Preservice Teachers’ Perspective Transformations as Social Change Agents

Abstract

In this article, we investigate whether, and in what ways, the learning experiences in a capstone course in reflective teaching impact the perspective transformations (PT) of preservice teachers toward a diverse K-12 student population and the plans of preservice teachers to take future action as change agents. Using an adaptation of the Learning Activities Survey as a measure of PT and as a way to identify those learning experiences that may contribute to such transformations as well as textual analysis of participants’ reflective writing, we connect personal transformation and local and limited agency. Developing significant praxis may require additional learning experiences and time. Transformative learning theory is presented as a possible frame for developing meaningful learning experiences that impact a change in perspective of preservice teachers in their preparation programs.

Keywords

adult learning transformation learning perspective transformation teacher education change agents critical consciousness Learning Activities Survey critical reflection

In teacher education in the 21st century—where the majority of preservice teachers are White, middle-class women with limited cross-cultural experience—developing and raising preservice teachers’ critical consciousness or conscientização (Freire, 1970, 1997) is an essential step to preparing them to work as change agents with an increasingly diverse student population. Indeed, even national teacher preparation standards include language around advocacy for diverse learners and families (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2011). To develop teachers as change agents, teacher educators must facilitate preservice teachers’ awareness of oppressive conditions and inequalities based on structural categories of difference and cultivate their ability to critique systems of power that dismiss individual’s and community’s rights (Ladson-Billings, 1998; Shor, 1992). Yet, there are many well documented and perennial challenges to developing preservice teachers’ critical consciousness: Preservice teachers are often resistant to critical education practices that challenge their notions of self, society, and their interaction (e.g., Böhmer & Briggs, 1991; Chan & Treacy, 1996; Gay & Kirkland, 2003; Johnson, 2006; Ukpokodu, 2003). These acts of resistance often prevent reflection on social conditions that would lead to action and hamper teacher educators’ ability to train teachers as change agents.

In an effort to cultivate teachers as change agents, a capstone course in critically reflective teaching was developed in a graduate teacher education program at a small, private institution in the West. This article explores the results of a study conducted on the impact of this course during the 2011–2012 academic year. The study was guided by three central research questions: (a) What components of the class were leading students to report transformative learning? (b) what was the extent of their awareness about oppressive conditions and inequalities and the systems that maintain them? and (c) finally, what kind of action did the preservice teachers envision themselves taking to join in the struggle for equity and justice?

Transformative Learning

Perspective transformation (PT) is a process in which preservice teachers “critically reflect on assimilated values and perspectives, their own and others,’ and act based on their new-found understanding” (Caruana, 2011, p. 37). Part of the intent of this capstone course, in which this study is situated, is to provide professionally grounded, experiential learning that fosters consciousness raising. The course is designed to encourage preservice teachers’ awareness of their own and others’ beliefs, question their personal perspectives, and develop plans of social change action that they can carry into their own practice. In other words, the capstone is designed as a transformative learning exercise to provide learning experiences that become points of critical reflection and awareness raising—conscientisation (Freire, 1970).

PT is used as a lens to view social transformation through the dialectic use of critical reflection and rational dialogue in the context of a capstone course in education. Once the personal perspective is examined, contextualized learning experiences then offer triggers for the transformative process. “Long-held frames of reference can be examined and altered, and from which new actions can be taken” (Barlas, 2001, p. 1) as a way to critically reflect on social and political issues that may challenge a preservice teacher’s deterministic form of existence (Freire, 1970). The phases of critical reflection and rational dialogue within transformative learning theory (Mezirow, 2000) then provide a structure by which we can examine the preservice teachers’ transformative experiences in this capstone course.

Applying transformative learning theory to the development of teachers as social change agents appropriately acknowledges and examines the teachers’ struggle to make a critical assessment of their own assumptions and incorporate this transformation into their professional practice (Hammerness et al., 2005). The transformative process ultimately displays enaction in the learner, not simply awareness. For the purposes of this study, enaction is defined as the preservice teacher’s ability to reintegrate into their life their new perspective. Transforming meaning perspectives is one way in which learning and the enactment of new actions can occur (Mezirow, Taylor, & Associates, 2009). Central to fostering transformative learning however is an examination of the factors or “triggers” that cause transformative learning.

The learning experiences provided in this capstone course urged preservice teachers to critically assess their own assumptions (critical reflection), engage in rational dialogue, and observe whether, and in what ways, they might take action in the form of their own professional practice (Blaik, 2013; Chi, 2013). In order to examine how participants’ perspectives evolved through phases or stages, we determined entry points in which teacher educators might introduce triggers of transformation.

Two theoretical models provide a parallel framework for PT: One is a model of individual diversity development presented by Chavez, Guido-DiBrito, and Mallory (2003). The other is the PT (Mezirow, 1991). Both models purport that certain learning activities can foster transformative learning. Initial stages of this PT include consciousness raising, in which participants become critically aware of their own perspectives and those of others. Next they begin to question their familiar roles as a reflexive exercise. During this phase, participants may be moved to reflect and make meaning of the dissonance or disorienting dilemma they experience.

