This article was downloaded by: [University of Southern Queensland]On: 04 October 2014, At: 02:35Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Multicultural PerspectivesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hmcp20

Increasing Preservice Teachers' Support of MulticulturalEducationPamela M. Owen aa Mount Vernon Nazarene University ,Published online: 18 Mar 2010.

To cite this article: Pamela M. Owen (2010) Increasing Preservice Teachers' Support of Multicultural Education, MulticulturalPerspectives, 12:1, 18-25, DOI: 10.1080/15210961003641310

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15210961003641310

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

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

Multicultural Perspectives, 12(1), 18–25Copyright C© 2010 by the National Association for Multicultural EducationISSN: 1521-0960 print / 1532-7892DOI: 10.1080/15210961003641310

Increasing Preservice Teachers’ Support of Multicultural Education

Pamela M. OwenMount Vernon Nazarene University

The purpose of this mixed-methods study wasto build candidate knowledge utilizing Katz andChard’s Project Approach (1989) promoting move-ment across Nieto’s (2000) levels of support formulticultural education. Three major preliminarysteps advancing multicultural sensitivity and teach-ing practice were identified as foundational forthe future development of pre-service teachers’multicultural understandings.

Introduction

This study examined the influence of the Project Ap-proach (Katz & Chard, 1989) on candidates’ developmentof knowledge, skills, and dispositions toward teachingmulticultural education. The purpose of the study was tobuild candidate knowledge about diversity, and stimulateadvancement across Nieto’s levels of support for mul-ticultural education (2000), thus laying the foundationfor future development of a strong multicultural teachingskill set.

Social equity, justice, and democracy for all studentsare goals that are often overlooked, minimized, orresisted. It is essential for educators in teacher educationprograms to acknowledge, and respond to, the barriersfrustrating the move toward teaching for a pluralisticsociety in our global world.

The Problem of Inexperience—Listening toTeacher Candidates

While teaching European American sophomores(herein referred to as candidates) at a small Midwesternuniversity, I found the teacher candidates to be inex-perienced in their understanding of what it means tovalue diversity and teach for equity. Some had little or

Correspondence should be sent to Pamela M. Owen, Mount VernonNazarene University, 800 Martinsburg Road, Mount Vernon, OH 43050.E-mail: powen@mvnu.edu

no understanding of their need to see the world fromanother perspective. For example, when we discussedWhite privilege (McIntosh, 1988) many did not believeit currently existed; or they took a defensive positionexplaining why it existed. Of those who did believe it,most thought they had no power to change the situation,or believed egalitarianism was not their responsibility.The clear challenge was to confront their erroneous stanceand provoke a respectful response toward diversity.

Candidates in this study conveyed strong, preconceivedideas and were often unaware of their biases. Declarationswere made stating they were unbiased; neverthelessthey verbalized cliches and made stereotypical ordiscriminatory comments. These comments occurredbefore completing the project work.

The Problem Defining MulticulturalEducation

These candidates defined multicultural educationalmost exclusively with a focus on cultures other thantheir own, revealing failure to perceive that they too hada culture. Candidates believed effective multiculturaleducation was teaching about other countries andcelebrating a variety of holidays. They defined fairnessand equity as treating all children the same; to some,being “colorblind” was valuing diversity.

Derman-Sparks (1989) identified the dangers ofaccepting such definitions of multicultural education.When using only superficial features such as holidays,food, and clothing to discover the value of variouscultures, one risks defaulting to what Derman-Sparkscalled tourism curriculum.

