improving cultural competence by teaching multicultural education

8/12/2019 Improving Cultural Competence by Teaching Multicultural Education

1/19

The Journal of Multiculturalism in Education Volume 8 (October 2012) 1

Improving Cultural Competence by Teaching Multicultural Education

Dr. Christopher Donoghue

Montclair State University

and

Dr. David BrandweinKean University

Rising ethnic and racial diversity in schools has continually led to calls for multicultural

education and higher levels of cultural competence among teachers. In this study, a multicultural

education program is tested for its effects on the self-perceived cultural intelligence of the

teachers delivering it in the classrooms. The cultural intelligence scale (CQ) was used to

measure the cultural competence of 32 teachers at three points in time over a twelve month

period, during which they carried out a multicultural education program. The results indicate

that cognitive, motivational and behavioral cultural intelligence was enhanced during the study

period. Broader applications are needed to determine the likelihood of success in other settings.

KEYWORDS: Cultural Intelligence, Teachers, Culturally Responsive Teaching

The 20th century advances in the proportions of Hispanic, Asian and African American

populations in the United States have led to unprecedented ethnic and racial diversity in

American schools (Ponterotto, Utsey, & Pedersen, 2006). Over the last few decades, this

transformation has created an impetus to improve cultural competence among preservice

teachers, who still tend to come from more privileged backgrounds than the students they intend


2/19


to teach (Murray, 2010). The effort has been driven in part by evidence that new education

professionals are lacking in their understanding of the ways in which ethnic and racial bias serve

to create systematic forms of advantage in people's everyday lives (Castro, 2010; Harmon, 2012;

Murray, 2010). The campaign has also been bolstered by the Civil Rights underpinning of the

multicultural movement which posits that traditional Western-based pedagogies have

exacerbated inequities in education among young people (Banks, 2010). Thus, a vast

improvement in the cultural competence of preservice teachers has become a celestial goal in the

quest for social justice in education.

But what can be done to improve the cultural competence of teachers already in the field?

Research on Culturally Responsive Teaching (CRT) consistently calls for greater levels of

interaction and communication between teachers, students and families (Gay, 2002; Huber,

Murphy, & Clandinin, 2003; Smith, 2009), yet the cultural competence required to perform these

strategies may sometimes be very lacking among practicing teachers. In addition, many teachers

face particular challenges when they are not a member of the dominant ethnic or racial group in

their school or when they perceive themselves to be of a higher or lower socioeconomic class

than their students. Such disparities create the perception of social distance and can interfere

with a teacher's best efforts to interact with students.

The purpose of this study is to determine whether elementary school teachers and school

administrators experienced an improvement in their level of cultural competence, as a result of

their participation in theMulticultural Mosaic, a school-wide multicultural curricular initiative,

developed by the teachers themselves. The main goal of theMulticultural Mosaicis to raise

ethnic and racial tolerance among students by devoting entire academic years to the appreciation

of the broad cultural categories of families that exist among the student body. A secondary goal


3/19


set forth by the teachers themselves, however, is to improve their own cultural competencies by

increasing their exposure to the cultural diversity that exists among their students. They sought

to accomplish this by infusing a multicultural curriculum in a "wrap-around" fashion which

would impact all of the classes being taught in the school. School administrators and community

volunteers would also make contributions by organizing extra-curricular activities around the

ethnic or racial theme for the academic year. By implementing the program, it was anticipated

that the teachers and administrators would grow more confident in their abilities to interact with

people of different cultures, and increase their feelings of cultural competence.

The Multicultural Mosaic

TheMulticultural Mosaicwas introduced in the 2009-10 academic year following a two

year development process completed by the same teachers and administrators who participated in

this study. Following the launch, the teachers began introducing multicultural materials on the

geography, history, and customs of people of different Asian cultures. The curriculum was

supported by books, assembly programs, guest speakers and various forms of media (DVD, CD,

computer software, etc.). In the following years, the cultural emphasis would shift to European,

Hispanic, African-American and Middle Eastern cultures.

The early childhood teachers introduced their students to maps of Asia, pictures of Asian

peoples, and cultural practices popular among children, such as Origami making and kite flying.

