This article was downloaded by: [University of Tennessee, Knoxville]On: 22 December 2014, At: 09:56Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Teaching EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cted20

Educating preservice teachers forfamily, school, and communityengagementMichael P. Evans aa School of Education Health and Society , Miami University ,Oxford , OH , USAPublished online: 16 May 2013.

To cite this article: Michael P. Evans (2013) Educating preservice teachers for family, school, andcommunity engagement, Teaching Education, 24:2, 123-133, DOI: 10.1080/10476210.2013.786897

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2013.786897

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Educating preservice teachers for family, school, and communityengagement

Michael P. Evans*

School of Education Health and Society, Miami University, Oxford, OH, USA

(Received 12 August 2012; final version received 21 November 2012)

Effective family, school, and community partnerships enhance the academic, social,and emotional development of children. As a result, colleges, schools, and depart-ments of education are increasingly addressing the topic. Unfortunately, teacherscontinue to report that the most significant challenge encountered when entering theprofession is the establishment of relationships with families and communities. Thisarticle reviews existing literature on the outcomes of efforts to prepare educatorswho are capable of successfully engaging a broad range of families and communi-ties. Based on a comprehensive literature review, the findings reveal a narrow sam-ple of empirically based research; however, these studies offer insights regardingpedagogical approaches that increase teachers’ confidence and self-awareness,improve educators’ knowledge of diverse families, and enhance teachers’ ability touse knowledge about families and communities to improve instruction. This reviewexamines efforts in higher education to address family engagement and the impactof various pedagogical approaches on preservice teachers. It concludes with recom-mendations for research in the field based on identified knowledge gaps.

Keywords: teacher preparation; family engagement; teacher beliefs;family–school; community partnerships

Introduction

Policy-makers, researchers, and education leaders agree that family engagement iscritical to student achievement, often resulting in better attendance, improved behav-ior at home and school, and increased academic performance based on grade pointaverages and standardized test scores (Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Weiss, Lopez, &Rosenberg, 2010). Yet, the establishment of strong connections can be challengingand teachers report high levels of anxiety in their encounters with families as theynegotiate complex and emotionally laden relationships (Lawrence-Lightfoot, 2003).In particular, family engagement is a significant challenge for new teachers whoreceive limited preparation on the topic during their preservice education (Markow &Martin, 2005). This review examines efforts in higher education to address familyengagement and the impact of various pedagogical approaches on preservice teachers.

An overview of the role of higher education in teacher preparation for familyengagement

Recognition of the value of family engagement has increased substantially over thepast 25 years. Early studies of colleges, schools, and departments of education

*Email: evansmp2@miamioh.edu

Teaching Education, 2013Vol. 24, No. 2, 123–133, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2013.786897

� 2013 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 09:

56 2

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

(CSDE) revealed interest in the topic, but few dedicated course offerings. A 1988survey of teacher educators found that 82.8% of faculty believed that family,school, and community courses should be required, but only 4% of the respondentsworked at an institution that offered such a course (Chavkin & Williams, 1988).The lack of opportunity for family engagement study in the 1980s and early 1990sis partially related to the absence of its requirement as a standard for licensure.Today, the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE),which has established partnerships with all 50 states, including the District ofColumbia and Puerto Rico, includes the ability to “consider the school, family, andcommunity contexts” as a critical part of a teacher’s professional and pedagogicalknowledge (NCATE, 2008, p. 18). As a result, more recent surveys indicate anincrease in opportunities to learn about family engagement. In a national surveyinvolving administrators and department chairs at 161 CSDEs, 59.6% of the respon-dents offered a full course dedicated to family involvement and 91.8% reported thatthe topic was addressed for a few class sessions in at least one course in the curric-ulum (Epstein & Sanders, 2006). However, respondents to the national surveyexpress concern about the quality of graduates’ overall preparation:

only 7.2% strongly agreed that the new teachers who graduated from their programswere prepared to work with all students’ families and communities… According tothese educational leaders, their current courses and content coverage were not ade-quately preparing new professional educators to work with students’ families and com-munities. (Epstein & Sanders, 2006, p. 96)

Based on the 2005 Met Life teacher survey, the perspectives of the higher educationadministrators in the national survey appear to be in line with the beliefs of practic-ing teachers. In this survey, 31% of the respondents identified “communicating withand involving parents” as the biggest challenge they faced as a teacher (Markow &Martin, 2005, p. 7). Working with parents outpaced issues like access to sufficientresources (22%), maintaining classroom discipline (20%), and preparing studentsfor testing (14%).

