, & Calton, 2017).
Throughout the literature, there are references to support the call for service in education programs. Swick (1999) points out that for both teacher education candidates and experienced teachers, service-learning provides a structure for several important realizations: (a) Supports professional growth. Through it, teacher education candidates gain a more comprehensive understanding of the “persona” of being a teacher, including the significant influence of teachers in the lives of children and families (Erickson & Anderson, 1997); (b) allows interaction with professional role models, such as community leaders and teacher leaders (Waterman, 1997), which fosters leadership skill development; (c) engages teachers in roles that encourage them to rethink how they respond to the totality of the lives of children and families (Alt, 1997); and (d) Helps teachers reflect on the importance of serving all children, especially racially, ethnically, linguistically, and economically diverse learners (Conklin, 2008; Erickson & Anderson, 1997). Swick (1999) further argues that teacher candidates learn meaningful approaches through the experiential and reflective service-learning activities in which they participate.
Furthermore, Tinkler, hannah, Tinkler, and Miller (2015) suggest that service-learning in teacher education provides opportunities for candidates to critically analyze the oppressive structures embedded into our education system. Service-learning experiences can increase “pre-service teachers’ exposure to diversity, to help re-focus attention on the needs of individual learners, and to assist candidates in understanding and questioning existing school structures” (Tinkler et al., 2015, p. 26), thus fostering the development of social justice goals.
Justice-Oriented Teaching Dispositions
Villegas (2007) proposes that teacher dispositions are “tendencies for individuals to act in a particular manner under particular circumstances, based on their beliefs” (p. 73). In addition, research suggests that dispositions closely align with one’s personal beliefs and value systems (Burant, Chubbuck, & Whipp, 2007) and certain beliefs about specific knowledge (Welch, Pitts, Tenini, Kuenlen, & Wood, 2010). Borko, Liston, and Whitcomb (2007) explain dispositions can be simply described as “an individual’s tendencies to act in a particular manner” (p. 361) and thus can be manifested as patterns of observable behaviors that become predictable. Schussler (2006) proposed that dispositions are not simply important constructs to possess, but are at the very core of “teachers’ decisions to think and act” (p. 252).
In relation to justice-oriented teaching dispositions, Villegas (2007) suggests that personal beliefs and perspectives can be evidenced in actions within the classroom (i.e., demonstrating lowered academic expectations for students of color and underresourced youth). According to Villegas, dispositions associated with a justice-oriented approach to teaching include a variety of practices that encourage and support all learners to take educational risks and develop an inclusive classroom community. Furthermore, others (Villegas & Lucas, 2002) propose that observations of classrooms where pedagogical decision making around practices such as CSP have the potential to assist preservice teachers in the development of justice-oriented teaching dispositions.
Other studies (Mitchell, 2008) suggest service-learning experiences that engage preservice teachers in working with diverse populations have the potential to help future educators develop a sense of cultural connectedness that does not always emerge with regular student teaching experiences. Hill-Jackson and Lewis (2011) recommend that teachers must learn to ask critical questions about the population they are teaching and understand how to better value their lived experiences within the classroom.
In addition, a report from the National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality and Public Agenda (Rochkind, Ott, Immerwahr, Doble, & Johnson, 2008) found that “large numbers of new teachers describe themselves as distinctly underprepared for the challenges of dealing with the ethnic and racial diversity that they find in the classroom at a time when many schools have increasingly varied populations” (p. 11). Thus, there appears to be connections between service-learning and developing justice-oriented dispositions in teacher education. Engaging in service-learning activities with embedded opportunities for discussion and reflection with diverse populations could potentially prepare preservice teachers for working with students from diverse backgrounds.
Challenging the Deficit Model—A Necessity for Justice-Oriented Teaching
There are concerns about the proper preparation of justice-oriented teachers; some (Gorski, 2006; Grant & Sleeter, 2006) multicultural teacher educators advise that occasionally efforts to engage preservice teachers in the development of dispositions appropriate for teaching result in deficit model thinking. An example of this mind-set is Payne’s (2003) A Framework for Understanding Poverty, in which she provides a method for teachers, most of whom come from middle class backgrounds, to “fix” impoverished students’ challenging behavior, underperformance on standardized tests, and lack of understanding of the “hidden rules” (p. 11) of school. This type of deficit model thinking places the responsibility for change on the students, while other models (Sato & Lensmire, 2009) challenge preservice teachers to question how society often places the blame on marginalized and underresourced families instead of viewing their funds of knowledge (González, Moll, & Amanti, 2005) and abilities as detrimental to society. The alternative to deficit model of thinking would require that teachers observe and reflect on how they interact with underresourced students to break the cycle of judgment and lowered expectations.
Pre- and in-service teachers should “be encouraged to focus instead on children’s competence as cultural and intellectual people” (Sato & Lensmire, 2009, p. 366), while embracing a new and different set of cultural norms that might benefit these students in the classroom. This focus on the full integration of student culture into educational spaces is consistent with culturally sustaining practices (Paris & Alim, 2014), which emphasizes “centering pedagogies on the heritage and contemporary practices of students and communities of color” (p. 87). If done properly, service-learning provides the opportunity for future teachers to learn more about the community in which students and families live and to develop a more socially just and responsible approach to teaching (Wade, 2008).
Preservice Teachers of Color
Although much has been learned about the critical role that teacher education plays in developing teachers who are socially just in both their beliefs and practices, much more remains to be known about the perceptions, experiences, and social justice orientation of preservice teachers of color. Because “social justice” can mean many things to many people, Boyle-Baise and Kilbane (2000) caution against using justice-oriented service-learning without having advanced knowledge of preservice teachers’ background. In their qualitative, interpretive, case study they explored the extent to which service-learning provided the kinds of experiences preservice teachers needed to become multicultural educators. Ultimately, they concluded quite simply that service-learning spoke to each preservice teacher differently given their varied lived experiences (Boyle-Baise & Kilbane, 2000). In comparison with White teacher candidates, the resulting impact of service-learning for preservice teachers of color was not the same. In turn, Boyle-Baise and Kilbane (2000) poignantly assert that preservice teachers’ race and previous life experiences are foundational in structuring powerful service-learning experiences and therefore, must be properly considered and not ignored.
Conceptual Framework
As presented in the overview of literature, research suggests that preservice educators can make a difference in the world (Conklin, 2008), but without a contextual understanding of the students they will teach one day, they cannot develop the types of dispositions necessary to be justice-oriented teachers of urban youth.
