lviviacstncecarxy df uerse chidren and famles: ca alle...

Teacher Education and Special Education2004, Volume 27, No. 4, 323-341

LViviaCstnCecaRxy DF uerse Chidren and

Famles: Ca aLLE Multicultural EductoCourse M[a:ke a Difference.?Vivian I. Correa, Roxanne E Hudson, v Michael T7 Hayes

Abstract: There is no doubt that todays schools are faced with the challenge of educating an increasinglydiverse school population. More teacher education programs address these challenges by adding courses inmulticultural education and/or infusing content on teaching culturally and linguistically diverse studentsinto the existing curriculum. This investigation reports on the changes in concepts and beliefs of 45preservice teachers enrolled in a 17-week unified early childhood/special education multicultural educationcourse. The course consisted of topics related to teaching students from culturally and linguistically diversebackgrounds. Instructors used a variety of pedagogical strategies in the course including small group activ-ities, case study illustrations, videotapes, thematic unit instruction, and traditional large group lectures.Students were asked to draw concept maps on "multicultural education" and write explanatory paragraphson the first and last day of the course. Conceptual and belief changes were found in both the concept mapsand supporting paragraphs.

Multicultural education (MCE) is an im-M portant topic in teacher education pro-grams. It is particularly important for specialeducators and early childhood educators be-cause of the increased focus on family in-volvement in these areas. The call for inclu-sion of multicultural knowledge in teachereducation is widespread among scholars (e.g.,Artiles, Trent, Hoffman-Kip, & Lopez-Tor-res, 2000; Banks & Banks, 2001; Cochran-Smith, 2003; Gay & Howard, 2000; Gay &Kirkland, 2003; Milner, Flowers, Moore,Moore, & Flowers, 2003), lawmakers (e.g.,IDEA, 1997; No Child Left Behind Act,2001), and professional governance groups(e.g., National Council for Accreditation ofTeacher Education [NCATE], 2002). While

current trends in educational reform are lead-ing to an increase in alternative paths to cer-tification (Cochran-Smith, 2004), particular-ly in special education (Katsiyannis, Zhang,& Conroy, 2003; Rosenberg & Sindelar,2003), traditional teacher education pro-grams remain critical to providing quality ed-ucational experiences to culturally and lin-guistically diverse (CLD) children and fam-ilies (Ladson-Billings, 1990).

The professional governance groups thatmonitor early childhood and early childhoodspecial education teacher education pro-grams-NCATE, CEC, CEC Division forEarly Childhood, and the National Associa-tion for the Education of Young Children(NAEYC)-include knowledge and skill

323

TESE, Volume 27, No. 4Fall 2004

competencies for teachers related to servingCLD students and their families in their pro-fessional standards for accreditation (CEC,2001a, b; NAEYC, 2001; NCATE, 2002).In explaining "[its] vision of the professionalteacher for the 21st century" (p. 3) who willeffectively teach every child in his or herclassroom, NCATE states that teachersshould be prepared to meet the needs of a"diverse community of students . . . who areat different developmental stages, have dif-ferent learning styles, and come from diversebackgrounds" (p. 4). The CEC (2001a, b)echoes this sentiment by stating that specialeducators should understand the effects ofculture and language on home environments,learning, social relationships, and assessmentin order to work with students with disabil-ities and their families in a culturally respon-sive manner. The first area of increased em-phasis in the recent NAEYC (2001) stan-dards revision is linguistic and cultural di-versity (p. 9) and they go on to affirm theircommitment: "all children means all: chil-dren with developmental delays or disabili-ties, children whose families are culturallyand linguistically diverse . . ." (p. 12, italicsin the original). In order to be sure graduatesof teacher preparation programs meet thesestandards, teacher educators need to be cer-tain to incorporate MCE in the best mannerpossible.

The issue of disparity between educatorsand students is at the heart of why multi-cultural knowledge should be included inteacher education programs. Eighty-six per-cent of special educators are Caucasian while32% of students in special education are cul-turally and linguistically diverse (Rosenberg& Sindelar, 2003). The make-up of elemen-tary and secondary teachers in general edu-cation is not appreciably different (Gay &Howard, 2000). Without courses focusingon cultural knowledge and the importance ofa pluralistic perspective in education, thepossibility of negative outcomes for CLDstudents due to clashes between the cultureof special education and family cultures isomnipresent (Harry, Kalyanpur, & Day,1999).

Many entering preservice teachers havebeliefs that could lead to problems for theirstudents if not addressed in teacher prepa-

ration programs (Moultry, 1988). Resistanceto developing the necessary skills and knowl-edge to work effectively with CLD studentsis often expressed by preservice teachers asfear and a reluctance to confront issues ofrace and cultural diversity in their teacherpreparation programs (Gay & Howard,2000; Gay & Kirkland, 2003). Larke (1990)found that preservice teachers often lackedknowledge about people from various back-grounds and/or were unwilling to teach stu-dents from backgrounds different thantheirs. Milner et al. (2003) replicated thisstudy to determine if attitudes and knowl-edge among preservice teachers havechanged. They found that the teachers' atti-tudes about cultural diversity have improvedsince Larke's study; however, the large pro-portion of preservice teachers reporting neu-tral responses about their knowledge andwillingness to work with CLD students andfamilies remains troubling.

Even though MCE is currently consid-ered an important part of teacher education,there is still room for improvement. Whilemost teacher education programs report thatthey incorporate MCE coursework, they of-ten don't do it well (Cochran-Smith, 2003;Gollnick, 1995). Utdey, Delquadri, Obiakor,and Mims (2000) surveyed 403 special andgeneral education teachers in Kansas teach-ing students with and without disabilities.Forty percent of the teachers reported thatthey did not have coursework on teachingCLD students in their preservice teacher ed-ucation programs. Even among teacher ed-ucation programs incorporating MCE intotheir teacher preparation, not much isknown about what sorts of content, teachingand learning experiences, etc. are effective inpreparing teachers to meet the needs of thediverse students and families they will en-counter as educators. The questions asked byCochran-Smith (2003) in her conceptualframework designed to guide teacher educa-tion and research in MCE remain:

What knowledge, interpretive frame-works, beliefs, and attitude are necessaryto teach diverse populations effectively,particularly knowledge and beliefs aboutculture and its role in schooling? ...What do teachers need to know aboutthe [content and pedagogical] knowl-

324

Conceptual ChangeCorrea, Hudson & Hayes

edge base and what else do they need toknow ... in order to teach diversegroups? (p. 12)

Research on the attitudes and conceptualbeliefs of preservice teachers, multiculturalcourse development and implementation,and the effectiveness of multicultural coursesin changing preservice teacher understand-ings and beliefs is lacking (Artiles, Barreto,McClafferty, & Pefia, 1998; Hoffman, 1996;Trent & Artiles, 1998). What scarce researchis available on multicultural education oftenhas serious methodological flaws such as theuse of cross-sectional designs, instead of lon-gitudinal, to measure change over time; sin-gle instruments such as surveys; vague out-comes; and a lack of theoretical grounding(Artiles et al., 1998; Webb-Johnson, Artiles,Trent, Jackson, & Velox, 1998). As well, thefocus on general education teachers has re-sulted in little information about bilingual,special, or early childhood educators despitethe large numbers of CLD student enrolledin all of these programs. Given the potentialimportance of such educational programs inimproving equity among students, it seemsthat special, bilingual, and early childhoodeducators should receive much more atten-tion. In the first review of research in mul-ticultural special education teacher prepara-tion, Webb-Johnson et al. (1998) found onlyeight studies that met their criteria (i.e., data-based, examined preservice teachers, and hadto do with any topic related to teacher prep-aration). They found unsurprisingly equivo-cal findings-some of the programs appearedto work while others were ineffective. Amongother things, Webb-Johnson et al. (1998)concluded that quantitative and qualitativemeasures should be more integrated and thatpreservice teachers' conceptual changes needto be measured.

