<%BANNER%>

Resistance among Prospective Teachers in a Graduate Social Studies Course

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022587/00001

Material Information

Title: Resistance among Prospective Teachers in a Graduate Social Studies Course
Physical Description: 1 online resource (201 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Howie, Sheryl
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: analysis, critical, discourse, education, preservice, resistance, social, student, studies, teacher, theory
Teaching and Learning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Foundations of Education thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Recent research on student resistance indicates a need for further research into resistance engaged in by members of the privileged group. This dissertation extends the study of student resistance by members of the privileged group through observations of a social studies internship seminar where students engaged in acts of resistance and through interviews with four prospective teachers in the seminar. It also explores how resistance is defined by critical theorists and critical pedagogues and suggests a reconstruction of the current definition. Findings indicate students from the privileged group resisted effective teaching practices taught in the internship seminar because their ideologies conflicted with the themes of culturally responsive pedagogy and democratic classroom practices. Participants adhered to a traditional role for teachers that historically supports members of the privileged group but does not benefit members of oppressed or minority groups.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Sheryl Howie.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Bondy, Elizabeth.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2010-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022587:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022587/00001

Material Information

Title: Resistance among Prospective Teachers in a Graduate Social Studies Course
Physical Description: 1 online resource (201 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Howie, Sheryl
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: analysis, critical, discourse, education, preservice, resistance, social, student, studies, teacher, theory
Teaching and Learning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Foundations of Education thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Recent research on student resistance indicates a need for further research into resistance engaged in by members of the privileged group. This dissertation extends the study of student resistance by members of the privileged group through observations of a social studies internship seminar where students engaged in acts of resistance and through interviews with four prospective teachers in the seminar. It also explores how resistance is defined by critical theorists and critical pedagogues and suggests a reconstruction of the current definition. Findings indicate students from the privileged group resisted effective teaching practices taught in the internship seminar because their ideologies conflicted with the themes of culturally responsive pedagogy and democratic classroom practices. Participants adhered to a traditional role for teachers that historically supports members of the privileged group but does not benefit members of oppressed or minority groups.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Sheryl Howie.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Bondy, Elizabeth.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2010-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022587:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





RESISTANCE AMONG PROSPECTIVE TEACHERS IN A
GRADUATE SOCIAL STUDIES COURSE

















By

SHERYL MARIE HOWIE


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2008
































2008 Sheryl Marie Howie































To my children, Jennifer, Amy, Aaron, and Matthew.
You are dear friends and trusted accomplices.









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In 1987, Paulo Freire and Myles Horton had a conversation at Highlander in the mountains

of Tennessee. It was later published as a book entitled We Make the Road by Walking. Their

premise was that those of us who work for social justice do so through collective struggle,

through walking the road to emancipation together. This dissertation is part of my walk on that

road and I want to thank those who walked with me and those whose resistance to the ideals of

social justice compelled me to continue.

Dr. Elizabeth Bondy brought me back to my roots of social justice. She introduced me to

the teachings of Paulo Freire and the many other advocates for social justice, of whom I formed

an allegiance. As my dissertation chair, she kept me focused on the task at hand while inspiring

me to explore the depths of resistance and conscientization. Dr. Elizabeth Yeager not only

encouraged me in my work in student resistance but gave me opportunities to grow as a scholar.

The many hours we spent together on other projects were opportunities to tap her wisdom and

intelligent guidance. Dr. Sevan Terzian brought me into the fold and provided me with endless

opportunities to grow intellectually. His dedication to graduate students and their research is

deeply appreciated. Dr. Sharon Austin showed me how to teach controversial issues and

challenge hegemony while preventing resistance. I am still learning. I have the deepest gratitude

and respect for these professors who treated me as a colleague and, at times, a conspirator.

I also must thank my fellow travelers who spent time with me at local watering holes-

Michele, Cheryl, Bob, Patrick, and Lea. We still walk this road together, mixing high ideals with

high comedy, but never giving up. I also want to thank Dr. Art Newman, who inspired critical

inquiry and self-reflection along the road that was so very familiar to him. I must also thank my

colleagues from Critical Pedagogy I and II. What a wonderful time we had challenging each

other as we examined and experienced conscientization.









The participants in this study, unknowingly, walked with me in my struggle to understand

resistance. Their willingness to explore places that must have felt very uncomfortable is deeply

appreciated. They taught me a lot.

My father, also unknowingly, set me on this road through his discourse on issues of

inequity, building within me a passion for social justice. My mother balanced the social justice

fervor in our home by finding good in everyone and teaching me compassion for others. I am

still learning the lessons from my walks with them.

Finally, I must thank my children. Jennifer, Amy, Aaron and Matthew encouraged me to

pursue a dream, lifted me up during difficult times, and kept me from taking myself too

seriously. Walking this road has been easier because they were beside me.