Villegas (2007) suggests that assessing teacher dispositions in relation to issues of social justice is necessary, but not enough; a key component in teacher education programs should be the inclusion of “a broad approach to education that aims to have all students reach high levels of learning and to prepare them all for active and full participation in a democracy” (p. 372).
Because the goals of this project closely align with Villegas’s (2007) suggestions on how to prepare preservice teachers for teaching in multicultural environments, her dispositional framework is used to guide the current study. To prepare justice-oriented teachers, Villegas (2007) provides a list of dispositions that include the following components: a “comprehensive grasp of content knowledge” (p. 372); responsiveness to diverse populations, which includes understanding the cultural factors that influence the ways in which children learn and communicate; “sophisticated pedagogical expertise” (p. 372) that engages learners from diverse backgrounds using their best learning styles and cultural understandings; “ability to diagnose sources of difficulty in students’ learning and strengths on which to build instruction” (p. 372); strategies for developing inclusive classrooms that feel like communities; and a deep understanding of the barriers children from diverse and underresourced backgrounds face in their learning environments. Furthermore, Villegas (2007) proposes that teacher educators must present opportunities early in teacher preparation programs for candidates to critically examine stereotypes and beliefs about classroom observations and interactions.
Based on this framework, we argue that a critical service-learning experience in an urban public school for preservice teachers has the potential to facilitate the development of justice-oriented dispositions that prepare candidates to teach in urban schools. We suggest that engaging prospective teachers early in a context-specific service-learning project serves as an introduction to the following five components in Villegas’s (2007) comprehensive list of teaching dispositions: (a) Engaging with learners from diverse backgrounds, (b) developing an initial understanding of learning styles and culture, (c) Observing strategies for developing inclusive classrooms that feel like communities, (d) providing an introduction to the barriers children from diverse and underresourced backgrounds face in their learning environments, and (e) Developing a responsiveness to diverse populations.
Context of the Study
University–School Partnership
The current study was conducted at a midsize university located in a large southeastern urban city, known by the pseudonym Hill University. As a result of recent economic shifts, the city in which Hill University is located experienced significant economic and cultural diversity in its general population. It is one of few cities in the United States with a majority–minority population, with African American, Latinx, and Asian American residents, combining for more than 50% of the total population. This overall change in the city’s population subsequently altered the demographics of the public school system making non-Whites nearly 66% of the total student body.
In response to the increasing diversity of the local schools, Hill University established a professional development partnership with one of the largest Title I urban middle schools in the state, referred to here on out by the pseudonym Governor’s Middle School (GMS). The premise of the partnership as co-constructed between the university and the middle school was twofold: (a) to offer partnering teachers at GMS an opportunity to attend professional development workshops, facilitated by a member of the research team, on best practices for teaching and learning using culturally sustaining methods and strategies and (b) to provide Hill University students, that demonstrate an interest in teaching, early exposure to diverse learning environments.
GMS was an ideal test case considering its classification as an urban emergent school, which according to Milner (2012) describes a school that is situated in a quickly growing city (with fewer than 1 million people) that experiences challenges, in terms of resources, qualification of teachers, and academic development of students. These challenges closely resemble those seen in schools located in a major metropolitan city—although, admittedly, to a lesser degree (Milner, 2012).
For the 2012-2013 academic school year, the total sixth- to eighth-grade GMS enrollment was approximately 1,076 students. African Americans (729) constituted an overwhelming majority of the student body; and Latinx students made up roughly 18% (222) of the total student enrollment. White students were significantly underrepresented, accounting for less than 5% (48) of the student population. More than three quarters (80%) of GMS students received free or reduced lunch, which meets the criteria of a high poverty school (National Center for Education Statistics, 2017). Also, the teacher turnover rate was 28%, which was nine points higher than the district average (19%) and 12 points higher than the state (16%). Consequently, less than 40% of GMS students met proficiency requirements on the End-of-Grade tests for reading (24%) and math (15.1%) during the school year under investigation. Interestingly, at the same time, the Office of Civil Rights (2012) reported that nearly five in every 10 students attending GMS were excluded from classroom instruction as a result of in-school (17%) and out-of-school suspensions (34.7%). These descriptive characteristics provide a snapshot of the real challenges faced by many urban emergent schools and further demonstrate why exposure to this context-specific setting is an ideal prerequisite for teaching in urban environments.
Service-Learning Component
Context-specific training, in urban schools like GMS, has proven effective in the development of justice-oriented teachers. Deering and Stanutz (1995) suggest that “attitudes formed through experience tend to be more stable than those arrived at in other ways” (p. 390). Therefore, providing early exposure to diverse educational settings is critical for preservice teachers.
Building on this idea, undergraduate students at Hill University participated in an urban education–focused liberal studies course titled Citizenship and Education facilitated by a member of the research team. This course was offered over the span of 17 weeks. It was designed to introduce students to the profession of education using critical service-learning as a pedagogical tool. The overall goal of the course was to promote engagement among each enrolled student, also referred to as SLPs, in support of achieving a more meaningful and purposeful learning experience that would help them to better understand the facets of urban education and the concept of social justice.
Central to the service-learning component of the course, SLPs were required to complete a minimum of 25 volunteer hours at GMS for 12 of the 17 scheduled weekly meetings. They met with a team of 90 sixth graders for a minimum of 2 hr once a week. SLPs took sixth graders to either the cafeteria or media center for the first hour of school each Friday morning where they tutored, mentored, and planned community-building activities with GMS students. They also engaged the sixth graders in conversations about issues of concern to them (i.e., bullying, poverty, etc.), and discussed their future college and career plans.
Course Instruction
To cultivate a deeper understanding of justice-oriented teaching dispositions, alongside their service-learning experience, SLPs received 27 hr of course instruction. The instructor, a member of the research team, assigned SLPs selected readings that focused on the following themes: (a) social justice, (b) characteristics of urban schools, (c) successful practices for engaging urban students, and (d) the role of volunteerism and its importance in providing services to underresourced communities. To bridge the gap between theory and practice through service-learning, each week SLPs read scholarship by Dimitriadis (2007), Kozol (2007), Ayers and Alexander-Tanner (2000), and Compton-Lilly (2004) prior to engaging with the middle school students. Under the facilitation of the instructor, SLPs were encouraged to draw connections between what they had read on urban education, as presented in the writings of these authors, with what they were seeing during their service-learning experiences at GMS during class discussions as well as within their reflective journals. On selected weeks, after participating in activities with the sixth graders, the instructor led whole-group discussions with the SLPs as a form of debriefing to monitor whether they were effectively making connections between the readings and their experiences. Immediately following, SLPs wrote prompted reflections in their individual journals to work through their personal thoughts and to pose additional questions pertaining to their observations and experiences. When applicable, the instructor answered these questions in the margins of the SLPs papers and, if necessary, probed them to deepen their analysis of their experience. These weekly reflections became the primary source of data used to explore whether critical service-learning partnerships with urban schools could engender justice-oriented teacher dispositions among preservice teachers.