A final step or stage that can be identified as part of the overall transformative process for participants is that of “enaction.” Do participants move from consciousness raising to acting upon the awareness of their new perspective? Within Mezirow’s transformative learning theory, Phase 10 is when “a reintegration into one’s life on the basis of conditions dictated by one’s new perspective” (Mezirow, 2000, p. 22). One of the goals of this study was to determine if, and to what extent, preservice teachers engaged in the capstone course by moving toward acting as change agents. The problem, as articulated in other studies (Caruana, 2011), is not just about moving preservice teachers to think differently but also to put what they learn into practice (enaction). Transforming meaning perspectives is one way in which learning and the enactment of new perspectives can occur (Mezirow et al., 2009).

Critical Reflection

Critical reflection, a concept and professional practice, is invoked in many fields such as adult education, health, communication studies, and teacher education (Alexander, 2011; Brookfield, 2008; Hanson, Harms, & Plamondon, 2011; Howard, 2003). However, the meaning of reflective practice generally, and critically reflective practice specifically, differs considerably across the literature. Thompson and Pascal (2012) attribute the variation in meaning to an undertheorizing of the construct noting that it is often missing the sociological dimensions and thereby is sometimes even passed off as a “superficial discussion of having paused for thought from time to time” (p. 311). However, in this article, critical reflection draws on select literature that describes a process, in which the inward and outward reflections interact to achieve an awareness of how practices are set in larger cultural and sociopolitical contexts. Hanson, Harms, and Plamondon (2011) writing about global health education suggest that teaching reflective practice within and around the context of clinical experience “can encourage students to question the social inequities that contextually frame those experiences” (p. 179). In the teacher education literature, Zeichner and Liston (1996) building on the work of Schön and Dewey describe critical reflective practice as practice that requires that teachers’ reframe puzzling, uncertain, and problematic situations from multiple perspectives and examine the social and institutional context in which it occurs. Critical reflection then is comprised of both inward and outward reflections.

The Uses of Inward and Outward Reflections

Inward reflection focuses on the preservice teachers’ assumptions, beliefs, values, experiences, and transmitted knowledge (practical theories) surrounding the situation/problem/incident. These elements together form the lens through which the preservice teachers views practice, identifies problems, and develops solutions (Zeichner & Liston, 1996).

Preservice teachers examine the incident/problem or puzzle and the practices surrounding it through the lens of social justice asking the question: Do these practices marginalize and privilege participants (or have the potential to do so) based on their identity and relationship to structural categories (language, religion, race, ethnicity, gender, ability, etc.). They also describe how these practices are perpetuated or alternatives constrained by the social conditions of teacher work or the larger institutional context.

Change Agency

The use of change agents in the literature, like the use of reflection, is not uniform. On one hand, the teacher change agent has been used to describe teachers engaged in any kind of school reform from the individual who promotes top–down reforms locally (Buchanan, 2003; Havelock, 1995)—described by Lukacs (2012) as the “go between”—to the individual who promotes reforms from the bottom up and often focus on their own classroom and curriculum (i.e., Wasley, 1991). Lane, Lacefield-Parachini, and Isken (2003) describe student teacher change agents as those that “teach against the grain” (Cochran-Smith, 1991) and reflect on their practice to seek and identify opportunities to challenge and disrupt structural inequality and oppression. The capstone course embodied this latter perspective of change agent described by teacher educators at University of California, Los Angeles’s Center X as “social justice educators.” Social justice educators are teachers who see their work as part of a broader agenda for social change and justice—one who embodies activism and active engagement with communities (Quartz, Olsen, & Duncan-Andrade, 2004, p. 2). Nieto and McDonough (2011) relate change agency back to the development of preservice teacher’s critical consciousness.

Critical consciousness involves critiquing relations of power, questioning one’s assumptions about reality, and reflecting on the complexities of multiple identities. Research and pedagogy related to critical consciousness explore the intersection of power in relation to identities and function of schools. It also positions preservice teachers to be change agents. Educators who demonstrate critical consciousness have the ability and will to theorize and politicize their experiences. (p. 366)

Both the student teaching experience and capstone course were meant to develop preservice teachers’ critical consciousness, actively engaging student teachers in their students’ communities while recognizing classroom practices that perpetuate structural inequalities and oppression.

Studying the Change

Participants

The preservice teachers in this course were at the end of their graduate licensure programs in the areas of elementary education, secondary education, and special education. Forty-four graduate teacher licensure students, who were enrolled in one of five sections of the capstone course during the 2011–2012 academic year, consented to participate in this study.