Thus, despite increased coverage of family engagement in the curriculum, teacherscontinue to feel unprepared. Faculty members from a study of five Illinois’ CSDEscited several difficulties that emerge when trying to address the topic in teacher prepa-ration programs. First, there is often a cultural disconnect between preservice teacherswho are predominantly white, female, and middle-class and the students and familiesthey serve (Flanigan, 2007). Second, it is often difficult for preservice teachers whohave not had the experience of being a parent to relate to their students’ parents andfamilies, a position that is echoed in Lawrence-Lightfoot’s case studies involvingveteran teachers (2003). Third, school definitions of appropriate roles for families inthe education process frequently give preservice teachers mixed messages. Finally,faculty members believed that the typical structure of teacher education programspresented significant challenges. University regulations often limit opportunitiesthat allow preservice teachers to interact directly with students’ families and theircommunities.

Overall, the practice of teacher education remains primarily focused on instruc-tional practices with a limited view of the importance of interaction between teachersand families (Flanigan, 2007). Recently, the National Family, School, and Commu-nity Engagement Working Group which includes several reputable leaders in the

124 M.P. Evans

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 09:

56 2

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

field, defined family engagement as the support that families provide to their childrento “achieve more effective educational opportunities” (NFSCEWG, 2009). It is a defi-nition that also recognizes family engagement as a shared responsibility occurringthroughout a child’s life and in multiple contexts. It is an intentionally broad defini-tion that is mean to capture the many different ways that families, schools, and com-munities engage with one another. Yet, historically, research has suggested that whenfamily engagement is addressed in the teacher preparation curricula, it often focuseson the more technical aspects of the topic. Courses tend to emphasize communicationskills, parent–teacher conferences, organizing volunteers, issues in early childhoodand special education, and theories of partnership (Flanigan, 2007). However, wemay be in the midst of a slight shift as this examination of the literature revealed littleconsistency with regard to definitions of family engagement. In fact, the broad rangeof activities and contexts described suggests that a new emphasis on relationshipbuilding is slowly starting to replace more technical approaches.

Methodology

My examination of research on preservice teacher preparation relating to family,schools, and communities began with a search of EBSCO’s Academic Elite database.I conducted Boolean searches with phrases such as “teacher education,” “schoolcommunity relations,” and “parent/family involvement.” My search was limited topeer-reviewed articles appearing in journals over the past 20 years (1992–2012). Aninitial scan resulted in roughly 900 articles and an analysis of the abstracts reducedthe pertinent literature to 109. I read these articles seeking research that focused onthe impact of efforts in higher education to address family engagement with preser-vice teachers. There were numerous descriptive- and opinion-based articles related tothis topic, but empirically based research was limited to just 33 articles.

The majority of these articles (24) was qualitative in nature and an additional 9articles utilized a mixed methods approach. Only one of the articles used an exclu-sively quantitative methodology. The articles tended to focus on the classroom prac-tices of the authors and the sample sizes ranged from 6 to 160. The vast majorityof the qualitative studies (19) relied on journal or reflection exercises in combina-tion with some other classroom assignments as their primary data source. Onlythree of the studies used interviews with course participants. Not surprisingly, themajority of the studies focused on preservice teachers in early childhood and specialeducation programs (21). Only 10 of the courses in the studies were exclusivelydedicated to the topic of families, schools, and communities. The studies included abroad array of pedagogical approaches to address the topic of family engagementincluding traditional readings and lectures, child studies, simulated parent–teacherconferences, service learning, family interviews, and community immersion experi-ences. Despite the relatively small sample size, several interesting findings emergedfrom the literature that can be used to inform the broader field of family, school,and community partnership studies.