Method
This research presents a critical interpretive case study of a university–school partnership to explore the process of how an extended service-learning experience influenced student perceptions about urban education. According to Yin (2009), case studies are especially suitable when addressing “how” and “why” (process and context) questions that involve the tracing of operational links longitudinally rather than at a single point in time (Benbasat, Goldstein, & Mead, 1987). By adding a critical interpretive dimension to case study analysis, we deepen our understanding of social justice and conceptions of power and privilege through the participants’ interpretation of their context (Runeson & Höst, 2009). The researcher, using a critical interpretive case study method, analyzes words not numbers to provide a complex, holistic picture of participant perceptions generated from detailed narrative data collected over a period of time (Creswell, 1998). Therefore, in this study, we attempt to access how SLPs interpret or experience the world around them, filtering this awareness—or heightened consciousness—through our own conceptual apparatus to assign meaning, and then disseminating this version of events back to the SLPs as well as to our school partners (Walsham, 1995). This interpretive process is not a neutral one; it requires reflexivity and sensitivity to positionality by the members of the research team. Thus, we operate as active agents, rather than detached observers, in the collection and analysis of data. Essentially, our role as researchers become that of “passionate participants” who facilitate multivoice reconstruction through direct involvement with SLPs (Lincoln & Guba, 2000). Our responsibility, then, is to help SLPs recognize their own cultural biases and ethnic prejudices, providing them the space to challenge these preconceptions (i.e., through ongoing probing and critical self-reflection), and develop their capacity for social justice teaching.
Our study is guided by the following research question: How can teacher preparation courses with an embedded critical service-learning component shape how prospective teachers view urban schools and students? Here, we question if it is possible for SLPs in a preservice education course, with a semester-long critical service-learning project, to transform their perceptions, and perhaps even their preconceptions, about students who attend an urban Title I middle school.
Participants
This study was a part of a larger project that examined a convenience sample of a single cohort of 16 SLPs, registered in an undergraduate preservice education course (Coffey, Webster, & Heafner, 2016; see Table 1 for a detailed profile chart of SLPs). Each SLP was actively enrolled in the course for 17 consecutive weeks. The majority of the participants were first-year, second-semester freshman (n = 14), with a mean self-reported age of 19.4 years (SD = 1.93). There was an even distribution of African American (n = 7) and White (n = 7) SLPs; only two students were Latinx. Female students accounted for a total of 56% (n = 9) of the participants, whereas 44% (n = 7) were male. Among the SLPs, 75% (n = 12) had declared majors while 25% (n = 4) remained undecided. Of the 12 students with declared majors, the majority were from the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences (n = 9), and the remaining were from the College of Business (n = 2) and the College of Education (n = 1). The diversity in SLPs’ majors was in large part a function of the cross listing of Citizenship and Education as both a Liberal Studies and Education course. While the class was designed as a preservice education course for students who showed an interest in becoming teachers, the practice of cross listing the class seemingly generated a broad interdisciplinary appeal.
Demographic Profile of SLPs.
Note. Age denotes age on the first day of class. SLPs = service-learning participants; AAM = African American male; WF = White female; AAF = African American female; LF = Latina; WM = White male.
Contacted to verify.
Data Collection
Three types of data sources were used to explore the impact of service-learning on student perceptions: participant journals, instructor field notes, and school partner feedback. The use of multiple data sources captures diverse viewpoints of the same phenomenon and is often referred to as triangulation (Denzin, 1978). Data triangulation is particularly useful for our study because it helps to moderate potential bias, such as social desirability—which describes the tendency of a respondent to underreport undesirable behaviors/attitudes/thoughts in an effort to present oneself in a favorable light—while also strengthening the interpretation of a complex construct like justice-oriented teaching dispositions (Becker, 1958).
The principal source of data, within this critical interpretive case study, was the SLPs’ reflective journal responses. On selected weeks, SLPs (n = 16) wrote a 1 to 2 page response to a predetermined journal prompt provided by the instructor. Participants accessed these prompts through the university online course management system following their participation in specific service-learning activities. Six separate, yet interrelated, prompts were designed to structure participant responses in ways that bridged their course readings with their service-learning experiences (see Table 2 for a detailed description of each prompt and its corresponding reading). In sum, a total of 82 responses 1 were collected from SLPs.
Readings and Prompts for SLPs.
Note. Selected readings only apply to the social justice literature that was assigned during the specified week. SLPs = service-learning participants; GMS = Governor’s Middle School.
This study also used instructor field notes as a second source of data. These summaries were handwritten written account recalled by the instructor during the in-class debriefing sessions following each service-learning encounter. The instructor observed both verbal and nonverbal classroom interactions. The verbal communications included informal discussions about SLPs’ prior schooling experiences. Through these conversations, the instructor was able to categorically record SLPs’ schooling background (e.g., urban, suburban, rural) to allow for standard comparisons of schooling experiences between SLPs and GMS students (see Table 1 for a detailed profile chart of SLPs). In addition, observational notes on nonverbal cues such as facial expressions, body movements, eye contact, mannerisms, and dialect were documented to add dispositional context to SLPs verbal messages. These cues provided a rich informational dimension to the data that would have otherwise gone unnoticed.
Our third, and final, data source was school partner feedback. All information and/or comments were obtained from GMS partners (i.e., principal, teachers, and students) directly involved with the service-learning project by a member of the research team. Typically, the feedback provided was unsolicited or spontaneous in nature. Partners spoke openly and without reservation about everyday interactions (SLP-to-student and partner-to-SLP) that occurred during scheduled visitations to the school site. A member of the research team recorded this data on paper and later transferred it to a computer, where it was stored until it could be further analyzed. These casual comments were authentic and unforged, thereby reducing response bias and, subsequently, increasing the trustworthiness of the information received from school partners.