Tourist curriculum is both patronizing, emphasizingthe “exotic” differences between cultures, and trivializing,dealing not with the real-life daily problems andexperiences of different peoples, but with surface aspectsof their celebrations and modes of entertainment. Children“visit” non-White cultures and then go “home” to thedaily classroom, which reflects only the dominant culture(Derman-Sparks, 1989, p.7)

The Official Journal of the National Association for Multicultural Education

18

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn Q

ueen

slan

d] a

t 02:

35 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Other researchers (Bennett, 2001; Nieto, 2000) alsorejected similar definitions of multicultural education.Multicultural education goes beyond tourism to challengeand reject all forms of discrimination. Learning aboutculture should daily permeate the curriculum in thenatural context of the school community. Multiculturaleducation is a life-style which promotes an inclusivecitizenship in a changing America (Banks, 2007).Byrnes (2005) supports the infusion of multiculturaleducation throughout the daily curriculum. “No matterhow homogeneous or assimilated one’s students are,a teacher has a responsibility to teach children aboutthe perspectives of minority ethnic and racial groups aswell as the dominant group” (p.10). It could be arguedthat the more homogenous a group, the more they needmulticultural education.

Candidates in this study needed to not only enrichtheir definition of multicultural education, they neededto develop skill sets enabling them to meet profes-sional teaching standards. Many organizations outlineexpectations for multicultural teaching through specificstandards. The National Council for the Accreditation ofTeacher Education is one such organization. Embedded inall five standards established by the National Associationfor the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) areexpectations for knowing, understanding, and supportingdiversity (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997).

Candidates were expected to begin meeting theseprofessional education standards and teaching in diversesettings as early as their junior year. They would notmeet expectations if they maintained their preconceivedattitudes. The development of living a life-style thatnaturally infused the goals of multicultural educationinto the classroom culture was critical for their teachingsuccess, and the success of their future students.

The Need for Curriculum Transformation ina Stand-Alone Course

It was assumed the Project Approach would be assuccessful with university students as it is with the youngchildren for whom it was designed. Candidates wouldbegin their investigation at individual developmental lev-els, building on prior knowledge. Candidates would learnabout aspects of multicultural education that interestedthem thus promoting ownership of the study. Throughthis ownership they would potentially discover the flawsin their thinking while deepening their understanding.Respect for other cultures would increase, and candidateswould undergo a positive perceptual change.

The expectation was that candidates’ progress towardthe practice of teaching well would be more effectiveif it occurred through self-discovery instead of directinstruction. “Teaching well . . . means making sure

that students achieve, develop a positive sense ofthemselves, and develop a commitment to larger socialand community concerns” (Ladson-Billings, 2001, p.16).Previously, lectures and discussions had not generatedperceptible movement toward teaching well. A differentteaching approach was needed. I decided on the ProjectApproach (Katz & Chard, 1989).

Theoretical Framework

The Project Approach (Katz & Chard, 1989) is studentresearch grounded in constructivist theory (Henniger,2009) enabling teachers to lead students through in-depthstudies of authentic and meaningful topics. Fosnot (1989)defines constructivism as “. . . the belief that knowledgeis constructed in the process of reflection, inquiry, andaction, by learners themselves, and thus must be seenas temporary, developmental, and nonobjective” (p. 21).Candidates themselves investigate, question, and probein order to evaluate and reflect on the topic of study.

Chard (2005) described projects as having an essential,but flexible structural framework with features thatcharacterize the teaching-learning interaction. Whenteachers implement the Project Approach successfully,students can be highly motivated, feel actively involved intheir own learning, and produce work of high quality. TheProject Approach was the method selected to integrate thetopic of diversity in an early childhood curriculum coursenot specifically meant for the teaching of multiculturaleducation.

Nieto’s (2000) levels of support for multiculturaleducation were used as a framework for data collectionand analysis. Nieto identified four levels of support: tol-erance, acceptance, respect, and affirmation (see Table 1).These levels are in stark contrast to a monoculturalperspective.

The tolerance level, as defined by Nieto, is a low levelof support for multicultural education and diversity.

To tolerate differences means to endure them, althoughnot necessarily to embrace them. . . . Programs that do notbuild on but rather replace differences might be in place,for example, English as a second language program.Black History Month might be commemorated with anassembly program and a bulletin board. The life-stylesand values of students’ families, if different from themajority, may be considered as requiring understandingbut not modification. (Nieto, p. 354).