The impact of teaching about family engagement in higher education

With the exception of one study (Rucker, 2004), research examined in this reviewreported that efforts to address family, school, and community engagement practiceshad a positive impact on preservice teachers. The dominant findings in the studies

Teaching Education 125

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 09:

56 2

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

were increased levels of confidence and self-awareness for preservice candidates,increased knowledge of diverse families and their role in education, and the abilityto use knowledge about families and communities to improve instruction. Thesepositive outcomes contradict research indicating that new teachers struggle withfamily involvement and skepticism among CSDE administrators regarding theeffectiveness of existing efforts to prepare teachers to work with families andcommunities (Markow & Martin, 2005). Perhaps, the contradiction in findings ispartially attributable to the pedagogical approaches utilized in the studies. Research-ers are often compelled to examine and report on new and innovative practices, thusthe sample studies may represent a minority experience in higher education. Themost notable characteristic of the studies in this review was the widespread use ofdirect engagement with families and communities as a teaching strategy (occurringin 29 of 33 studies). Despite recognition of the potential value of communityknowledge (Zeichner et al., 1998), direct interaction with families has beenuncommon in teacher preparation programs (Tichenor, 1997).

The role of community knowledge

Research on the value of community “funds of knowledge” and the positive impactof community organizations working outside of traditional school structuressuggests that educators who are able to collaborate with the local community willbe able to impact a range of student outcomes (Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzales,1992). Finding also indicates that basic courses in multicultural education have nothad much impact on the instructional practices of preservice teachers as they enterschools and classrooms (Zeichner et al., 1998). The presence of family and commu-nity voices in the studies described in this review is partially a response tolongstanding calls for a more inclusive teacher preparation curricula that include anemphasis on building relationship (Sleeter, 2001), engaging communities (Zeichner& Melnick, 1996), and recognizing the expertise of educational stakeholders exter-nal to schools and universities (Murrell, 2001; Oakes, Franke, Hunter Quartz, &Rogers, 2006). Simple exposure to other perspectives via text does not appear to bea transformative learning experience as one researcher wrote:

Similar to preservice teachers in teacher educator programs across the country, ourshad engaged in academic activities, including coursework, readings and projectstargeted toward the development of knowledge and skills for working with families.However, these experiences seemed ineffective for developing students’ mastery offamily-related skills, dispositions, or the professional identity necessary to involve,support, or empower families … In the final student teaching semester … the onlyevidence most students provided to demonstrate ‘knowledge of families, support andempowerment of families and family involvement’ were superficial involvementactivities such as sending home newsletters, asking for materials for unit studies, andsometimes inviting family members to speak to their class. (Baumgartner & Buchanan,2010, p. 175)

These frustrations served as the impetus for the use of approaches that incorporateda broader range of experiences with families and communities; although, the depthand level of engagement varied significantly across the studies. Engagement withfamilies ranged from service learning with teachers (Seitz, 2005) to home visits andinterviews (Blasi, 2002) to the use of parents as curricula co-creators (Patterson,

126 M.P. Evans

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 09:

56 2

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

Webb, & Krudwig, 2009). Across all of the studies, researchers cited the value ofestablishing relationships as a critical component of preservice teacher learning.Stoddard and colleagues summarized the sentiments of many researchers writing,

Perhaps the community setting provided for a more intimate understanding of thedaily challenges and life activities of these families. The university students were ableto develop relationships with family members that are difficult to illustrate in anon-campus setting. (Stoddard, Braun, & Koorland, 2011, p. 163)

Thus, as we consider the findings discussed below, it is important to remember thatthey represent the experiences of only a small segment of the preservice teacherpopulation.