We attempted to address these limita-tions in the research literature by using mul-tiple measures that use quantitative and qual-itative methods of analysis to examine thechange in preservice early childhood and ear-ly childhood special educators' understand-ings of MCE. In doing so, we used conceptmapping, an increasingly recommendedmethod for tracing conceptual change (Ar-tiles et al., 1998; Webb-Johnson et al.,1998).

Concept maps are graphic organizersthat visually present ideas about a centraltopic so that the relationships between con-cepts and important details can be seen. Thehierarchical organization can be interwoventogether across categories and concepts. Theyhave been used in a variety of fields such asaccounting education (Chen, Ching, Chen,& Cho, 1993); nursing (Daley, 1996; Daley,Shaw, Balistrieri, Glasenapp, & Piacentine,1999); effective teaching methods Uones &Vesilind, 1996); science education (Morine-Dershimer, 1993); special education teacherpreparation (Repetto, Lane, & Garvan,2000); and multicultural teacher education(Artiles et al., 1998; Trent, Pernell, Mungai,& Chimedza, 1998) to document changes instudent understanding as a result of class-room and field experiences. Morine-Dershi-mer et al. (1992) studied three measures ofcognitive change (i.e., concept maps, Kellyrepertory grid exercises, and observations andcritique of a video). The concept maps werethe most productive measure, showingmeaningful qualitative changes and statisti-cally significant quantitative changes amongpreservice teachers. Artiles, Mostert, andTankersley (1994) examined relationshipsbetween concept maps and actual classroombehaviors of preservice teacher and foundthat the themes evident in the maps werealso evident in their teaching.

Our purpose in this study was to under-stand whether and how preservice teachers'concepts of multicultural education changedfrom before to after a course in multiculturaleducation. We focused our interest on theidea of students' conceptualizations of MCE,which we define as an amalgamation of un-derstandings, attitude, and beliefs. It is morethan mere content knowledge to be mea-sured on an exam, but rather is the variousschemata that students have about the sub-ject as well as their attitudes and beliefs. Giv-en the importance for early childhood specialeducators of working in a culturally respon-sive manner with diverse children and theirfamilies, this is an important question forteacher educators to ask. We also sought toadd to the scant knowledge base about thepreparation of early childhood and specialeducators while addressing limitations in

325


methodology that have been identified in theliterature.

Method

Participants

The subjects of this research were 45preservice students in their second semesterof a 5 year unified early-childhood teacherpreparation program. They were enrolled inthe multicultural education course that wastaught in two sections in one semester. Likemost students in early childhood teacherpreparation programs, 96% (n = 43) werefemales and 4% (n 2) were males. Sev-enty-eight percent (n 35) were Caucasian,4% (n = 2) were African-American, 13% (n= 6) were Hispanic, and 4% (n = 2) wereAsian. Unsurprisingly, this was in markedcontrast to campus demographics. In fall of2001, the total student enrollment on cam-pus was 46,515 students. The ratio of wom-en to men was 52:48, and 77% of the stu-dents were Caucasian, 7.2% were African-American, 9.6% were Hispanic, and 6.8 per-cent were Asian-American or Pacific Islanderstudents.

One instructor was Hispanic and theother was Caucasian, and both were women.One instructor was a tenured professor ofearly childhood special education while theother was a doctoral candidate in special ed-ucation. The instructors met weekly and co-planned the content to be taught, activities,and examinations but did not co-teach thecourse. The instructors covered the identicalmaterial each week using identical Power-Point lectures, activities, and videos.

Course Description

The 17-week (3-credit) course wastaught within the Unified Early ChildhoodEducation Program at the University of Flor-ida. The focus of the course was on provid-ing early childhood service-related profes-sional information related to culturalcompetence including (a) population demo-graphics, (b) self-awareness and self-reflec-tion on culture and beliefs about diversity,(c) learning styles of young children with dis-abilities who come from diverse back-grounds, (d) strategies for developing multi-

326

cultural and anti-biased curriculum, (e) strat-egies for developing a social justice perspec-tive, and (f) understanding and workingwith families from diverse linguistic or cul-tural backgrounds. See Table 1 for a descrip-tion of course objectives. The instructorsused traditional lecture, small-group discus-sion, self-analysis activities, case-study anal-ysis, videos, and reflection to teach the coursecontent.

Data Collection

As a course assignment, students wereasked to develop individual concept mapswith "multicultural education" as the centralconcept on the first and last days of thecourse. They were instructed in how to de-velop concept maps and a model of a com-plex, well-structured concept map of trans-portation was provided (Lane, Repetto, &Griffin, 1999). The students were instructedto think about their definition or under-standing of multicultural education, writedown all of the ideas they had, and use thoseideas to develop the concept map. Addition-ally, the participants were asked to write oneto two paragraphs to further explain theirconception of multicultural education. Theintent of the paragraphs was to explain theconcept map, but this was not required. SeeTable 2 for the concept map assignment.During the postcourse maps, students werealso asked to write if their views had changedor stayed the same.

Concept Map Analysis

Following a procedure developed by Re-petto et al. (2000), the concept maps werecoded to identify common categories. An ex-ample of a student's map, precourse andpostcourse, shown in Figures 1 and 2 illus-trates the forms most concept maps took anda representative level of change between thetwo maps.

One of the instructors examined the pre-concept maps and began identifying tentativecategories using similarities of language, con-cepts, and the spatial array of the conceptmaps. This process had several steps. First,each concept map was examined in turn,with each word or phrase representing eachsuperordinate concept recorded. Superordi-


Table 1. Multicultural Issues in Early Childhood Special Education Course Objectives

Students will demonstrate knowledge of ...(1) a rich, accurate, and nonstereotypic ethno-profile of diverse groups in the U.S.(2) the effects of culture, language, ethnicity, gender, family structure, and socioeconomic background on child

development.(3) teaching and learning strategies that match the diverse learning styles of young children who are CLD.(4) anti-biased curriculum and classroom environments that celebrate diversity and teach children differences and

similarities among people.(5) the beliefs and child-rearing practices of families as they relate to disabilities.(6) strategies that can assist the educator to work effectively with families from CLD backgrounds.(7) curriculum methods and materials that provide for the language and cultural needs of children and families

who are CLD.(8) procedures for advocating on behalf of children and families.(9) cross-cultural competence and a posture of cultural reciprocity for working with families and children from

diverse backgrounds.(10) their own cultural background, beliefs, and values about education, child-rearing practices, discipline, disabili-

ties, and professional-family interactions.

Students will demonstrate ability to ...(1) analyze their own cultural and linguistic background and express how this affects their work with children

and families.(2) analyze case studies and scenarios for instances of culturally responsive and non-culturally responsive practic-

es.(3) observe, examine, and critique their current experiences in early childhood field placements, making explicit

connections to course content and their own understandings.(4) plan learning activities that incorporate teaching and learning strategies that match the diverse learning styles

of young children with disabilities, who speak English as a second language, and/or come from diversehomes.

(5) incorporate anti-biased curriculum into their teaching plans.(6) design classroom environments that affirm all students in the setting.(7) reflect on their own learning and how their beliefs and attitudes have changed and stayed the same.

