multicultural sensitivity and interpersonal skills training for preservice teachers

Multicultural Sensitivity and Interpersonal Skills Training

for Preservice Teachers

MARIA P. ARIZAGA SHERl BAUMAN

MICHAEL WALDO LUlSA P. CASTELLANOS

* * * Teacher education students who participated in a Multicultural Relationship Enhancement program showed signlfcant improvement in empathic listening and expressive speaking in conflictual multicultural situations N o signzficant difference was found between participants and a wait-list control group on a measure of prepdice

* * *

In recent decades, the legal and social systems have been instrumental in curbing the overt expression of prejudice in the United States (Kendall, 1996). Nevertheless, prejudice has hardly been eradicated and remains a significant problem in American society (Sandhu & Aspy, 1997). The terrorist attacks on September 11,2001, were followed by a dramatic increase in hate crimes against Southeast Asians (CNN, 2001). More than 300 reports of harassment or abuse were received by the Council on American-Islamic Relations in the 2 days following the attacks, which is close to half the number received in the entire previous year. In 1999, the most recent year for which data are available, 7,876 hate crimes were reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation by agencies in 48 states and the District of Columbia (Federal Bureau of Investigation, n.d.). Of those incidents, racial bias motivated 56% of the crimes. Victims of religious bias represented 17% of the total number of victims; sexual orientation, 16%; and ethnicity or national origin, 11%. Crimes against persons accounted for 63% of the hate crime victims, whereas 37% were crimes against property.

In 1999,802 of the reported hate crime incidents occurred in schools or colleges (Federal Bureau of Investigation, n.d.). Of those, 460 were incidents of racial bias, 56 incidents were motivated by bias against the victim’s ethnicity

Maria P. Arizaga. Department of Counseling and Student Development, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces; Sheri Bauman, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson; Michael Waldo, Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces; Luisa P. Castellanos, private practice, Las Cruces, New Mexico. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Maria P. Arizaga, M S C 3573, Box 30001, Las Cruces, N M 88003-8001 (e-mail: [email protected]).

198 Journal of HuMANIsnC COUNSELING, EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT + Fall 2005 Volume 44

or national origin, 156 by religious bias, and 127 by sexual orientation bias. In that same year, approximately 13% of students ages 12 through 18 years indicated that in the previous 6 months, someone had directed hate-related words toward them. In addition, 36% of students reported having seen hate- related graffiti in school (U.S. Department of Education & U.S. Department of Justice, 2000).

Such statistics, along with increasing numbers of minority students in the schools, have stimulated increased attention to multicultural issues in Ameri- can education (Banks, 1994; King, 1991). Teachers play a critical role as models of how to respond appropriately to expressions of prejudice. Training programs have been designed to help teachers overcome prejudice and respect cultural diversity among their students (Miller, Miller, & Schroth, 1997). Ef- forts to educate teachers on multicultural issues initially focused on increasing their knowledge about cultural similarities and differences (Pickett, 1995). More recently, experts have recommended that experiential learning will help teachers develop sensitivity /awareness and communications skills (Marshall, 1998; Wiest, 1998) beyond what can be achieved solely through receiving information about different cultures (Buchanan & Midgett, 1997; Pickett, 1995). Experiential education affects teachers at several levels (Nieto, 1996). Through experiential education, teachers can gain knowledge about cultural diversity at a cognitive level, experience diversity at the affective level, and increase their ability to demonstrate multicultural competence at the behavioral level (Buchanan & Midgett, 1997; Pickett, 1995).

The literature on programs designed to overcome prejudice emphasizes the importance of promoting the development of an understanding of the experiences of diverse populations as well as an understanding of person- ally held values, beliefs, and biases (Locke, 1992; Mathison, 1998; Miller et al., 1997; Ponterotto & Pedersen, 1993; Pope-Davis & Dings, 1995; Rosen, 1993). Allowing people the opportunity to work and interact with those who are culturally different from themselves can lead to more effective learning (Nieto, 1996). Growth is promoted by opportunities to learn about others as well as to learn about oneself from others (Corey & Corey, 1992).

Recent literature has focused on the importance of establishing effective communication in multicultural environments (Milhouse, 1996). Peel (1995) provided a framework that teachers can use to communicate more effectively with parents from all cultures. Timm (1997) argued that effective communication is critical to diversity training and that the combination of cultural understanding and communication skills provides the framework for de- veloping tolerance and acceptance.