They also explored cultural differentiation by creating Venn Diagrams that demonstrate the

similarities and differences between people of different cultures, and discussing the different

ways in which people celebrate holidays around the world. In grades Kindergarten through five,

a greater emphasis was placed on language, tradition, geography, and the creation of cultural


4/19


identities. Students in grades Kindergarten through five learned about Asian cultures by reading

in class, exploring the internet, and interviewing relatives. In grades six through eight, children

engaged in class discussions about the sufferings of people around the world, the biographies of

historically notable people outside of America, and tolerance for other people. They explored

Asian history by reading novels, manipulating Tangrams, and reciting poetry. Take home

projects and extra-curricular activities focused on Asian cultures at all grade levels throughout

the year as well, and in all subjects. Following each activity, the teachers filled out a form

describing its goals and objectives, and entered it into a log maintained by a committee of

teachers. They also met periodically to review the log and ensure the ongoing alignment of their

pedagogies with the goals of the program.

Cultural Intelligence and theMulticultural Mosaic

Cultural intelligence or CQ refers to an individual's capacity to interact and communicate

effectively with people of diverse cultural backgrounds (Ang et al., 2007; Earley & Ang, 2003).

It is comprised of four domains: the Metacognitive CQ, the Cognitive CQ, the Motivational CQ

and the Behavioral CQ. The Metacognitive CQ refers to an awareness of one's own knowledge

of, and response to, situations characterized by cultural difference; whereas the Cognitive CQ

refers to an individual's degree of knowledge of cultural practices other than his or her own.

Motivational CQ measures an individual's level of confidence and enjoyment experienced during

intercultural interaction, and the Behavioral CQ refers to the actual steps people take in order to

engage with people of different cultures (Ang et al., 2007; Earley & Ang, 2003). A greater

degree of cultural intelligence has been consistently linked to superior cultural judgment and

decision making, adjustment, joint profit, and to a lesser degree, enhanced task performance, in


5/19


studies of professionals who engage with culturally diverse partners and counterparts (Ang et al.,

2007; Imai & Gelfand, 2010; Templer, Tay, & Chandrasekar, 2006).

The use of this construct to measure the perceived self efficacy of professional educators

in their interactions with diverse people is new to this study, as is the question of whether an

individual can increase one's own level of cultural intelligence by studying foreign peoples,

engaging in professional interactions with people of diverse backgrounds, and communicating

knowledge of foreign cultures to other people in an academic environment. We expect that

cultural intelligence can grow in this manner over time if professionals are self-motivated to

interact with diverse others, supported by their organizations, and enabled to utilize their own

professional expertise.

TheMulticultural Mosaic is the product of a voluntary initiative among elementary and

middle school teachers to formally recognize all of the ethnic and racial groups in their school's

student body, in their curriculum, and extracurricular activities. Using demographic data from

the school, they determined that all of their students would find representation in at least one of

the following major categories: Asian cultures, European cultures, Hispanic cultures, African-

American cultures and Middle Eastern cultures. They then used this information to develop a

plan to spend a full academic year on each one. In addition, they sought to raise tolerance among

the students toward people of different ethnic and racial backgrounds, by introducing an

awareness of the harms associated with stereotyping and prejudice into the curriculum, at

appropriate developmental levels.

Although the teachers carrying out theMulticultural Mosaicpossessed the full

institutional support of their school, they lacked financial resources to carry out their plans.

Since the program was of their own making, however, they benefited from a high level of


6/19


interest and motivation from most of the faculty. This may have enabled them to take advantage

of the intrinsic incentives that come from organizing grass roots efforts that build social capital.

Social capital is defined as the "connections among individuals - social networks and the

norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them" (Putnam, 2000). It is most

effective when it is supported by community organizations or institutions (Warren, 2001), but the

trust that forms within successful movements is strongest when it is inspired by genuine

initiatives from the actors who must carry out the work. For this reason, the teachers in this

study may have felt a sense of personal investment in their project since they developed it on

their own, rather than being encouraged (or forced) to carry it out. Lee, Aurolyn, Cory & Annis

(2007) drew a similar conclusion in a 2-year intervention study of a program intended to increase

the usage of student cultural language in the teaching of science. The authors of that study found

no sustainable effects among the teachers who participated in the project, which was notably

devoid of their input or investment.