Accommodations are often seen as tiresome and arefrequently motivated by compliance with school policy.

Acceptance, reflects more delight in differences.Children use their native language, transitional bilingualprograms are in place, and differences are celebratedthrough multicultural fairs or similar events. Teachersunderstand the value of the home culture and its role

Multicultural Perspectives Vol. 12, No. 1

19

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn Q

ueen

slan

d] a

t 02:

35 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Table 1. Nieto: Levels of support for multicultural education

Tolerance Indicators:Endure differencesReplace differences—ESL programsSome important information is givenIsolated celebrations–Black History Month–Cinco de Mayo

Acceptance Indicators:Celebrate differencesA variety of lifestyles are acknowledgedTransitional Bilingual Language ProgramsMulticultural FairsCurriculum is more inclusiveSome type of multicultural program may be in place

Respect Indicators:Differences held in high regardHistorical events approached from multiple perspectivesCurriculum is antiracistAdditive multiculturalism is an important attitude

Affirmation Indicators:Reflect on differencesConfront injusticeAdvocacy occurs in the school by teachers and students

in education. Classroom materials reflect some diversityalthough daily integration is lacking.

At an advanced level, respect, differences are not onlycelebrated but held in high regard. The home cultureis honored and used as a basis for learning. “Studentswould be exposed to different ways of approaching thesame reality and would therefore expand their way oflooking at the world” (Nieto, p. 355). Historical events areviewed from multiple perspectives. Teachers are activelyinvolved in making the curriculum explicitly antiracist.

Nieto stated that affirmation is the most difficultto achieve. “At this level, students not only ‘cele-brate’ diversity, but they reflect on it and confront it”(p. 355). Teaching for advocacy, equity, and social justiceare characteristics of this level. Racism is not only ac-knowledged but challenged. Students essentially becomemulticultural people who can reflect and act positivelytoward multiple perspectives.

Teacher education must take responsibility for devel-oping candidates’ understanding of multicultural educa-tion in the classroom (Brown, 2004b; Ladson-Billings,2001). Bennett (2001) re-views teacher preparation pro-grams through an extensive explanation of four genreclusters that could be used to promote improvement:curriculum reform, societal equity, equity pedagogy, andmulticultural competence. Transforming the curriculumis a facet of systemic change worth pursuing.

Both programs and stand-alone courses have beenvehicles advancing such change. Brown (2004a) reportspositive results using technology in a stand-alone courseto raise the cross-cultural sensitivity and awareness ofteacher candidates. Ladson-Billings (2001) writes about

the success of a teacher education program known asTeach for Diversity. My study was inspired by the successof these researchers.

Participants

Data were collected from 107 pre-service teachercandidates enrolled in a sophomore level curriculumcourse for early childhood majors in an undergraduateteacher education program at a small Midwesternuniversity. The collection period took place during fouryears across six semesters. The average class size forthe first two semesters was 12; the class average forthe remaining four semesters was 24. Each sectionused the same syllabus and had the same instructor. Allcandidates were European Americans; most had little orno experience with cultures other than their own. Lessthan 10% of candidates had attended highly diverse highschools; most had lived and attended high schools incommunities that gave them little or no experience withmulticulturalism. Participants were in the age range of18–21 years old.

Methodology

This study used a mixed-method design (Fraenkel& Wallen, 2006). Data were collected using a One-Group Pretest-Posttest design. The pretest and posttestwas a written response to the question: How shouldmulticultural education be taught in a classroom? Thetreatment used was the Project Approach (Katz & Chard,1989). Candidates were expected to construct knowledgeabout diversity and multicultural education through theproject work (Fosnot, 1989).

Additional data were generated through assignmentsin which pertinent questions were posed and varioustopics presented. The data sources are listed in Table 2.It was predicted that these assignments would inducestudents’ awareness of their own cultures and provide abasis for the study of multicultural education through theProject Approach process. Ongoing analysis of writtenresponses, discussions, and presentations took placeduring the project work providing triangulation. Theprocedures were replicated six times over a period of fouryears consequently strengthening the trustworthiness ofthe findings.