Relationship skills help people relate to others in a satisfactory fashion (Guerney, 1977). These skills include specific forms of communication used in interpersonal discourse. Guerney described two types of relationship skills. Expressive speaking skills (Guerney, 1977) are designed to empower people to express, in an honest, respectful, and clear fashion, their thoughts, emo- tions, and hopes, without provoking unnecessary resentment or defensive-

Journal of HUMANETIC COUNSELING, EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT * Fall Mo5 * Volume 44 199

ness in the recipient. Empathic listening skills are designed to communicate understanding and acceptance of another’s thoughts, feelings, and needs (Guerney, 1977).

Group counseling, which is rooted in guidance and education (Gelso & Fretz, 1992), focuses on developmental issues and prevention. The group process offers some distinctive learning opportunities that are stimulated by the interactions of the group members (Corey & Corey, 1992). Receiving feedback from members and learning how others perceive a person can be enlightening, challenging, and useful for promoting change (Yalom, 1985). Heterogeneous groups can provide an environment that encourages intercultural interactions among group members (Avila & Avila, 1988). By interacting with each other and seeking to understand the experiences of others, members can begin the process of challenging their stereotypes and prejudices (Greeley, Garcia, Kessler, & Gilchrest, 1992). By interacting with each other in a constructive way, minority and majority group members can see the rel- evance of understanding each other (Skillings & Dobbins, 1991).

In this study, we used a group counseling format and incorporated a relationship enhancement approach to communication skills training. The in- tent of the workshop was to help prepare preservice teachers to communicate effectively with diverse students, parents, and colleagues when they assume positions in the public schools. The study investigated the effectiveness of multicultural relationship enhancement workshops in promoting multicultural awareness and reducing prejudice among culturally diverse groups of preservice teachers.

METHOD Participants

A total of 73 preservice teacher education students in required educational psychology classes at a midsize southwestern university volunteered to participate in the multicultural relationship enhancement workshops. The sample comprised 55 participants who had completed both pretest and posttest measures. In the sample, 91% (n = 50) were female, and 9% ( n = 5) were male. The ethnic representation of the participants was as follows: 45% Hispanic ( n = 25), 45% White ( n = 25), 6% biracial or biethnic (n = 3), 2% African American (n = l), and 2% Native American (n = 1). Ages ranged from 18 to 49, with a mean of 25.6 years. Table 1 presents the demographic information for the experimental and control groups.

Measures

The Written Interaction Task (WIT; Waldo, 1984,1986,1989) was used to gather samples of participants’ communication in multicultural situations. This task was designed to parallel the Verbal Interaction Task, which measures both the ability to openly express one’s feelings and the ability to help an-

200 Journal of HuMANlsnC COUNSELING, EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT * Fall 2005 * Volume 44

TABLE 1

Participant Demographics by Treatment Group

Experimental (n = 27) Control (n = 28)

Variable Number YO Number YO Mean age Gender

Men Women

Ethnic group Hispanic White Black Native American Biracial or biethnic

Country of birth United States Canada Mexico

Generation First Second Third Fourth Fifth Undisclosed

23.96

3 24

13 12 1 0 1

11 89

48 44 4 0 4

27.21

2 26

12 13 0 1 2

25 1 1

1 4 1 3

17 1

92 4 4

4 14 4

11 63 4

28 0 0

0 5 2 7

14 0

7 93

43 46 0 4 7

100 0 0

0 18 7

25 50 0

other express his or her feelings in nonconflictual and conflictual situations (Guemey, 1977). The WIT consists of four short vignettes, each of which presents a situation involving cultural differences to which participants are asked to write a response. Two of the vignettes call for respondents to demonstrate expressive speaking skills, and two require them to demonstrate empathic listening skills. The vignettes include situations involving cultural conflict as well as nonconflictual situations. Participants’ responses on the WIT were rated by trained raters using the Self-Feeling Awareness Scale (SFAS) and the Acceptance of Others Scale (AOS; Guemey, 1977). Expressive speakingskills were rated on the SFAS, which measures the level of respect, honesty, and understanding com- municated inexpressive statements. Ratings range from 1 to 8. Low ratings (Levels 14) indicate a lack of respect and ownership in statements that are likely to provoke defensiveness in persons hearing them. High ratings (Levels 4-8) indicate that statements are respectful and honest and are likely to promote understanding in persons hearing them. Empathic listening skills were rated on the AOS. Ratings also range from 1 to 8, with low ratings (Levels 14) indicating a lack of respect and understanding being demonstrated and high ratings (Lev- els 4-8) indicating a deep level of respectful understanding being demonstrated. Evidence of the validity of SFAS and AOS ratings of the WIT has been provided by correlational studies, which showed significant relationships between ratings on the WIT and other measures of communication quality, relationship quality, and adjustment (Waldo, 1984,1986,1989).