TABLE OF CONTENTS



A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ..............................................................................................................4

L IS T O F T A B L E S ................................................................................................. ..................... 9

A B S T R A C T ............... ................................................................ .......................................... 10

CHAPTER

1 STUDENT RESISTANCE: FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE....................12

In tro d u c tio n ............................................................................................................................. 1 2
P u rp o se o f S tu d y .....................................................................................................................14
Significance of the Study ... ... ......................................... ....................... .............. 15
D definition of T erm s ................................................... .............................................. 15

2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ........................................................................................... 19

C ritic a l R e sista n c e ..................................................................................................................1 9
Cultural Resistance ................................ .. ........... .....................................26
C o u n ter R e sistan c e ................. .... ... .....................................................................................3 5
Student Resistance: From Theory to Practice.................................................................... 37

3 METHODOLOGY .................................... .. .......... .............................39

T theoretical P erspectiv e.................................................... ............................................... 39
M e th o d o lo g y ...........................................................................................................................4 1
Study Design ................................ ...................................................42
Context of the Study ...................................................................................................42
Study Participants and Selection ..................................................................................45
Acts of Resistance in the Classroom ............................................................................46
D ata C o lle ctio n .......................................................................................................................4 7
O b se rv a tio n s ....................................................................................................................4 7
In te rv ie w s ........................................................................................................................4 7
D ata A n aly sis ........................................................................... ............. .................. 4 8
Them atic A analysis ...........................................................................................................48
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) ..................... .........................................48
Trustworthiness of the Study ..................................................................................... 51
Triangulation of data ................................................................... 51
Multiple methodological perspectives ................................................... ...............52
L im station s of th e Stu dy .... ..................................... ...........................................53
S u bjectiv ity S tatem en t.....................................................................................................5 3
Sociohistorical context ........................................................................ ...............53
M monitoring subjectivity ........................................................................ ...............56



6









4 CON TEX TS OF RE SISTAN CE ................................................................... ................ 58

P reface ................ ..... . ........................................................................................... ... ..... 5 8
T he C ontext of the C classroom .. ...................................................................... ................ 58
T he C ontext of the Instructor... ....................................................................... ................ 61
The C ontext of the R researcher .. ..................................................................... ................ 64
T he C context of P participants ................................................................ .............................. 67
W illia m ............................................................................................................................6 7
Kenneth .............................................................................. 70
H e n ry ..................................................................................................... ........ . ....... 7 2
G e o rg e .............................................................................................................................7 4

5 FIN D IN G S ................................................................................. ...... ..... ..................... 77

P re fa c e .............. ......... ............. ..... ... ............................................................ ..... .... ....... 7 7
Counter Resistance and the Role of the Teacher .................................................. ...............79
Teacher as Source of Important Knowledge ................... ...................................79
Important Knowledge is Practical and Relevant .............................86
Teachers Control Decisions about Instruction and Management.................................96
Teachers Encourage Students' Ideas and Opinions............................................108
Teachers Should Teach Assimilation to the Dominant Group...................................120
Teacher Responsible for Success of all Students But................................... ...............124
Good Female Teachers are Caring and Build Relationships with Students..................127
Cultural Resistance and the Role of the Teacher..................................132
Teachers should not M icro-manage Classrooms .......................................................132
Teachers should Maintain Trust in Student-Teacher Relationships .............................134
F in a le .......................................................................................................... ......... . ....... 1 3 9

6 CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS............ ...........................140

Explaining Resistance through Ideology ............ ...........................142
Teacher is Source of Important Knowledge................................145
Important Knowledge is Practical and Relevant ...............................................146
Teachers Control Decisions About Instruction and Management..............................147
Teachers Encourage Students' Ideas and Opinions...........................................149
Teachers Should Teach Assimilation to the Dominant Group...................................150
Teacher is Responsible for Success of all Students But.................... ...... ...............150
Good Female Teachers are Caring and Build Relationships with Students..................151
Teachers should not M icro-manage Classrooms .......................................................152
Teachers should Maintain Trust in Student-Teacher Relationships .............................153
Escalating and Diminishing Resistance............ .............................154
E x ten din g th e L iteratu re .......................................................................................................15 5
R defining R resistance ................................................................. .. .. ............................. 155
Student Resistance in College Classrooms and Teacher Education..............................156
Sociohistorical Context and Beliefs about Teaching................................................158









Im p lic a tio n s ..................... ............................................................ ......................................1 5 9
Implications for Teacher Educators...... ............. ............ ..................... 159
Implications for the Research Community...... .... ........................ 162

APPENDIX

A INTERVIEW PROTOCOL .......................................... 165

B SOCIAL STUDIES INTERNSHIP SEMINAR ASSIGNED READINGS .........................167

C H E N R Y S C A SE ST U D Y ................................................................................................... 169

R E F E R E N C E S ............................................................................................................................19 6

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H .................................................... ............................................. 201







































8









LIST OF TABLES


Table page

4-1 Internship seminar class schedule, January 17, 2007 ...................................................60

5-1 Categories of resistance: The role of the teacher.......................................... ................ 78

6-1 Counter resistant beliefs about the role of the teacher...... ................... ...................145

6-2 Cultural resistance beliefs about the role of the teacher ....................... ...................152









Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

RESISTANCE AMONG PROSPECTIVE TEACHERS IN A
GRADUATE SOCIAL STUDIES COURSE

By

Sheryl Marie Howie

August 2008

Chair: Elizabeth Bondy
Major: Foundations of Education

Teacher educators who use methods and content that support equity, cultural diversity, and an

inclusive teaching philosophy are often met with resistance from prospective teachers. Prospective

teachers may resist these unfamiliar methods and philosophies because their experiences in schools

and beliefs about teachers support the White, Eurocentric, middle-upper class culture of the

privileged group, a culture that is historically established in our schools. Due to the increased

diversity of school populations and the fact that most teachers are White females who are members

of the middle-upper class, it is imperative that teacher educators address the resistance engaged in

by prospective teachers to inclusive teaching methods, which are proven highly effective in diverse

school settings.