An added benefit of the fact that theMulticultural Mosaicwas developed by the teachers

is that unlike most efforts to comprehensively revise a school curriculum, this project held a

greater potential for avoiding standardization. As Schenck (2010) makes clear, standardization

can have the effect of diminishing or reversing the cultural sensitivity required to develop an

effective diverse pedagogy because it fails to take into account the actual human differences that

exist in the classrooms where the instruction takes place. In lieu of standardizing classroom

practices, the teachers of theMulticultural Mosaic sought to coordinate their efforts by logging

their activities and outcomes, and reviewing them in group sessions. The faculty meetings were

intended to maintain cohesion and consistency with best practices in diverse pedagogical

strategies. Sheets' (2009) prescription for a diverse pedagogy theory encourages teachers to


7/19


become astute observers of their students' cultural behavior so that they may take this diversity

into account when developing curriculum. By monitoring the strategies being used by the

teachers at various developmental levels, the committee was able to ensure that what was

happening in the classroom was consistent with the goals of the program.

From the outset, the teachers carrying out theMulticultural Mosaic sought to involve

students and their families by seeking cooperation in organizing classroom activities,

extracurricular events and class outings. Gay (2002) and Smith (2009) both recommend this

practice, suggesting that teachers become partners with their students and their families by

reaching out and interacting with them in diverse settings. The teachers also developed class

projects that drew directly upon the cultural heritage of their students. This strategy conforms

with Huber, Murphy and Clandinin's (2003) method for creating a curriculum of diversity, which

entails a direct collaboration between teachers and students in the process of multicultural

curriculum development.

In summary, theMulticultural Mosaicheld potential for improving the cultural

intelligence of the teachers and administrators. As a program that the teachers developed on

their own, there was reason to expect that it would stimulate a sense of pride and belief in its core

mission; by calling for a high level of interaction between the teachers, their students, and their

students' families, its methodology was firmly grounded in the literature on culturally diverse

pedagogy; and by permitting the teachers to retain autonomy by drawing from their expertise and

making use of the real cultural differences that existed in their own classrooms, the teachers were

encouraged to maximize their professionalism. Thus, the main hypothesis of this study is that

the teachers and administrators will experience gains in their self-perceived levels of cultural

intelligence, as they execute a multicultural education program that: a.) they created on their


8/19


own; b.) is backed by the support of the institution; c.) involves a high level of interaction with

diverse students and families; and d.) utilizes their professionalism by permitting a high degree

of academic freedom in the classroom and participation in program evaluation and governance.

Methods

This study was approved by the Kean University Institutional Review Board, and it was

conducted by a team of researchers independent of the school. The subjects are the faculty and

staff of a private school (grades Pre-K-8) located in the Northeastern United States. All of the

faculty and staff who work at the school (n = 32) were invited to participate; all chose to

participate in the study (100%).

Subjects

The subjects of this study were 32 female faculty and staff. 27 identified themselves as

teachers (84.4%) and 5 identified themselves as administrators or staff (16.6%). 30 self-reported

as White or Caucasian (93.8%), and two reported as Hispanic (6.2%). The mean age was 52.7

(sd=11.01).

Measures

The study was conducted using the Cultural Intelligence Scale (Ang et al., 2007) which is

a four factor (Motivational, Cognitive, Metacognitive, and Behavioral), 20-item scale that

assesses the construct of cultural intelligence, or the capability to function effectively in

situations characterized by cultural diversity (Ang et al., 2007; Earley & Ang, 2003; Earley &

Peterson, 2004).