Journal of HUMANISTIC COUNSELING, EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT Fall 2005 Volume 44 201

Interrater reliability of SFAS and AOS ratings of written communication sampled by the WIT was .90 or higher in a previous study (Waldo, 1989). In the current study, reliability was assessed through a rate-rerate procedure, with the second rating conducted after 1 week, in which the rater was blind to the initial rating. The mean rate-rerate reliability coefficient was .97.

The Quick Discrimination Index (QDI) is a 25-item questionnaire composed of Likert scale items with a range from 1 to 5 (Ponterotto & Pedersen, 1993). Scores range from 25 to 125, with higher scores indicating greater sensitivity to minorities' issues and greater freedom from prejudice. Scores of 25-50 indicate insensitivity to minority and women's issues, scores of 51-75 indicate low sensitivity, scores of 76-100 indicate moderate sensitivity, and scores above 101 reflect high sensitivity. Ponterotto and Pedersen reported adequate reli- abdity and validity. Cronbach's alpha (Cronbach, 1951) for the QDI in the present study was .82 at pretest (n = 55) and .81 at posttest (n = 55).

Procedure

Participants were randomly assigned to two groups, each of which met for four weekly 2-hour sessions. Random assignment was accomplished by ask- ing participants to select a time slot for their group meetings. For each time slot, participants were divided into experimental and control groups by a coin toss. Both groups were pretested prior to the beginning of the workshops during Week 1. The experimental group received the treatment (the training workshop) beginning in Week 2 of the 15-week semester. Participants in both groups were retested on completion of the workshops at the end of Week 5. The wait- list control group received the training workshops after the posttesting.

The Training

The multicultural relationship enhancement workshop offered participants training in expressive speaking and empathic listening based on relationship enhance ment therapy (Guemey, 1977). Leaders described and demonstrated the skills and then coached members as they practiced using the skills to explore their cultural heritages, their experiences with prejudice, and their roles as educators of culturally diverse students. Skill practice and discussion topics were arranged to be congruent with the stage of group development (Waldo, 1985). The leaders followed a manual (Bauman, Waldo, & Arizaga, 1997), which provided explicit directions for leading each session, including scripts of what they could say. An abbreviated session-by-session outline is presented in the Appendix.

RESULTS

Experimental and control groups were compared on the demographic variables to ensure that the groups did not differ significantly on any of these variables. A t test was computed to compare the two groups on age, and chi- square analyses were conducted for the three nominal variables: gender,

202 Journal of HUMANISTIC COUNSELING, EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT Fall 2005 Volume 44

ethnicity, and generational status. No statistically significant differences between groups were found.

Table 2 shows the means, standard deviations, and effect sizes for the experimental and control groups’ pretest and posttest scores on the QDI and the WIT. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) allows for assessment of ”the combined effects of history and maturation in addition to the reactive effects of testing” (Sabers & Franklin, 1985-1986, p. 104). A one-way ANCOVAcom- paring experimental and control groups was conducted, with posttest scores on the QDI as the dependent variable and pretest QDI scores as the covariate. No statistically significant difference was found on QDI scores between experimental and control groups.

A one-way ANCOVA comparing experimental and control groups was conducted, with posttest ratings on the WIT tasks as the dependent variable and pretest rating as the covariate. Adjusted posttest means on WIT1 (expressive speaking in a nonconflict situation) were not significantly different between groups. A statistically significant difference was detected on WIT2 (empathic listening, nonconflict) adjusted posttest means, F(1,52) = 9.891, p < .003, with the experimental group having the higher rating. Partial eta squared (rf) was selected to represent effect size for this type of analysis. For WIT2, rf was .159, considered a large effect size (Cohen, 1988). For WIT3 (expressive speaking, conflict), the difference was also statistically significant, with the experimental group obtaining higher ratings, F(1,52) = 17.209, p < .0001. The effect size rf was .249, a large effect. The difference on WIT4 (empathic listening, conflict) was also statistically significant, with the experimental group attaining the higher rating, F(1,52) = 27.180,~ < .004, with rf = .148, also a large effect size. A visual representation of these results is presented in Figure 1.

