Teacher Educators and the Institutions in Which We Work: (How) Are We Modeling Multicultural Teacher Education?

• In Event: Studying Diversity in Teacher Education: A Focus on Teacher Educators

Abstract

Objectives
This presentation addresses the key question: How do teacher educators’ classroom practices and their institutions’ policies and procedures model the principles of Multicultural Teacher Education? How do teacher educators define and model diversity/multicultural education in their teaching? How does the institution in which they work define and model diversity/multicultural education principles in its commitments? Practices and implications for the work of developing teachers for diversity/multicultural education will be shared.

Theoretical framework
To determine pedagogical and institutional viability, Zeichner, Grant, Gay, Gillette, Valli, and Villegas’ (1998) fourteen design principles for good practice in multicultural teacher education (MTE) were utilized. The principles assess MTE programs on three levels: (a) institutional and programmatic, (b) personnel, and (c) curriculum and instruction. Institutional and programmatic principles reflect attention to MTE in words and actions. Personnel principles insist teacher educators have understanding, commitment, and competency in multicultural education. Curriculum and instruction underscores the need for multicultural education to be a pervasive aspect of teaching and learning for faculty and students.

Data
Data included 68 documents (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003; Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003) such as syllabi, course catalog descriptions, mission and vision statements. Additionally, data comprised 20 formal interviews (Legard, Keegan, & Ward, 2003; Merriam, 1998), a focus group (Finch & Lewis, 2003) and over 140 hours of observations (Arthur & Nazroo, 2003). Field notes also informed analysis (Dewalt & Dewalt, 2002).

Methods
Utilizing case study (Stake, 2005), content analysis for documents followed protocols set by Stemler (2001) and Weber (1990). For the remaining data, qualitative analysis tools were used (Miles & Huberman,1994; Merriam,1998; Ritchie &Lewis, 2003), which included an iterative process of open-ended coding, a priori coding, levels of coding leading to key patterns/themes, and engaging member checks and peer reviews to fortify findings.

Results/Conclusions
Findings for teacher educators point to the distinction between teacher educators’ modeling of key practices that they desire for pre and inservice teachers to apply with their students; compared to the classroom practices actually used by teacher educators in their courses. Zeichner et al. (1998) state, “frequently, graduates of teacher education programs mimic or imitate the instructional and interactional styles of their teacher educators” (p.165). Given teacher educators’ claims about their desire to model desired practices for teachers, modeling may prove an essential consideration for engaging MTE. Additionally, institutional, structural, and individual (Pincas, 2000) factors limited the institution’s viability as an MTE institution. Issues such as leadership, power(lessness), status quo/racism, promotion/tenure, and accountability were mentioned as influencing faculty growth and enactment of MTE principles.

Significance
Considering persistent critiques that teachers are not being adequately prepared for culturally and linguistically diverse students, insights on the role of modeling, in teacher preparation practice and teacher education policy is warranted. Vavrus (2002) states “many programs have rhetorically embraced multicultural education but seem unable to make necessary multicultural across-the-curriculum changes…” (p.19). Implications for teacher educators and the institutional affordances and hindrances to advancing this work are noted for those seriously committed to engaging and sustaining robust MTE.

Author

• Vera Stenhouse, Georgia State University