Proceeding Through the Phases and Featuresof the Project Approach

In the simplest form the Project Approach tells a storyof an investigation as it progresses through three basic

The Official Journal of the National Association for Multicultural Education

20

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn Q

ueen

slan

d] a

t 02:

35 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Table 2. Data sources

Sources from Phase One1) How should multicultural education be taught in the classroom?

written response∗∗2) What is culture? discussion∗3) Discuss your personal history using the definition of culture you

just created. discussion∗4) Brainstorming session. discussion∗5) Sharing personal stories. discussion∗

Sources from Phase Two6) Reaction to An Indian Father’s Plea (Lake, 1990). written

response∗Sources from Phase Three

7) Project presentation. presentation∗8) Self-assessment of work. written response∗9) How should multicultural education be taught in the classroom?

written response∗∗∗∗ Used as a Quantitative pre and post measure∗ Used as Qualitative data

phases: the beginning, the middle, and the conclusion.Each phase includes a form of discussion, fieldwork,investigation, representation, and display (Chard, 2005).

Phase one was used to administer the pretest question(see Table 2) to determine the identity of each candidate’slevel of support for multicultural education. Candidatesdiscussed the meaning of culture and created a collectivedefinition. In every class the definition was similar: whatother people celebrate, wear, eat, and do. Personal histo-ries (Thompson, 2000) were written and discussed. Thediscussion of personal histories was lively. Consequentlythey verbalized the connection; personal history revealspersonal culture.

A web was created through brainstorming aboutmulticultural education. Candidates were encouragedto say anything, positive or negative. The web wasused to identify individual research interests, promotefurther discussion, and to measure progress of the study.Candidates examined the origin of their preconceivedideas. Awareness was developing; the tone of discussionmoved from the predictable to personal richness. As phaseone fieldwork, they perused internet sites, journals, andbooks for the purpose of identifying individual interests.

Candidate work was graphically represented on anEKWQ chart (Experiences, Knowledge, Wonders, andQuestions). Candidates identified broad interests andquestions linked to the web and EKWQ chart. “Learningoccurs in shared situations. To share an activity, we musttalk about that activity. Unless we talk, we will never beable to know each other’s meanings” (Bodrova & Leong,1996, p. 13).

Candidates with similar interests organized themselvesinto small groups of no more than three to design aresearch proposal. The question and topic had to leadthem to fulfill at least one of five course objectivesrelating to the study thus demonstrating how the ProjectApproach could be used to meet academic standards:

Develop an awareness of the social, economic, academic,and historical constructs of ethnicity, race, socioe-conomic status, gender, exceptionalities, language,religion, sexual orientation, and the geographic area.

Affirm and respect culturally and linguistically diversechildren, support home language preservation, andpromote the creation of learning environments andexperiences.

Reflect on practices, articulate a philosophy and rationalefor decisions, continually self-assess and evaluatethe effects of their choices and actions on others asa basis for program planning and modification, andcontinuing professional development.

Actively seek out opportunities to grow professionally bylocating and using appropriate professional literature,organizations, resources, and experiences to informand improve practice.

Plan and implement developmentally appropriate curricu-lum and instructional practices based on knowledgeof individual children, the community, and curriculumgoals and content.

The previous broad interests were narrowed and welldefined questions were crafted. The specific questionsvaried from class to class but consistently includedthe following topics for research: selecting anti-biasmaterials, the origin of stereotypes, the effects of poverty,gay and lesbian families, holidays, immigration, parentalinvolvement, becoming a multicultural thinker, andbilingual education.