TABLE 2

Means, Standard Deviations, and Effect Sizes on the Quick Discrimination Index (QDI) and the Written InteractionTask (WIT)

for Experimental and Control Groups

Experimental (n = 27)

Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest

Control (n = 28)

Measure M SD M SD M SD M SD d QDI 86.67 13.07 88.81 10.87 85.64 9.72 87.79 10.73 ,004 WIT1 (Expressive

WIT2 (Empathic

WIT3 (Expressive

WIT4 (Empathic

speaking, nonconflict) 5.85 1.43 6.33 1.84 5.96 1.62 6.07 1.70 .006

listening, nonconflict) 3.70 1.03 4.78 2.08 4.00 1.54 3.46 0.96 .159

speaking, conflict) 5.41 1.93 7.15 1.17 5.36 1.70 5.57 1.75 .249

listening, conflict) 4.00 1.39 5.85 1.90 3.50 1.11 4.36 1.54 .148

Journal of HUMANlSTIC COUNSELING, EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT 0 Fall 2005 0 Volume 44 203

WTI Tmk usming. mwconnia WIT1 Task:

Spmklng, Nonconflict , .

PmmI Pml-la1 TIME

Prelml b l u r t

TIME

. .-

FIGURE 1

Comparison of Performance on the Written Interaction Task (WIT) for Experimental and Control Groups

Note. None of the differences were significant at pretest. The experimental group’s posttest scores were significantly higher than the control group’s on WIT2, WIT3, and WIT4, with pretest scores as a covariate. SFAS = Self-Feeling Awareness Scale; AOS = Acceptance of Others Scale.

DISCUSSION

The multicultural relationship enhancement workshops had a positive impact on preservice teachers’ written demonstration of empathic listening in a situation in which they were responding to someone who was upset about an experience with prejudice. Perhaps more important, the workshops also had a positive impact on preservice teachers’ written demonstration of expressive speaking and empathic listening in situations in which they were in conflict with someone engaging in prejudicial behavior or accusing them of prejudice. On average, the preservice teachers improved by 1.0 on AOS ratings of empathic listening in a nonconflictual multicultural situation. They also improved an average of 1.7 on SFAS ratings of expressive speaking and 1.9 on AOS ratings of empathic listening in conflictual multicultural situations. Their improvement raised the quality of their communication from levels that detract from the quality of relationships (average ratings of 1 to 4) to levels that facilitate positive relationships and conflict resolution (average ratings of 4 to 8; Guerney, 1977). Effective communication is important for teachers who must succeed in multicultural environments (Milhouse, 1996; Peel, 1995); findings from this study suggest that teachers can learn effective communication skills to relate to diverse students and their families.

204 Journal of HUMANlSTIC COUNSELING, EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT Fall 2005 0 Volume 44

The preservice teachers did not show statistically significant improvement in their written demonstration of expressive speaking skills in a nonconflict situation in which they were expressing their reactions about an experience with prejudice. This may be attributable to the high level of this skill demonstrated at the pretest. Prior research indicates that many people demonstrate effective self-expression in nonconflict situations without training (Waldo, 1984, 1986; Waldo & Fuhriman, 1981). The preservice teachers also did not show statistically significant improvement on the QDI. Similar to expressive speaking in nonconflict situations, participants were at a moderate level of sensitivity in this area at pretest, which may have restricted the gains they could demonstrate. Furthermore, participants were posttested directly after completing the workshop; they did not have the opportunity to use the communication skills they learned in real-life interactions with the diverse constituency served by the public schools. I t is possible that subsequent use of high-quality communication with the diverse students, parents, and staff in the schools would result in further gains on the QDI for the preservice teachers.

The controlled conditions in which this study was conducted (standard- ized testing, random assignment to conditions, scripted training program) afford it a reasonable level of internal validity. However, caution must be used in generalizing the results. A relatively small convenience sample was studied from a college of education at a midsize, southwestern university. The college has a diverse student body (45% Hispanic, 46% White, 6% other ethnic groups) and emphasizes the importance of multiculturalism in teacher preparation. Results may not generalize to other colleges with less diverse populations or less emphasis on multiculturalism. In addition, participants volunteered to participate in the workshop and may differ from students who did not volunteer to participate in a multicultural relationship enhancement workshop. A further limitation was the lack of follow-up to ascertain whether the preservice teachers actually used the skills they acquired in the workshop during their subsequent interactions in the schools or whether those skills were effective in reducing prejudice. Provision of the workshop to different preservice teacher populations and follow-up assessment of the impact of the workshop on the effectiveness of teachers’ subsequent interaction in the schools offer potential directions for future research.

