Pre-service teachers’ beliefs and knowledge about multiculturalism

This article was downloaded by: [University of Stellenbosch]On: 06 October 2014, At: 19:56Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of Teacher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cete20

Pre-service teachers’ beliefs andknowledge about multiculturalismEmmanuel O. Acquaha & Nancy L. Comminsb

a Department of Teacher Education, Centre for Learning Research,20014, University of Turku, Finland.b Linguistically Diverse Education, School of Education and HumanDevelopment, University of Colorado at Denver, Denver, USA.Published online: 29 Apr 2013.

To cite this article: Emmanuel O. Acquah & Nancy L. Commins (2013) Pre-service teachers’ beliefsand knowledge about multiculturalism, European Journal of Teacher Education, 36:4, 445-463, DOI:10.1080/02619768.2013.787593

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2013.787593

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

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

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cete20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/02619768.2013.787593

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2013.787593

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Pre-service teachers’ beliefs and knowledge aboutmulticulturalism

Emmanuel O. Acquaha* and Nancy L. Comminsb

aDepartment of Teacher Education, Centre for Learning Research, 20014, University ofTurku, Finland; bLinguistically Diverse Education, School of Education and HumanDevelopment, University of Colorado at Denver, Denver, USA

The present study examined pre-service teachers’ knowledge of issues related tomulticulturalism and diversity before and after taking a multicultural educationcourse. Data from 38 degree students in an urban university in the southwest ofFinland were analysed using a mixed method approach. The results indicate thatpre-service teachers’ knowledge levels increased with respect to diversity andmulticultural education after taking the course. In addition, pre-service teachersfelt more competent and prepared to teach students with diverse backgroundsafter the exposure. The implications of the findings for teacher educationprogrammes and teacher educators are discussed.

Keywords: multicultural education; diversity; pre-service teachers; teacher beliefs

Introduction

As student populations across Europe become more diverse, it is critical to under-stand and build on lessons already learned regarding teacher preparation. Pre-serviceteaching candidates in teacher education programmes have been found to beincreasingly homogeneous – primarily White, middle class and from the dominantculture (Causey, Thomas, and Armento 2000; Jordan 1995; Banks and Banks2001). The mismatch between teachers’ and students’ cultures requires that prospec-tive teachers have the confidence and preparation to address issues regarding theeducation of students from diverse backgrounds (Larzen-Östermark 2009; Barry andLechner 1995; Su 1996, 1997; Banks 1991; Finney and Orr 1995). One importantstep in empowering future teachers in this direction is to educate them in the areaof multicultural education. The task of helping pre-service teachers to become cul-turally sensitive is one that teacher preparation programmes must continuallyaddress. The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of a multicul-tural education course and its efforts to provide pre-service teachers with knowledgeabout and experience with issues related to diversity and multicultural education. Inparticular, this study sought to compare pre-service teachers’ entry and exit pointknowledge in a multicultural education course.

Pre-service teachers’ beliefs and knowledge about multicultural education

White pre-service teachers are thought by some to have clouded visions of multicul-tural teaching and the multicultural curriculum (Clarke and Drudy 2006; Goodwin

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

European Journal of Teacher Education, 2013Vol. 36, No. 4, 445–463, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2013.787593

� 2013 Association for Teacher Education in Europe

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

9:56

06

Oct

ober

201

4

1994; Larke 1990; Causey, Thomas, and Armento 2000). Results of numerous stud-ies indicate that pre-service teachers enter classrooms culturally, racially and ethni-cally incompetent (Larke 1990; Larzen-Östermark 2009; Milner et al. 2003; Clarkeand Drudy 2006). While Milner et al. (2003) found that pre-service teachers’ atti-tudes were improving with respect to cultural diversity, a substantial number oftheir sample reported neutral responses. This suggests subjects were not quite surehow they felt about integrating their learning environments with curricula, assess-ments and programmes that support multicultural perspectives in the classroom. Theauthors concluded that while the level of sensitivity among pre-service teachers hadincreased, there still remained room for improvement. Clarke and Drudy (2006)found among 128 student teachers of varied teaching experience (from 0 to 25years) in Ireland that although they held values that were broadly inclusive inrelation to diversity, in general, issues that were of immediate and local relevancytriggered different responses.

Teachers with a strong interest in and feeling for multiculturalism are often moresuccessful in promoting the academic success of their learners. Nevertheless, it istrue that some teachers are initially unaware of their cultural values and, as manyresearchers suggest, changes in belief systems and attitudes can be accomplished byjoining a multicultural course (Grant and Secada 1990). As noted previously, how-ever, taking a multicultural course does not always result in a change in attitude orprior beliefs. Several factors have been identified which contribute to impedingefforts to influence pre-service teachers’ attitudes about diversity.

One such factor is belief systems. Many pre-service teachers from the dominant cul-ture believe that racism and sexism do not exist in society (Ahlquist 1991; Carpenter2000; Causey, Thomas, and Armento 2000). For example, it has been shown thatpre-service teachers in the US believe that their society is a just one for all, leading todisturbing conclusions such as ‘poor people, people on welfare, and some minoritieswere poor because they were lazy’ (Ahlquist 1991, 159). The literature also suggeststhat a large proportion of pre-service teachers enter the field with overly idealisticperceptions of the opportunities available in the US (Ahlquist 1991; Carpenter 2000;Causey, Thomas, and Armento 2000). Causey, Thomas, and Armento (2000, 34) havereferred to this attitude as ‘naive egalitarianism’. It is prevalent among pre-serviceteachers and has been linked to the monocultural backgrounds of pre-service teachersindependent of their race or ethnicity (Finney and Orr 1995; Nieto 1998).

Several studies have shown that most predominantly White and middle-classpre-service teachers have limited experience outside ‘their world’; that is, they havehad limited or no experience with persons from different ethnicities or social classprior to enrolling in a diversity course (Larke 1990; Nieto 1998; Ahlquist 1991;Carpenter 2000). This lack of or limited exposure to different ethnicities or socialclasses tends to reinforce pre-service teachers’ stereotypical beliefs. Shultz, Neyhart,and Reck (1996) suggest that pre-service teachers are naive and hold stereotypicalbeliefs about urban children, for example that they bring attitudes that interfere withtheir education. Su (1996, 1997) reported that White pre-service teachers interpretsocial change as meaning any kind of change except changing structural inequali-ties. Many regard racial discrimination programmes as discriminatory againstWhites, underscoring the fact that most White pre-service teachers have little aware-ness of discrimination, especially racism.