The purpose of this study was to better understand student resistance by White students in

a secondary social studies internship seminar for prospective teachers. When content or teaching

methods contradict the knowledge or beliefs of prospective teachers, they often choose to quietly

dismiss or vociferously object. In order to understand the factors that shape resistance, this study

seeks to address the following research questions:









* What explains resistant behavior among prospective teachers in an internship seminar?
* What factors shape resistance?
o How is resistance escalated?
o How is resistance diminished?


Resistance is grounded in critical theory so critical theory was used to frame the study of

four prospective teachers in an internship seminar. The participants were selected based on

observations of the internship seminar in which they engaged in what was perceived to be

resistant behavior. Resistant behavior was determined by passive and/or active actions of

students that disrupted the balance of power in the classroom and/or challenged the authority of

the instructor. Data sources consisted of five observations, three prior to selection of participants,

and three interviews with each participant. Interviews helped create a sociohistorical context for

each participant and identify their beliefs about teaching. From the data, four cases were

prepared to describe the participants' beliefs about the role of teachers. The case studies were

then examined for shared and unique beliefs, which became the basis of the ideology for each

participant.

Participants' ideology supported the White, Eurocentric, middle-upper class ideology of

schools and the privileged group. This was evident in their sociohistorical contexts and their

beliefs about teachers. The four participants resisted content taught in the internship seminar and

teacher education program about culturally responsive teaching, democratic classrooms

practices, and a no-excuses teaching philosophy. They also defined practical and relevant

knowledge in ways that excluded effective teaching practices, such as culturally responsive

pedagogy and democratic classroom practices. Participants' ideology supported the dominant

White, Eurocentric, middle-upper class culture of schools in which teachers maintain and

reproduce hegemony.









CHAPTER 1
STUDENT RESISTANCE: FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE

Introduction

For over twenty-five years, educators have been using the term resistance to describe the

behavior of students in classrooms (Anyon, 1981; Devine, 1996; Giroux, 2001; McLaren, 1986;

Shor, 1992; Willis, 1988). In these descriptions, student resistance can range from silence to

physical violence, and culminate in a variety of outcomes. Most studies of student resistance in

schools focus on the disconnect between the traditional culture of schools, which reflects the

White, Eurocentric, middle-upper class ideals of the privileged class, and the cultures of

oppressed groups-working-class or high poverty students and/or students of color (Anyon,

1981; Cochran-Smith, 2004; Dance, 2004; Devine, 1996; hooks 2002; McCadden, 1998;

McLaren, 1986, 2003; Miron & Lauria, 1995; Willis, 1988). These studies of student resistance

are relevant to teacher educators since prospective teachers are predominantly White,

Eurocentric, middle-upper class females while the school population of culturally diverse

students is increasing (Cochran-Smith, Davis & Fries, 2004; Gay, 1997). The reality of student

resistance emphasizes the importance of preparing teachers to be more responsive to and

inclusive of students whose identities and norms may be different from their own. A dilemma

arises, however, when teacher educators shift the focus to equity and an inclusive teaching

philosophy. When this happens, prospective teachers may resist these unfamiliar methods and

philosophies in favor of the White, Eurocentric, middle/upper class ideals of the privileged

group.

Acts of resistance are evident throughout human history but the term resistance became

part of a theoretical perspective in the early 1900s. The original theory behind resistance is based

on Marxist ideology and critical theory. Critical theory, as a discipline, had its beginnings in the









Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt in Germany in the early 20th century.

Under the leadership of Felix Weil, Friedrich Pollock, Max Horkheimer and other scholars who

built on the ideas of Karl Marx, what is known as the Frankfurt School was established (Jay,

1973). Marx and scholars of the Frankfurt School viewed resistance as actions by the powerless

to overcome hegemony and address economic and social injustices (Adorno, 1984; Althusser,

1971; Habermas, 1991; Horkheimer, 1972; Leclau & Mouffe, 2001; Lukacs, 1972; Marcuse,

1991; Marx, 2005). Resistance was the result of the masses, or proletariat, becoming aware of

how the privileged, the bourgeoisie, manipulated and exploited them to serve the desires of the

wealthy privileged group. For many scholars at the Frankfurt School, education became the

avenue to enlightenment and emancipation for the powerless masses and the beginning of a more

socially just society. Critical pedagogy continued the theory of education for emancipation,

applying ideas of resistance to student behavior in the classroom (Anyon, 1981; Delpit, 1996;

Giroux, 2001; hooks, 1994; McLaren, 1986; Shor, 1992).