Table 2. Preconcept Postconcept Map Assignment

Introduction to Assignment:"A concept map is a way of organizing ideas about a topic so that relationships among various sub-topics aredisplayed visually" (Morine-Dershimer, et al., 1992, p. 472). You are being asked to develop a concept map todepict your individual ideas about elements associated with or contributing to multicultural education. You willbe asked to draw another concept map to assist us in evaluating the impact this course has had on changes inyour knowledge and beliefs.

Directions':* On the back of this paper, jot down all the ideas and terms that come to mind when you think of mnulticul-

tural education.* Think about how all the ideas and terms you wrote down could be organized into categories and subcategories.* Arrange the categories, subcategories, ideas, and terms around the central concept of mtulticultural education

in a way that will demonstrate the relationships among concepts.e Add any details that could elaborate or further illustrate the concepts depicted. Be as specific as possible.* On the second sheet of paper, write 1-2 paragraphs describing your concept of mnulticultural education.

Pretest Concept Map Prompt:1. Write 1-2 paragraphs on your concepts and beliefs about multicultural education.

Posttest Concept Map Prompts:1. Write 1-2 paragraphs on your concepts and beliefs about multicultural education.

I Adapted from H. Lane, J. Reppetto, & C. Griffin (1999). The development ofpreservice teachers: 'Mapping" newhorizons. Unpublished manuscript.

327


Figure 1. Student R-20 Precourse Concept Map

nate concepts are the ideas highest in a par-ticular hierarchy and connected directly tothe main hub of the map (Artiles et al.,1998). If a word or phrase was identical,then it was written down only once, andsimilar words or phrases were grouped foreasier comparison later. For example, theterms "alternative family systems", "equali-ty", "roles", "laws", "fighting discrimina-tion", and "promoting cultural differences"would have been recorded from the conceptmaps in figures 1 and 2. Next, the categorieswere integrated, moving from a listing tomore rule-guided categories based on lin-guistic and conceptual similarity (Lincoln &Guba, 1985). Next, the concept maps wereexamined again and entries in each hierarchywere recorded in the appropriate category.For example, the term "alternative family sys-tems" would have been recorded in theSources of Diversity category and "single par-ents", "foster parents", "grandparents", and"adoption" would have been listed under it.

328

Again, a process of integration of categoriesand subcategories was conducted until eachcategory had subheadings and details basedon the language used in the concept maps.

The second instructor followed a similarprocess to examine the concept maps, butused the initial categories developed by thefirst as guides. As other concepts emergedfrom the data, the categories were changedand finalized through discussion by both in-structors. The categories derived from theconcept maps in this way were (a) sources ofdiversity, (b) the values behind multiculturaleducation (MCE), (c) classroom methodsused in MCE, and (d) outcomes from MCE.

Sources of diversity. This category includ-ed references to race, ethnicity, religion, so-cio-economic status, sexual orientation, fam-ily structure, beliefs, values, food, holidays,disabilities, and geographical location. Thesewere grouped together as ways people are dif-ferent from each other.

Values behind multicultural education.

r cross- >P cucet ural R 20

Preconce,pt Map R 20


Figure 2. Student R-20 Precourse Concept Map

This category addressed the values underly-ing multicultural education-why a personwould teach in a multicultural way and whatteachers typically are trying to instill in theirstudents. References to equality, respect, ac-ceptance, tolerance, honoring diversity, un-derstanding, challenging stereotypes, and co-operation were put into this category.

Classroom methods. Entries that focusedon what teachers would do in a classroom toteach in a multicultural fashion were codedinto this category. Examples include differentapproaches, using diverse materials, teacher'sroles, dangers of a tourist approach, specificclassroom methods, and teaching the valuesbehind multicultural education.

Outcomes from multicultural education.References to what a teacher might expect asa result of using a multicultural approachwere grouped together. Examples such aslearn about yourself, learn about others, re-duce disproportionate representation in spe-cial education, increase self-esteem, decrease

racism and sexism, increase cross-culturalawareness, and resistance to stereotypes wereplaced in this category.

All of the categories and subcategorieswere organized onto a coding form to allowfor more detailed analysis of each map (Fig-ure 3). The first two authors then wentthrough each concept map, precourse andpostcourse, and assigned each entry on themap to a category while disregarding the spa-tial arrangement and hierarchical relation-ships. If an entry seemed to fit more thanone category, it was counted in each. Re-sponses unique to an individual map wereput into "other." After the individual analysisof each map, the instructors compared theirfindings. Discussions of any discrepancies incoding led to agreement on each entry onthe maps.

Using the data gathered from these cod-ing forms, changes over time in the largercategories were examined. Category scoreswere computed by summing the number of

329


ParticiDant Number

DIVERSITY__

-Diversity-Family

- siblingsparents

=where livefamily structure

_jobsBackgroundGender/sexEducation

- LanguageEthnicitySexuality

- Leaming style_ Status

Ability= Disabilities_ SES

MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION CONCEPT MAPS ANALYSIS FORM

- Religion- Deep culture

Beliefs= Traditions-Values_ Customs_ Views

Surface culturefood

= culture_ celebrations

art_ music/dance

_ clothing_Nationality_ Race

Other

DIVERSITY__

- Diversity_ Family

_ siblingsparents

where livefamnily structure

_jobsBackgroundGender/sexEducation

_ Language- Ethnicity

_ SexualityLeaming styleStatus

-AbilityDisabilitiesSES

_ Religion- Deep culture

_ Beliefs_ Traditions-Values_ Customs

Views_ Surface culture

_ food_ culture_ celebrations_ art_ music/dance

clothing_Nationality_ Race

Other

VALUES OF MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION_ _ VALUES OF MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION__

Equality _ EqualityAcceptance -Tolerance - Acceptance _ ToleranceAppreciation _ Honoring diversity _ Appreciation - Honoring diversityRespect Combatting isms - Respect - Combattmg lsms

_ for each person = Activism - for each person _ Activism_ for families Understanding _ for families _ Understanding

- Challenges stereotypes _C ooperation - Challenges stereotypes _ Cooperation_ Other Other

OUTCOMES OF MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION__ _ OUTCOMES OF MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION_

__Learn about others _ Leamn about yourself _ Learn about others - Learn about yourself_-see diversity section _ culture _ see diversity section _-culture

differences -values differences _values= similarities = beliefs similarities = beliefs

Awareness _ assessment Awareness _ assessment- Get rid of disproportionality Decrease racism, sexism = Get rid of disproportionality Decrease racism, sexism_ Increase self esteem = Cross cultural competence _ Increase self esteem = Cross cultural competence

_stand up for beliefs _ Other _ stand up for beliefs _ Other_ resistance to stereotypes - resistance to stereotypes

CLASSROOM CONCERNS_ CLASSROOM CONCERNS__

- Ways to teach _Teaching Values of MCE - Ways to teach - Teaching Values of MCEanti-bias _ justice _ anti-bias justice

_ multicultural _ activism multicultural activism_non-bias -equality _non-bias equality

_ tourist _ empathy _tourist - empathy_ social justice __Teachers' roles - social justice __Teachers' roles

_ Diverse materials faimess _ Diverse materials _ fairness-Democracy - good teaching -Democracy _ good teaching

_ multicultural colors _ Specific Methods _ multicultural colors _ Specific Methods_ Literature/books _ dramatic play _ Literature/books _ dramatic play

_Danger of tourism _ cross curricular - Danger of tourism -cross curricular-Curriculum - all year __Curriculum - all year

= Family Involvement =represent kids' cultures _ Family Involvement _represent kids' cultures- Community Involvement _ conflict resolution - Community Involvement _ conflict resolution_Expose Ss to others _ involve all Ss _Expose Ss to others involve all Ss_ Other Other

OTHER THEMES:__ _ OTHER THEMES:

LEVEL OF SOPHISTICATION: LEVEL OF SOPHISTICATION:- Anrmge concepts into hierarchies _ Arrange concepts into hierarchies

_ Indicate interrelationships of concepts -Indicate interrelationships of conceptsNumber of levels -Number of levels

Figure 3. Concept Map Category Analysis Form

330

Postcourse MapPrecourse MapI


Table 3. Mean frequency of responses on preconcept and postconcept maps per student percategory

Category Precourse Stand. Dev. Postcourse Stand Dev.