Opponents of multicultural education outside of teacher education are amongthose who share these beliefs. Many think that equality has been achieved and so

446 E.O. Acquah and N.L. Commins

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

9:56

06

Oct

ober

201

4

success in life is a matter of the individual working hard (Nieto 1998; Ahlquist1992; Finney and Orr 1995; Sleeter 1996). Holding such idealistic views aboutsociety potentially limits people from thinking ‘outside the box’ and overshadowsthe reality of life for those who are not part of the majority.

Knowledge about diversity is another factor that influences pre-service teachers’attitudes towards diversity. Díaz-Rico (2000) has classified the skills teachers needinto three different stages: growth of an understanding of cultural diversity,engagement in the struggle for equity, and commitment to promoting educationalachievement for all students. Studies have shown that a large proportion of Whitepre-service teachers anticipate working with children from diverse culturalbackgrounds. However, many enter a foundations course with limited understandingof what multicultural education entails (Barry and Lechner 1995; Shultz, Neyhart,and Reck 1996), while others enter classrooms culturally, racially and ethnicallyincompetent (Clarke and Drudy 2006; Larke 1990).

Pre-service teachers’ knowledge of diversity includes how they define a multi-cultural curriculum, too often seeing it as an addition to the existing curriculum andnot part of ‘regular’ instruction (Nieto and Bode 2008; Banks 1991; Vavrus 1994).These assumptions can lead to the belief that special efforts have to be made to ‘fitin’ this diverse material, rather than incorporating it as an integral part of the curric-ulum (Causey, Thomas, and Armento 2000, 40). According to Nieto and Bode(2008, 40), multicultural education should be viewed as the interaction of societaland school structures and contexts influencing learning, rather than as ‘an add-on orluxury disconnected from the everyday lives of students’.

The factors discussed above provide insight into why pre-service teachers maybe resistant to attitudinal changes and how this form of resistance can hinder thelearning experience for them. However, these factors alone might not accountcompletely for pre-service teachers’ resistance to change. Alternative explanationsprovided by the literature in cognitive science are worth exploring to understandhow the ways in which we learn and think might mediate the process of change.

A framework for studying cognitive change

Findings are consistent that pre-service teachers’ preconceptions and beliefs are dif-ficult to change overall (Causey, Thomas, and Armento 2000; Lonka, Joram, andBryson 1996), let alone in the space of one course (Causey, Thomas, and Armento2000; McDiarmid 1990). The psychology literature demonstrates the importance ofprior knowledge in learning (see Bransford 1979 for a review). Learning new con-cepts often requires the learner to connect new information to corresponding mentalmodels. Mental models represent particular beliefs based on existing knowledge ofeither a physical system or meaning associated with a text (Alvarez and Risko1989). These models evolve naturally, meaning that people formulate mental modelsthrough interaction with a target system and although they may not be technicallyaccurate, they are functional. This would include, for example, the degree of cer-tainty people feel regarding different aspects of their knowledge or beliefs aboutissues such as cultural diversity. Mental models are modified continually as peopleinteract with systems, albeit constrained by such things as the user’s previousexperiences (Norman 1983).

Scholars in the field of conceptual change maintain that new knowledge is mostlikely to be acquired through experience when there is some prior knowledge within

European Journal of Teacher Education 447

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

9:56

06

Oct

ober

201

4

which it can be interpreted. Vosniadou and Brewer (1987, 51) note that ‘[m]ost ofthe learning that occurs in life is either incorporated within prior knowledge(Piaget’s assimilation) or modifies prior knowledge (Piaget’s accommodation)’, inwhich case there is acquisition of totally new knowledge (Campbell 1974; Petrie1981). Rumelhart and Norman (1981) posited that knowledge is structured in theform of schemata and identified three ways in which existing schemata can bemodified by new experience: accretion, tuning and restructuring.

According to Rumelhart and Norman (1981), ‘accretion’ is defined as thechange that happens by adding new information within existing cognitive schemata.‘Tuning’ refers to evolutionary changes in one’s cognitive structures to fit a specifictask, usually through practice. ‘Restructuring’ occurs when there is a change inknowledge as a result of the creation of new structures. Such changes occur afterexperiencing cognitive dissonance, recognising the need to accommodate newknowledge and reflecting on situations in life (Vosniadou and Brewer 1987).Rumelhart and Norman’s 1981 framework was used in this study to analyse cogni-tive changes in pre-service teachers with regard to their knowledge of multiculturaleducation.

Research questions

The effect of multicultural education courses on pre-service teachers’ attitudes hasnot received much empirical attention (Milner et al. 2003; Causey, Thomas, andArmento 2000; Tran, Young, and Lella 1994; McDiarmid 1990). Ponterotto andothers (1998) lamented the lack of attention paid to issues of evaluation andaccountability despite the increase in attention to multicultural training in the US.While things may have changed in the US over the past 10 years, other westernEuropean nations are just beginning to confront these issues, and find themselves inpositions similar to that of the US in previous decades. To date, this subject hasreceived little attention in the European context (Clarke and Drudy 2006; Humphreyet al. 2006; Larzen-Östermark 2009), although statistics show that Europe’s immi-grant population is ever increasing (Vasileva 2011). The present study is an attemptto bridge this gap by investigating the effect of multicultural education courseworkon the attitudes of pre-service teachers. In particular, this study sought to comparethe entry and exit point knowledge about multicultural education of pre-serviceteachers in a northern European country taking a foundational course. Two ques-tions guided this study: (1) How culturally aware are pre-service teachers at thepoint of entry into a multicultural education course and at the point of completion?(2) Do pre-service teachers believe they are knowledgeable about cultural diversityand teaching minority students after taking a multicultural education course?

The research context

The course under examination (Multicultural Education) was an elective courseoffered to international master’s degree students and exchange students from theERASMUS student networks (ESN) in an urban university in Finland. (There areno requirements for coursework regarding multicultural issues for prospectiveteachers in Finland.) Its goal was to help pre-service teachers better understandthemselves and others as cultural beings, understand dimensions of diversity andhow power, privilege and social status affect educational outcomes for students


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

9:56

06

Oct

ober

201

4

from different groups, and apply these understandings to enhance teaching andlearning for children and adults.