As noted earlier, studies of student resistance have centered on the cultural disconnect

between the culturally diverse lives of students and the White, Eurocentric, middle-upper class

ideals of classrooms and curriculum. More recently, however, studies on student resistance have

focused on resistant acts by students who are members of the privileged group (Davis, 1992;

Grant & Gillette, 2006; Haddad & Lieberman, 2002; Hunter & Nettles, 1999; MacFarland, 2001;

McIntyre, 1997; Middleton, 2002). A study by Valerie Middleton (2002) found that many White

prospective teachers agreed that multicultural teaching, or recognizing various cultures in the

classroom, is necessary, but they did not understand "multicultural education, diversity, and the

attitudes and skills needed for successful cross-cultural teaching" (p. 348). The fact that many

White prospective teachers do not see themselves as having an ethnic or cultural identity









complicates matters when attempting to address the importance of cross-cultural teaching

(Cochran-Smith, 1995; Gay, 2002; Irvine, 2003; Vallegas & Lucas, 2002).

According to Carl Grant and Maureen Gillette (2006), some prospective teachers are

reluctant to change practices that they perceive were effective in their own schooling, have

difficulty accepting criticism of their practices, or "hold attitudes and beliefs about certain

students, parents, families, and communities that indicate an inability to work effectively with

diverse constituencies" (p. 294). Often, the result is resistance by prospective teachers from the

privileged class to an inclusive teaching philosophy. Prospective teachers who resist teaching

methods based on equity and an inclusive teaching philosophy risk excluding students in their

classrooms from the learning process.

Purpose of Study

The purpose of this study was to better understand student resistance by White students in

a secondary social studies internship seminar for prospective teachers. Students bring knowledge

and beliefs that impact how they view the content and teaching styles of instructors. When the

content or teaching methods contradict their knowledge or beliefs they often choose to quietly

dismiss or vociferously object. In order to understand the factors that shape resistance, this study

seeks to address the following research questions:

* What explains resistant behavior among prospective teachers in an internship seminar?
* What factors shape resistance?
o How is resistance escalated?
o How is resistance diminished?

Through observations and interviews, this study critically examined and analyzed resistance by

White prospective teachers in an internship seminar.









Significance of the Study

There are few studies that have focused on the resistance of White students to inclusive

teaching philosophies and methods taught in a social studies teacher education course. Although

student resistance traditionally has been viewed as a phenomenon experienced by students whose

lives originate outside the White, Eurocentric, middle-upper class norm of schools, studies of

White middle class students engaging in ethnic studies or diversity courses conclude that

resistance is not limited to students of color (Davis, 1992; Haddad & Lieberman, 2002;

Hunter & Nettles, 1999; McFarland, 2001; Middleton, 2002). In addition, the teaching

methods used in many of these courses appear to fuel student resistance, creating a

contentious environment that is not conducive to a free and healthy exchange of dialogue that

would result in students challenging their preconceived biases about cultural differences.

When an instructor advocates methods and content that reveal and work to eliminate White

privilege, White students (from the privileged group) often engage in resistance to what is being

taught because it does not reflect their beliefs (as the dominant group). This study will help

teacher educators better understand what explains resistance, why it escalates, and ways it might

be diminished, suggesting opportunities for positive change.

Definition of Terms

Many words are used in this study that could have multiple meanings, such as resistance,

oppression, and White privilege. These terms are used throughout the study in specific ways

outlined below.

Resistance. Resistance is defined differently by various schools of thought. In this study,

resistance will be defined as passive and/or aggressive behavior in response to the content and/or

methods used by the instructor with the purpose of changing the balance of power in the

classroom and/or challenging the authority of the teacher as the professional educator. This









might include vocal protests to course assignments, actions that disrupt the class and challenge

the teacher's authority, or disengagement during class activities.

Ideology. Ideology is defined in this study as a belief that works to maintain or disrupt

hegemony in education or society. Ideology is formed by the interaction between individuals and

society, what Marx calls the "historical life-process" (2005, p. 180). Marx (2005) considered

ideology to be an inverted view of reality, but this is true when the ideology is based on beliefs

that maintain hegemony. Ideology that maintains hegemony might be perceived as common

sense (Fairclough, 1995) so the average person will accept it without question, but it is often a

view of reality that hides the power structures that support the dominate group.

Culturally responsive pedagogy. Culturally responsive pedagogy is a framework or

philosophical viewpoint for "making decisions that better serve the educational needs of

culturally diverse student populations" (Gay, 2002, p. 32). Culturally responsive teachers

recognize and value ethnic and cultural diversity in their classrooms and make educational

choices based on student diversity (Irvine, 2003; Villegas & Lucas, 2002).

Democratic classroom practices. Democratic classrooms create an atmosphere that

recognizes the presence of numerous distinct ethnic, religious, or cultural groups within

schools and society (Barton & Levstik, 2004). John Dewey's (1916) view of democracy as a

way of living together is a simple yet widely shared definition of democracy among

educators. He emphasized the need for a shared common interest and a change in social habits

that resulted in "freer interaction between social groups" (Dewey, 1916, pp. 86-87). A

democratic classroom creates a space where students from different cultural backgrounds can

share their common interests and critically examine their differences with the purpose of









finding consensus. In democratic classrooms, students have a role in decisions about

curriculum, instruction, and management.