The Capstone Course

The course description and enduring understandings for the capstone course were presented in the course syllabus as follows: Students explore research and best practices for classroom teachers. Identified data are collected during student teaching for analysis and presentation. Emphasis is on cultivating skills and dispositions necessary to becoming reflective practitioners. The enduring understanding for the course were identified as:

Personal beliefs and values affect instruction;

Teacher’s practical theories develop from personal experience, transmitted knowledge, and values and inform teaching practice;

Various traditions of reflection are at play in all educational settings;

Critical reflective practice requires that teachers’ reframe puzzling, uncertain, and problematic situations from multiple vantage points and examine the social and institutional context in which it occurs;

Participation in a collaborative professional learning community facilitates growth and understanding of practice; and

Active listening and careful questioning are essential professional skills.

The timeline of the capstone course

The capstone course instructors met with preservice teachers in the weeks prior to the start of student teaching. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss specific artifacts, experiences, and data the preservice teachers were to collect for use in the capstone. After successfully completing a semester of student teaching in their content areas, preservice teachers enrolled in this intensive 8-week capstone.

The Method

This mixed method study employed survey research and textual analysis of preservice teachers’ writing.

The Learning Activities Survey (LAS)

We chose to employ the LAS as a way to obtain data about the transformative learning experiences in the sample as well as to identify the documents to sample for the textual analysis. The LAS was developed to detect, identify, and categorize transformative experiences (King, 1997) in the higher education context. The expressed purpose of the LAS is to identify “whether adult learners have had a perspective transformation in relation to their educational experience; and if so, determining what learning activities have contributed to it” (King, 2009, p. 14). The LAS has four major parts: Part 1 identifies the stages of PT, Part 2 determines which learning experiences may have contributed to the PT, Part 3 consists of a series of questions designed to determine in which of the learning activities participants have engaged, and Part 4 collects information on demographic characteristics of the respondents that are suggested from the literature on transformative learning theory.

An overall PT Index is obtained from this instrument. The PT index is a single score derived from Items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of this instrument and indicates whether participants experienced a PT in his or her educational experience (See Figure 1).

Figure 1.

The items from the Learning Activities Survey that determine the perspective transformation index.

PT1 indicates that the participant does not believe they’ve had a transformative experience within this context. A transformative learning experience is indicated by PT2 and PT3 indices. PT2 indicates that the participant believes she or he has had a transformative experience due to something outside of those learning experiences designed by teacher educators (e.g., experiences within or connected to their student teaching experience). PT3 indicates that the participant believes she or he has had a transformative experience due to the learning experiences designed by teacher educators in their capstone course. For the purposes of this analysis, PT2 and PT3 were combined since they both are indicators of a PT (n = 30).

Written reflections

Preservice teachers wrote two critical reflections during the capstone centered in the following prompt: Based on the data collected during student teaching, the professional learning community dialogue and the literature on the subject write a critical reflection that examines an incident/problem or puzzle and the practices surrounding it through the lens of social justice. Clearly address both inward reflection and outward reflection within the context of incident/problem or puzzle. Use reflective language that includes questions, speculation, potential for change, assumptions, and real-life classroom examples.

Both reflections shared the same prompt, but the data that preservice teachers wrote about differed. In the first reflection, at the midpoint of the course, preservice teachers analyzed their community immersion experiences (termed community connection, e.g., home visits, participation in the out of school activities of students and families, parent and family interactions and conferring with community leaders, etc.) which they conducted and documented during the course of student teaching. In the second reflection, at the end of the course, preservice teachers analyzed the technology resources available in their schools and districts as one marker of differential access to resources across schools and districts.

Analyzing the reflections

Two written critical reflections for each participant identified by the survey results as a PT2 or PT3 transformation were analyzed. The reflections were coded using Spradley’s (1980) domain analysis which requires systematic review and arrangement of data according to categories of cultural meaning. First identified were categories of semantic relationships (e.g., X is a kind of Y, X is a way to Y …) for each aspect of cultural meaning embedded in the reflections. These categories were then filled in with instances, known as “included terms” (e.g., in the category “kinds of action,” the included terms could be “personally responsible,” “participatory,” and “justice oriented”). When an item did not fit into the initial research question categories, new categories were created for those items. Every semantic relationship was composed of included terms and then smaller and smaller units until the smallest element of data was accounted for.

Once the semantic relationships were identified, all of the written reflections were read again to identify cases that illuminated the findings. Once examined, a representative or typical case (Yin, 2014) was selected to convey the findings. According to Yin (2014), the representative case study is selected from a larger group to represent the typical among the group. Yin notes that “the lessons learned from these cases are assumed to be informative about the average person or institution” (p. 48). In this study, a representative case was selected from all of the written reflections because it is typical of all of the analyzed reflections around the domains related to the research questions (Seuring, 2005), and this case typified the written reflections of all PT2 and PT3 preservice teachers.

The Findings

Data analysis was guided by the research questions for this study. To first establish evidence of transformation, we examined the LAS for PTs of preservice teachers. Table 1 illustrates that of the 44 preservice teachers surveyed, 68% (n = 30) indicated experiencing transformative learning while enrolled in their capstone course. In addition, approximately 48% (n = 21) of the elementary preservice teachers indicated transformative learning, while approximately 16% (n = 7) of the secondary preservice teacher candidates indicated experiencing transformative learning. Although four special education preservice teachers were surveyed and their PT indices recorded the n was too small to draw any meaningful conclusions during analysis, they are included to gain the overall percentage of participants who experienced transformative learning.