Sources of diversity 10 5.42 6 5.42Values of MCE 2 1.77 2 2.41Classroom methods 1 2.08 6 4.51Outcomes from MCE 1 1.92 3 2.28

sub-topics present on the map before thecourse and after. Change scores were com-puted and data analyzed using Wilcoxen'sSign Rank test (Myers & Well, 1995). Aswell, we examined subtopics to determinethe number and type of concepts thatchanged over time. The subtopics in eachcategory were tabulated, and repeated itemson an individual map were only countedonce. To look at the change in presence orabsence of individual topics over time,McNemar's test for paired categorical datawas performed. Cohen's d (Cohen, 1988)was calculated for each analysis to determinethe size of changes that were detected.

Paragraph Analysis

For the paragraph data analysis, all writ-ten paragraphs from the open-endedprompts that asked the students to writeabout their concepts and beliefs about mul-ticultural education both precourse and post-course were examined. Most students filledone page with handwritten responses to eachof the prompts. All handwritten responseswere typed into one document for analysis.Therefore, a total of 45 pages of text for pre-course and 45 pages of text for postcourseparagraphs were analyzed to compare the stu-dents' concepts about multicultural educa-tion before and after the course.

We followed standardized procedures forconducting a thematic analysis (Bernard,1995; Bernard & Ryan, 1998; Patton, 1990).First, the 90 transcripts were coded for textrelevant to defining multiculturalism. To es-tablish reliability, the second author read allof the transcripts. The first two authors thencompared their analysis of the paragraphs.Although the wording of the themes theyhad extracted from the narratives differed,there was agreement on the content and

meaning of the themes under each category.Because we did not conduct a standardizedelicitation that asked students specificallyabout their multicultural beliefs, it was notmethodologically sound to do a frequencycount of responses or calculate how manystudents gave a particular response. A the-matic analysis was more appropriate to ourinterests of describing the meaning of mul-ticultural education to our students.

Results

Concept Map Findiings

The mean frequency of responses perstudent per category precourse and post-course is reported in Table 3. On average,students had ten entries related to Sources ofDiversity on the first day of the course andsix at the end. The category Values of MCEdid not change. On average, each preserviceteacher's map went from one entry related toClassroom Methods to six after, and similarly,there was one entry per map related to Out-comes from MCE before the course and threeentries after.

Using counts of the number of studentswho listed entries in each category precourseand postcourse, a large (d = .74), significantchange in the Sources of Diversity categorywas detected. More students listed more wayspeople can be different in their precourseconcept maps than in their postcourse maps(z =-2.88, p = .004). The change in num-bers of students who listed entries in the cat-egory Values of MCE was not statistically sig-nificant (z -1.44,p = .151). The studentsreported significantly more Classroom Meth-ods in the postcourse maps than they did inthe precourse maps, (z =-4.98, p .000)and the change was very large (d - 2.40).The Outcomes from MCE category was also

331


Table 4. Changes in student responses on preconcept and postconcept maps per category

Number of Number of pCategory Students Pre Students Post Value

Sources of diversityBackground 16 2 .001Language 17 9 .035Religion 16 16 .001Surface culture 16 9 .027Deep culture 19 15 .015Ability 0 7 .031Nationality 13 5 .021

Values of multicultural educationCombating "isms" 1 12 .003Activism 0 5 .063Understanding others 11 6 .057Respect 3 15 .057

Classroom methodsAnti-bias approach 0 18 .000Social justice approach 0 10 .002Diverse materials 3 12 .057Dangers of tourist approach 0 6 .031Specific teaching activities 2 21 .001Teaching the values of MCE 0 21 .000Use appropriate curriculum 1 11 .006Family involvement 0 8 .008Community involvement 0 6 .031

Outcomes of multicultural educationCross-cultural competence 1 8 .039Decrease "isms" 0 8 .008Increased self-esteem 0 10 .016Learn about oneself 2 14 .004Resistance to stereotypes 0 7 .016

significantly different, with a precourse meanless than the postcourse mean, (z = -3.20,p = .001, d= 1.04). In general, the changesin precourse and postcourse concept mapswere from maps that focused on all the wayspeople can be different to methods for teach-ing multicultural education and the types ofoutcomes one might expect from the en-deavor.

Each response was also coded as eitherpresent or absent for each of the smallest cat-egories, both precourse and postcourse, anda series of McNemar's tests (Agresti & Finlay,1997) were conducted to test for significantchanges over time for each subtopic. Eachstudent entry in the concept maps was codedas only one type of response. The individualresponses are reported in Table 4 for each ofthe main categories that were found to bestatistically significant in the earlier analysis.In the Sources of Diversity category, there

were significantly more student maps withentries related to people's background, lan-guage, religion, surface and deep cultures,ability and nationality before the course thanafter. Examining the Values of MulticulturalEducation category, significant changes in en-tries related to combating "isms" was foundprecourse and postcourse. The subcategoriesin Classroom Methods showed an opposite ef-fect. Fewer students had entries related tocurricular and pedagogical issues (e.g., anti-bias and social justice approaches, specificteaching activities) before the course than af-ter. The preservice educators also put signif-icantly fewer entries related to cross-culturalcompetence, increased self-esteem in chil-dren, learning about oneself, and building re-sistance to stereotypes in children before thecourse than after. The findings from the con-cept maps were supported by the findingsfrom the accompanying paragraphs.

332


Precourse Paragraph Themes

Several themes emerged from the pre-course written responses by the students thatwere similar to the concept map findings.These centered on general narratives aboutdiverse cultures and people in the world. Be-fore taking the class, the early childhood pre-service teachers thought that multiculturaleducation meant acknowledging that differ-ences exist among people, that 'those differ-ences should be understood, and that peopleshould value their differences. Each support-ing statement will be presented using a pseu-donym that matches the gender of thesource.

Differences Among People

The most dominant theme expressed bythe students focused on the differencesamong people. They discussed the manyways people are different from one anotherin almost a list-like manner. Jennifer sumsup what many wrote:

The term 'multicultural education' en-compasses a wide variety of things. Themain point though, is that everyone isdifferent. All families and individualshave different backgrounds and ways oflife that they are used to.

Renee also focused on differences, but withthe idea that multicultural education shouldeducate students about differences in orderto correct ignorance:

I believe multicultural education shouldprovide information on what makes upa culture. A culture can be based on aperson's race, nationality, religion, andother factors. The customs of each cul-ture should be covered ... An importantpart of multicultural education shouldbe to provide information of differentcultures, since ignorance of other cul-tures is common.

Most of the participants focused on ethnicity,race, language, and religious differences. Lar-issa, however, also included disabilities andsocioeconomic status (SES).