CONCLUSION

No matter what the form or who the target might be, prejudice affects all: victims, perpetrators, and witnesses (Sandhu & Aspy, 1997). In the wake of recent national events, intergroup differences have been highlighted. The need for multiculturally sensitive teachers is especially important at such a time, and teacher education programs should consider training teachers in effective multicultural communication as one of their highest priorities. We are hopeful that this approach to such training will be a useful contribution to this endeavor.

Journal of HUMANISTIC COUNSELING, EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT Fall 2005 0 Volume 44 205

REF E RENCES

Avila, D. L., & Avila, A. L. (1988). Mexican-Americans. In N. A. Vacc, J. Wittmer, & S. DeVaney (Eds.), Experiencing and counseling multicultural and diverse populations (2nd ed., pp. 289-316). Muncie, IN: Accelerated Development.

Banks, J. (1994). Multicultural education: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Bauman, S., Waldo, M., & Arizaga, M. (1997). Multicultural relationship enhancement training

manual. Unpublished manuscript, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces. Buchanan, R. L., Jr., & Midgett, T. E. (1997). Rethinking education: Strategies for preparing

educators to teach in a multicultural society. Journal of Intergroup Relations, 24(3), 13-25. CNN. (2001). The crime reports u p in the wake of terrorist attacks. Retrieved October 16,

2001, from http:/ /europe.cnn.com/2001 /US/09/16/gen.hate.crimes Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Hillsdale,

NJ: Erlbaum. Corey, M. S., & Corey, G. (1992). Groups: Process and practice. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrib,

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (n.d.). Hate crime statistics, 1999. Retrieved October 10, 2001, from http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/99hate.pdf

Gelso, C. J., & Fretz, 8 . R. (1992). Counseling psychology. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Greeley, A. T., Garcia, V. L., Kessler, B. L., & Gilchrest, G. (1992). Training effective multicultural group counselors: Issues for a group training course. Journal for Spe- cialists in Group Work, l l , 197-209.

16, 297-334.

Guerney, B. G., Jr. (1977). Relationship enhancement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kendall, F. E. (1996). Diversity in the classroom: A multicultural approach to education of

young children (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. King, J. E. (1991). Dysconscious racism: Ideology, identity, and the miseducation of teach-

ers. Journal of Negro Education, 60, 133-146. Locke, D. C. (1992). Increasing multicultural understanding: A comprehensive model. Newbury

Park, CA: Sage. Marshall, P. C. (1998). Toward development of multicultural education: Case study of

the issues exchange activity. Journal of Teacher Education, 49, 57-65. Mathison, C. (1998). The invisible minority: Preparing teachers to meet the needs of gay

and lesbian youth. Journal of Teacher Education, 49, 151-155. Milhouse, V. H. (1996). Intercultural communication education and training goals, con-

tent and methods. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20, 69-95. Miller, S. M., Miller, K. L., & Schroth, G. (1997). Teacher perceptions of multicultural

training in preservice programs. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 2-4, 222-232. Nieto, S. (1996). Afirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education (2nd

ed.). New York Longman. Peel, B. 8. (1995). Making the right connection: Conferencing with parents of different

cultures. Education, 115, 575-580. Pickett, L. (1995). Multicultural training workshops for teachers. Transactional Analysis

Journal, 25, 250-258. Ponterotto, J. G., & Pedersen, P. B. (1993). Preventing prejudice: A guide for counselors and

educators. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Pope-Davis, D. B., & Dings, J. G. (1995). The assessment of multicultural counseling

competencies. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (pp. 287-311). Pacific Grove, CA: Sage.

Rosen, D. (1993). Teacher-student communications: Crossing cultural barriers. The American Music Teacher, 42(5), 30-34.

Sabers, D. L., & Franklin, M. R., Jr. (1985-1986). Increased power through design and analysis. Journal of Experimental Education, 54, 101-104.

206 J O U r n d Of HuMANlsnC COUNSELING, EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT 0 Fall 2005 Volume 44

Sandhu, D. S., & Aspy, C. B. (1997). Counseling for prejudice prevention and reduction. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.

Skillings, J. H., & Dobbins, J. E. (1991). Racism as a disease: Etiology and treatment implications. lournal of Counseling 6 Development, 69, 206-212.

Timm, S. A. (1997). A comparative analysis of the influence of listening/nonverbal communication training on multicultural sensitivity Dissertation Abstracts International, 58, 4533.