Phase two fieldwork requirements were met throughinterviews, observations, surveys, internet searches,library research, and by collecting materials from thefield. The research topics were further developed andrefined as inquiry and reflection occurred. Discussionsand written responses by the entire group of candidateswere based on common experiences through exposure tojournal articles, books, and videos. An IndianFfather’sPlea (Lake, 1990), Anti-Bias Curriculum: Tools forEmpowering Young Children (Derman-Sparks, 1989),Starting Small: Teaching Children Tolerance (McGovern1997), A Framework for Understanding Poverty (Payne,1998), and Multiple Social & Cultural Contexts (RISE,n.d.) were a few of our mutual resources.

Phase three concluded the project work. Candidatesdecided how to present their work both verbally andvisually. Chard (1998) writes that in this phase of theproject, “The main idea is for them to share the mostimportant parts of the project so that their audiencecan appreciate the work and learning they achieved”(p. 48). Candidates presented their work in variousformats. Dramas, workshops, and power points withhyperlinks predominated. One group produced a movie.The final action was to administer the posttest questionthat would determine the growth of each candidate’s

Multicultural Perspectives Vol. 12, No. 1

21

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn Q

ueen

slan

d] a

t 02:

35 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Figure 1. Levels of multicultural education support pre and postproject approach work.

level of support for multicultural education: How shouldmulticultural education be taught in the classroom?

Data Collection and Analysis

The data sources used to determine the level ofsupport were the written responses to the pretest andposttest question (see Table 2). The data were codedand then quantified (see Figure 1). These responseswere anonymous and submitted to me as an in-classassignment. Candidates were explicitly instructed to behonest and to state their opinion regarding the teachingof multicultural education in the classroom; not whatthey thought was expected. It was made clear that gradeswould not be influenced by their viewpoints.

Participants were unaware of the study duringthe period of data collection, further diminishing theHawthorne effect. Candidates were told of the study oncethe data had been collected. They were informed thatthey could withdraw their data; all candidates allowedtheir data to be used. Fraenkel and Wallen (2006) supportthe practice of a delayed research announcement when itcould threaten the validity of the data.

Individual responses were coded at the beginning andat the end of the collection period using the terminologyof Nieto: tolerance, acceptance, respect, affirmation. Atolerance designation was given to responses indicatingthat multicultural education should be taught using thefood, clothing, traditions, etc. of a particular culture. Ifresponses were mixed they were given the designationrating most representative of the response; this usuallyresulted in a lower designation. If a response included theconcept of historical context, justice, equity, or advocacythe work was given a respect or affirmation designation.

Figure 2. Change in level of multicultural education support postproject approach work.

The percentages of candidates in each category wererecorded as Pre Project Approach (see Figure 1). Thesame procedure was repeated at the end of the project,categorized, and quantified as Post Project Approach inFigure 1. Data results were used to measure any changein the level of support for multicultural education (seeFigure 2).

Using the process of qualitative analysis (Fraenkel& Wallen, 2006; Merriam, 1988), additional data wereused to identify patterns and themes. The sources forthis data collection are found in Table 2. Ongoing datacollection and analysis strengthened the triangulationprocess and trustworthiness. This data set providedinformation tracking candidate change, and the sourceof change. Written responses and anecdotal notes takenduring class discussions were immediately coded. Thethemes, concepts, ideas, and questions that emergedwere presented in upcoming class meetings to promptmore discussion and provide an indirect membercheck.

Results

Quantitative data (see Table 3) indicates that beforetaking part in the Project Approach study of multiculturaleducation, the majority of candidates (89%) wereidentified at the tolerance level, and a few (11%) wereidentified at the acceptance level (Nieto, 2000). Followingthe Project Approach study, some (16%) remained at thetolerance level, but many (75%) moved to the acceptancelevel; 7% moved to the respect level, and 2% showedevidence of beginning to enter the affirmation level (seeFigure 1).

Overall, 76% of candidates experienced an increase insupport and understanding of multicultural education as

The Official Journal of the National Association for Multicultural Education

22

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn Q

ueen

slan

d] a

t 02:

35 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Table 3. Sample quotes from candidates

Pre project approach During project approach Post project approach

“These things happened a long time ago. It’s not myfault. Just because you are poor doesn’t mean youshouldn’t work.”