Table 1.

Preservice Teachers (PT) Indicating Transformative Learning.

Perspective Transformation Indices Detected Using the LAS	Frequency (n = 44)	%
PT3 and PT2: indicating transformative learning
Elementary	21	48
Secondary	7	16
Special education	2	5
Overall PT3 and PT2	30	68
PT1: indicating no transformative learning
Elementary	9	20
Secondary	3	7
Special education	2	5
Overall PT1	14	32

Note. LAS = Learning Activities Survey.

Research Question 1: What components of the class were leading students to report transformative learning? Table 2 lists which class learning experiences during capstone the participants indicated as contributing to the change in order of influence (n = 30).

Table 2.

Learning Experiences Identified as Contributing to Change in Order of Influence.

Class Activity That Influenced Change	Frequency	%
Personal reflection	12	40
Verbally discussing your assumptions/beliefs/values	12	40
Writing about your assumptions/beliefs/values	10	33
Class/group projects	8	27
Written evidenced-based reflection	7	23
Class activity/exercise	6	20
Readings in a textbook	6	20
Field experience	5	17
Deep concentrated thought	4	13
Supplemental reading or materials	4	13
The activities required in the Artifact Collection Handbook	4	13
Journal entries	2	6
Self-assessment in the class	2	6
Small group data presentations	2	6
Nontraditional structure of the course	1	3
Other	1	3
Chapter questions in a book	0	0

Approximately 40% of those who experienced transformative learning reported that both verbally discussing their assumptions/beliefs/values and independent personal reflection contributed to their PT. If we rank these activities by their contribution, the following were indicated most frequently by those who experienced transformative learning: (1) 40% indicated verbally discussing their assumptions/beliefs/values, (2) 40% indicated personal reflection, (3) 33% indicated writing about their assumptions/beliefs/values, and (4) 27% indicated class/group projects.

These four learning experiences account for 25% of the 16 learning experiences surveyed as reported by participants. These learning experiences in particular were stronger triggers of transformation than other activities and offered participants an opportunity to work through their transformative process during their capstone course. In addition, two of the learning experiences designed specifically for this capstone course to shift preservice teachers’ perspectives were not indicated by participants as strongly contributing to their transformative learning experiences: Readings in the textbook or the data collection activities required in the Artifact Collection Handbook. This is of interest since all participants indicated that both of these learning experiences were present in their capstone course.

Interactions that influenced PT

Table 3 lists which interactions during capstone the participants indicated as contributing to the change in order of influence (n = 30). Approximately 40% of those who experienced a transformative experience indicated that their instructor’s support influenced that change. If we rank these interactions by their contribution to participants’ PTs, the following were indicated most frequently: (1) 40% indicated that their instructor’s support influenced their change, (2) 33% indicated their classmates’ support influenced the changes, and (3) 33% indicated that working with their cooperating teacher at a school influenced their change. These three interactions account for 43% of the seven interactions surveyed as reported by participants. These interactions in particular were stronger influences than other interactions and offered support to participants, as they worked through the transformative process.

Table 3.

Interactions Identified as Contributing to Change in Order of Influence.

Interactions That Influenced Perspective Transformation	Frequency	%
Your instructor’s support	12	40
Working with a cooperating teacher at a school	10	33
Your classmates’ support	10	33
Other	9	30
A challenge from your instructor	7	23
Another student’s support	6	20
Your group’s support (if group work)	6	20
Working with a university supervisor at a school	4	13

A second level of content analysis (key word) was conducted to determine which types of interactions were referenced by participants in the open ended questions of the LAS as indicated by “other.” Table 4 displays the data collected from 12 of the 44 participants, all of whom indicated having a transformative experience (PT2 or PT3).

Table 4.

Key Word Analysis of the Other Category in Response to the Question “Was It a Person Who Influenced This Change?”

Participant (Term, ID Number, Instructor)	Examples	Key Word
SP103W	“Through research of proven theories”	Research
SP104W	“The books and literature we read about ‘the invisible backpack,’ the ‘hidden curriculum,’ and teaching the ‘hidden rates of the middle class’”	Research
SP106H	“Texts read in class”	Research
SU103W	“Research studies, in-class conversations, gathering data and comparing best practices with observed practices”	Research
SP101W	“Student and parents I met while student teaching”	Student
SP101O	“In addition to the students themselves”	Student
SU104K	“My students”	Student
SP102H	“My background gave me some insight into my students’ lives”	Student
SP105K	“Getting to know my own students helped me to realize this, reflecting in class helped me understand the importance”	Student
SP107W	“I participated in a home visit/special education students that changed my thinking on home life for students and behavior in the classroom”	Student
SP109W	“My students”	Student
SU102W	“Working with parents of my students”	Student

Approximately two thirds (n = 8) of those who responded to the open ended question and experienced a PT indicated that interacting with their students influenced their change. The remaining one third (n = 4) of those who responded to the open ended questions and who experienced a PT indicated that additional research influenced their change.