The researcher acted as an assistant to a professor who was a visiting scholarfrom the US. The professor concurred with Finney and Orr (1995) and Jackson(1995) that taking ownership for one’s beliefs and taking responsibility for one’sgrowth are critical aspects of cognitive change and happen over time. The coursewas organised to encourage participants to develop their own understanding throughclassroom activities and field activities that challenged their prior knowledge. Builtinto the requirements was that these pre-service teachers would reflect on their ownlearning process.

Components of the course

The course included pre- and post-course definition of key terms, lectures, seminars,school observations (field experience), students’ learning journals and reflectionsand final evaluations. During the first session, students were required to set goalsfor their learning and define in writing a set of key terms related to multiculturaleducation, based on their current understanding. The assumption was that studentsentered the course as novices. These papers were turned in at the end of the firstsession and returned to students on the last day of class, when they were to revisetheir definitions after the intervention of taking the course.

Lectures were interactive, using a variety of strategies including groupdiscussions, pair discussions and writing assignments, and four class sessions weredesignated as student-led seminars. Groups of four students were assigned casestudies from Nieto and Bode (2008) to read, discuss in their small group andprepare a presentation for the whole class. The case studies, about how secondarystudents from many different backgrounds experience schooling in the US, wereanalyses of individuals within the context of their cultural and social environment.This part of the course allowed the pre-service teachers to discuss and relate thereadings to their own experiences.

Because the opportunity to reflect on new information and experiences has beenidentified as an effective way for prospective teachers to challenge their prior beliefsand to change their cognitions (Richardson 1990), students were required to keeplearning journals detailing their developing understandings from the readings, lec-tures and seminars and reflect on their learning process. The professor responded toeach student’s journal three times during the semester, providing each student feed-back and posing questions for further reflection.

Another important component of the course was fieldwork. The literature hasidentified diverse field experiences as crucial in sensitising prospective teachers toissues of diversity (Finney and Orr 1995; Jordan 1995; Sleeter 1995). Students wererequired to observe at least five hours of classes in a school in which 30% of theschool’s students were immigrants and 50% spoke a native language other thanFinnish. These pre-service teachers were given a note-taking protocol that focusedon equity of treatment. With the view that students’ experiences with new environ-ments and diverse groups of people become educative only with time for reflection(Richardson 1990), students were required to incorporate their learning from theseobservations into the required final reflection paper.

The final component of the course was an evaluation in which students were askedto identify the most and least helpful aspects of the course. All responses elicited from


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

9:56

06

Oct

ober

201

4

students were written in English, a second or third language for the majority of stu-dents, which could be considered a handicap when addressing such sensitive issues.

Method

Participants

A total of 38 students (Males = 3, Females = 35) were recruited from a multicul-tural education course at an urban university in southwestern Finland during theautumn semester of the 2011–2012 academic year. Students enrolled on the courseincluded 19 degree students (15 international master’s degree students, four Finnishdegree students) and 19 exchange students from the ERASMUS students network.The age of the students ranged from 20 to 32 years. The class itself was verydiverse in population, consisting of students from the following countries: Finland(4), Cameroon (1), Nigeria (1), Pakistan (2), Greece (1), Iran (1), Ireland (1), Korea(1), Hungary (1), Romania (1), China (4), Germany (4), Austria (4), Spain (8),Serbia (1), Taiwan (1) and Poland (1). Students consented to the use of quotes fromtheir definitions of key terms, journals, final reflections and focus group dialoguesas data for this study. Participants were promised anonymity and confidentiality. Allresponses elicited from students for analysis were written in English, a second orthird language for the majority of students. Admission to the master’s programmewas dependent on demonstrated proficiency in English.

Measures and procedures

The present study involved a mixed method approach. Data were gathered throughthe use of a survey, pretest and posttest, journals, reflections, final evaluations andfocus groups.

Survey

The researcher administered a questionnaire to 34 students 10 weeks into thecourse; four students did not participate in the survey because they were interestedin using this data for a small group project for another course. The survey consistedof four items using the Likert-type format (see Appendix 2).

Pretest and posttest

On the first day of the course, students were asked to define in writing the follow-ing terms: multicultural education, culture, privilege, cultural competence, culturalproficiency, intercultural competence and culturally responsive teaching. At the endof the course, 12 weeks later, the papers were returned for students to revise theirdefinitions. Each writing session lasted between 15 and 20 minutes.

Learning journals

Students were asked to reflect on their learning processes during the course.Students were to reflect on their learning from each reading, lecture and seminar,how they challenged their prior beliefs or reinforced them and how the new learn-ing was going to influence their future practice as teachers. Journals were submitted


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

9:56

06

Oct

ober

201

4

every two weeks. In a ‘final reflection’, students were required to synthesise theirjourney through the course. With students’ permission, entries from the journalswere photocopied for review and analysis.

Final evaluations

On the last day of class, students were asked to comment on the most and leasthelpful aspects of the course. Students’ responses were gathered and analysed.

Focus group

The researcher asked for volunteers to take part in a short focus group. The purposeof the focus group was to obtain information on whether or not students believedthey had acquired new knowledge from the multicultural education course and towhat extent the new knowledge acquired challenged their prior beliefs. Questionsalso addressed how the new knowledge was going to affect their future practice(see Appendix 1). The focus group was held a few days after the last class, whenthe students might be better able to evaluate their learning gains.

The focus group was a general discussion about the readings, journals, casestudies and school visits. There were two groups of three students and each lastedone hour. The first session occurred in a private study room in the faculty libraryand the second in the researcher’s office. The sessions were tape-recorded and tran-scribed. The researcher facilitated the focus group discussion, taking on the role ofdirecting the discussion and taking notes (Krueger and Casey 2000). The courseprofessor acted as an assistant by taking notes, operating the tape and askingfollow-up questions (Krueger and Casey 2000).