A no-excuses teaching philosophy. A no-excuses teaching philosophy assumes that all

students can succeed and it is the teacher's responsibility to create lessons and a classroom

environment that support the learning of each student (Corbett, Wilson, & Williams, 2002).

Teachers who do not adhere to a no-excuses teaching philosophy say that all students can

learn, but make excuses when learning does not take place. They will say that all students can

succeed but... and blame the student, the school environment, the family, or the community

for the failure of students in their classrooms. All of these factors influence education, but

teachers who cite them as possible reasons for failure are often relinquishing their own

responsibility to help all students learn.

White privilege. White privilege is defined as the invisible benefits White people receive

because they are White (Jensen, 2005; McIntosh, 1988). Most White people are unaware of

these privileges they receive or how Whiteness is the center of U.S. society (Jensen, 2005;

Lucal, 1996; McIntosh, 1988). For example, most schools in the United States teach national

history from the perspective of White people, mainly men, and students "will be given

curricular materials that testify to the existence of [the White] race" (McIntosh, 1988, p. 8).

Curriculum on American Indian, African American, or Latino history in the United States is

often viewed as ancillary to the main White curriculum. Most schools in the United States base

curriculum, methods and standards on a White, Eurocentric, middle-upper class culture (Delpit,

1996; hooks, 2002; Loewen, 1995). This dominant White privilege, reinforced in most K-12

classrooms, prevents people from "other" ethnic and cultural groups from fully engaging in

American culture. Lisa Delpit (1996) believes the tension between the power of White privilege









and the powerlessness of members of other ethnic groups is why schools are unable to educate

children of color at the same level as White children.

White, Eurocentric, middle upper class culture. This phrase is used to denote the historical

positioning of schools and education in the United States. Historically, education was available

to those with the financial means and time to pursue it, which meant the wealthy. Some early

settlers in America believed education should be available to everyone, but this view was not

shared by all colonists. In the early 19th century, the need for public education became an issue

and public schools were established in some states but education beyond reading, writing and

arithmetic was often limited to the wealthy. Schools in the United States were established by

wealthy citizens in positions of power, who were mainly White and descended from Eastern

European countries. Because of this, the White, Eurocentric, middle-upper class culture of

schools was established early in our history, in both the content taught and methods used, and

remains the dominant culture of schools. This term is in no way derogatory, but simply a part of

our history that must be recognized when discussing the increased diversity in our schools today.

Prospective teachers. Prospective teachers are students in a teacher education program. I

use this term in place of preservice teachers to help eliminate any confusion by readers outside

the field of teacher education.

In this chapter, an overview of the study was provided. In chapter two, literature important

to the study will be cited and reviewed. Chapter three explains the methodology for the study,

including issues of trustworthiness and limitations of the study. The context of the study,

including the classroom, instructor, researcher, and participants, is described in chapter four.

Findings of the study are detailed in chapter five, and chapter five offers conclusions and

implications.









CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

When educators discuss student resistance in the classroom, they are usually referring to

disruptive student behavior. Teacher response to this behavior may include ignoring it, analyzing

it, or terminating it through disciplinary action. The definition of student resistance also varies

and is dependent upon the perspective of the person or group doing the defining. An examination

of the literature, from Marxist and critical theorist ideology to current qualitative studies of

student resistance, reveals differences in conceptualizations of resistance among critical theorists,

critical pedagogues, and educators. Most critical theorists view acts of resistance as organized by

groups or individuals with the goal of changing political, economic and social power structures

through critical examination of hegemony and emancipatory change. Critical pedagogues reflect

the beliefs of critical theorists but focus on acts of resistance by students, either as individuals or

groups. Critical pedagogues view resistance as challenging social, economic, and political

structures that maintain hegemony. Through critical inquiry and self-reflection, educators and

students take action to change the power structure within and outside of schools and the

education system. Some educators label as resistance the acts of students from the dominant

group (White, Eurocentric, middle-upper class) who oppose content and curriculum based on

cultural diversity. While all are based on critical theory and involve a struggle against established

hegemony, the variations in the literature suggest a three-part conceptual framework: critical

resistance, cultural resistance, and counter resistance.

Critical Resistance

Of the three categories of resistance found in the literature, critical resistance aligns most

closely with critical theory. Most critical theorists view resistance as organized group action with

the goal of changing political, economic and social power structures. A critical examination of









hegemony-how it is created and maintained-and reflection on how to overcome it and bring

about collective action for social change are necessary elements of resistance for critical

theorists. Their goal is nothing less than long-term, far-reaching political change that will bring

about emancipation of oppressed populations. This is critical resistance: it is motivated by social

injustice, can be actions of individuals or groups, includes critical inquiry and self-reflection

about hegemony, and focuses on the need for broad political change that would protect and

benefit oppressed groups.