Research Question 2: What was the extent of their awareness about oppressive conditions and inequalities and the systems that maintain them? The critical reflections (see Appendices A and B) suggested that preservice teachers were growing in their understanding and acceptance of diversity. Preservice teachers discussed how some groups’ negative experiences with the majority culture might influence their level of participation in school.

In this excerpt from the representative student, she appears to recognize that students and parents of color may be marginalized based on group membership and they may have had negative school experiences

In addition, I noticed that most of the classroom volunteers or parents that attended events we did in our classroom were of the majority culture, the Asian culture or Indian culture and very rarely did African American or Hispanic families attend or volunteer. Students from the latter cultures are generally marginalized, have negative school experiences and/or their parents also had a negative school experience which helps to explain their hesitation to volunteer or come into the school willingly. Teachers and schools should be welcoming and accepting of these families and their cultures in order to create partnerships and begin the process of helping their children (Iowa School Boards Foundation, 2007) …. All parents, even ones from minority cultures, want the best for their children and it is the role of the teachers and school to build partnerships in order to achieve this and help everyone be successful (Iowa School Boards Foundation, 2007). It is important for families of minority cultures to feel welcomed into the school and attending community events and my students’ activities as the teacher, I can use the information I gather from my observations with parents to find the best solutions for all parents to give their support in the classroom.

The second part of the research question about systems or institutional and ideological mechanisms that limit opportunity for nondominant populations and perpetuate inequity are not addressed at all in any of the students’ written reflections.

Research Question 3: What kind of action did the preservice teachers envision themselves taking to join in the struggle for equity and justice? As a reminder, in this study, enaction is defined as the preservice teacher’s ability to reintegrate into their life their new perspective. Do they act upon the awareness of the new perspective? Evidence from both the LAS and reflective writing offer insight into preservice teachers’ ability to take action.

Action Taken by Those Identified as PT3 or PT2 (n = 30)

Approximately 48% of who experienced a PT indicated on the LAS that they “took action and adopted these new ways of acting” as a result of their capstone experience. When analyzing the written reflections for praxis or other ways that students discuss their own action as a teacher, themes emerge that relate to action centered in cultural competence and personal transformation. The action themes that emerge from students’ written reflections include: personal inward reflection, developing empathy, learning from and about students and families, and developing community and engaging community in their own classrooms. Despite the mention of the word advocacy, students do not elaborate on any concrete actions that would suggest that they are, or intend to take action, in an advocacy role for students and families. Furthermore, no actions related to transforming society are ever described in any of the reflections.

In the representative sample reflection, the preservice teacher was describing a home visit she conducted with the family of a high performing student,

… But I was blown away by how my bias was wrong and I needed to spend that time with this family in order to lose that bias. Spending time in my students’ homes will be a great addition to my reaching my students. I know that it is time consuming and I may not need to go to every student’s home. But I believe in the future I will extend that offer to all my students.

Later in the paper when the preservice teacher is reflecting on learning more about the home lives of her students and the praxis she envisions as a result of this learning, she describes her action as one of outreach to parents and families and astutely notes that the teacher is only one influence in the students’ lives. This student also uses the term advocacy as a form of relationship development.

Because of my community connection research many things have changed in the way that I would communicate with my parents and the community. I will set up a time to meet each of the parents before school starts. I believe this connection will show parents that I genuinely care about their students …. The exploration has helped me to redefine my role as a teacher from just an educator to educating and advocating. Now that I see how important my relationship with the community is, I see that I am only a piece to the whole student. Many people invest in students’ lives and I need to be someone who invests in knowing about my students before I do my best to educate them.

Critical Reflection of Findings

The results from the LAS identified triggers of PT of participants and provided insight into possible reasons why certain activities and interactions contributed to the change, while others did not. For example, the most frequent activities identified as contributing to change were (a) personal reflection, (b) verbally discussing your assumptions/beliefs/values, and (c) writing about your assumptions/beliefs/values. Each of these activities included critical reflection and rational dialogue as part of the instructional design and were embedded in the context of the capstone course. These activities were based on the theoretical principles presented in the transformative literature reviewed in this article and were expected to support PT. However, three of the activities that we had expected to impact students’ transformation—activities required in the Artifact Collection Handbook, journal reflections, and chapter questions in a book—were rarely identified by preservice teachers as influencing PT. All three of these activities were completed in relative isolation, and the artifact collection and journal reflection were conducted prior to the start of the capstone course and the chapter questions done as homework and not a central feature during class meetings. Therefore, they were not embedded within the context of the course. It appears that, in order for these activities to be considered triggers of transformation, they should first be designed with critical reflection and rational dialogue as well as be situated in the instructional context. This bears out in our findings with one notable and surprising exception, the limited influence preservice teachers reported for the small group data presentations. The data presentations did occur within the context of the course and offered preservice teachers the opportunity to verbally discuss their perspectives with their peers while offering material and opportunity to reflect. This finding requires further study, but we believe that preservice teachers were seeking less formal dialogue opportunities that arose from the data presentations but occurred in the liminal spaces of the classroom rather than the formal environment.