9/19


Earley & Ang (2003) described thecognitive component of CQ as, specific knowledge

that people are able to gain and comprehend about a new culture based on various cues

provided (p 91). The meta-cognitive component of CQ involves the strategies of awareness,

planning, checking knowledge, and development of coping strategies to cope with cultural

challenges (Ang et al., 2007). The motivation component of CQ is defined as ones propensity

and commitment to act on the cognitive facet [of CQ] as well as persevere acquiring knowledge

and understanding a new culture and overcome stumbling blocks or failure (Earley & Ang,

2003). The behavioral facet is described as, the capability of a person to enact his or her

desired intended actions to a given cultural situation (Earley & Ang, 2003). An individuals

ability to know their cultural intelligence provides insights about their capabilities to deal with

multicultural situations and participate in intercultural interactions.

Procedure

The surveys took place in a computer lab in the school, in three sessions, each separated

by approximately six months. The teachers and administrators were given the demographic data

questionnaire and the Cultural Intelligence Scale, via computer, during each session. The pretest

measure (Test 1) occurred in June 2009, prior to the implementation of the multicultural

education curriculum. The process measure (Test 2) occurred during January 2010, in the

middle of the year while the multicultural education module was ongoing. The posttest measure

(Test 3) occurred in June 2010, after the first year of the multicultural education module had

been completed.

All 32 of the subjects were administered the Cultural Intelligence Scale at least twice.

22 of the 32 (68.8%) took both measures all three times. 29 individuals (90.6%) participated


10/19


during Session 1; 27 individuals (84.4%) participated during Session 2; and 26 individuals

(81.3%) participated during Session 3. Alpha tests for reliability for the four CQ factors ranged

from 0.81-0.88.

Analyses

Results from the Cultural Intelligence Scale were aggregated for the purpose of

identifying longitudinal trends in the school. The aggregated data, across all three periods of

administration, were analyzed using paired samples t-tests. The threshold for statistical

significance was set at p = .05; actual p-values are reported in the next section for clarity.

Results

It was hypothesized that the teachers and administrators would show longitudinal gains in

their self-perceived cultural intelligence, as a result of their implementation of a multicultural

education program. Descriptive statistics from each administration of the Cultural Intelligence

Scale are displayed in Table 1. Table 2 displays results from the paired t-tests for each factor of

the CQ.

On the Metacognitive factor, teacher awareness of their own knowledge of, and response

to, situations characterized by cultural difference, decreased slightly between the pretest and the

process measure. However, there was a significant difference, in the expected direction, in

teacher awareness (p < .05) from the process measure to the posttest. There was a small, but

non-significant (p > .05), difference on the Metacognitive factor from pretest to posttest.

On the Cognitive factor, teachers self-rated knowledge of different cultures was higher

on the process measure than on the pretest, but the difference was not significant (p > .05).


11/19


Significant differences, again in the expected direction, were seen on the Cognitive factor from

process measure to posttest (p < .05), and from pretest to posttest (p < .01), suggesting that

teachers, during implementation of the multicultural education program, raised their perceived

knowledge of different cultures across the school year.

The Motivation factor reveals no change from pretest to the process measure, but a

significant increase (p < .05) was experienced from process to posttest. Finally, on the

Behavioral Factor, which assesses teacher ratings of the actions they have undertaken to interact

with diverse individuals and cultures, ratings increased significantly from pretest to posttest (p

>.05), although no significant differences were observed between pretest and process or process

and posttest.

Discussion

Overall, the three cultural intelligence factors that responded during the intervention were

the cognitive, motivational, and behavioral subscales. Improvements in these forms of cultural

intelligence indicate that the teachers and administrators perceived themselves to be more

knowledgeable, more willing and more effective in their interactions with people of diverse

cultures. The change in the motivational factor may be the most noteworthy of the three

subscales, since it is natural to expect that interest and excitement about the project would wane

by the end of the school year. To the contrary, the teachers and administrators showed their

highest level of interest in engaging in diverse interactions, at the end of the program. This

enhancement in motivation may have occurred as the teachers and administrators grew more

confident in their abilities to interact with culturally diverse others. We expect that these

changed perceptions resulted from their immersion into the literature and media about people


12/19


from diverse cultures, the delivery of the curriculum, and their interactions with the students and

their families. The meta-cognitive factor is the only dimension of cultural intelligence that did

not improve between the pretest and the posttest. This indicates that although the teachers and

administrators perceived the acquisition of cognitive knowledge about how to respond to cultural

cues in diverse interactions, they did not experience an improvement in their ability to detect

those clues and develop adaptive behaviors for them.