Teacher education can make a difference

Increased confidence in ability to work with families

Preservice educators often overestimate their ability to effectively work as teachersand this includes the ability to relate to parents (Veenman, 1984; Weinstein, 1988).Unrealistic expectations can often lead to feelings of shock when new teachers areconfronted with the complex realities of classroom life (Veenman, 1984). Initially,high levels of confidence were reported in several of the studies pre-tests; yet,findings still indicated increased levels of confidence relating to working with fami-lies. Overall, 24% of the studies reported improved levels of confidence. For somepreservice teachers, this was a byproduct of learning about specific strategies andtechniques they could use to engage families (Miller & Fuller, 2006), but for others,the experience of working directly with families was central to helping them feelbetter prepared. Direct experience combined with academic support that reframed“at-risk” families as families “of promise” alleviated preconceived notions regardinginteractions with caregivers (Blasi, 2002). Witnessing firsthand the contributions offamilies to their children’s educations helped teachers see the value of collaboration,reduced feelings of isolation, and allowed candidates to envision new ways ofworking with families (Lam, 2005; Sutterby, Rubin, & Abrego, 2007; Morris & Tay-lor, 1998). Students began to understand that even in their role as preservice teach-ers, families were already relying on them to help support their children(Baumgartner & Buchanan, 2010).

While most studies focused on establishing atmospheres of collaboration toincrease confidence (Murray & Curran, 2008), other researchers sought to recreatepotentially contentious experiences that preservice teachers might encounter throughsimulated IEP meetings or parent–teacher conferences (Dotger, Harris, Maher, &Hansel, 2011; Hooks, 2008; Patterson et al., 2009). In the Patterson et al. study,university researchers worked with local families to create and enact typical confer-ence scenarios. Dotger et al. had a similar study, but the researchers decided to hireprofessional actors to perform carefully crafted parental archetypes. These simulatedinteractions helped expose preservice teachers to the challenge of maintaining theirprofessional identities in emotionally charged situations. The opportunity to decon-struct the experience with either peers or actual parents after the sessions helpedstudents feel better prepared to navigate “the emotional terrain of the profession”(Dotger et al., 2011, p. 227).

Teaching Education 127

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 09:

56 2

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

Increased awareness of personal prejudices

In 10 of the studies, participants demonstrated increased awareness of personalprejudices. This is an important starting point for preservice teachers seeking tobuild relationships with diverse families. It is a finding that is also present in theliterature on preservice teacher preparation for multicultural education, but a signifi-cant difference is that the increased awareness in these studies seemed to occur as aresult of interactions with families and communities (Cooper, 2007; Lazar, 1998).Some of the stereotypes that were being challenged are byproducts of dominantsocial discourses. For example, during a field experience in a community health,clinic-aspiring educators were pushed to reconsider their ideas regarding merito-cratic opportunities. After working side by side with community members, one stu-dent remarked,

I grew up with the idea that if you’re poor it is your own fault. Work hard and youwill overcome it. Most of the people who come to the clinic work but still can’t find away to make ends meet. (Ginn, 1996, p. 34)

Other preservice teachers came to the simple but important realization that parentswant their children to be successful in school (Pohan & Adams, 2007; Theilheimer,2001). With some school districts seeking out professional development targeted atworking with families who come from “cultures of poverty,” it is not surprising thatnew educators may rely on deficit model thinking (Bomer, Dworin, May, & Seming-son, 2008). In some studies, it was helpful to remove students from their traditionalprofessional mindsets and have them encounter families in different settings (Waddell,2011; Zygmunt-Fillwalk, 2005, 2011). By scaffolding engagement with families as alearning opportunity instead of a service opportunity, preservice teachers developedmore authentic relationships and, “when preservice teachers were forced to listen,rather than talk, to parents, they uncovered their own hidden assumptions, biases, andunconscious expectations about families… Within the context of student teaching,preservice teachers do engage families; but too often the nature of the parent teacherinvolvement is limited by their student-teacher status” (Baumgartner & Buchanan,2010, p. 180).