Data Analysis
To analyze the data, we used open thematic and selective coding. While these analytic coding processes are commonly associated with grounded theory, our intentions, within this study, were not to generate a new theory but rather to search for integrated themes and concepts among the data to develop a deeper and more critical understanding of justice-oriented teaching dispositions.
For open thematic coding, we identified, described, named, compared, and ultimately categorized themes found in SLPs’ reflective journal responses using an asset/deficit dichotomy (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). In taking this approach, we initially coded a total of 82 responses (approximately 14-16 entries, per prompt), line by line, to identify major themes that reflected Villegas’s (2007) justice-oriented teaching (i.e., engagement with learners of diverse backgrounds, development of initial understanding of learning styles and culture, strategies for developing inclusive community-like classrooms, a realization of the barriers that marginalized youth face in schools, and responsiveness to diverse populations) distinguishing asset-based perspectives (i.e., the belief that all students can succeed; and the resources that they bring with them from home are valuable assets to this success) from deficit-based perspectives (i.e., the belief that students possess cultural deficits that hinder their success). We then grouped these themes using selective coding and “transformative perceptions” (i.e., the shift from a deficit- to asset-based perceptive) emerged as the core category (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). With this method, we sampled excerpts from written transcriptions of the instructor field notes and school partner feedback to refine themed categories and identify emerging patterns in the data. To ensure consistency in coding and interpretation, we utilized a standardized method (consensus estimates of the percentage of cross-rater agreement) to establish desired levels of interrater reliability (IRR). The IRR estimate (percent of agreement) produced a score of 85%. A high IRR (80%, or more), like the one generated here, suggests that major themes were coded consistently. This generally means that our interpretations of the research findings are in accord with the data and, therefore, worthy of serious consideration.
Findings
Our analysis essentially deconstructed the data with the goal of telling a conceptual story that connected SLPs’ written reflections, their observable behaviors, and our interpretations of justice-oriented dispositions. Our aim, in presenting the findings, was to interpret SLPs’ service-learning experiences and demonstrate whether a transformation occurred in their perceptions and/or preconceptions of urban schools and students. What is to follow is a synopsis of the major conclusions drawn from this study.
In reanalyzing data from a previous study, we discovered an interesting, and perhaps unexpected, finding. After disaggregating the data by race and schooling experience, we found that SLPs of color, with nonurban schooling experiences, were among those most impacted by this critical service-learning opportunity. When comparing their initial journal responses (Prompt 1) with those responses arrived at during the latter phase of the course (Prompt 2-5), we noticed that SLPs shifted from a very deficit orientation of urban schools to a more inclusive one with heightened sensitivity to and awareness of diverse learners. Based on this finding, we have limited our discussion to capture the reflections of SLPs of color with prior schooling experiences in suburban or rural educational settings.
The remainder of this section will be devoted to providing a brief, yet detailed, description of the four SLPs (Aaron, Kyra, Wade, and Braydon) that became the focal point of our research. Then, using the major themes constructed from Villegas’s (2007) model of justice-oriented teaching, we highlighted selected responses taken from the SLPs’ journal entries to demonstrate how their thoughts and feelings about urban schools and students evolved over the duration of the course.
SLPs of Color
Aaron
At the time of the study, Aaron (pseudonym) was an incredibly bright 19-year-old African American male student at Hill University. He was classified as a first-year, second-semester freshmen. Although Aaron’s declared major was in political science, he openly expressed an interest in pursuing a premed track and getting his bachelor’s degree in psychology. During class, Aaron’s comments about his prior schooling experience were largely framed from a suburban context. Although, Aaron was an overall stellar student, what distinguished him from his peers was his thoughtfulness and genuine concern for helping others.
Kyra
At the time of the study, Kyra (pseudonym) was a mature 26-year-old African American female transfer student at Hill University. In accordance with her credit hours, Kyra was considered a junior. Her declared major was English with a minor in Children’s Literature. When discussing her schooling experiences, prior to attending the university, Kyra often used her suburban school background as a point of reference. Aside from her role as a student, Kyra is a single mother of one who, during the period of our investigation, worked as a dental hygienist to provide financial support for her son, Eli (pseudonym).
Wade
At the time of the study, Wade (pseudonym) was a reclusive 18-year-old African American male student at Hill University. He was classified as a first-year, second-semester freshmen. While Wade had not formally declared a major, he communicated an interest in pursuing his degree in Business, Education, or Political Science. Before he was admitted into the university, the sum of Wade’s educational experience was primarily situated in a rural setting. Dispositionally, Wade was generally a quiet, and rather shy, student who spoke with a noticeable southern drawl. Notwithstanding his reserved demeanor, Wade’s contributions to class discussions were particularly insightful, which reflected his innate ability to think analytically.
Braydon
At the time of the study, Braydon (pseudonym) was a vibrant 18-year-old African American male student at Hill University. He was classified as a first-year, second-semester freshmen. Braydon was in pursuit of his bachelor’s degree in Business with a concentration in Marketing. While Braydon attended school in a predominantly urban school district, his high school was uniquely located in a suburban community. Subsequently, his thoughts about schooling were in many ways an extension of his experiences in a suburban high school. Outside of class, Braydon worked as a computer sales representative at an electronics store. He resigned, a few weeks prior to beginning the course, to accept a job promotion with a local competitor. Despite his increased work demands, Braydon remained lively and engaged throughout class.
Initial Perceptions and Preconceptions of Urban Schools
Two weeks into the semester, SLPs wrote their first reflective journal entry. Journal Prompt 1 posed the following question: What were your initial impressions of the students and faculty at GMS? Be specific. This prompt was designed to gauge SLPs’ unfiltered thoughts, prior to beginning the critical service-learning portion of the course, about working with students and staff at a Title I middle school. Their descriptions generally ranged from high anxiety to sheer bewilderment. Kyra explained that going to GMS made her feel “so nervous.” She further elaborated that while she was “old enough to be [the middle school students’] mother,” this mere fact did not “ease [her] nerves.” Wade echoed a similar sentiment. He explained that he considered withdrawing from the course after learning that he was required to visit GMS as a mandatory component of the class. Wade commented,
I didn’t know what to think . . . I heard bad rumors about the school and the children who were in it. Also I heard how the school was worse now than what it was in the early 2000’s.