“I am so proud of where I have come from. Ithas made me who I am.”

“Teachers have a responsibility to breakstereotypes.”

“Multicultural education is teaching about othercultures.”

“We need to plan, be intentional, to build ourawareness.”

“I want to be responsible and accountablefor what I have learned, and I want to beable to apply it. I feel that a professionalunderstanding, with personal experiences,is the basis for understanding multiculturaleducation and anti-bias curriculum.”

“Celebrating different cultural holidays is an excellentway to teach multiculturalism.”

“It is our responsibility to learn about culturesother than our own.”

“It is important to read books about other cultures.” “My relatives have cultivated a prejudicetoward certain people because they haveworked in factories with them. They viewthem as thieves. This has got to stop. Itisn’t fair.”

“Multicultural education should be morethan a set of ‘special events’ it should beintegrated.”

“Have different culture days when you eat other kindsof food.”

“Despite our similar backgrounds, we foundmany different values and perspectiveswithin our class.”

“I want to make cultural education an ongoingprocess in an anti-biased environment.”

“Red, yellow, black, and white; everyone is precious inour sight.”

“We talked about our fears, concerns, andbiases that we have that may affect ourattitudes toward teaching certain groups ofpeople.”

“If our environment and curriculum valuediversity, then our students will be moreaccepting of differences. As teachers weneed to set a good example for our studentsto follow. If we are accepting of others,then our students will be too.”

“People of all cultures should be able to put aside theirdifferences and simply work together.”

“I think I feared my first encounter withdiversity in my classroom because itisn’t honestly addressed, many peoplefeel uncomfortable talking about theproblems.”

“It takes more than a few simple lessons topromote positive self-esteem. Self-esteemis related to culture and bias. It is morecomplex and deeper than we realized.”

“Help students of another culture adjust to theclassroom and learn how to do things.”

“I am interested in helping people understandeach other better.”

“There is already so much to do. I know I’m notsupposed to think this but, really, if people arecoming here they need to learn at least our language.”

“I know that cultures have a lot of different ideasabout things, which are sometimes hard for me tounderstand. They have different ideas about food,clothing, religion, and personal interests.”

“I don’t really know a lot about other cultures.”

defined by Nieto (2000). Of those 76%, 69% experienceda one level increase; 5% experienced a two level increase;2% moved three levels, from a tolerance to an affirmationlevel (see Figure 2).

No movement was demonstrated by 24% of thecandidates. This was disappointing but not surprising.Brown (2004b) documented the problem of resistance tomulticultural education in teacher education.

The qualitative data analysis revealed three majorprerequisites facilitating candidates’ increased level ofsupport for multicultural education and teaching practice:(1) recognizing one’s personal culture, (2) understandingthe impact, historically and currently, of the dominantculture, and (3) believing one can make a difference.

First, candidates needed to recognize that everyonehas a culture, not just people they consider exotic.This was accomplished when candidates shared their

personal histories. It became clear to the candidates thateven though the groups were 100% Caucasian and 98%female, there were differences among them. This personalframework served as a safety zone in which to discussdifferences and why they existed. It gave culture a context.Being comfortable with their differences took the fear outof learning about the differences of others. Candidatesbegan identifying fear as a barrier to acceptance; one thatcan perpetuate inequity.

Second, once candidates recognized their own culturethey began legitimately considering other perspectives.They encountered inequities as they pursued theirindividual investigations. One group of candidates titledtheir work The Myth Busters delivering the message thatmyths held by the dominant culture perpetuate inequities.The following statements are representative of manycandidates’ comments: “We need to plan, be intentional,

Multicultural Perspectives Vol. 12, No. 1

23

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn Q

ueen

slan

d] a

t 02:

35 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

to build our awareness.” “It is our responsibility to learnabout cultures other than our own.” “Teachers have aresponsibility to break stereotypes.” These comments allfit into Nieto’s level of acceptance or respect.