Ethnic and racial diversity is on the rise among children in American classrooms, yet

preservice teachers continue to come primarily from White middle class areas, and tend not to be

well prepared for teaching in ethnically and racially diverse settings (Castro, 2010). Research

indicates that preservice teachers can grow in their level of interest in culturally sensitive

pedagogy over time (Groulx & Silva, 2010), and that more new teachers are interested in matters

concerning racial justice in education than in the past (Castro, 2010). However, new education

professionals tend to be over simplistic in their conceptions of diversity, overly reliant on their

own cultural lens, and heavily influenced by past experiences (Castro, 2010; Groulx & Silva,

2010; Taylor, 2010). Perhaps even more disconcerting is the notion among some preservice

teachers that establishing a diverse educational curriculum is not the responsibility of a teacher,

but rather that of a community or a school in general (Silverman, 2010). These observations

suggest the presence of a persistent cultural intelligence deficit among new teachers, despite the

best efforts made in Teacher Education Program's (TEP) to instill an awareness of

multiculturalism and diverse pedagogies.

Culturally responsive teachers must reflect not only upon the depth and uniqueness of

their students' cultural backgrounds, but also that of their own (Villegas & Lucas, 2002). By

engaging in inward and outward reflection, teachers may gain perspective on the roots of their


13/19


14/19


In future assessments of the program, it will also be important to consider other forms of

attitudinal change among the teachers, such as prejudice reduction. One limitation of the current

findings is that they rely upon just one outcome measure. Reducing prejudice is a difficult goal

for a school based intervention. Most prior research indicates that few strategies are consistently

effective in achieving this goal (Bigler, 2005; Paluck & Green, 2009). Thus, the teachers may

be in need of a stronger outside professional development component in order to accomplish

more significant changes in their own ethnic and racial attitudes.


15/19


References

Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K. Y., Templer, K. J., Tay, C., & Chandrasekar, N. A.

(2007). Cultural Intelligence: Its Measurement and Effects on Cultural Judgment and

Decision Making, Cultural Adaptation and Task Performance. [Article]. Management &

Organization Review, 3(3), 335-371. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8784.2007.00082.x

Banks, J. A. (2010). Multicultural education : characteristics and goals. In J. A. Banks & C. A.

Banks (Eds.), Multicultural education: issues and perspectives (7th ed., pp. 1-32). New

York: John Wiley.

Bigler, R. S. (2005). The use of multicultural curricula and materials to counter racism in

children.Journal of Social Issues, 55, 687-705.

Castro, A. (2010). Themes in the Research on Preservice Teachers Views of Cultural

Diversity: Implications for Researching Millennial Preservice Teachers. Educational

Researcher, 39(3), 198-210.

Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence : individual interactions across cultures.

Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Business Books.

Earley, P. C., & Peterson, R. S. (2004). The Elusive Cultural Chameleon: Cultural Intelligence as

a New Approach to Intercultural Training for the Global Manager. [Article]. Academy of

Management Learning & Education, 3(1), 100-115. doi: 10.5465/amle.2004.12436826

Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education,

53(2), 106-116.

Groulx, J. G., & Silva, C. (2010). Evaluating the Development of Culturally Relevant Teaching.

[Article].Multicultural Perspectives, 12(1), 3-9. doi: 10.1080/15210961003641120


16/19


Harmon, C. (2012). An investigation of the diversity beliefs of educators. The Journal of

Multiculturalism in Education, 7(2).

Haviland, V. S., Gere, A. R., Buehler, J., & Dallavis, C. (2009). Making the Journey Toward

Cultural Competence With Poetry. [Article]. Multicultural Perspectives, 11(1), 19-26.

doi: 10.1080/15210960902743870

Hopkins-Gillispie. (2011). Curriculum and schooling: Multiculturalism, critical multiculturalism

and critical pedagogy.4.