The increases in personal awareness did not come easily for some of the partici-pants. In a course that required home visits with ELL families, the researchers notedthat “most of them (preservice teachers) admitted that it was a struggle at times (toengage with diverse populations) and even continued to be a challenge for them”(Kidd, Sanchez, & Thorp, 2005, p. 353). Two of the studies specifically noted howimmersion experiences reinforced negative stereotypes and personal biases among atleast some of the preservice teachers (Dunn-Kenny, 2010; Rucker, 2004). Researchsuggests that simply creating and facilitating opportunities for teachers to engagewith families and communities will not always be enough since the disposition of theteacher candidates also plays an important role (Causey, Thomas, & Armeto, 2000).

Increased awareness of diversity within families and an expansion of the role offamilies

Intense study and interaction with families changed many preservice teachers’preconceived notions about families. First, as noted above, the establishment ofpersonal relationships with community members helped students move beyond

128 M.P. Evans

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 09:

56 2

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

stereotypical assumptions based on race or culture (Blasi, 2009; Hedges & Lee,2010). But, coupled with this newfound personal awareness was a deeperunderstanding of diversity within families (Norris, 2010; Novak, Murray, Scheuer-mann & Curran, 2009). As one student who worked with adult English languagelearners remarked,

This experience helped me see that diversity is not just limited to Black and Whiteand Hispanic, but includes a variety of ethnicities and cultures. Just when I think thatI am thinking “diversity,” something else comes along to open my eyes a little wider.(Hooks, 2008, p. 102)

In another study involving the use of concept mapping and family interviews, 83%of the course participants included items in their maps that related to family charac-teristics suggesting the development of broader perspectives related to family systems(Bingham & Abernathy, 2007). The studies in this review illuminated the myriadforms of bicultural parenting that occur based on race, culture, socioeconomic status,and sexual orientation (Turner-Vorbeck, 2005). A more nuanced understanding ofdiversity helps preservice teachers focus on the importance of developing individualrelationships with families instead of generalized classroom practices (Baumgartner& Buchanan, 2010; Hedges & Lee, 2010; Stoddard et al., 2011).

Increased ability to use knowledge about families and communities to improveteaching

Divergent cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds between teachers and familiescan be a source of tension hindering educators’ ability to create relationships thatsupport student learning. However, research suggests that teachers can connect withstudents whose cultural backgrounds differ from their own by using instructionaltechniques that recognize these differences (Au & Kawakami, 1994). In this review,several studies indicated that preservice teachers were better able to incorporatecommunity knowledge into their instruction as a result of their participation invarious family engagement activities supported by higher education coursework(Coffey, 2010). Once again direct interaction with families appears to make a differ-ence. In a course requiring home visits, the researchers observed how, “interactingwith families and listening to their stories can contribute to interns’ understandingof cultural and linguistic diversity, and their ability and willingness to provide learn-ing experiences that take into account children’s diversity” (Kidd et al., 2005, p.356). The adaptation of pedagogy based on these encounters not only denotes thepotential for improved instruction, also indicates a fundamental shift in how newteachers perceive family and school relationships. As Kroeger and Lash observed intheir study of an inquiry-based parent–child–teacher study, “Sometimes the informa-tion seems basic; however, acting upon parent expertise affirms the importance ofasking and listening for the developing teacher” (2011, p. 274). Families and com-munities are no longer passive recipients of services, but rather important collabora-tors and resources (Morris, Taylor, Knight, & Wasson, 1996; Stachowski & Mahan,1998; Sutterby et al., 2007).