While individual course activities offer some very specific direction for course design, more generally the findings suggest that overall this course may offer some promising instructional strategies to facilitate cultural competence in preservice teachers. Cultural competence focuses awareness and acceptance of difference. As defined by the National Educational Association (NEA),

Cultural competence is having an awareness of one’s own cultural identity and views about difference, and the ability to learn and build on the varying cultural and community norms of students and their families. It is the ability to understand the within-group differences that make each student unique, while celebrating the between-group variations that make our country a tapestry. This understanding informs and expands teaching practices in the culturally competent educator’s classroom. (n.d.)

As suggested in this definition of cultural competence, teachers’ attitudes and dispositions might be informed and expanded by cultural competence, but action is limited to the individual teacher and the changes they make in their local sphere of influence. This is an important place to start. Paul Gorski (2013) notes that “what educators can do right now in order to improve the educational experience of poor and working class students in their classroom and schools” (p. 142) is an important step toward collective advocacy for policy initiatives impacting the educational opportunity of poor and marginalized youth.

The growing cultural competence or transformative learning that the capstone students report is notable and suggests that the students in the course have moved past the initial and much discussed barriers of personal resistance to examining issues associated with race, gender, class, ethnicity, and abilty described in much of the literature. These students do explore these politics on a very individual level and develop solutions or interventions at this level—or in the terms of Paul Gorski, at the level of their personal sphere of influence (2013). However, it appears that only a small proportion of preservice teachers can locate institutional and ideological mechanisms that limit opportunity for nondominant populations and perpetuate inequity.

Preservice teachers in this study, although much more attuned to privilege and marginalization based on social group membership fail to connect the larger sociopolitical landscape to the lived experience of their diverse students. The larger sociopolitical landscape, defined by Sonia Nieto (2010) as collective, institutional, and ideological, must be confronted in order to truly transform society. So while the personal transformation of the preservice teacher is likely a necessary condition for developing teachers as social change agents, it is not likely sufficient. As Gorski (2013) notes, “We will never realize educational equity in any full sense unless we address bigger economic justice concerns” (p. 118).

It is surprising that the preservice teachers were unable (or unwilling) to connect the inequities that they identified in their classrooms and communities to the larger sociopolitical landscape. During the textual analysis, we noted that the few preservice teachers making those connections all had undergraduate and graduate sociology and ethnic studies backgrounds. This suggested to us that the intensive 8 weeks of instruction around critical reflection may not have been adequate to build their understanding and/or ways of communicating their understanding of the complex interactions of power and privilege across units of analysis. It is likely that more time and careful study of power is necessary to move preservice teachers to a deeper level of transformation and subsequently enaction.

Action Steps

While considering next steps in this area of inquiry, it is important to recognize those learning experiences within the capstone course which elicited or contributed to transformative learning. Embedded opportunities for both rational dialogue and critical reflection in the forms of assignments connected to their student teaching had notable impact on preservice teachers’ transformative learning. The written reflection, in particular, offered preservice teachers opportunities to reflect both “in action” and “on action.” Rational dialogue in the form of structured class discussion around their student teaching also offered preservice teachers access to their transformative learning experience. Intentional inclusion of both types of learning activities in coursework assists in the development and raising of critical consciousness.

Two areas of action emerge in response to the findings in this study: enhancing our ability to better study transformation as it relates to attitudes and behaviors conducive to change agency and extending learning and development opportunities for preservice teachers both within the course and beyond initial licensing and into the field. The first action step would involve developing additional questions for the LAS survey that might better capture preservice teachers anticipated or enacted praxis as well as identify specifically the what and where of the trigger interactions. The second action step would first extend the capstone course to a full semester and dedicate the first half of the course to developing preservice teachers’ background and understanding of power and privilege from the individual through the institutional. The second half of the class would then focus on the original capstone course. Beyond graduation, former students would be invited to participate with course instructors and current preservice teachers to develop a network intended to foster continued transformative growth and better support the goal of a social justice centered teacher education program. Challenges to this action relate to funding ongoing commitment to teacher education alumni and may be best ameliorated by partnering with local school district new teacher induction and mentoring programs.