Huber, J., Murphy, M. S., & Clandinin, D. J. (2003). Creating Communities of Cultural

Imagination: Negotiating a Curriculum of Diversity. [Article]. Curriculum Inquiry, 33(4),

343. doi: 10.1046/j.1467-873X.2003.00269.x

Imai, L., & Gelfand, M. J. (2010). The culturally intelligent negotiator: The impact of cultural

intelligence (CQ) on negotiation sequences and outcomes. Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes, 112(2), 83-98. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.02.001

Lee, O., Aurolyn, L., Cory, B., & Annis, S. (2007). The challenge of altering elementary school

teachers' beliefs and practices regarding linguistic and cultural diversity in science

instruction.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(9), 1269-1291.

Lyon, A. F. (2009). Teaching Others: Preservice Teachers' Understandings Regarding Diverse

Families. [Article].Multicultural Education, 16(4), 52-55.

McLaren, P. (2007).Life in schools : an introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of

education(5th ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.

Murray, O. (2010). A Mindfulness To Transcend Pre-Service Lip-Service: A Call for K-12

Schools To Invest in Social Justice Education.Multicultural Education, 17(3), 48-50.


17/19


Owen, P. M. (2010). Increasing Preservice Teachers' Support of Multicultural Education.

[Article].Multicultural Perspectives, 12(1), 18-25. doi: 10.1080/15210961003641310

Ponterotto, J. G., Utsey, S. O., & Pedersen, P. (2006). Preventing prejudice : a guide for

counselors, educators, and parents(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone : the collapse and revival of American community. New

York: Simon & Schuster.

Richards, H. V., Brown, A. E., & Forde, T. B. (2007). Addressing Diversity in Schools:

Culturally Responsive Pedagogy. [Article]. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(3), 64-68.

Schenck, A. (2010). Improving multicultural education through the synthesis of multiple

educational strategies.Improving Multicultural Education, 5(2), 1-24.

Sheets, R. H. (2009). What is a diverse pedagogy? [Article].Multicultural Education, 16(3), 11-

17.

Silverman, S. (2010). What is diversity?: an inquiry into preservice teacher beliefs. American

Educational Research Journal, 47(2), 292-329.

Smith, E. B. (2009). Approaches to Multicultural Education in Preservice Teacher Education.

[Opinion].Multicultural Education, 16(3), 45-50.

Taylor, R. (2010). The role of teacher education programs in creating culturally competant

teachers.Multicultural Education, 17(3). 24-28.

Templer, K., Tay, C., & Chandrasekar, N. (2006). Motivational cultural intelligence, realistic job

preview, realistic living conditions preview, and cross-cultural adjustment. Group &

Organization Management, 31(1), 154-173.

Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: rethinking the

curriculum.Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 20-32.


18/19


Table 1

Descriptive Statistics for the Cultural Intelligence Scale

Mean StandardDeviation

Metacognition

Time 1 4.90 1.32

Time 2 4.82 1.56

Time 3 5.14 1.11

Cognitive

Time 1 2.97 1.20

Time 2 3.17 1.41

Time 3 3.60 1.27

Motivation

Time 1 4.68 1.26

Time 2 4.68 1.32

Time 3 4.81 1.23

Behavioral

Time 1 3.78 1.44

Time 2 4.13 1.55

Time 3 4.34 1.35


19/19


Table 2

T-scores for the Cultural Intelligence Scale by Subscale and Time

t-score df p

Metacognition

Time 1 vs. Time 2 -.032 27 .975

Time 2 vs. Time 3 -2.314 21 .031*

Time 1 vs. Time 3 -1.728 21 .099

Cognitive

Time 1 vs. Time 2 -.985 27 .333

Time 2 vs. Time 3 -2.417 21 .025*

Time 1 vs. Time 3 -3.185 21 .004**

Motivation

Time 1 vs. Time 2 -.600 27 .554

Time 2 vs. Time 3 -1.391 21 .179

Time 1 vs. Time 3 -1.991 21 .050*

Behavior

Time 1 vs. Time 2 -1.378 27 .180

Time 2 vs. Time 3 .897 21 .380

Time 1 vs. Time 3 -2.771 21 .011*

Time 1= pre-test; Time 2 = process measure; Time 3= Post-test

*p < .05; **p < .01

improving cultural competence by teaching multicultural education

Documents