I made my concept map to reflect theways that people are different. Each fam-ily will belong to one or more aspect ofeach difference. That is to say each fam-

ily will have a racial background, a beliefsystem, a SES, a language, learningstyles, and customs. They may also havea member with a disability.

The students began by acknowledging thatdifferences exist, and then went on to statethat these differences should be understood.

Understanding Differences

Many of the preservice early-childhoodeducators believed that the goal of multicul-tural education is increasing understandingamong people. Lauren stated, "In my opin-ion, multicultural education is about under-standing. People are inherently afraid of theunknown. If that fear is taken away, I thinkthat a classroom could really become multi-cultural." Kelly also considered understand-ing to be important, but expanded the ideainto accepting and embracing ideas fromother cultures:

Multicultural education is teaching andlearning to be open minded as well asunderstanding, accepting, and embrac-ing of all races and ethnicities ... [it is]being sensitive to varying values, moralsand beliefs. One should try to under-stand other people's culture and back-ground.

It is through understanding that people canbegin to bridge their differences: "I think themore you know about someone allows youto become closer to them" Janice].

Valuing Differences

After understanding differences amongpeople, many of the early-childhood preser-vice teachers expressed the idea that it is im-portant to value those differences. Mere un-derstanding is not enough in their view ofmulticultural education: "It is important torespect, honor, and accept the beliefs of thechildren and their families" [Soumya]. Jillsees valuing differences and education asways of addressing issues in the UnitedStates:

Multicultural Education is the under-standing and learning about various cul-tures and religions that are present acrossthe globe ... We as a country must em-brace one another and learn to love.

333


Knowledge is very powerful and can helpsolve many problems of hatred.

Erica echoes similar thoughts, but focuses in-stead on relationships between children:"Multicultural education is very important. Ithink that multicultural education is a verybeneficial tool in opening the lines of com-munication and friendship between kids."Erma expressed similar feelings about the im-portance of mutual respect and acceptance,but includes the idea of comparison to themajority culture:

Multicultural education refers to chil-dren from different heritages coming to-gether and accepting each other for whothey are, regardless of the way they look,dress, speak, etc. Children different fromthe majority of the group should not bethought to be more or less than others.

Janice focused on her future class and a vi-sion of equality. Respect for differences forher is more than just respecting others, butalso includes respect for one's identity:

As a teacher I want my classroom to bea place where students can come togeth-er and feel they are equals and they arethe same. I also do not want anyone tolose their identity, I want them to ex-plore their heritage.

On the first day of the course, the pre-service students defined multicultural edu-cation in mostly positive terms: understand-ing and valuing differences among people.Most of the students agreed that diversityhad to be understood and valued by our so-ciety in general. Students entered the mul-ticultural course with positive values of di-versity-a good place to begin their devel-opment of a more comprehensive outlook ofmulticultural education. However, fewer ofthe preservice students entered the courseunderstanding their roles as future educatorsand change agents in teaching children aboutdiversity. The precourse students placed theirdefinitions of multicultural education withinan overall societal context versus a classroomcontext.

Postcourse Paragraph Themes

In the paragraphs describing the post-course concept maps, students expressed

334

themselves in deeper and more child- andeducation-directed narratives than in the pre-course writings. After the course, the stu-dents again focused on differences amongpeople, but in a new way, and included pre-viously unexplored themes of social justice.The participants wrote about what they con-sider is the multicultural education curricu-lum of differences and similarities, but with-in a social justice framework (e.g., Peterson,1994) that focused on correcting existing in-equalities. Other themes that emerged fromtheir writing were positive outcomes for chil-dren emanating from this new social justiceperspective and the idea that multiculturaleducation is an on-going process that encom-passes all age levels and subjects. These state-ments provide examples of the overall trans-formation experience by many:

Jessica: My concepts and beliefs aboutmulticultural education have definitelychanged from the beginning of the se-mester. On my first concept map, Iwrote about multicultural education aslearning about yourself and others; andsimilarities and differences. My perspec-tive now is much more broad. I do notlook at multicultural education as oneway to teach something-I also knownow there are different approaches to use... and that some are better than others.Larissa: Before taking this class I thoughtmulticultural ed. was teaching kids aboutcultures, races, religions, etc. Now Iknow that what we teach kids is under-standing, awareness, resistance to stereo-types ...

Diffierences and Similarities

In contrast to the students' precoursenarratives, at the end of the course studentsincluded similarities as well as difference. Ad-ditionally, they stressed the importance ofteaching about ways people are the same andhow they are different.

Lonnie: I believe that multicultural ed-ucation involves teaching students aboutsimilarities and differences. It involvesteaching students about topics such asfamilies, cultures, races, abilities, andsexualiries (just to name a few) ...Kristen: Multicultural education is notjust teaching children information aboutthe exotic differences of other cultures.


Rather, it is helping them understand thesimilarities and differences betweenthemselves and others and how thesesimilarities and differences affect theireveryday lives.

The focus on differences that remainedin most students' writing is both more spe-cific in their wording and more expansive toinclude more than ethnicity and race thanbefore the course (e.g., gender, disability, sex-ual preference). Only Larissa described di-versity in broader terms before the course.

The purpose of teaching about differ-ences also shifted for the students at the endof the course. By examining similarities anddifferences, "The children learn empathy andhow to look at situations from differentviewpoints" Jackie]. Renee shares a similarviewpoint, "The most important element tomulticultural education is to provide stu-dents with honest answers to their questions,so that they learn that differences are nothingto be afraid of." Also, by learning about dif-ferences, teachers can adjust their teachingstyles to match the students' learning pref-erences and family patterns:

Teachers need to have knowledge abouthow culture affects learning. A teacher'sbeliefs and attitudes greatly influence hisor her classroom, so it's important forteachers to be open-minded. It's also im-portant for teachers to be able to workwith families, so teachers must be pre-pared to work with many different typesof families. [Renee]

The students in the course made signif-icant shifts from their precourse and post-course narratives related to differences andsimilarities among people. The shift was seenbest in their expanded definitions of "who"was diverse and in the acknowledgement thatthey were ultimately responsible for teachingyoung children about valuing and respectingsimilarities and differences among people.This responsibility carried through in theirwriting about activism and social justice.

Social Justice Framework

The Anti-Bias curriculum (Derman-Sparks, 1989) was an important part of thesection of the course devoted to classroom-based methods of working with young chil-

dren. It was developed by Louise Derman-Sparks and the A.B.C. Task Force to providea developmentally-appropriate early child-hood curriculum to address problems of prej-udice and stereotypes in a positive, activemanneL As Darcy explains, 'An Anti-Biascurriculum is an activist approach that chal-lenges prejudice, stereotyping ... It addressesall areas of diversity and is an integral partof the curriculum." Ashley states, "I agreewith the anti-bias/social activism approachwith children. I feel that this method em-bodies all of the ideals I would like to havein my own classroom." Lisa agrees:

It is especially important to practice ananti-biased curriculum in an early child-hood classroom. The earlier students getfamiliar with diversiry and learn to cel-ebrate it, the better. If a teacher canteach children about biases and stereo-types when they are just beginning toform, there is a better chance they willbe erased.