Conclusion

In order to examine in what ways and how well teacher educators develop and raise preservice teachers’ critical consciousness to work as change agents with an increasingly diverse student populations, the components of a capstone course were investigated. Although there was evidence of personal transformation, it did not translate into the larger sociopolitical context thereby limiting the preservice teacher’s impact on diverse populations within their school. While these preservice teachers working at the individual level (Lenski, Crawford, Crumpler, & Stallworth, 2005) can have a significant impact on the life chances of their own pupils (Nieto, 2010), this transformation alone will not impact the larger social justice project. Furthermore, the exclusive focus on the individual may reinforce the notion of rugged individualism, reify the categories of difference and reestablish a neoliberal sense of self-satisfied action. As teacher educators, we are committed to continued engagement with these preservice teachers, as they enter into service and develop their personal and professional plans of action.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Appendix B

Table B1.

Critical Reflection Rubric.

Area of Focus	Unsatisfactory	Basic	Proficient	Distinguished
Content and Organization: Students focus, organize, and compose a professional written reflection that incorporates data and research.	The writer: Fails to address all parts of the assigned strand reflection. Neglects to provide an introduction and/or a puzzle of practice. Includes few or disjointed ideas and examples that lack clarity and/or logical support. Fails to consider potential solutions. Fails to reflect inward. Fails to reflect outward. Neglects to provide a conclusion or the conclusion is unclear.	The writer: Partially addresses all parts of the assigned strand reflection. Includes a recognizable introduction and puzzle of practice. Develops limited ideas and few examples to support practical theory. Incompletely addresses potential solutions. Incomplete or unclear inward reflection. Incomplete or unclear outward reflection. Includes a conclusion that reviews the key points.	The writer: Consistently addresses all parts of the assigned strand reflection. Presents a clear and introduction tied to writer’s puzzle of practice. Develops the introductory ideas through speculation, questions, assumptions, examples and logical research support for writer’s practical theory. Proposes potential solutions aligned with facts and research. Reflects inward. Reflects outward and identifies a related sociocultural context. Provides a satisfying conclusion that synthesizes the writer’s reflection.	The writer: Provides insightful analysis of the strand addressed Presents a well-crafted, explicit introduction and puzzle of practice. Extends the topic with perceptive speculation, questions, assumptions, and research ideas, often formally citing unique examples of clearly aligned logical arguments and support for writer’s practical theory. Incorporates multiple possibilities and perspectives in proposing potential solutions. Reflects inward at multiple points Reflects outward connecting the practice to the larger sociocultural context. Crafts an effective conclusion that reviews, synthesizes, and solidifies the reflection.
Style and Fluency: The writer utilizes tone, diction, and sentence structure aligned with the demands of reflective writing.	The writer: Uses inadequate general language, cliché, and slang. Includes impenetrable and/or vague vocabulary. May use unclear sentence structures that detract from fluency and meaning. Fails to align voice, purpose, and audience.	The writer: Utilizes understandable, although often imprecise common language. Includes words and phrases that although acceptable, fail to express ideas clearly. Includes safe, predictable sentence structure and paragraphing. Shows flashes of engaging voice but uncertainty and/or inconsistency lose the audience at times.	The writer: Employs direct and clear language focused on purpose. Selects words and phrases that are well matched to the subject and audience. Varies sentence structure, fluency, and matches purpose of the article. Projects voice that engages the reader and aligns with the purpose of the article.	The Writer: Exhibits precise command of language that enhances meaning. Chooses words and phrases that add energy, meaning, and economy. Selects purposeful sentence beginnings and paragraph structures that provide natural, effective connections And enhance readability. Projects a strong Professional voice that captures the reader’s attention.
Conventions: The writer applies language and presentation conventions that support meaning and purpose.	The Writer: Misuses multiple language conventions that severely impact readability and detract from reader’s understanding of content. Neglects to apply required APA format or applies several standards incorrectly. Includes large sections of prose that are not directly credited to their legitimate source.	The Writer: Misuses language conventions so that the errors may impact meaning, readability, and/or tone. Demonstrates misunderstanding or improper use of some approved APA standards. Utilizes improper formatting or citations that confuse the reader.	The writer: Adheres to the standard conventions of the English language with few errors that do not affect meaning. Applies the approved standards relating to APA as appropriate to the reflective piece. Demonstrates ethical practices including respect of intellectual property, attention to bias, and maintenance of confidentiality.	The writer: Employs standard conventions of the English language that are virtually error free. Consistently applies the approved standards relating to APA where they are appropriate to the reflective writing. format. Employs formatting nuances that enhance the impact of the message and honor the source and intent.

Note. APA = American Psychological Association.

Authors’ Note

This article was sent for oral presentation in part at AESA Conference, Baltimore, MD, September 2013.

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.

References

Alexander

B. K.

(2011). Standing in the wake: A critical auto/ethnographic exercise on reflexivity in three movements. Cultural Studies↔ Critical Methodologies, 11, 98–107.

Barlas

(2001). Learning-within-relationship as context and process in adult education. In Forty-second annual adult education research conference and proceedings. East Lansing: Michigan State University.

Blaik-Hourani

(2013). Preservice teachers’ reflection: Perception, preparedness and challenges. Reflective Practice, 14, 12–30. doi:10.1080/14623943.2012.732947

Böhmer

Briggs

J. L.

(1991). Teaching privileged students about gender, race, and class oppression. Teaching Sociology, 19, 154–163.