Teaching Education 129

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 09:

56 2

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

Recommendations for future research

While the literature reviewed in this article make valuable contributions to the fieldof teacher education, several knowledge gaps remain that require further study. Forexample, the majority of the studies in this review relied on qualitative researchmethods applied in the researchers’ own classrooms. More mixed methods studiesand the use of control groups would further enhance the generalizability and valid-ity of the findings. Furthermore, there is almost a complete absence of research onpreparing secondary school teachers for work with families and communities. Whilefive of the studies in this review were focused on a general education population, itis evident that little is being done to address the specific needs of preservice teach-ers in secondary education. Since research indicates that this is the time period in astudent’s academic career when families actively distance themselves from schools,there should be more of an emphasis on helping new secondary teachers establishmeaningful connections. The field will also benefit from more longitudinal researchregarding the impact of the pedagogical approaches described in these studies.Research on the impact of teacher education indicates that preservice teacherself-efficacy increases during participation in coursework and student teaching, butthere is a decline during the first few years of teaching (Hoy & Spero, 2005). Thissame research identifies a strong correlation between the decline in self-efficacy anda lack of support. Perhaps, an enhanced capacity to build relationships external toschools could help alleviate some of these initial struggles, but sustaining thesecapacities while immersed in a dominant negative discourse regarding familyengagement will be a significant challenge (Aaronsohn, Carter, & Howell, 1995).Finally, none of the studies in this review explicitly linked family engagement tostudent learning and this reflects the continued dominance of traditional perspectiveson parental involvement (Weiss et al., 2010). Future research that connects the roleof family engagement in teacher preparation curricula with student achievement isneeded both to reinforce the critical role of this topic and to further legitimize thevalue of holistic approaches to education.

Conclusion

The next generation of teachers must be capable of preparing increasingly diversegroups of students for a globalized world, while simultaneously confronting vastsocial inequities in the classroom. To meet this challenge, teachers have to beequipped with extensive content and pedagogical knowledge. Teachers must also betrained to assess their students’ needs so they can develop and implement differenti-ated instruction and appropriate learning opportunities. In all schools, but particularlyin high need areas, this requires self-awareness, creativity, and the ability to lookbeyond deficit-based stereotypes and draw inspiration from neighborhood and familyresources. Developing the capacity for self-awareness, the ability to effectivelycommunicate with families, and the desire to work with multiple stakeholders, isessential for the preparation of effective teachers and only so many of these skillscan be acquired within a traditional university classroom (Murrell, 2001; Moll et al.,1992). The studies reviewed in this article challenge colleges and universities toconsider how they might create more comprehensive learning opportunities forpreservice teachers that span traditional knowledge boundaries and engage thebroader community in teacher preparation.

130 M.P. Evans

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 09:

56 2

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

ReferencesAaronsohn, E., Carter, C. J., & Howell, M. (1995). Preparing monocultural teachers for a

multicultural world: Attitudes toward inner-city schools. Equity in Education, 28, 5–9.Au, K. H., & Kawakami, A. J. (1994). Cultural congruence in instruction. In E. R. Hollins,

J. E. King, & W. Hayman (Eds.), Teaching diverse populations: Formulating a knowl-edge base (pp. 5–23). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Baumgartner, J. J., & Buchanan, T. K. (2010). “I have HUGE stereo-types:” Using eco-mapsto understand children and families. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 31,173–184.

Bingham, A., & Abernathy, T. V. (2007). Promoting family-centered teaching: Can onecourse make a difference? Issues in Teacher Education, 16, 37–60.

Blasi, M. W. (2002). An asset model: Preparing preservice teachers to work with childrenand families “of promise”. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 17, 106–121.

Bomer, R., Dworin, J. E., May, L., & Semingson, P. (2008). Miseducating teachers aboutthe poor: A critical analysis of Ruby Payne’s claims about poverty. Teachers CollegeRecord, 110, 2497–2531.

Causey, V. E., Thomas, C. D., & Armento, B. J. (2000). Cultural diversity is basically aforeign term to me: The challenges of diversity for pre-service teacher education. Teach-ing and Teacher Education, 16, 33–45.

Chavkin, N., & Williams, D. (1988). Critical issues in teacher training for parent involve-ment. Educational Horizons, 66, 87–89.

Coffey, H. (2010). “‘They’ taught ‘me’”: The benefits of early community-based field experi-ences in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journalof Research and Studies, 26, 335–342.