Positive Outcomes of Social Justice Perspective

The participants saw important benefitsto young children and their families fromfollowing a social justice perspective. Theoutcomes they identified were increased self-esteem, a reduction in prejudice, and less dis-proportionate representation in special edu-cation programs. As Jill wrote, "MulticulturalEducation is also important for developinggood self-esteem for children. By includingdifferent cultures you are also including yourstudents. This inclusion makes children feelimportant." Cynthia agrees, "The childrencan be proud of who they are and what theyare." Latisha expands this view of increasingself-esteem to other, positive and important,child skills and attitudes:

Allowing children to learn through ananti-bias curriculum increases their cul-tural competence, promotes respect forother beliefs/views, fosters friendships,and builds a sense of community in theclassroom.

A strong theme after the course was therole of a social justice approach in rectifyingcurrent inequalities and negative situations.They see teachers and themselves as muchmore active in this process:

335


Michell: I believe that if all teacherstaught multicultural education in ananti-bias way, that racism would be sucha small problem in the United States to-day.Cathy: I believe multicultural educationis correcting problems and dispropor-tionalities in the school system. It is alsochanging people's stereotypes and havingthem realize that, although they maylook different, we are all still people thatare worth knowing. No one particularbelief, look, tradition, religion, or genderis "the best," instead, they all are worthunderstanding and complement eachother to make our world an interestingplace.

At the end of the course, the students real-ized that understanding and respecting dif-ferences among groups of people is no longersufficient for teaching multicultural educa-tion. Students viewed multicultural educa-tion as a means of actively fighting societalproblems reflected in schools and early child-hood classrooms. One such problem is dis-proportionate representation of CLD chil-dren in special and gifted education. Hollyadamandy states:

Anti-Bias curriculum should simply BE!There is not a reason to discriminateagainst any person. Disproportionality isa topic that came to us 30 years ago.Disproportionality should be a thing ofthe past and it would be if everyonewould adopt an Anti-bias curriculum ...There is no need for this nonsense anylonger.

Students describe their roles as advocates andbecame aware of the critical role teachersplay in addressing equity and social justice.

On-going Process

The last theme that emerged from theparticipants' writing was the idea that mul-ticultural education is an ongoing process in-tegrated into the entire curriculum and isn'tlimited to young children. Like Ellie, the stu-dents understood that "Multicultural educa-tion is a lifelong process and should be im-plemented through all the years of education,not just early childhood." The important in-formation of multicultural education should be

... integrated into the curriculum on a

336

daily basis. It is important that childrenare exposed to a variety of atmospheresand environments. It should not be sep-arated from the curriculum because thenit is not shown in a way children arelikely to encounter it" [Kelly].

As well, Suzanne cautions that multiculturaleducation is an on-going process for teachersas well: "I believe that multicultural educa-tion is a continuing process. One can nottake a course and learn all about multicul-tural education. I believe one has to livethrough it, to continue learning."

The changes in the students' narrativesfrom the beginning of the course to the endof the course were dramatic. Participantviews shifted from believing that multicul-tural education was acknowledging and val-uing differences and similarities to views thatteaching children about similarities and dif-ferences within a social justice perspectivecould accomplish positive outcomes for allchildren. Their views on diversity expandedto include issues related to disability, sexualorientation, dialect differences, and socioeco-nomic status. Overall, the student's under-standing of diversity became richer and deep-er with a strong commitment to activism.

Personal Changes

Although we did not ask students ex-plicitly to reflect on the personal changesthey experienced by taking the course, evi-dence of self-analysis emerged from theirwritten responses. It was clear that studentstook the opportunity to describe the personalchanges they went through as a function ofthe course. They acknowledged their ownculture and their own beliefs and biases. Jes-sica reflected, 'After taking this multiculturalissues course, I have realized that I must firstidentify my own culture, my background,beliefs, and values." Mandy also noted, "Ihave come to recognize my own biases whenI teach and I hope to continue to try to al-leviate them." Carla evaluated her previousclassroom practice and understandings:

At the beginning of the semester, I thinkI had a more touristic [sic] idea of whatteaching culture should be. In otherwords, I thought celebrating diverse hol-idays and events such as Black History


Month would be sufficient in teachingdiversity. I am glad this class gave me theopportunity to see otherwise.

Maria reflected on a course reading (Delpit,1988): "Reading the Delpit article reallychanged my thinking on how to instruct stu-dents of color. It opened my eyes to so manythings I had never thought of before, espe-cially about direct instruction and the hidden'picture' [curriculum]." Janice was apprecia-tive of the course content and stated: "I havelearned so much more in this class than Iexpected to." For many students the personalreflections illustrated an acknowledgementthat the course had made them view them-selves and the world of multicultural educa-tion differently.

Linking Quantitative and QualitativeFindings

The findings from the qualitative anal-yses of the reflective paragraphs corroboratethe findings from the quantitative analyses ofthe concept maps. In both cases, the analysesshowed a decrease in describing multiculturaleducation as ethnic and cultural differencesamong people to an increase in describinginstructional strategies, social justice, andoutcomes for children in classrooms. In bothanalyses, students' awareness of diversitybroadened after the course to issues of dis-abilities and disproportionality, family, diver-sity, and gender.

Although the instructions on the para-graphs did not ask about the impact of thecourse on personal changes, strong self-re-flections emerged. Interestingly, the conceptmaps also changed after taking the course,with students reporting that multiculturaleducation was learning about oneself Theresults of both analyses were similar andhelped to triangulate the frequency of theconcepts drawn on their maps with the qual-itative underlying meaning of those conceptsexperienced by these preservice students.

Discussion

As with any empirical investigation, sev-eral limitations of the study are noteworthy.First of all, we used preselected students en-rolled in a course at a state university in Flor-ida, limiting the ability to generalize findings

to a larger population as does the fact thatthis is a single study in a single course withparticular instructors. Replication of thisstudy would be necessary with more studentsand diverse university settings. Second, wedid not collect a point-by-point reliability es-timate on our coding of concept map entries.Because of our use of actual concept maplanguage on our coding form, frequent con-versations, and subsequent agreement on thediscrepant codings, we trust the veracity ofour data; however reliability estimates wouldhave contributed to our findings. Third, thecategories were developed first by the secondauthor and then given to the first to use asa guide as she examined the concept maps,opening possibilities of other interpretationsof the data and possible bias. We believe thatthe scrupulous nature of her use of literallanguage from the concept maps, inclusionof every term in the superordinate and sec-ondary levels of each hierarchy on each map,and multiple readings of the maps to checkthe veracity of her integration as well as thesubsequent discussions with the first authorafter her analysis of the maps provides suf-ficient evidence that the categories that weredeveloped were as free from bias as possible.Fourth, we relied exclusively on student self-report for data collection without observa-tion of their actual practice with young chil-dren and families. Therefore, we cannot as-sume that their written responses to issues ofmulticultural education would transfer to thereal classroom setting and classroom practic-es. Finally, to truly understand changes inpreservice educators' understandings ofworking with CLD children and families, alongitudinal study with multiple points ofdata collection including interviews and ob-servations of practice would be necessary.Grant and Secada (1990) argued that preser-vice teachers need substantial exposure tomulticultural content to effect a transition toclassroom practice. Although it was not with-in the scope of this study to observe whetherthe course influenced the preservice teachers'classroom practices, it would be an impor-tant next step in the research.

Even with these limitations, we sawmany changes in the students' precourse andpostcourse concept maps and paragraphs.The results of this study increases our con-

337


fidence that while it is more desirable to havemultiple courses and field experiences relatedto diversity, the format and rigorous contentof one course on multicultural issues can in-deed make a difference in how preservice ear-ly childhood educators think about diversityin their dassrooms. They entered the coursewith positive values about understanding dif-ferences among people. After the class, thestudents' beliefs and concepts of multicultur-al education transformed into understandingtheir responsibilities as teachers to make adifference in the attitude and behaviors ofthe children they will teach. These changesare similar to those found by Trent et al.(1998) in their examination of the concep-tual change in preservice elementary and sec-ondary preservice teachers: a broader defini-tion of diversity after the course, a shift fromgeneral to the specific, and new concepts inthe postcourse maps related to instructionand curriculum that were not present in theprecourse maps. We find that our resultspoint to at least three implications for re-search and practice in multicultural teachereducation.