And third, at final presentations most of the candidatesmade statements indicating a sense of efficacy towardpromoting equity. “I want to be responsible and account-able for what I have learned, and I want to be able to applyit. I feel that a professional understanding, with personalexperiences, is the basis for understanding multiculturaleducation and anti-bias curriculum.”

This study demonstrated how the Project Approachstimulated motivation, ownership and personal responsi-bility, allowing candidates an opportunity for discovery.The constructivist approach differed from previous directinstruction and resulted in students defining learninggoals for themselves. They became engaged learners.Their work was individualized and meaningful. McVarishand Rust (2006) describe this type of learning as havinga life-time effect. This was my intention.

Perceptions changed during the project work (seeTable 3). Candidates were moving toward, though notattaining, affirmation level. Movement toward affirmationcan be viewed as a developmental process. Nieto (2000)recognizes this goal as “. . . the most difficult [level] toachieve” (p. 356). Advocates of multicultural educationdesire all teachers, pre-service and in-service, to supportmulticulturalism at this highest level. Attainment of thisgoal can occur, over time, through personal experienceand through self-awareness as a developmental process.

Discussion

The candidates in this study were on the path ofrepetition in regard to attitudes about multiculturaleducation and diversity. Their sociopolitical backgroundwas a powerful force.

The Pre Project qualitative data revealed that manycandidates identified at the tolerance level (89%) hadexperienced social justice from the limited context ofcommunity projects organized by others, not drivenby their own convictions. They had agreed to acceptpeople of other cultures but did not socially include them.These candidates had limited experiences with suchprograms as Black History month, holidays around theworld curriculum, and English as a Second Language.Their experiences are only a start, a basis for furtherdevelopment.

Those identified at the acceptance level (11%) hadexperienced high schools in which home culture wasvalued through accommodations such as bilingualnewsletters. Some candidates participated in socialjustice programs of their choice; for instance, tutoringnon-English speakers in computer skills. Candidates at

the acceptance level had at least a few experiences withfriends from cultures other than their own. All candidatesneeded more experience and exposure to the multi-facetsof diversity.

As candidates engaged in the Project Approachstudy they became aware of the need to more fullyunderstand perspectives other than their own. They beganto understand that some of their personal experiences hadlimited their vision. Candidates’ support for multiculturaleducation developed toward the affirmation level. It isimportant to note that not a single candidate reversedsupport toward a monocultural viewpoint.

Post Project candidates now had an underpinning forbuilding future multicultural teaching skills; becominga change agent will take more than one course. Thecandidate work accomplished in this study was foun-dational. Candidates began to realize that one of theirnext steps would be to learn more about the tenets andgoals of multicultural education. The candidates beganto envision the task before them as future citizens andteachers.

These sophomores will have multiple opportunitiesto apply their knowledge as they take advanced courses,encounter discrimination, advocate, write lesson plans,and teach grade P–3 students. “Concepts and theorieshave little value unless one can apply them to newsituations” (Bok, 2006, p. 109). Better preparationto make application and meet professional standardsoccurred.

Conclusions

This study provided evidence that these pre-serviceparticipants altered their perceptions and developedknowledge, skills, and positive dispositions toward teach-ing multicultural education when using Katz and Chard’s(1989) Project Approach. They constructed knowledgeabout multicultural education while progressing acrossNieto’s levels of support for multicultural education(2000). The following quotes demonstrate that the candi-dates took the opportunity to engage and develop skillsin a personally meaningful context. “I was very excitedabout learning about this topic. It is work I wanted toknow more about and is close to my heart. I felt veryaccomplished.” “My partner and I dove in head first intothe research and the project itself.”

This study has implications for teacher educators. Itdemonstrated what can happen when candidates are met attheir developmental level instead of being pressed to adoptideas that are outside their experience or context. Theybecome motivated, engaged, and personally responsiblefor the work they design. It suggests that when candidatesare so engaged, they are open to change and can take thenext step in supporting multicultural education (Nieto,

The Official Journal of the National Association for Multicultural Education

24

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn Q

ueen

slan

d] a

t 02:

35 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

2000). Working at the learners developmental leveldiminished resistance and enhanced growth. The ProjectApproach structure is a method that can engage studentsat all developmental levels and is appropriate for use inteacher education programs.