U.S. Department of Education & U S . Department of Justice. (2000, October). Indicators of school crime and safety , 2000. Retrieved October 2, 2001, from ht tp : / / www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/iscsOO. htm

Waldo, M. (1984). Roommate communication as related to students’ personal and social adjustment. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 39-44.

Waldo, M. (1985). A curative factor framework for conceptualizing group counseling. Journal of Counseling and Development, 64, 52-64.

Waldo, M. (1986). Group counseling for military personnel who battered their wives. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 11, 132-138.

Waldo, M. (1989). Primary prevention in university residence halls: Paraprofessional led relationship enhancement groups for college roommates. Journal of Counseling and Development, 67, 465-471.

Waldo, M., & Fuhriman, A. (1981). Roommate relationships, communication skills and psychological adjustment in residence halls. Journal of College and University Student Housing, 11, 31-35.

Wiest, L. R. (1998). Using immersion experiences to shake up preservice teachers’ view about cultural differences. Journal of Teacher Education, 49(B), 358-365.

Yalom, I. D. (1985). Theory and practice ofgroup psychotherapy (3rd 4.). New York Basic Books.

APPENDIX

Multicultural Relationship EnhancementTraining Outline Session 1 (Group Stage 1, “forming”)

1. Leader introductions, workshop overview, and ground rules. 2. Participants introduce themselves, sharing information about their cultural identities. 3. Participants record first impressions of each other for use later in the workshop. 4. Nonverbal attending skills are reviewed, demonstrated, and discussed. 5. Participants practice nonverbal attending while learning cultural lessons from each

other in dyads. 6. Participants then teach the cultural lesson they learned from their dyad partner to the

rest of the group, focusing on using this lesson in education. 7. Empathic listening and expressive speaking skills are presented. 8. Participants are asked to develop a personal genogram that focuses on the roles of

culture and education in their family history. 9. Closure.

Session 2 (Group Stages 2, “storming,” and 3, “norming”) 1. Check on reactions to last session and since last session (leaders model). 2. Leader overview of session. 3. Review of expressive speaking and empathic listening skills. 4. Leaders demonstrate skills. 5. Activii 1 (Ripping Exercise) - Participants create an artistic symbol of themselves. The

leaders read examples of racial slurs and other common prejudicial statements. Members rip the paper containing this symbol, in response to the prejudicial statements, with the ex- tent of the rip corresponding to the amount of pain they have experienced from such state ments. Members share their reaction to this exercise using expressive speaking skills.

6. Activity 2 (Quadrants) - Members create four symbols, one each for when they have (1) been the target of discrimination; (2) heard stereotypes in their family; (3) witnessed discrimination and did not act, and (4) witnessed discrimination and did act. Participants share these with each other, practicing expressive speaking and empathic listening skills.

(Continued on next page)

Journal of HUMANlSnC COUNSELING, EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT Fall 2005 * Volume 44 207

1. 2. 3.

4.

5.

6.

7. 8. 9.

10.

APPENDIX (Continued)

Multicultural Relationship Enhancement Training Outline 7. Closure (Reading from Robert Fulghum, “ ... words can break your heart”).

Check on reactions to last session and since last session (leaders model). Session 3 (Group Stages 3, “norming,” and 4, “performing”)

Leader overview of session. Review discursive skills (switching from empathic listener to expressive speaker and vice versa). Leaders model sharing information from their genograms (leaders model) regarding their families’ cultural backgrounds and actions in relation to education. Participants share their genograms using expressive speaking, empathic listening, and discursive skills. Process the genogram activity and discuss how awareness of cultural backgrounds can enhance teaching. Guidelines for giving and receiving feedback are reviewed. The Awareness Wheel is presented as a method for organizing feedback. Participants share first impressions of each other from Session 1 and how those impressions have changed (leaders model first). Participants’ experience of sharing feedback is discussed, including application of the experience to teaching.

Session 4 (Group Stages 4, “performing,” and 5 , “mourning”) 1. Check on reactions to last session and since last session (leaders model). 2. Review of confrontation skills. 3. Watch video of multicultural situations involving prejudice and discrimination. 4. Leaders demonstrate confrontation and coach participants as they formulate state-

ments for confronting the discrimination they witnessed on the video. 5. Participants brainstorm methods of resolving classroom conflicts over situations

depicted in the video. 6. Closure (symbolic gift giving or members sharing how others added to their experience).

208 Journal of HUMANISTIC COUNSELING, EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT Fall 2005 * Volume 44

multicultural sensitivity and interpersonal skills training for preservice teachers

Documents