As introduced in Chapter 1, resistance theory originated with Marxist ideology and critical

theory. Marx (2005) believed resistance, or revolution, would arise naturally. Marx's (2005)

theory of "historical materialism" determined that a succession of economic systems are created

to satisfy human needs, but at the same time these systems create class antagonism that results in

societal divisions. The bourgeoisie (oppressors) owns the means of production and benefits from

the profits, while the proletariat (oppressed) consists of wage-earners dependent on the

bourgeoisie for employment. Marx believed that rising conflict between these two classes of

people would result in resistance and revolution, which he considered a naturally occurring

phenomenon carried out by the proletariat that would conclude with the introduction of a

socialist government and the foundation for an equitable society.

Critical theorists from the Frankfurt School challenged and/or extended this idea of

resistance. Max Horkheimer's early ideas reflected the thoughts of the Marxist revolution, but

he later parted ways with Marxist theory and believed education, not class antagonism, would

be the initiator of resistance and the revolution. According to Horkheimer (1972), the current

education system is controlled by the ideology of traditional theory, which depends on empirical

facts to determine outcomes. Empirical theory is prevalent in society through the promotion of









production and technology, which Horkheimer called an all-powerful "unitary system of

science" (1972, p. 198). He asserted that education can emancipate and transform only if it

examines the unitary system of science and expands knowledge using a critical theory lens

and identifying hegemonic controls. The teaching of content that represents the reality of a

socially unjust society and knowledge about how to make changes are necessary for social

responsibility and emancipatory political activism (resistance to hegemonic forces from the

ruling class) (Horkheimer & Adorno, 1972). Horkheimer's resistance was an intellectual

endeavor that led to emancipation from hegemony and resulted in a critically educated

population rising up against a socially unjust government and economic system.

Juirgen Habermas (1991), considered one of the most influential members of the Frankfurt

School, viewed the media as creating culture and selling it to the masses, molding their ideas to

help maintain the status quo of the ruling class. To overcome this hegemony, Habermas argued

that we need to bring small public spheres together to critically examine and reflect on social,

economic, and political ideologies. Habermas (1998) favored a form of critical communication in

which individuals come together and critically examine the perspective of each person in order to

reach an understanding in which all participate. This form of resistance appears to have two

expressions: the first when individuals come together to resist the hegemonic forces of the ruling

class through critical dialogue, and the second when the collective understanding is established,

which leads to resistant action in the political realm. For Habermas, resistance was a collective

act. Like Horkheimer, resistance as defined by Habermas required self-reflection and critique,

involved groups of people, and had as its goal changing government action to address

injustices.









Theodor Adorno's (1984) view of oppression departed from other critical theorists in that

he viewed it as an individual experience and was unable to formulate an idea or theory for

collective struggle and resistance. Adorno (1984), a German philosopher and graduate of Johann

Wolfgang Goethe University in Frankfurt, argued that people are socially constructed by the

culture industry (media), which reinforces hegemonic patterns in society. This led him to assert

that oppression is experienced individually, not collectively, and resulted in "the necessity

inherent in the system not to leave the customer alone, not for a moment to allow him any

suspicion that resistance is possible" (Horkheimer & Adorno, 1972, p. 12). For Adorno,

resistance was an individual act that led to the emancipation of the individual from hegemony.

This idea fits well in the classroom since resistant behavior is often committed by individuals.

The traditional structure of classrooms in the United States, in which students are trained to

succeed as individuals and not as part of a group, might prevent students who are experiencing

similar oppressive acts from teachers and administrators from uniting in their resistance

(McLaren, 1986). What placed Adorno's resistance as critical was the need for self-reflection

and critique that can lead to emancipation of the individual.

Georg Lukacs (1989), a Marxist philosopher, stated that the ultimate objective for

resistance is to create a society in which oppressor and oppressed no longer exist. According to

Lukacs (1972), the "only valid yardstick is whether the manner of the action in a given case

serves to realize this goal" (p. 4). Acts of resistance would have to be for the purpose of creating

a more just society: "The class struggle of the proletariat is not merely a class struggle... but a

means whereby humanity liberates itself, a means to the true beginning of human history"

(Lukacs, 1972, p. 5). Lukacs did not view resistance as an individual act but, like Habermas,

defined it as a collective act with political change and social justice as the goal.









Herbert Marcuse taught at the Frankfurt School for one year and left when Hitler came into

power, traveling to the United States to teach at Columbia University and then at the University

of California in San Diego. Marcuse (1991) argued that language is used to control the masses.

He referred to Orwellian language-the newspeakk" George Orwell used in his book 1984-as a

one dimensional language used by government, capitalists, and media to misrepresent and

suppress social contradictions and problems. In doing this, public thought and discourse are

restricted to the terminology and discourse put forth by the ruling class (Marcuse, 1991). This

creates a "one-dimensional" mode of thinking and acting in which critical thought and resistance

to the status quo are unimportant. Marcuse (1991) believed radical thinking and oppositional

behavior (resistance) could resurface among populations outside of the ruling class, like minority

groups and radical academics, but there was a level of education that needed to take place. For

Marcuse, resistance did not occur until the oppressed were educated regarding the hegemonic

controls placed on them by those in power. Resistance was a deliberate and conscious act with

the intention of emancipation and a change in the political, economic, and social power

structures.