Moreover, Aaron and Braydon’s first impressions of GMS were more comparative in nature. Aaron, in discussing the notion of teaming (i.e., paring 2-3 teachers into groups with 60-90 students to promote positive teacher–student relationships), pointed out that this practice “would have been unheard of” at his previous school. He notes that his prior schooling experience followed a “traditionalist model” of education. Similarly, Braydon recalling his high school experience with exceptional children (EC), admitted that he assumed all EC students at GMS would lack social skills and have “lower learning abilities.” In addition, Braydon mentioned that he did not expect the sixth graders to “receive [him] with excitement.” He shared,
The school [GMS] has behavioral problems with frequent fights and arguments from what I was told . . .
In attempting to interpret the thoughts and feelings of our sampled participants, we found that SLPs of color, with nonurban schooling experiences, consistently provided uninformed, deficit, and/or stereotypical reflections about GMS and its students. Few, if any, of their initial responses offered substantive comments about the staff. By acknowledging these early impressions, we can determine if, and potentially at what point, SLPs’ perceptions transformed in response to their participation in the service-learning project and their exposure to selected social justice literature. We use themes constructed from Villegas’s (2007) model of justice-oriented teaching, to illustrate the evolution of SLPs’ thoughts and mind-sets. In the interest of clarity, each theme has been grouped under one of three structural ecologies: classroom, school, or community.
Social Justice in the Classroom
During Week 4, SLPs read Kozol’s (2007) Letters to a Young Teacher and Ayers and Alexander-Tanners’s (2000) To Teach while simultaneously participating in critical service-learning activities at GMS. At the end of this week, SLPs were instructed to provide a response to Prompt 3: Thinking about your interactions and observations of the teachers at GMS, address the following questions: (1) Who are the GMS teachers and what do you see as their responsibilities? (2) What surprised you about the expectations that are placed upon them for performance on a daily basis? and (3) In your discussions with the teachers, what did you learn about their backgrounds and how they came to teaching? This specific prompt was designed to encourage SLPs to think more intently about how classrooms are (or how they could be) used to promote social justice, particularly through pedagogical practices. Selected responses, from the sampled group, are provided.
Engagement with learners from diverse backgrounds
Conventionally, strong student–teacher relationships have been known to help facilitate student engagement. As such, it was no surprise that two of the SLPs candidly reflected on the importance of knowing students personally to stimulate their interest in learning. After visiting GMS, Aaron states that, even amid large class sizes, he understands why it is essential for teachers to “work with each student individually.” He elaborated,
[H]aving a teacher who attends to the kids individually is very important at a young age to the development of the students.
In like manner, Kyra noted that teachers, whom she observed working with students daily, generally “[knew] the needs of each individual child.” In her response, she alluded to the idea that carefully, and consistently, nurturing relationships with students is a natural byproduct of effective teaching.
Developing an initial understanding of learning styles and culture
When teachers build relationships with their students, they are in a better position to integrate the student’s culture within the curriculum. This practice tends to enhance their pedagogy, making learning more meaningful and relevant for students. All four SLPs indicated the value of culturally responsive teaching. Wade, in particular, mentioned that after visiting GMS he took notice that teachers do not “just [teach] the material to students.” Here, he implies that teaching should be a holistic and creative process, not simply subject-centered. In revisiting the work of Kozol and thinking about his experiences at GMS, Braydon further concluded that even though “[culturally responsive teaching] is an extremely hard thing to do [given] the expectations [connected] with standardized testing,” teachers should still attempt to “cater to many different students.” Similarly, Aaron and Kyra contend that the delivery of instructional lessons should be differentiated and strategically aligned with students’ interests. Aaron believed that teachers should “customize [their] teaching to fit [their] class.” He was surprised to learn that teachers have “limited flexibility in [designing the] curriculum.” To this, Aaron added,
Using topics that the students find interesting [would be] very useful in keeping them involved in the curriculum.
In the same manner, Kyra pointed out that teachers should be “permitted to teach in a way that they deem most appropriate for their students . . .” She stated that she had been “oblivious to [the] fact that teachers had very little control over their classrooms.” Specifically, Kyra commented,
I found it disturbing that teachers are required to use a cookie cutter approach to teach students the same materials when it is obvious that they (students) are all individuals and should be [taught] at a level that would be beneficial to them.
Following this reflection, she goes on to discuss what she believed would be the benefits of using a more culturally relevant pedagogical strategy:
I think that test scores, reading levels, and mathematical skills in urban schools would increase drastically, and the knowledge that [the students] gained would not be ephemeral—what [students] learned would be carried on to the next grade level and throughout their lives.
Kyra, with her thought-provoking remarks, addressed the immediate and long-term impact of culturally responsive teaching, demonstrating how classroom practices can affect other dimensions of a students’ life beyond academics.
Observing strategies for developing inclusive classrooms that feel like communities
To support learning for diverse students, teachers are encouraged to create positive classroom environments. Known factors include providing safe spaces for students; accepting and respecting students of all cultural, ethnic, and economic backgrounds; and having a warm and inviting classroom atmosphere. Albeit developing a positive climate is only one of many avenues by which teachers can create an inclusive classroom, it is likely the most recognized. This was clearly evident in the SLPs’ responses. While Wade tersely, yet explicitly, addressed the centrality of establishing a “positive environment for every student in [the] class,” the other SLPs spoke more directly about their observations, identifying characteristics commonly associated with inclusive classrooms. Kyra often referred to urban teachers as “silent characters within the school system” implying that they do not often receive their due recognition. She explained how she observed “teachers who are actually concerned about [the students’] well-being . . . because they [knowingly teach] to a group of children coming [from] families who are financially challenged.” Braydon, in observing a different GMS teacher, discovered a resemblance in temperament. He recalled that “[the teacher he observed] seemed to be nice.” Even though Braydon witnessed this teacher reprimand a student, he still noted that she displayed a pleasant and friendly disposition. Moreover, Aaron truly captured the essence of establishing an inclusive classroom when he noted, “the teachers [at GMS] are caring and have the best interest at heart for their students.” He elaborated,
[GMS teachers appeared to] inspire kids to grow and improve academically . . . [they] are no different from anyone else in their desire to help kids perform well in school.