It should be noted that the authors acknowledge language could have been ahandicap when addressing such sensitive issues. Students’ language proficiency wasconsidered both in the structure of the course and in the collection of the data. Inevery class session, students were given time to discuss the topics in pairs andsmall groups and were encouraged to use their mother tongue with classmates (onlysix students were the only speaker of their language). In addition, they were encour-aged to take notes in the language of their choice. Students were required to writein their reflection journals in English in order to facilitate dialogue with the profes-sor, but were free to include ideas in their mother tongue if they so chose.

Analysis

Data analysis occurred in two stages. In the first, a paired t-test comparingpre-service teachers’ pre and post scores on their knowledge of diversity was doneto determine whether there were differences in how students rated their knowledgeof diversity at the beginning and end of the course. Graphic analysis of the datawas completed to examine three components of the course (pre and post definitionof terms, final evaluations and goals in taking the course). Figures are provided toshow emergent themes in their evolving knowledge, goals in taking a multiculturaleducation course and views about the most and least helpful aspects of the course.

Using the work of Rumelhart and Norman (1981) as a framework, in the secondstage of data analysis, all the written data produced by the 38 students in the class(pre and post definitions of key terms, learning journals, final evaluations and focus


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

9:56

06

Oct

ober

201

4

group transcripts) were qualitatively analysed for evidence of cognitive change. Theresearcher looked for patterns and created categories as a basis for comparingstudents’ understandings before and after the course to find evidence of cognitiverestructuring, which may include cognitive dissonance between prior beliefs andnew learning, as well as social criticism and activism (Vosniadou and Brewer1987). To ensure the reliability of the results, the researcher triangulated data usingat least three of the data sources: students’ survey responses, pre and postdefinitions of terms, learning journals, reflections, final evaluations and focus grouptranscripts.

Findings

Several themes emerged from the data regarding students’ goals in taking the multi-cultural course and opinions about which aspects of the course enhanced theirlearning most and least. Table 1 demonstrates that a majority of students enrolled inthe course because they wanted to acquire the skills needed to teach a class withdiverse students or to broaden their understanding of multiculturalism and culturaldiversity. Also important was a desire to learn new skills and attitudes about multi-culturalism, to understand oneself and others better, to become familiar with how totreat children with diverse backgrounds equally and to help children from minoritybackgrounds feel at home in school.

Students’ evaluations of the course indicated all aspects of the course contrib-uted to their new learning. Group activities were cited as the most helpful (n=18),followed by lectures (n=12) and the case study and learning journals. In total, fivestudents indicated the case study was least helpful either because somepresentations were uninteresting or because they would have preferred to conductsimilar interviews themselves (see Figure 1 for more details).

In a survey administered after 10 weeks of teaching, students were asked toretrospectively rate themselves on a scale of 1 (very limited) to 5 (very good) in rela-tion to their knowledge about multiculturalism upon entering the class, as well as atthat moment. To examine if change over time was statistically significant (entry pointto present point); a paired t-test of entry point and present point scores was con-ducted. The paired samples t-test revealed that pre-service teachers were moreknowledgeable about multiculturalism at the end of the course (m = 4.00, s = .645)than they were at the beginning of the course (m = 3.00, s = .711), t(32) = 09492,

Table 1. Students’ goals for taking the multicultural education course by theme.

Themes Number of students

Learn about children with a minority background 3Help children with a minority background feel at home in school 4Broaden understanding of multiculturalism and cultural diversity 12Learn new skills and attitude about multiculturalism 9Learn how to teach a multicultural class 14Learn how to treat children with diverse backgrounds equally 6To understand myself and others better 6Real school experience in multiculturalism 1Challenge myself to study and speak English 1Didn’t have a goal 1


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

9:56

06

Oct

ober

201

4

p<.001. According to this measure, the course made a significant contributiontowards students’ awareness and new learning.

To better understand the nature of these findings, the researcher triangulatedthese results with analysis of students’ pre and post definitions of key terms. Theanalysis confirmed that overall, students made substantial gains in knowledge bythe end of the course. Definitions were coded into five categories: ‘doesn’t know’,‘erroneous’, ‘vague’, ‘partially accurate’ and ‘accurate’. On the pretest, answers fellinto the first three categories. On the posttest there were no terms left undefinedand answers all fell into the ‘vague’, ‘partially accurate’ and ‘accurate’ categories.Figure 2 demonstrates the distribution of responses on the pre and post definitions.

Students’ post course definitions revealed that fewer pre-service teachers (n = 9)expressed vague ideas about key terms compared to the beginning of the course.Students who began with vague ideas about diversity at the beginning of the courseended up ahead of their colleagues in terms of knowledge about diversity. Studentsunable to define key terms at the beginning of the course tended to define key termsless accurately at the end of the course. In terms of mean, the findings in the posttestshow a normal distribution of knowledge within the sample, which was confirmedby the correlation results from the paired sample t-test (r = 681, p< .001). By pairing

Figure 1. Preservice teachers’ evaluation of the multicultural course for most and leasthelpful aspects.

Figure 2. Occurring themes from preservice teachers’ pre and post definitions of key terms.Themes show continuum in increase in knowledge about multiculturalism and diversity.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

9:56

06

Oct

ober

201

4

individual pre and post scores it was possible to see that from pre to post course,everyone’s knowledge of multiculturalism and diversity increased, but a lower levelof knowledge on the pretest was associated with lower knowledge at the end.

Nevertheless, while a majority of the students made substantial gains, there werea small number of students who did not seem to have made significant improvementin awareness. Notably, this category of students expressed vague ideas about keyterms after the course. Several confounding factors may account for the variationwithin students, including prior experience with diversity, previous teaching experi-ence, nationality and gender, all of which fall outside the focus of the present study.

The final reflection papers indicated that many of these prospective teacherscame out of the course with new insights and new knowledge about themselves andothers that would impact their way of thinking and their future professionalpractice. For a majority of the students, this course allowed them to confront anddiscuss the issue of diversity. Though most students came from countries withdiverse populations, many admitted that this was the first time they had had realencounters with other cultures and interacted and exchanged views. For example:

It is true that in Spain we have a lot of cultural diversity, but I have never beenimmersed so close with people with different settings to mine, to share, to respect andto learn from them and I appreciate it greatly. Taking all of this into account andfocusing on my future teaching, I would like to teach in a multicultural school whereeveryday would be a challenge and a joy.