Cooper, J. E. (2007). Strengthening the case for community-based learning in teacher educa-tion. Journal of Teacher Education, 58, 245–255.

Dotger, B. H., Harris, S., Maher, M., & Hansel, A. (2011). Exploring the emotional geogra-phies of parent–teacher candidate interactions: An emerging signature pedagogy. TeacherEducator, 46, 208–230.

Dunn-Kenney, M. (2010). Can service learning reinforce social and cultural bias? Exploringa popular model of family involvement for early childhood teacher candidates. Journalof Early Childhood Teacher Education, 31, 37–48.

Epstein, J. L., & Sander, M. G. (2006). Prospects for change: Preparing educators for school,family, and community partnerships. Peabody Journal of Education, 81, 81–120.

Flanigan, C. B. (2007). Preparing preservice teachers to partner with parents and communi-ties: An analysis of college of education faculty focus groups. The School CommunityJournal, 17, 89–110.

Ginn, L. W. (1996). Alternative practicum experiences for preservice teachers: Confrontingthe reality of children’s lives. Journal of At-Risk Issues, 2, 28–37.

Hedges, H., & Lee, D. (2010). “I understood the complexity within diversity”: Preparationfor partnership with families in early childhood settings. Asia-Pacific Journal of TeacherEducation, 38, 257–272.

Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school,family and community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX: Southwest Edu-cational Development Lab.

Hooks, L. M. (2008). Help! They don’t speak English: Partnering preservice teachers with adultEnglish language learners. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 29, 97–107.

Hoy, A., & Spero, R. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching:A comparison of four measures. Teaching & Teacher Education, 21, 343–356.

Kidd, J. K., Sanchez, S. Y., & Thorp, E. K. (2005). Cracking the challenge of changingdispositions: Changing hearts and minds through stories, narratives, and direct culturalinteractions. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 26, 347–359.

Kroeger, J., & Lash, M. (2011). Asking, listening, and learning: Toward a more thoroughmethod of inquiry in home–school relations. Teaching and Teacher Education: An Inter-national Journal of Research and Studies, 27, 268–277. ERIC, EBSCOhost (accessed2012, July 29).

Lam, S. (2005). An interdisciplinary course to prepare school professionals to collaboratewith families of exceptional children. Multicultural Education, 13, 38–42.

Teaching Education 131

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 09:

56 2

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

Lawrence-Lightfoot, S. (2003). The essential conversation. New York, NY: Random House.Lazar, A. (1998). Helping preservice teachers inquire about caregivers: A critical experience

for field-based courses. Action in Teacher Education, 19, 14–28.Markow, D., & Martin, S. (2005). The MetLife survey of the American teacher, 2004–2005:

Transitions and the role of supportive relationships. New York, NY: MetLife.Miller, K. J., & Fuller, D. P. (2006). Developing cultural competency in early childhood

preservice educators through a cultural self-analysis project. Journal of Early ChildhoodTeacher Education, 27, 35–45.

Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzales, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching:Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31,132–140.

Morris, V., & Taylor, S. (1998). Alleviating barriers to family involvement in education: Therole of teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, 219–231.

Morris, V., Taylor, S., Knight, J., & Wasson, R. (1996). Preparing teachers to reach out tofamilies and communities. Action in Teacher Education, 18, 10–22.

Murray, M. M., & Curran, E. M. (2008). Learning together with parents of children withdisabilities: Bringing parent–professional partnership education to a new level. TeacherEducation and Special Education, 31, 59–63.

Murrell, P. C.Jr. (2001). The community teacher: A new framework for effective urban teaching.New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

NCATE. (2008). Professional standards for the accreditation of teacher preparation institu-tions. Retrieved from http://www.ncate.org/Standards/NCATEUnitStandards

NFSCEWG. (2009). National family, school, and community engagement working group.Retrieved from http://www.hfrp.org/family-involvement/projects/national-family-schooland community-engagement-working-group

Norris, K. L. (2010). Beyond the textbook: Building relationships between teachers anddiversely-structured families. Multicultural Education, 18, 48–50.