Social Justice in the Schools
During Week 3, SLPs read Dimitriadis’s (2007) Studying Urban Youth Culture while participating in ongoing service-learning activities at GMS. At the week’s conclusion, SLPs were instructed to provide a response to Prompt 2: What did you learn about the school system as you conducted research using the resources and materials from class? This prompt was intended to assist SLPs in gaining insight into the impinging realities that urban schools confront in their pursuit of social justice. These challenges are often connected directly to the opportunity gap, a concept used to describe the varied ways in which race, ethnicity and socioeconomic status, and other factors perpetuate inequity in urban schools. Selected responses are presented.
Providing an introduction to the barriers children from diverse and underresourced backgrounds face in their learning environments
To provide an equitable education, it is critical that schools have a heightened sense of awareness of structural inequalities. This requires that administration as well as teachers have a thorough understanding of the unique demographics of the community in which their students live. Attention to poverty, transportation (or lack thereof), and housing provide the appropriate context for understanding the socioeconomic barriers marginalized youth in urban schools face. Prior to visiting GMS, the SLPs’ knowledge of the entrenched bias embedded into school systems was at best partial and, at worst, ideologically distorted. For instance, Braydon replied, “While researching [the school system] I found many things surprising and really unbelievable.” He further expressed,
The one thing that really surprised me was finding out that 97% of the schools in the district are below poverty lines [sic]. I didn’t even believe it at first because [of] my prior experiences in the schools I did not pay very much attention to it.
The reflection that Braydon offered is telling and to some extent it serves as a benchmark for understanding the responses provided by the other SLPs with similar prior schooling experiences. Kyra’s unawareness of the socioeconomic conditions within the school system is readily apparent when she describes her personal experiences. She stated, “I have never personally experienced segregation . . . just the thought of segregation here in [the city] is unsettling.” By the same token, Aaron spoke of his unfamiliarity of structural inequalities within school system. He spoke transparently about his lack of knowledge concerning how poverty influences education. Aaron expressed, up until this point, he had been indifferent to the role of “poverty and how it affected the outlook of the school system.”
SLPs, in their responses, mentioned in great detail how the readings, coupled with their observations, helped them better understand issues related to inadequate funding and educational underperformance (Braydon), in addition to concerns of teacher quality (Aaron) and school resegregation (Kyra and Aaron). Their sensitivity to the opportunity gap, although novice, indicates that SLPs, after visiting GMS, have a greater sense of the complex reality many urban schools are up against in ensuring an equitable and quality education for marginalized students.
Social Justice in the Community
During Week 5, SLPs read Chapter 3 “Twelve Myths About Poor and Diverse Parents” in Compton-Lilly’s (2004) Confronting Racism, Poverty, and Power while completing service-learning projects at GMS. Exactly 1 week later (Week 6), SLPs responded to Prompt 4: What is social justice? Please make sure to fully explain your choices for symbols you have related to the concept. Discuss why you have selected this medium. The purpose of this prompt was to encourage SLPs to think more broadly about the concept of social justice after having visited GMS, at this point, on four separate occasions. The basic idea here was to help them to extend their views of justice-oriented principles beyond the classroom and the school system. SLPs were to consider how they might apply these principles in their own community and everyday life. Selected responses are reported.
Developing a responsiveness to diverse populations
In reference to urban schools, the idea that we cannot prepare teachers to teach where they have never been is both provocative and illuminating. Within context, those belonging to homogeneous social networks, outside of the urban purview, find it more difficult (though not impossible) to support diversity and respond positively to difference. To be responsive, however, involves not only having an open mind but also a willingness to accept others outside of one’s immediate circle. Responsiveness is not organic, it takes considerable effort and unwavering commitment; and effective teachers of urban students realize this and take the necessary actions to demonstrate great sensitivity to diverse perspectives and cultures. Interestingly, SLPs’ responses reflected this orientation. Braydon admitted that his initial view of social justice had expanded in response to “what [he] learned from [his] classmates and the students [6th graders at GMS].” He further clarified, “I learned from them [the GMS students] just by seeing their environment they learn in.” In articulating, more specifically, what he had gleaned from his critical service-learning experience, Braydon added, “ . . . we should all be tolerant to each other . . . I found social justice to be all encompassing with all categories of life.” Prior to taking the course, Braydon described how he had not previously considered diversity from multiple perspectives. He commented,
I have not changed my view [per se] but it has become broader; I now see it relate to everything such as race, sex [sexual orientation], religion, etc. and all [address] equity.
Similarly, Wade added, “ . . . no matter who you are you should be treated the same with equal respect.” He subsequently pointed out that despite our various backgrounds “ . . . we are all human beings.”
While both Braydon and Wade focused on the treatment of diverse populations, Aaron discussed the beauty of diversity. Euphorically, he suggested, “What makes this world beautiful is the diversity and difference in culture and beliefs.” Aaron goes on to contend that “ . . . man’s main mistake is our inability to be respectful and understanding of our difference, instead of forcing our own beliefs onto another group.” He alluded to the fact that, historically, our country has not always accepted difference, but this, he added, “does not mean [that] people have to be at conflict with each other.” Despite the ugliness of the past in previous pursuits of equality, Aaron insisted that we consider the promise of diversity for the present and focus on ways to be more inclusive.
In comparison with the other SLPs, Kyra approached the idea of social justice very differently. She looked at it from a personal point of view. Kyra noted, “[a]t this very moment in my life, social justice for me is to see that my son [Eli] is given the same opportunities that his [W]hite counterparts are so freely rewarded.” Social justice, for Kyra, is not about her personally but rather it is vicariously embedded into her everyday life through her son. She explained,
Prior to taking this class, I did not put too [much] thought into social justice, but since we (the class) have discussed the issue on a few occasions and through service-learning I am thinking more actively of social justice and what it means to me as a mother, a woman, and as an African American woman.
While Kyra admitted that she had not previously understood the concept of social justice for herself, she, however, boldly confessed that issues of equity were very much at the forefront of her thoughts as she considered her dreams for her son and other young boys who look like him. She further noted,
[I]t is my dream for all the [Eli’s] of the world to be judged on their deeds and what they contribute to the country in which we all share.
Kyra expressed a hope of social justice. Like Aaron, she acknowledged the obstacles of the past, but focused on the country’s present attempts to make changes and continuously pursue equity. Kyra concluded,
I have to give our country credit for attempting to make changes in our nation to include every one; rather [sic] it be including individuals regardless of their: sexual orientation/preference, ethnic background, age, gender, or their financial situation; BUT we still have many miles to travel . . .