Others felt challenged by the course. A student from Africa wrote:

This poses a new challenge to me as a teacher, that is, the task of making every stu-dent’s culture count in the teaching and learning exercise.

Nevertheless, these pre-service teachers were more optimistic and ready to offertheir best to their students:

Staying within the idea of culture, I have established a refreshing attitude to create aclassroom environment that promotes discussion and respect of difference. I reflected[in my journal] that every child deserves the opportunity to have a sense of identityand belonging within the culture of the classroom. This is one of the most importantideas that I can take away with me, not only to think about how it can be done, but toactually take action to make it happen.

The quote below reflects the nature of the change in prospective teachers’knowledge of multicultural education and diversity:

I can now declare with confidence that this has been one of the most engaging andvaluable courses I’ve ever taken. It has opened my eyes and mind to a whole newlevel of understanding that will reach beyond my teaching.

Initially, this student could not define cultural capital or privilege. At the end ofthe course, she was not only aware of her new learning, but also confident abouther future prospects:

Never before have I considered in what ways have I had privilege over others andvice-versa. Thinking about privilege has opened my eyes and caused me to question


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

9:56

06

Oct

ober

201

4

my own understanding of myself, influences of societal factors on me, and myattitudes. I hope that through this thinking process I have, and have shown, a devel-oped positive attitude that will resound in my teaching and set an example to students.

This sentiment was echoed in many students’ journals, indicating that the coursehad significantly impacted their thinking and attitudes towards diversity.

The focus group discussion also uncovered students’ progress in learning.Participants were asked how the course affected their understanding. One studentfrom Romania stated:

I am sure it was the first time when I read about this and I took the time to thinkabout what I experienced and how things should be. Of course, I don’t have now theperfect picture in my head, but it has improved. … I think that the case studies werethe most touching ones because they were real facts. Everything was challenging, infact. It was hard work but great – I would do this again and again.

Evidence from all sources of data supports the conclusion that the course trans-formed these pre-service teachers’ way of thinking and knowledge about multicul-turalism. Data were also analysed to determine whether or not pre-service teachersbelieved that they were knowledgeable about cultural diversity and teaching minor-ity students. Item 3 in the survey addressed this question. Figure 3 shows that atthe end of the course, more than a third of the students (n=15) responded they weresufficiently knowledgeable and prepared to teach minority students. Another 12 feltthey were well prepared to teach a minority class, while five students indicated theywere averagely knowledgeable and prepared to teach a minority class. Only twostudents felt somewhat knowledgeable and prepared, with no respondent indicatingthat they were not prepared at all.

Data from the focus groups and students’ final reflections were also analysed todetermine whether the students felt prepared to teach in diverse settings. Twothemes emerged from the focus group discussion: new awareness and increasedexposure. These subsets of pre-service teachers were unanimous in their belief thatthey were knowledgeable about multiculturalism and were prepared to teach minor-ity students. For example, one student stated:

I feel like I know something. I’m prepared for some new knowledge. It’s like thebeginning of something bigger.

Figure 3. Preservice teachers’ ratings of their readiness to teach minority students aftertaking a multicultural education course.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

9:56

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Another student concluded:

I think am more prepared to teach. Before coming I was thinking maybe I don’t wantto teach again. But now after seeing the richness behind people, under people’s skin...

She also stated:

If I were to have a class that wasn’t multicultural, I would teach them more aboutcultures, prepare them more not to be so surprised when they meet people from differ-ent cultures. Yes, I will do that.

Evidence of cognitive restructuring

The analysis of the pre and post course definitions of terms suggests that aftertaking a multicultural education course, pre-service teachers’ awareness levels hadsubstantially improved with respect to cultural diversity. In order to determinewhether this gain in declarative knowledge reflected a restructuring of their diversityschema, the final reflections, learning journals and focus group transcripts wereanalysed for evidence of cognitive restructuring, specifically for evidence ofcognitive dissonance and/or engagement in Socratic dialogue, both of which areassociated with cognitive dissonance (Vosniadou and Brewer 1987). To investigatethis question, the researcher identified three respondents for an in-depth examinationof their thinking during and after the course. While most students in the courseseemed to have restructured their knowledge schemata to some extent, these threefemale students (two White Western Europeans and one Black African) were chosenas their diversity schemata appeared to have changed the most. WEU1’s final reflec-tion essay highlights these changes:

Stripping it back to basics: what is culture? This wasn’t as simple as I first expected[acknowledges underdeveloped conceptual structure] and now I feel I have a muchbetter, deeper understanding of culture. I am no longer seeing only the ‘tip of the ice-berg’, but beyond the superficial, surface level. [Italics added]

She also admitted this about herself, while writing about privilege:

Never before have I considered in what ways I have privilege over others and vice-versa. Thinking about privilege has opened my eyes and caused me to question myown understanding of myself, influences of societal factors on me, and my attitudes.

As is evident from her statements, she had to adjust her thinking to accommodatethe new knowledge, a process that requires the formation of radically newconceptual models (Osborne and Wittrock 1983). These authors term such radicalrestructuring of thinking ‘generative learning.’

The reflections of the second student, from a different western European nation,also revealed instances of cognitive restructuring:

In the beginning [previously held belief], I defined the most important parts of Multi-cultural Education in a totally different way as I would now. For me MulticulturalEducation was only Education that deals with students of different backgrounds[Acknowledgement of limited understanding of the concept before]. Now I see thegreater picture and see so many more facets of it. [Evidence of cognitive restructur-ing]


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

9:56

06

Oct

ober

201

4

She clearly contrasts her previous knowledge with present knowledge, which pointsto the development of new conceptual models of thinking about this concept(Osborne and Wittrock 1983). Not only had her theoretical understanding improved,but her experiential knowledge had broadened, as indicated below:

I do not only theoretically know about differences, but experienced the whole semesterhow people act in other ways because of their culture.

In her reflection and learning journal she expressed cognitive dissonance as an ‘Ahafeeling’ when there was discrepancy between what she already knew or believedand new knowledge:

I only saw culture in arts, music and traditions before. My understanding after thecourse has changed.

The data from the African student who saw herself as a minority were illuminatingwith respect to her mental restructuring. In relation to privilege, she wrote:

For once in my life I had the opportunity to reflect on the privileges that I have had,which for some reason, I had failed to recognise.