Though it has been reported that stand-alone coursescan induce change (Brown, 2004a) empirical evidencewould support the need for multiple, and varied,experiences. All teachers on the continuum of serviceand specialty teaching areas need repeated exposure toconversations and activities leading to the promotion ofaffirming all cultures resulting in the attainment of Nieto’sgoals: equality, justice, and solidarity. This paper providesone instructional method in which to build a foundation.It offers a beginning for change. One hopes that withthis foundation these teacher candidates will continueto develop their support and skill set of multiculturaleducation to become in-service teachers who promoteacademic success for all learners.

References

Banks, J. A. (2007). Educating citizens in a multicultural society (2nded.). NY: Teachers College Press.

Bennett, C. (2001). Genres of research in multicultural education.Review of Educational Research, 71(2), 171–217.

Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. J. (1996). Tools of the mind: The Vygotskianapproach to early childhood education. Upper Saddle River, NJ:Merrill.

Bok, D. (2006). Our underachieving colleges. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (Eds.). (1997). Developmentallyappropriate practice in early childhood programs. Washington,DC: NAEYC.

Brown, E. (2004a). Overcoming the challenge of stand-alone courses:The possibilities of technology integration. Journal of Technologyand Teacher Education, 12(4), 535–559.

Brown, E. (2004b). What precipitates change in cultural diversityawareness during a multicultural course. Journal of TeacherEducation, 55(4), 325–340.

Byrnes, D. A. (2005). Addressing race, ethnicity, and culture in theclassroom. In D. A. Byrnes, & G. Kiger. (Eds.), Common bonds:Anti-bias teaching in a diverse society (pp. 9–24). Olney, MD:ACEI.

Chard, S. (1998). The project approach: Managing successful projects.New York, NY: Scholastic.

Chard, S. C. (2005). Project Approach. Retrieved September 20, 2007,from www.project-approach.com

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

Fosnot, C. T. (1989). Enquiring teachers enquiring learners: Aconstructivist approach for teaching. New York: Teachers College,Columbia University.

Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluateresearch in education (6th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Henniger, M. L. (2009). Teaching young children (4th ed.). UpperSaddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Katz, L. G., & Chard, S. C. (1989). Engaging children’s minds: Theproject approach. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2001). Crossing over to Canaan. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Lake, R. (1990). An Indian father’s plea. Teacher Magazine, 2(1),48–53.

McGovern, M. (Producer). (1997). Staring small: Teaching childrentolerance [Video]. Montgomery, AL: Teaching Tolerance.

McIntosh, P. (1988). White privilege: Unpacking the invisibleknapsack. Retrieved September 20, 2007, from http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/∼mcisaac/emc 598ge/Unpacking.html

McVarish, J., & Rust, F. O’C. (2006). Un-squaring teacher education:Reshaping teacher education in the context of the Research Iuniversity. In C. Kosnik, C. Beck, A. R. Freese, & A. P. Samaras(Eds.), Making a difference in teacher education through self-study: Personal, professional, and program renewal (pp. 185–201).Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitativeapproach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Nieto, S. (2000). Affirming diversity (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Longman.Payne, R. K. (1998). A framework for understanding poverty (revised

ed.). Baytown, TX: RFT Publishing.RISE (Producer). (n.d.). Multiple social & cultural contexts [Video 2

of Tools for Teaching Developmentally Appropriate Practice: TheLeading Edge in Early Childhood Education]. Washington, DC:NAEYC.

Thompson, P. (2000). The voice of the past: Oral history (3rd ed.). NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Multicultural Perspectives Vol. 12, No. 1

25

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn Q

ueen

slan

d] a

t 02:

35 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014