Post Service-Learning Reflections and Transformative Perceptions
Near the conclusion of the course, SLPs wrote one of their final reflective journal entries.
2
Journal Prompt 5 asked SLPs to ponder the following: Over the past 10 weeks, we have discussed the ways in which educational decision making directly affects students in schools across the nation. Through your readings, class discussions, and interactions with middle school students at GMS, how have your views of education changed? More specifically, have any of your original thoughts about schooling, teachers, poverty, urban settings, children, administration changed during the time you have been in this course. If so, how have they changed and what specific event (reading, discussion, and interaction) prompted that change? This closing prompt was designed to gauge whether SLPs’ thoughts and feelings about urban schools and students evolved over the semester. Specifically, we looked to determine if, and possibly at what point, their perspectives and/or preconceptions shifted from their original, and often negative, impressions of GMS and its students. We were mainly interested in potentially pinpointing when these possible shifts occurred and if they could be attributed to the critical service-learning component of the course, selected social justice readings, or a combination of the two. The responses from the SLPs generally conveyed a greater sensitivity to and more awareness of the unique set of circumstances diverse learners encounter daily. Kyra was extremely transparent in her reflection. She revealed,
Prior to taking this course . . . I was clueless as to all the challenges (ethnic) children must go through just to get a mediocre education in the public school system. I was under the false impression that . . . all public schools were created equally.
Kyra stated that because of the “assigned readings and [her] interactions with middle school students at [GMS] . . . [her] views on education has changed.” She went on to say, “I hope that I can make a difference to at least one student (other than my own).” Aaron expressed a similar viewpoint. He also stated that his experiences at GMS “opened [his] eyes to a lot of things in the public school system.” Aaron acknowledged that the major “influencing factor [for him] was the hands on time [he] spent with the students.” He further commented,
For me personally this experience was definitely beneficial, it adds high value for evaluating the validity for some of the supposed causes to some of the flaws of public education.
Aaron discussed how, despite the often negative media coverage of students attending GMS, he was “extremely impressed at the level of enthusiasm [they] showed when learning.” This, he noted, was an obvious “contradiction.” Aaron discussed, in great detail, his frustration with the “distasteful assumptions” typically made about Title I students. He specifically referenced the “shocking verbiage” and “negative thinking” associated with their academic acuity, recalling the he was “highly upset that kids at Title I [schools] are automatically considered under achievers.” This assumption is misguided he asserted and should be, in his words, “torn down.” He offered this powerful rebuttal,
Not only did the students [6th graders at GMS] I talked with show enthusiasm [for learning], they are teachable and have as much potential to be successful as the rest.
Braydon, in his final reflection about the service-learning project, chose to focus more on the utility of the readings. Referring to Ayers and Alexander-Tanner (2000), he stated, “[this] book showed me the challenges teachers face everyday including differing cultures and different learning styles and abilities.” He further suggested that this book, in particular, changed his views about teaching. Prior to the class, Braydon noted that he naively assumed that teaching was “relatively easy.” He goes on to recant this presumption, noting that after he completed the critical service-learning component of the course, he had “gained [more] respect for those who choose to enter the field of education.”
From these concluding responses two things are apparent. First, some type of meaningful transformation, whether subtle or radical, occurred in SLPs’ initial impressions of urban schools and students over the span of the semester. Upon completing the service-learning project, SLPs tended to exhibit, within their reflections, a heightened sensitivity to and greater awareness of diverse learners. Their comments challenged their prior perceptions and preconceptions, revealing a critical consciousness of the reproduction of inequality in urban school systems (Kyra), a deeper understanding of educational resilience and achievement among urban students (Aaron), and a new transformative perspective about teaching in diverse schools (Braydon).
Second, although we could not determine the precise moment these transformations occurred, we were able to identify, using SLPs’ reflections, which course activity was instrumental in shifting their original thoughts and feelings about GMS students. Their responses varied. One SLP regarded the selected social justice readings as the primary driving force behind his (Braydon) new insight about the professional obligations of teaching students from diverse backgrounds. Another SLP revealed that his (Aaron) service-learning experience helped him to think differently about urban students’ academic potential. Yet a different SLP noted that both the social justice readings and the service-learning experience, coupled together, influenced her (Kyra) understanding about the equitable distribution of resources in urban school districts.
No matter the point in time in which these transformations happened, it is evident from the SLPs’ responses that their initial view of urban schools and students did, indeed, evolve over the duration of the course. We further conclude that in response to the critical service-learning component of the class, SLPs have in turn developed a greater understanding of justice-oriented teaching. It is also worth mentioning that the majority of the SLPs of color, who severed as the focal point of our study, were African American males. With the current challenges of increasing the number of Black male teachers into the teaching force (Goings & Bianco, 2016; Lewis, 2006), it is plausible that our findings could be used, in a separate study, to further explore the relationship between African American male teacher recruitment and the early development of justice-oriented teaching dispositions in diversifying the teaching pool. Nonetheless, from our major conclusions, we view our findings as somewhat groundbreaking and worthy of serious, more intensive, investigation.
Discussion
We approached our study originally seeking to understand how to prepare preservice teachers to teach in multicultural environments. Using Villegas’s (2007) dispositional framework to guide our analysis, we conducted a critical interpretive case study of a university–school partnership to address the following research question, How can teacher preparation courses with an embedded critical service-learning component shape how prospective teachers view urban schools and students? By asking this question we were mostly interested in determining whether it was possible for SLPs in a preservice education course, with a semester-long critical service-learning project, to transform their negative perceptions and/or preconceptions, about students attending an urban Title I middle school. Paradoxically, we discovered that the greatest dispositional transformation occurred in SLPs of color with nonurban (rural or suburban) prior schooling experiences. From our analysis, we found that their initial views of urban schools evolved over the duration of the course, shifting from a deficit orientation to a more inclusive one with heightened sensitivity to and awareness of diverse learners. This SLP subgroup cited exposure to selected social justice literature and/or participating in a critical service-learning project as being largely influential in their overall development and understanding of justice-oriented teaching. Altogether, the results of our study suggest that of the five central components to Villegas’s (2007) framework, only two (i.e., providing an introduction to the barriers children from diverse and underresourced backgrounds face in their learning environments and engaging with learners from diverse backgrounds) were consistent themes determined to have contributed to the SLPs’ transformation in perceptions about urban schools and students. Given our findings, we support Villegas’s (2007) proposal and reiterate the need for teacher educators to present opportunities early in teacher preparation programs for candidates to critically examine stereotypes and beliefs about classroom observations and interactions if they are to effectively teach all students, especially racially, ethnically, linguistically, and economically diverse learners.