Her statement demonstrates the sudden awareness that can occur after exposure.This process involves radical restructuring of one’s thinking processes comparable tothe expert/novice shift as discussed by McCloskey (1983). This new awarenessalerted her to how privileged she was to have come this far in life. BFC’s new learn-ing not only completely changed her thinking, but also forced her to begin to con-sider her own thinking processes to the extent that she was prepared to do somethingdifferent to enable all students have equal opportunities to learn. She writes:

Looking back… my thinking has evolved in the way that teaching and learning canbe organised to give each student a voice irrespective of their cultural background.

This student provides indications of a very positive professional future, while attribut-ing her new outlook and competences to the multicultural education course. She posits:

My teaching will change in many ways as a result of taking this course. This coursehas provided me with the tools to help engage students irrespective of their culturalbackgrounds in learning.

This provides yet another example of cognitive restructuring happening after takingwhat could be called an intervention course in multicultural education.

In summary, data from the three subjects selected for in-depth review allprovided evidence in support of the conclusion that pre-service teachers madesubstantial gains in knowledge as a result of taking the course, and that this wasevident in their thinking both during and after the course.

Discussion

The goal of this study was to investigate pre-service teachers’ knowledge of issuesrelated to multicultural education and competency in teaching minority students. A


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

9:56

06

Oct

ober

201

4

triangulation approach was used to examine whether pre-service teachers’ levels ofawareness of multiculturalism and cultural diversity increased after taking a coursein multicultural education. The findings indicate that pre-service teachers madegains in knowledge after taking the course, which led to restructuring of theircognitive models. Further, pre-service teachers felt they were more competent andprepared to teach students from minority backgrounds.

Pre-service teachers’ knowledge of multiculturalism and diversity

Consistent with past studies (Milner et al. 2003), the present findings suggest thatpre-service teachers’ understanding of issues related to multicultural educationincreased significantly after taking a course in multicultural education. However,their findings suggested that pre-service teachers were not quite sure how they feltabout integrating their new learning into their teaching environments with curricula,assessments and programmes that support multicultural education in the classroom.This study revealed that these pre-service teachers had a clear vision and were opti-mistic and confident about their ability to teach diverse groups of students. Thisfinding is especially interesting given that the pre-service teachers enrolled in thecourse were themselves diverse, coming from 17 different countries. This could leadto the conclusion that multicultural education practices are feasible everywhere andthat pre-service teachers from many backgrounds can adapt to this new way ofthinking about the teaching and learning process if they are afforded the exposureand skills needed.

This study found that the increment in knowledge observed in pre-serviceteachers after the course was attributed in part to particular teaching strategies usedin the course. Data from all sources suggested that students felt the multiplemethods employed by the professor, especially the opportunity to reflect on theirlearning, accounted for their knowledge gains. Students cited the interactivestrategies used during the lectures as extremely useful. The interactions between thedifferent aspects of the course and how this facilitated students’ learning is thesubject of separate analysis. The main contribution of this study is the finding thatoffering a multicultural education course in teacher education programmes can servean important function in building teachers’ awareness and knowledge about culturaldiversity.

Another important finding relates to cognitive change or restructuring. A closeexamination of the final reflections, learning journals and focus group discussions ofa subset of three students revealed that cognitive restructuring had occurred in all ofthese students after taking the course. This confirms the results from the survey andpre and post course definition of terms, and is consistent with the findings of Causey,Thomas, and Armento (2000). The present findings, however, differ from theirs in asignificant way: while they reported that only two of a sample of 16 had restructuredtheir diversity schema, the present study suggests that the entire sample had restruc-tured their diversity schema (most conspicuous from students’ final reflections andfocus group discussions), although the level of change varied across students.

Evidence from the present data revealed that there were instances of cognitivedissonance (Vosniadou and Brewer 1987) in students’ reports. In fact, as demon-strated by excerpts from all three focus students, there was abundant evidence insupport of this claim. As reported in the results, there were several occasions whenstudents demonstrated awareness of inconsistencies in their current schema; this,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

9:56

06

Oct

ober

201

4

according to the literature, is a necessary step for those kinds of change that requireold beliefs to be deserted and replaced with a different conceptual structure(Nussbaum and Novick 1982).

Pre-service teachers’ beliefs about teaching minority students

The data provide evidence that these pre-service teachers’ beliefs about theirpreparedness to teach minority students had evolved. They felt more confident,enthusiastic and optimistic about teaching children from diverse backgrounds aftertaking this multicultural education course. This was especially evident in descrip-tions of how their thinking had evolved over the semester. Their self-reportsrevealed that they became more aware of their ignorance about diversity andmulticultural education after exposure. For most of them, before the exposure,multicultural education simply meant teaching children from different culturalbackgrounds, and the multicultural curriculum was seen as mainly an add-on, notas part of the regular curriculum (Nieto and Bode 2008; Banks 1991; Vavrus 1994).Following the course, however, students took on the view that multicultural educa-tion was multifaceted and that one did not need to make any special effort to ‘fitin’ this diverse material; rather, it was a pervasive attitude that could be incorpo-rated into the normal curriculum (Nieto and Bode 2008; Causey, Thomas, andArmento 2000). In the words of Nieto and Bode (2008, 46), they saw that ‘multi-cultural education is basic education’.

The subjects of this study expressed a new confidence in teaching minoritystudents despite previously held misgivings. One student, who had previouslyworked in a school where all the students were immigrants, indicated her strongdesire to teach in such an intensive support class in the future. This was after admit-ting to having struggled with stereotypes about immigrants earlier on in her life. Inthe focus group, she discussed the influence of her family’s strong stereotypes aboutimmigrants. She initially relinquished some of her stereotypical beliefs out of a‘curiosity for the truth’, but her writing revealed that self-analysis and metacognitiveawareness intensified after the course. Another student indicated that even if shewere to have a class lacking in ethnic diversity, she would still provide them withdiverse cultural perspectives in order to prepare them to thrive in a more diversesociety. This student’s new attitude indicates her realisation that multicultural educa-tion, within the larger socio-political context, is meant for and benefits all students(Nieto and Bode 2008).

Other students shared similar sentiments. Overall, the benefits of this experienceresided in knowledge growth, and these prospective teachers viewed this newknowledge as a tool of empowerment which they could use to positively invest inthe lives of their students.