Italian political philosopher Antonio Gramsci (1971) believed a "war of position" needed

to take place before a "war of movement" would be successful (pp. 238-239). A war of position

entailed providing a moral and intellectual direction for the working class that would undermine

the false consciousness created through hegemony (Gramsci, 1971). Gramsci's (1971)

philosophy ofpraxis would expose and reject the deceptions that maintain the hegemonic

controls of the ruling class through a critique of the contradictions in history. For Gramsci, the

goal of resistance was to gain political power for the purpose of political change, which is done









not by individuals but through organized groups of marginalized people and requires critical

inquiry and self-reflection.

Paulo Freire was an internationally known critical theorist and educator who believed

education should be a liberating force for overcoming hegemony (Freire, 1998). Like Habermas,

Freire (1993) believed self-reflection and dialogue are necessary to examine power structures in

society and uncover assumptions taught by the dominate culture for the purpose of maintaining

hegemony. Freire's (1993) cc, i,,niiz:t iu' (conscientization) is the act of discovering why power

structures are the way they are and taking transforming action to change them. Through

conscientization, we not only question our assumptions but we liberate ourselves from hegemonic

influences. Critical dialogue was the first step to enlightenment, liberation and resistance to the

hegemonic structure (Freire, 1993). Freire (1998) believed resistance was indispensable to the

process of humanization. His pedagogy of indignation is defined as when educators and the

oppressed become indignant due to historical circumstances and resist the power structure that the

dominant class has imposed (Freire, 2004). For Freire, resistance combined a critical examination

of hegemony through dialogue with action that empowers the oppressed. This is not accomplished

by individuals, as Adorno believed, but by groups coming together to work for social justice.

Freire's goal was to teach poverty stricken adults in Brazil how to read so they could become

politically active and resist the powerful wealthy elite who controlled government.

Henry Giroux is considered one of the founding theorists of critical pedagogy, which is

based on critical theory. Like Horkheimer, critical pedagogues view critical education as

necessary for the emancipation of the oppressed and to bring about social justice. Giroux (2001)

defined resistance as "moral and political indignation" that occurred when a student's lived

experience conflicts with the structures of domination and constraint found in the classroom (p.









107). A student's lived experience would include cultural elements, such as race/ethnicity,

gender, socioeconomic status, religion, and age. Giroux's definition rejected traditional

explanations of school failure-deviant behavior, individual inadequacy, learned helplessness,

and genetic causes-and instead examined the power issues in education. According to Giroux

(2001), emancipation became a guiding interest in acts of resistance. Like the critical theorists,

he stated that oppositional behavior must include a critique of power structures and an element of

self-reflection; actions that appear to challenge authority may not be acts of resistance due to the

lack of an analysis of the power structure or purpose of emancipation. Giroux (2001) said true

acts of resistance create "an interest in radical consciousness-raising and collective critical

action" (p. 110). For Giroux, resistance was more than an act against hegemonic power

structures; it was also an act toward self-reflection and freedom from hegemony. Resistance for

Giroux required collective action directed at the power structure of traditional education,

including both the social and political structures. His goal was to disrupt the hegemony prevalent

in education and society.

Studies of critical resistance in schools and classrooms are scarce, but examples can be

found. In March, 2006, students across the U.S. walked out of classrooms to protest an

immigration bill that was under debate in Congress. The walk-outs and protest marches were

organized quickly through the use of cell phones and the Internet and some middle and high

school students risked punishment from school administrators. The majority of the student

protesters were students whose families were recent immigrants and wanted their voices to be

heard.

Christian Dorn, 16, a Salvadoran and a junior at Potomac High School in Dumfries, said
the demonstrations had proved something. "It got the word out that we're not going to be
quiet," she said. "It's similar to what the African Americans did in the 1960s. We
shouldn't be treated like criminals." (Bahrampour & Glod, 2006)









Oddly enough, on the same day students took to the streets in the U.S., students in France were

participating in their sixth day of protest against the contract de premiere embauche (CPE), a

labor law that allowed employers to fire employees age 26 and younger in their first two years of

employment without giving a reason. Due to the tradition of protest in France, this was a more

organized act of resistance. Labor unions, civil workers, and the Socialist party supported the

student protests and said the new law discriminated against youth.

Vincent Camroux, a young student leader helping to organize the demonstrations...
bewails what he calls "the immobilism" of French society, where business, politics, and
the unions are full of people over 50, unwilling to make way for younger generations. "I
am ambitious," he says. "I want jobs from which I will learn, that will be fulfilling." Most
of the people he knows who will graduate this summer, though, face an endless series of
unpaid internships or short-term contracts that don't lead anywhere. (Ford, 2006)

These protests, and others like them, are examples of critical resistance due to the focus on social

justice, the knowledge expressed (by some students) that indicates the use of critical inquiry and

self-reflection, and the goal of emancipating oppressed groups.

Cultural Resistance

The White, Eurocentric, middle-upper class culture reflected in most U.S. schools often

conflicts with the cultural lives of students who are not members of this group. Critical

pedagogues view student actions that work against the culture of schools as resistant behavior.