Brookfield

(2008). Radical questioning on the long walk to freedom: Nelson Mandela and the practice of critical reflection. Adult Education Quarterly, 58, 95–109.

Buchanan

D. A.

(2003). Demands, instabilities, manipulations, careers: The lived experience of driving change. Human Relations, 56, 663–684.

Caruana

(2011). Preservice teachers’ perceptions of their perspective transformations: A case study (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from University of South Florida, Graduate Theses and Dissertations website: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/3034

Chan

Treacy

(1996). Resistance in multicultural courses. American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 212–222.

Chavez

A. F.

Guido-DiBrito

Mallory

S. L.

(2003). Learning to value the “other”: A framework of individual diversity development. Journal of College Student Development, 44, 453–469.

10.

Chi

(2013). Turning experiences into critical reflections: Examples from Taiwanese in-service teachers. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 41, 28–40. doi:10.1080/1359866X.2012.753987

11.

Cochran-Smith

(1991). Learning to teach against the grain. Harvard Educational Review, 51, 279–310.

12.

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2011, April). Interstate teacher assessment and support consortium (InTASC) model core. Teaching standards: A resource for state dialogue. Washington, DC: Author.

13.

Freire

(1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Herder and Herder.

14.

Freire

(1997). Education for critical consciousness. New York, NY: The Continuum.

15.

Gay

Kirkland

(2003). Developing cultural critical consciousness and self-reflection in preservice teacher education. Theory into Practice, 42, 181–187.

16.

Gorski

P. C.

(2013). Reaching and teaching students in poverty: Strategies for erasing the opportunity gap. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

17.

Hammerness

Darling-Hammond

Bransford

Berliner

Cochran-Smith

McDonald

Zeichner

(2005). How teachers learn and develop. In Darling-Hammond

Bransford

(Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 358–389). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

18.

Hanson

Harms

Plamondon

(2011). Undergraduate international medical electives: Some ethical and pedagogical considerations. Journal of Studies in International Education, 15, 171–185.

19.

Havelock

(1995). The change agent’s guide to innovation in education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.

20.

Howard

T. C.

(2003). Culturally relevant pedagogy: Ingredients for critical teacher reflection. Theory into Practice, 42, 195–202.

21.

Johnson

A. G.

(2006). Privilege, power, and difference (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

22.

King

K. P.

(1997). Examining learning activities and transformational learning. International Journal of University Adult Education, 36, 23–37.

23.

King

K. P.

(2009). Handbook of the evolving research of transformative learning. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

24.

Ladson-Billings

(1998). Just what is critical race theory and what’s it doing in a nice field like education? International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 1, 7–24.

25.

Lane

Lacefield-Parachini

Isken

(2003). Developing novice teachers as change agents: Student teacher placements “against the grain.” Teacher Education Quarterly, 30, 55–68.

26.

Lenski

S. D.

Crawford

Crumpler

Stallworth

(2005). Preparing preservice teachers in a diverse world. Action in Teacher Education, 27, 3–12.

27.

Lukacs

(2012). Exploring “the ripple in the pond”: A correlational study of the relationships between demographic variables and the Teacher Change Agent Scale. Age, 20, 138.

28.

Mezirow

(1991). Transformative dimensions in adult learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

29.

Mezirow

(2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley.

30.

Mezirow

Taylor

, & Associates. (2009). Transformative learning in practice: Insights from community, workplace, and higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

31.

National Education Association. (n.d.). Why cultural competence? In National Education Association online. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/home/39783.htm

32.

Nieto

(2010). The light in their eyes: Creating multicultural learning communities. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

33.

Nieto

McDonough

(2011). “Placing equity front and center” revisited. In Ball

A. F.

Tyson

C. A.

(Eds.), Studying diversity in teacher education (pp. 363–384). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

34.

Quartz

K. H.

Olsen

Duncan-Andrade

(2004). The fragility of urban teaching: A longitudinal study of career development and activism. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA’s Institute for Democracy, Education, and Access (IDEA).

35.

Seuring

(2005). Case study research in supply chains: An outline and three examples. In Kotzab

Seuring

Müller

Reiner

(Eds.), Research methodologies in supply chain management (pp. 235–250). Heidelberg, Germany: Physica-Verlag.

36.

Shor

(1992). Empowering education: Critical teaching for social change. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

37.

Spradley

J. P.

(1980). Participant observation. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

38.

Thompson

Pascal

(2012). Developing critically reflective practice. Reflective Practice, 13, 311–325.

39.

Ukpokodu

(2003). Teaching multicultural education from a critical perspective: Challenges and dilemmas. Multicultural Perspectives, 5, 17–23.

40.

Wasley

P. A.

(1991). Teachers who lead: The rhetoric of reform and the realities of practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

41.

Yin

R. K.

(2014). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

42.

Zeichner

K. M.

Liston

D. P.

(1996). Reflective teaching: An introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.