Conclusions and implications of the study

The data suggest that as a result of taking a course in multicultural education, pre-service teachers’ awareness of issues related to multicultural education increased,mediated by a process of self-reflection. Further, the increase in knowledge waslinked to cognitive restructuring of students’ diversity schema. Nearly all of theseprospective teachers believed they were capable of teaching minority students aftertaking the course.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

9:56

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Several implications for teacher education are highlighted by the present study.Of particular importance is that the manner in which issues of power, privilege anddifference are addressed is as important as the topics themselves. A critical aspectof the course was the emphasis on self-reflection, dialogue and action, rather thansimply engaging in study of the theory of multiculturalism. In addition, each andevery student, regardless of background, was encouraged to consider the notions ofpower and privilege in relation to their own lives. They were made aware that thework of multicultural education is work that each and every teacher and facultymember must engage in.

The findings presented here provide some useful indicators as to how teachereducation programmes in general, and culturally and linguistically responsiveeducation in particular, could be improved. The present study indicated that ratherthan planning the content and the frequency at which multicultural education coursesare taught, teacher education programmes should focus more attention on how toteach such courses. This is not to suggest that having more available courses for tea-cher trainees, as proposed by some teacher educators, is not important (Milner et al.2003; Banks and Banks 2001); however, as Finney and Orr (1995) posited, the out-come of this study suggests that more than attendance is needed if pre-service teach-ers’ prejudices and misunderstandings can be changed into more informed andrealistic perspectives. It is thus recommended that courses be organised interactivelyto encourage critical social perspectives while providing opportunities for field expe-riences and reflection on all aspects of the coursework. Prospective teachers shouldbe immersed into multiple cultural perspectives, particularly those of marginalisedgroups, to help them gain first-hand information that will challenge societal and pre-conceived stereotypes about people who are different from themselves.

In conclusion, these findings are important because throughout Europe there is a criti-cal need for teacher education programmes and teacher educators to incorporate multicul-tural perspectives into teacher preparation. This is especially true in nations like Finlandwhere multiculturalism is still a new, albeit growing, phenomenon. Such changes wouldbe timely and in the right direction, since perceived challenges related to the teaching ofimmigrant populations are likely to increase rather than decline in the future.

Notes on contributorsEmmanuel O. Acquah is a doctoral student and researcher at the Department of TeacherEducation/Centre for Learning Research, University of Turku, Finland. He has taught/co-taught courses in research methods, Finnish as a second language and multiculturalism andmulticultural education at the University of Turku. His research focuses on multiculturalismas well as student peer interactions and social networks within the classroom.

Nancy L. Commins was the 2011–2012 University of Turku Fulbright scholar, where herwork focused on preparing teachers to work with immigrant students. She is co-author oftwo books, Restructuring Schools for Linguistic Diversity: Linking Decision Making toEffective Programs and Linguistic Diversity and Teaching, as well as numerous articles andbook chapters related to second language learning and teaching and school reform.

ReferencesAhlquist, R. 1991. “Position and Imposition: Power Relations in a Multicultural Foundations

Class.” Journal of Negro Education 60 (2): 158–169.Ahlquist, R. 1992. “Manifestations of Inequality: Overcoming Resistance in a Multicultural

Foundations Course.” In Research and Multicultural Education: From the Margins tothe Mainstream, edited by C. A. Grant, 89–105. Washington, DC: Falmer.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

9:56

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Alvarez, M., and V. Risko. 1989. “Schema Activation, Construction, and Application.” ERICClearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills Bloomington IN. http://www.eric-digests.org.

Banks, J. A. 1991. “Teaching Multicultural Literacy to Teachers.” Teaching Education 4:134–144.

Banks, J. A., and C. A. M. Banks, eds. 2001. Multicultural Education: Issues & Perspec-tives. New York: Wiley.

Barry, N. H., and J. V. Lechner. 1995. “Preservice Teachers’ Attitudes About and Awareness ofMulticultural Teaching and Learning.” Teaching and Teacher Education 11: 149–161.

Bransford, J. D. 1979. Human Cognition: Learning, Understanding and Remembering. Bel-mont, CA: Wadsworth.

Campbell, D. T. 1974. “Evolutionary Epistemology.” In The Philosophy of Karl Popper, edi-ted by P. A. Schilpp, 413–463. La Salle, IL: Open Court.

Carpenter, A. 2000. “An Ethnographic Study of Pre-Service Teacher Resistance to Multicul-turalism: Implications for Teaching.” Paper presented at the meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, April 24–28.

Causey, V. E., C. D. Thomas, and B. J. Armento. 2000. “Cultural Diversity is Basically aForeign Term to Me: The Challenges of Diversity of Pre-Service Teacher Education.”Teaching and Teacher Education 16: 33–45.

Clarke, M., and S. Drudy. 2006. “Teaching for Diversity, Social Justice and Global Aware-ness.” European Journal of Teacher Education 29: 371–386.

Diaz-Rico, L. T. 2000. “Intercultural Communication in Teacher Education: The KnowledgeBase for CLAD Teacher Credential Programme.” The CATESOL Journal 72: 145–161.

Finney, S., and J. Orr. 1995. ““I’ve Really Learned a Lot, but…”: Cross-Cultural Understandingand Teacher Education in a Racist Society.” Journal of Teacher Education 46: 327–339.

Goodwin, A. L. 1994. “Making the Transition from Self to Other: What Do PreserviceTeachers Really Think about Multicultural Education?” Journal of Teacher Education45: 119–131.

Grant, C., and W. Secada. 1990. “Preparing Teachers for Diversity.” In Handbook ofResearch on Teacher Education, edited by W. R. Houston, 403–422. New York: Mac-millan.

Humphrey, N., P. Bartolo, P. Ale, C. Calleja, T. Hofsaess, V. Janikova, et al. 2006. “Under-standing and Responding to Diversity in the Primary Classroom: An InternationalStudy.” European Journal of Teacher Education 29: 305–318.

Jackson, S. 1995. “Autobiography: Pivot Points for the Study and Practice of Multicultural-ism in Teacher Education.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, San Francisco, April.