Concept Maps as a Method to PromoteReflection

For many teacher educators, importantconcerns at the end of each course are whateffect has this course or experience had on(a) the amount of content knowledge, (b) theintegration of information across topics andcourses, and (c) the beliefs, attitudes, and un-derstanding of the preservice teachers. Thesequestions become more critical when wethink of multicultural teacher education.Gay and Kirkland (2003) remark that self-reflection among educators is critical for im-proving the educational outcomes of theirCLD students and go on to state that manyteacher education programs provide fewhigh-quality opportunities for guided prac-tice in self-reflection.

A promising extension of the currentstudy's methodology is the use of conceptmaps for not only assessing conceptual un-derstanding of preservice teachers, but alsoin promoting self-reflection and self-assess-ment of their learning. The second authorhas been using concept maps in the majority

338

of her preservice elementary and special ed-ucation courses in order to promote this typeof reflection. She asks the students to drawa concept map and write an explanatory par-agraph on the general course topic at the be-ginning of each course using methods iden-tical to those in this study and then leads adiscussion of their ideas. At the end of thecourse, the instructor asks them to constructanother concept map and write a paragraphusing identical directions and topic as in thebeginning. As each student finishes, the in-structor hands the students the first conceptmap and paragraph and invites them to com-pare the two and reflect on how they havechanged and how they have stayed the same.This open-ended approach leaves the stu-dents free to concentrate on what was rele-vant to them (i.e., knowledge, attitude, skills,or beliefs). Students then write a two to threeparagraph essay describing these changes. Af-ter everyone has finished writing, they dis-cuss their learning in small groups.

This type of self-reflection is not new tothe students as the teacher preparation pro-gram emphasizes reflection and self-analysisin all courses; however, after using this meth-od to promote course-level self-analysis inmany courses with different groups of stu-dents, the instructor has noted its particularpower. Students routinely express their shockat how litde they knew at the beginning ofthe course (when they had thought theyknew quite a bit) and how much not onlytheir content knowledge, but their beliefsand attitudes had changed. While evidenceof the usefulness of concept maps for teach-ing (e.g., Chen et al., 2003; Daley et al.,1999) is available, an examination of thepromise concept mapping holds for promot-ing self-reflection in preservice multiculturaleducation courses seems warranted. This isespecially true in the areas of early childhoodand special education where the research baseis so limited.

Need for More Learning

While the vast majority of students ex-perienced important changes in their think-ing and feeling about MCE, many of thepostcourse narratives were still at a shallowlevel of understanding and some students,


while not exactly negative, clearly didn't "get"the point of the class.

Many of the students focused on class-rooms, instructional methods, and them-selves as teachers instead of on children andfamilies, not unlike the focus found by Ar-tiles et al. (1998) in their case study of twonovice bilingual teachers. This may be dueto the fact that one instructor's expertise isin primary education-well within the earlychildhood span-but very different from thetypical infant and toddler focus. It may alsobe that the preservice teachers were not readyto move beyond themselves at this stage oftheir development as culturally competentearly childhood educators. They experiencedlarge changes, but still have very far to go intheir development. Another example of therange of understandings the students exitedthe course with is exemplified by this studentwho failed the course:

Multicultural education is a topic thatno matter what you do there is someonenot happy. Trying to please everyone issomething that cannot be accomplished... I feel that sometimes multiculturaleducation is great, but then I think tomyself as a person not an educator, andI wish my child could color Easter Bun-nies, [be in a] Christmas play with [a]manger ... Those are the things I didas a child; you have to watch what yousay these days because you might offendsomeone. Uohn)

More work is needed on the types of ac-tivities necessary to change preservice teach-ers' focus from their own understandings tothe CLD children and families they willwork with. One common strategy is fieldplacements in diverse settings designed tohelp preservice teachers learn about parent-ing and developmental differences. The par-ticipants in this study were placed in fieldexperiences during this course; however, inclass discussions and analyses of their set-tings, it was clear the majority were placedwith children from the same background astheir own. One student expressed the desirefor further experiences:

A great deal of emphasis was placed onnot just studying other lifestyles, but ex-periencing them. I would like to includeauthentic activities, where students walk

in the shoes of friends, family, teachers,and other members of the community.Further investigation of the effects of dif-ferent types of field experiences would behelpful. (Cathy)

Need for Additional Research on ConceptualChange

An area that continues to be ripe for ad-ditional investigation is understanding howpreservice teachers develop as they progressthrough teacher preparation programs. Useof multiple sources of information has beenrecommended by Webb-Johnson et al.(1998), and more information is neededabout them. In addition to the usual inter-views and surveys, methods such as conceptmaps, video-taped discussions among stu-dents as they engage in projects, observationsof preservice and novice teachers workingwith children and families, and analysis ofstudent-produced multimedia projects needinvestigation. While concept maps have beenshown to provide insights to thinking (Arti-les et al., 1994; Artiles et al., 1998; Morine-Dershimer, 1993; Morine-Dershimer et al.,1992), psychometric data about them are notknown. For example, their test-retest reli-ability and validity have not been established.How do they correlate to other measures ofattitudinal change such as self-report scales?Another methodology to trace conceptualchange that is open for investigation is theuse of video production technologies as alearning and knowledge representation tool(Hayes & Groves, 2002). One interestingproject the second and third authors havebeen engaged in is asking groups of preser-vice elementary teachers to produce a 5 to 8minute video on a topic of their choice re-lated to either disability, cultural and lin-guistic diversity, or both. This type of projectseems to lend itself to analysis of their chang-ing understandings of the topic as the pre-service educators negotiate and renegotiatewith each other as well as analysis of theproduct itself.

The need to understand changes inthinking is not only in the area of multicul-tural teacher education, but also in the con-text of special education coursework in ele-mentary education programs. What do gen-eral education preservice teachers understand

339


about disability and the connections betweendisability and family diversity? In order tomeet the needs of all students at all levels ofschooling, much more work needs to bedone.

References

Agresti, A., & Finlay, B. (1997). Statistical methodsfor the social sciences (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Artiles, A J., Barreto, R M., McClafferty, K., &Pefia, L. (1998). Pathways to teacher learning in mul-ticultural contexts: A longitudinal study of two novicebilingual teachers in urban schools. Remedial and SpecialEducation, 19, 70-90.

Artiles, A. J., Mostert, M. P., & Tankersley, M.(1994). Assessing the link between teacher cognitions,teacher behaviors, and pupil responses to lessons. Teach-ing and Teacher Education, 10, 465-481.

Artiles, A. J., Trent, S. C., Hoffman-Kipp, P., &Lopez-Torres, L. (2000). From individual acquisition tocultural-historical practices in multicultural teacher ed-ucation. Remedial & Special Education, 21(2), 79-90.

Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. A. M. (Eds.). (2001).Multicultural education: Issues & perspectives (4th ed.).New Yorki Wiley.

Bernard, H. R. (1995). Research methods in anthro-pology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (2nd ed.).Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Bernard, H. R., & Ryan, G. W. (1998). Text anal-yses: Qualitative and quantitative methods. In H. R.Bernard (Ed.), Handbook of methods in cultural anthro-pology (pp. 595-646). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMiraPress.