We conclude with, what we feel are, practical recommendations for teacher preparation programs for preparing preservice teachers to teach in diverse settings. Our recommendations follow Banks’s (2000) model of integrating multiculturalism into the curriculum. We provide examples of an additive, transformation, and social action approach to developing justice-oriented teaching dispositions in preservice teachers. These approaches are intended to demonstrate how social justice consciousness (i.e., exposure, awareness, and acceptance of cultural diversity) can be foregrounded in teacher education courses to increase candidates’ understanding of privilege, acculturation, advocacy, and cultural responsiveness so that they are prepared to teach all students equitably. Our recommendations are as follows.
Recommendations
The additive approach
The additive approach is the most basic level of multicultural curriculum integration. This level of integration is best achieved when curriculum decision making is controlled by the teacher educator. With their professional discretion, teacher educators choose to integrate isolated cultural simulation activities into their course using introductory lessons, or units, to expose preservice teachers to diversity; addressing issues of equity, power, and privilege with exclusive attention to race, class, and/or gender. The additive approach, while powerful, requires no true integration of varied multicultural content.
A common example of the additive approach would be the “Privilege Walk.” Teacher educators often use this brief activity on the first day of class, or at the beginning of the semester, to encourage students to examine their own privilege and position in analyzing racial, socioeconomic, and/or gendered stratification. During the Privilege Walk the teacher educator, or instructor designee, will ask the students to stand and form a single straight line, arm’s length apart, across the classroom with a generous amount of space devoted to moving forward and backward. Once students have aligned themselves accordingly, the class moderator (teacher educator/instructor designee) will pose a question and ask students to respond by stepping forward or backward. For instance, the moderator might state, “If you are a White male, take five steps forward.” In addition, the moderator might further state, “If you have previously attended an urban school, take two steps backward.” After the last question is posed, the moderator then instructs the students to make note of their position from two points of view. First, students are asked to observe where they stand, at the conclusion of the activity, in relation to where they originally began (the straight line). Second, students are also asked at the end of the activity to observe where they stand in comparison with their classmates. At the discretion of the moderator, students—either aloud or privately—deconstruct their thoughts and feelings about what they noticed, with respect to notions of privilege, and what this means for them personally after having participated in the Privilege Walk (California Newsreel, 2006).
The transformation approach
The transformation approach is the next level of multicultural curriculum integration. This level of integration is achieved when curriculum decision making is controlled by both the teacher educator and the teacher education program. With professional discretion, coupled with program adoption, the decision is made to fully integrate literature on cultural diversity, through the incorporation of social justice readings, into multiple courses in a fundamental and unified manner. The transformation approach requires complete/holistic and sustained integration of varied multicultural content.
An example of the transformation approach would include the addition of a wide range of topics related to diversity to the core curricula. This approach enables preservice teachers to view common pedagogical ideologies from many different cultural perspectives and vantage points. The goal is not assimilation, but rather acculturation. Education is not discussed solely from a Eurocentric framework nor is it discussed from the standpoint of every possible racial/ethnic group; instead, prospective teachers are given an opportunity to use the most appropriate cultural, racial, or ethnic lens to understand and engage concepts and themes cogently attributed to the specific phenomenon or issue being studied (Banks, 2010). In implementing the transformation approach, teacher education programs not only require that its diversity-focused courses intentionally and purposively integrate social justice readings but also that all courses, relative to the degree plan, infuse multicultural content and integrate diverse cultural and global perspectives. Teacher educators, using their content expertise, then exercise their discretion in selecting the literature most suitable for the course when designing their curriculum. In taking the transformation approach, advocating for the integration of varied multicultural content into every course each semester, therefore, becomes a sustained effort with ongoing opportunities to render feedback and input for improvement.
The social action approach
The social action approach is the advanced, most ideal, level of multicultural curriculum integration. This level of integration is achieved when curriculum decision making lies with the teacher educator, the teacher education program, and community partners. Professional discretion, program adoption, and community involvement are exercised, respectively, to infuse multicultural content into the curriculum at the highest levels and to assist preservice teachers in applying this knowledge in ways that better the larger community. The social action approach requires the integration of multicultural knowledge beyond the boundaries of the school building.
An example of the social action approach would be the embedding of a series of early critical service-learning experiences into teacher education programs. Within the first two years of coursework (and later revisited through clinical experiences and student teaching assignments), teacher educators provide preservice teachers exposure to culturally diverse literature and offer them opportunities to apply what they have read in meaningful and tangible ways. This method is intended to increase prospective teachers’ awareness of and sensitivity to diversity. The social action approach, in essence, not only prepares preservice teachers to teach in increasingly diverse educational contexts but also provides them with a blueprint of how to effectively advocate for their students in as well as out of the classroom. To implement this approach, teacher educators and teacher education programs must actively engage and form relationships with community members and stakeholders, such as—but not limited to—school administrators, teachers, local business entrepreneurs, elected officials, and so on. Forming these relationships help to build trust and facilitate partnerships with leaders within the community. The nature of these partnerships should be dual-purposed with a natural inclination toward reciprocity. In exchange for providing preservice teachers access to multiethnic spaces, teacher educators promise to share resources and best practices for culturally responsive/sustaining pedagogy with those who have a vested interest in the academic success of students within the community. In like manner, teacher education programs make a commitment to produce a teaching force that is both responsive to and respectful of the diverse needs that students, from within the community, bring with them into the classroom.
Although the above approaches have been presented in ranked order, we believe that any attempt—whether additive, transformation, or social action—to integrate multicultural and global perspectives into teacher education programs is far better than none. In the current study, we have presented evidence to suggest that implementing a social action approach provides the greatest transformation in the development of justice-oriented teaching dispositions; however, we would be remiss if we did not acknowledge the value in the other forms of multicultural curriculum integration. To this, we conclude that the selected level of integration—by cultural simulation activities (unit/lesson), exposure to social justice readings (full immersion), and/or through early critical service-learning experiences (beyond the classroom)—be implemented in accordance with the policies and practices of one’s institution, just so long as it is applied correctly and with the utmost care.
Footnotes
Authors’ Note
Jemimah Lee Young is now affiliated with University of Iowa, USA.
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.