Jordan, M. L. R. 1995. “Reflections on the Challenges, Possibilities, and Perplexities of Pre-paring Preservice Teachers for Culturally Diverse Classrooms.” Journal of TeacherEducation 46: 369–374.

Krueger, R. A., and M. A. Casey. 2000. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for AppliedResearch. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Larke, P. J. 1990. “Cultural Diversity Awareness Inventory: Assessing the Sensitivity of Pre-service Teachers.” Action in Teacher Education 12: 23–30.

Larzén-Östermark, E. 2009. “Language Teacher Education in Finland and the CulturalDimension of Foreign Language Teaching – A Student Teacher Perspective.” EuropeanJournal of Teacher Education 32: 401–421.

Lonka, K., E. Joram, and M. Bryson. 1996. “Conceptions of Learning and Knowledge: DoesTraining Make a Difference?” Contemporary Educational Psychology 21: 240–260.

McDiarmid, G. W. 1990. “Challenging Prospective teachers’ Beliefs During Early FieldExperience: A Quixotic Undertaking.” Journal of Teacher Education 41: 12–20.

Milner, R. H., L. A. Flowers, E. Moore, Jr., J. L. Moore, and T. A. Flowers. 2003. “Pre-Service Teachers’ Awareness of Multiculturalism and Diversity.” The High SchoolJournal 87: 63–71.

Nieto, Sonia. 1998. “From Claiming Hegemony to Sharing Space: Creating Community inMulticultural Education Course.” In Speaking the Unpleasant: The Politics of (Non)Engagement in the Multicultural Education Terrain, edited by R. Chavez Chavez andJ. O’Donnell, 16–31. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

9:56

06

Oct

ober

201

4

http://www.ericdigests.org

http://www.ericdigests.org

Nieto, S., and P. Bode. 2008. Affirming Diversity: The Sociopolitical Context of Multicul-tural Education. 5th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Norman, D. A. 1983. “Some Observations on Mental Models.” In Mental Models, edited byD. Gentner and L. Stevens, 7–14. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Nussbaum, J., and S. Novick. 1982. “Alternative Frameworks, Conceptual Conflict and Accom-modation: Toward a Principled Teaching Strategy.” Instructional Science 11: 183–200.

Osborne, R. J., and M. C. Wittrock. 1983. “Learning Science: A Generative Process.” Sci-ence Education 67: 489–508.

Petrie, H. G. 1981. The Dilemma of Inquiry and Learning. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

Ponterotto, J. G., S. Baluch, T. Greig, and L. Rivera. 1998. “Development and Initial ScoreValidation of the Teacher Multicultural Attitude Survey.” Educational and Psychologi-cal Measurement 58: 1002–1016.

Richardson, V. 1990. “Significant and Worthwhile Change in Teaching Practice.” Educa-tional Researcher 19: 10–18.

Rumelhart, D. E., and D. A. Norman. 1981. “Accretion, Tuning, and Restructuring: ThreeModes of Learning.” In Semantic Factors in Cognition, edited by J. W. Cotton and R.Klatzky, 37–60. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Shultz, E., T. K. Neyhart, and U. M. Reck. 1996. “Swimming against the Tide: A Study ofProspective teachers’ Attitudes regarding Cultural Diversity and Urban Teaching.” TheWestern Journal of Black Studies 20: 1–7.

Sleeter, C. E. 1996. Multicultural Education as Social Activism. Albany, NY: State Univer-sity of New York Press.

Su, Z. 1996. “Why Teach: Profiles and Entry Perspectives of Minority Students as BecomingTeachers.” Journal of Research and Development in Education 29 (3): 117–133.

Su, Z. 1997. “Teaching as a Profession and as a Career: Minority Candidates’ Perspectives.”Teaching and Teacher Education 13: 325–340.

Tran, T. M., L. R. Young, and J. D. Di Lella. 1994. “Multicultural Education Courses andthe Student Teacher: Eliminating Stereotypical Attitudes in Our Ethnically DiverseClassroom.” Journal of Teacher Education 45: 183–189.

Vasileva, K. 2011. “Population and Social Conditions.” Eurostat Statistics in Focus 34.http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/product_details/publication?

Vavrus, M. 1994. “Acritical Analysis of Multicultural Education Infusion During StudentTeaching.” Action in Teacher Education 16: 45–57.

Vosniadou, S., and W. F. Brewer. 1987. “Theories of Knowledge Restructuring in Develop-ment.” Review of Educational Research 57: 51–67.

Appendix 1

(1) Before entering the multicultural course, what were your experiences with othersfrom different backgrounds?

(2) What were your perceptions or understandings about others from different culturesor ethnicities?

(3) Were your understandings challenged throughout the course and if so, in whatway(s)?

(4) Were your understandings challenged during the classroom observation experiencesand if so, in what way(s)?

(5) Do you believe that you are prepared to teach minority students?

(6) Do you believe you are knowledgeable about cultural diversity?


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

9:56

06

Oct

ober

201

4

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/product_details/publication?

(7) Could you talk about each of the following aspects of the course and how theycontributed to your understandings:

• Readings• Learning journal• Lectures• Case studies• School visits• Other assignments

(8) What aspects of your coursework were most beneficial in helping to prepare you towork with diverse children, especially children not from your culture or race/ethnic-ity?

(9) Have you made any behavioural or attitudinal modifications – explain? Is thereanything about the course and how it has affected your thinking or behaviour thatyou would like to add?

(10) The sessions were transcribed by hand and data analysed by identifying corethemes.

Appendix 2

How would you rate yourself on the following on a scale of 1 to 5? (Please check asappropriate)

(1) Your entry point (starting) knowledge of multiculturalism. (Before taking this course)1 (Very limited) � 2 (Limited) � 3 (Average) � 4 (Sufficient) � 5 (Very good) �

(2) Your knowledge of multiculturalism at present.1 (Very limited) � 2 (Limited) � 3 (Average) � 4 (Sufficient) � 5 (Very good) �

(3) Do you feel confident/ready to teach a minority student after taking the multiculturalcourse?1 (Not at all) � 2 (Somewhat) � 3 (Average) � 4 (Sufficient) � 5 (Well prepared) �

(4) Overall, has taking this course improved your understanding of multiculturalism?Yes �No �Not sure �


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

9:56

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Documents

Pre-service teachers’ beliefs and knowledge about multiculturalism