Novak, J., Murray, M., Scheuermann, A., & Curran, E. (2009). Enhancing the preparation ofspecial educators through service learning: Evidence from two preservice courses. Inter-national Journal of Special Education, 24, 32–44.

Oakes, J., Franke, M. L., Hunter Quartz, K., & Rogers, J. (2006). Research for high-qualityurban teaching: Defining it, developing it, assessing it. Journal of Teacher Education,53, 228–235.

Patterson, K. B., Webb, K. W., & Krudwig, K. M. (2009). Family as faculty parents: Influenceon teachers’ beliefs about family partnerships. Preventing School Failure, 54, 41–50.

Pohan, C. A., & Adams, C. (2007). Increasing family involvement and cultural understand-ing through a university–school partnership. Action in Teacher Education, 29, 42–50.

Rucker, B. A. (2004). Community awareness project: A tool for preparing culturally sensi-tive teachers. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 17, 12–20.

Seitz, H. (2005). Community engagement project for preservice early childhood students.Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 26, 297–304.

Sleeter, C. (2001). Preparing teachers for culturally diverse schools: Research and the over-whelming presence of whiteness. Journal of Teacher Education, 52, 94–106.

Stachowski, L. L., & Mahan, J. M. (1998). Cross-cultural field placements: Student teacherslearning from schools and communities. Theory into Practice, 37, 155–162.

Stoddard, K., Braun, B., & Koorland, M. (2011). Beyond the schoolhouse: Understanding familiesthough preservice experiences in the community. Preventing School Failure, 55, 158–163.

Sutterby, J. A., Rubin, R., & Abrego, M. (2007). Amistades: The development of relationshipsbetween preservice teachers and Latino families. School Community Journal, 17, 77–94.

Theilheimer, R. (2001). Bi-directional learning through relationship building: Teacher prepara-tion for working with families new to the United States. Childhood Education, 77, 284–288.

Tichenor, M. S. (1997). Teacher education and parent involvement: Reflections from preser-vice teachers. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 24, 233–239.

Turner-Vorbeck, T. A. (2005). Expanding multicultural education to include family diversity.Multicultural Education, 13, 6–10.

Veenman, S. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of EducationalResearch, 54, 143–178.

132 M.P. Evans

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 09:

56 2

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

Waddell, J. (2011). Crossing borders without leaving town: The impact of cultural immersion onthe perceptions of teacher education candidates. Issues in Teacher Education, 20, 23–36.

Weinstein, C. (1988). Preservice teachers expectation about the first year of teaching. Teach-ing and Teacher Education, 4, 31–41.

Weiss, H. B., Lopez, M. E., & Rosenberg, H. (2010). Beyond random acts: Family, school,and community engagement as an integral part of school reform. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.hfrp.org/content/download/3809/104680/file/PolicyForumPaper-120710 FINAL.pdf

Zeichner, K. M., Grant, C., Gay, G., Gillette, M., Valli, L., & Villegas, A. M. (1998). Aresearch informed vision of good practice in multicultural teacher education: Designprinciples. Theory into Practice, 37, 163–171.

Zeichner, K., & Melnick, S. (1996). The role of community field experiences in preparingteachers for cultural diversity. In K. Zeichner, S. Melnick, & M. L. Gomez (Eds.), Cur-rents of reform in preservice teacher education (pp. 176–196). New York, NY: TeachersCollege Press.

Zygmunt-Fillwalk, E. (2005). Disequilibrium and reconstruction: The urban encounter ascatalyst for preservice educators’ cultural transformation. Journal of Early ChildhoodTeacher Education, 26, 133–147.

Zygmunt-Fillwalk, E. (2011). Building family partnerships: The journey from preservicepreparation to classroom practice. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 32,84–96.

Teaching Education 133

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 09:

56 2

2 D

ecem

ber

2014