Chen, M., Ching, S., Chen, W., & Cho, C.(2003). Using concept mapping in accounting learning.The Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 45, 133-143.

Cochran-Smith, M. (2003). The multiple mean-ings of multicultural teacher education: A conceptualframework. Teacher Education Quarterly, 30, 7-26.

Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). Taking stock in 2004:Teacher education in dangerous times. Journal of TeacherEducation, 55, 3-7.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for thebehavioral sciences (2nd Ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceEarlbaum Associates.

Council for Exceptional Children. (2001a). TheCEC standards for the preparation ofspecial educators. Ar-lington, VA Council for Exceptional Children.

Council for Exceptional Children. (200 lb). Guide-lines for the preparation of the special education programreport. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

Daley, B. J. (1996). Concept maps: Linking nurs-ing theory to clinical nursing practice. The Journal ofContinuing Education in Nursing, 27 17-27.

Daley, B. J., Shaw, C. R., Balistrieri, T., Glasenapp,K., & Piacentin, L. (1999). Concept maps: A strategy

to teach and evaluate critical thinking. Journal ofNursingEducation, 38, 42-47.

Delpit, L. (1988). The silence dialogue: Power andpedagogy in educating other people's children. HarvardEducational Review, 58, 280-298.

Derman-Sparks, L. (1989). Anti-bias curriculum:Tools for empowering young children. Washington, DC:NAEYC.

Gay, G., & Howard, T. C. (2000). Multiculturalteacher education for the 21st century. The TeacherEd-ucator, 36, 1-16.

Gay, G., & Kirkland, K. (2003). Developing cul-tural critical consciousness and self-reflection in preser-vice teacher education. Theory into Practice, 42, 181-187.

Gollnick, D. (1995). National and state initiativesfor multicultural education. In J. Banks (Ed.), Handbookof research on multicultural education. New York: Mac-Millan.

Grant, C. A., & Secada, W. G. (1990). Preparingteachers for diversity. In W R. Houston (Ed.). Hand-book of research on teacher education. New York: Mac-millan.

Harry, B., Kalyanpur, M., & Day, M. (1999).Building Cultural Reciprocity with families: Case studies inspecial education. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks., 1-13, 61-90.

Hayes, M. T., & Groves, P. (2002). The mediumis the experience: Uses of media in multicultural edu-cation. Multicultural Education, 10, 15-18.

Hoffman, D. (1996). Culture and self in multi-cultural education: Reflections on discourse, text, andpractice. American Educational Research Journal, 33,545-569.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ActAmendment of 1997, PLI05-17, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 etseq.

Jones, M. G., & Vesilind, E. M: (1996). Puttingpractice into theory: Changes in the organization of pre-service teachers' pedagogical knowledge. American Re-searchJournal 33, 91-117.

Katsiyannis, A., Zhang, D., & Conroy, M. A.(2003). Availability of special education teachers: Trendsand issues. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 246-253.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1990). Culturally relevantteaching: Effective instruction of black students. TheCollege Board Review, 155, 20-25.

Lane, H. B., Repetto, J. B., & Griffin, C. G.(1999). The development of preservice teachers: "Map-ping new horizons". Unpublished manuscript. Univer-siry of Florida.

Larke, P. J. (1990). Cultural diversity awareness in-ventory: Assessing the sensitiviry of preservice teachers.Action in Teacher Education, 12, 23-30.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalisticinquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Milner, H. R., Flowers, L. A., Moore Jr., E., Moore

340


III, J. L., & Flowers, T. (2003). Preservice teachers'awareness of multiculturalism and diversity. The HighSchoolJournal, 87 63-70.

Morine-Dershimer, G. (1993). Tracing conceptualchange in preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Ed-ucation, 9(1), 15-26.

Morine-Dershimer, G., Saunders, S., Artiles, A. J.,Mostert, M. P., Tankersley, M., Trent, S. C., & Nutty-combe, D. G. (1992). Choosing among alternatives fortracing conceptual change. Teaching and Teacher Edu-cation, 8, 471-483.

Moultry, M. (1988, April). Multicultural Educa-tion among Seniors in the College of Education at OhioState University. Ohio, US. (ERIC Document Repro-duction Service No. ED296634).

Myers, J. L. & Well, A. D. (1995). Research designand statistical analysis. Hillsdale, New Jersey: LawrenceErlbaum Associates, Publishers.

National Association for the Education of YoungChildren (NAEYC). (2001). NAEYC standardsfor earlychildhoodprofessionalpreparation: Baccalaureate or initiallicensure level. Washington, DC: NAEYC.

National Council for the Accreditation of TeacherEducation (NCATE). (2002). Professional Standards forthe accreditation of schools, colleges, and departments ofeducation. Washington, DC: NCATE.

No Child Left Behind Act, P.L. 107-110, 107thCongress, 1st Session, 2001.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation andresearch methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park: Sage.

Peterson, B. (1994). Teaching for social justice:One teacher's journey. In B. Bigelow et al. (Eds.), Re-thinking our classroons (pp. 30-33, 35-38). Milwaukee,WI: Rethinking Schools, Ltd.

Repetto, J. B., Lane, H. B., & Garvan, C. W.(2001). Concept maps: Evaluating the impact of a

course on students' conceptualization of transition andsecondary education. Unpublished manuscript. Univer-sity of Florida.

Rosenberg, M. S., & Sindelar, P. T. (2003). Theproliferation of alternative routes to certification in specialeducation: A critical review of the literature. (COPSSEDocument Number RS-1OE). Gainesville, FL: Univer-sity of Florida, Center on Personnel Studies in SpecialEducation.

Trent, S. C., & Artiles, A. J. (1998). Multiculturalteacher education in special and bilingual education: ex-ploring multiple measurement strategies to assess teacherlearning. Remedial and Special Education, 19, 2-6.

Trent, S. C., Pernell, E., Mungal, A., & Chimedza,R. (1998). Using concept maps to measure conceptualchange in preservice teachers enrolled in a multiculturalducation/special education course. Remedial and SpecialEducation, 19(1), 16-31.

Utley, C. A., Delquadri, J. C., Obiakor, R E., &Mims, V. A. (2000). General and special educators' per-ceptions of teaching strategies for multicultural students.Teacher Education and Special Education, 23(1), 34-50.

Webb-Johnson, G., Artiles, A. J., Trent, S. C.,Jackson, C. W., & Velox, A. (1998). The status of re-search on multicultural education in teacher educationand special education. Remedial & Special Education,19(1), 7-15.

Vivian I. Correa, Department of Special Ed-ucation, University of Florida. Roxanne F Hud-son, Florida Center for Reading Research, FloridaState University. Michael T Hayes, Departmentof Teaching and Learnin%, Washington State Uni-versity. Correspondence should be addressed to Viv-ian I. Correa, Department of Special Education,P0. Box 117050, G 315 Norman Hall, Uni-versity of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611.

341

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: Preparing Early Childhood Special Educators to ServeCulturally and Linguistically Diverse Children andFamilies: Can a Multicultural Education Course Make aDifference?

SOURCE: Teach Educ Spec Educ 27 no4 Fall 2004WN: 0429700450001

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and itis reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article inviolation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher:http://www.cec.sped.org/

Copyright 1982-2005 The H.W. Wilson Company. All rights reserved.

lviviacstncecarxy df uerse chidren and famles: ca alle...

Documents