Kindergartners who "act out" due to their discomfort with an environment unlike their home

environment and high school students who inflict acts of violence against teachers for the same

reason are both labeled resistant by researchers. These students are members of oppressed

groups, usually specific ethnic groups, but they do not always practice the critical inquiry or

self-reflection necessary to understand the hegemony that maintains an unjust power structure

and prevents social justice and emancipation. The lack of critique by students does not lessen the

importance of their actions but might indicate their sense of unfairness or injustice in the current









education system. This is cultural resistance: it is motivated by cultural hegemony, can be

actions of individuals or groups, may or may not include critical inquiry and self-reflection, and

focuses on the need for social change in a specific environment, but not broad political changes.

Peter McLaren's (1986) definition of resistance in the classroom was consistent with

cultural resistance: "oppositional student behavior that has symbolic, historical and lived

meaning and which contests the legitimacy, power and significance of school culture in general,

and instruction in particular" (p. 142). The purpose of resistance, according to McLaren (1986),

was to erode the authority of the teacher-breaking rules was a logical response to oppression

and usually occurred when the "authoritarianism of the teacher became too much to bear" (p.

144). McLaren studied both Italian and Portuguese working-class students in Canada and

African American students in the U.S. These students resisted the hegemonic controls of the

school because the "formal dominant culture of the classroom" did not reflect the "lived informal

culture of the streets" (McLaren, 1986, p. 143).

Due to the overwhelming evidence that most African Americans do not succeed

economically through the traditional White, Eurocentric, middle-upper class education system,

African American youth must find other ways to succeed (Delpit, 1996; hooks, 2002; Loewen,

1995). Their cultural identity system is not only "different from but in opposition to the social

identity of their White dominators" (McLaren, 2003, p. 228). For McLaren, this resistance can

have a negative effect by reinforcing the reproduction of the dominant social group because

students who choose to resist maintain their cultural identity but forfeit the educational options

that could change the power structure. When oppositional students decided to conform,

however, McLaren found they became less politically aware, less assertive, and assimilated to

White middle class expectations. McLaren does not appear to distinguish between resistance as









an individual act versus a group act; however, it is evident that he viewed social justice and

emancipation from hegemony as goals for student resistance. The critical inquiry and self-

reflection necessary for critical resistance were apparently lacking in McLaren's oppositional

youth and in those who conformed.

Jean Anyon's (1981) definition of resistance reflected the cultural attitudes prevalent

among working-class students, but like McLaren, did not appear to include critical inquiry or

self-reflection as necessary for resistant acts to take place. She found resistance to be a dominant

theme in working-class schools and observed resistance as both passive and active behaviors,

from children not responding to questions or not completing homework to children falling out of

chairs or stealing from each other. According to Anyon (1981), working class students were

given a basic education and taught to follow directions, which are prerequisites for the low-

paying jobs most of the students would fill after graduation, an example of how hegemony

prevents certain groups from moving out of poor economic circumstances. The goal of students

who resisted, according to Anyon, was to challenge a school environment that was culturally

uncomfortable, not to deliberately and consciously come together in a collective force to gain

emancipation or social justice. The resistance Anyon witnessed had similar negative results as

that observed by McLaren. In a similar study, Paul Willis (1988) observed male students in a

working-class school in England and found they harbored a strong resistance to the school

environment. According to Willis (1988), resistance was evident in their pension for flagrantly

breaking the rules or behaving in ways that reflected their home culture where practical

knowledge, not theoretical knowledge, was valued. Like McLaren, Willis believed these acts of

resistance engaged in by students did not include critical inquiry or self-reflection, but instead

helped maintain the power of the dominant social group.









As noted earlier, the absence of critical inquiry and self-reflection does not diminish the

actions of the students in any of the studies cited in this chapter. One must question if children

and youth engaging in what are defined as resistant acts, but who are unfamiliar with the

concepts of self-reflection and critical inquiry into hegemony, might not be acting upon a

subconscious need for fairness, which might also be interpreted as social justice. In a study of

kindergarten students, Brian McCadden (1998) observed that those whose cultures were most

different from the teacher's resisted the classroom structure more than other students. The

oppositional children had difficulty in an environment that was unlike their home environment,

creating discomfort that led to acts of resistance. Like McLaren, McCadden found these students

struggling with identity in an unfamiliar social and cultural structure. Similarly, Louis Miron

and Mickey Lauria (1995) defined student resistance as "a struggle for identity (self-

identification)" (p. 30). In their study of urban youth, they conclude that students were resisting

school culture in an attempt to retain their ethnic identity and not conform to the uniformity

imposed on them by schools. Again, this type of resistance did not produce self-reflection or

freedom from hegemonic social structures for the resisters, but instead aligns with McLaren's

idea that students in the oppressed or minority groups often resist the unfamiliar and

uncomfortable culture of the classroom.

Janelle Dance (2004) provided another examination of student resistance in her

ethnographic study of inner-city African American males. Dance (2004) observed that the

cultural norms of life outside of schools often conflict with the cultural norms inside of schools,

which dictate a "unique set of cultural norms and expectations upon students" (p. 39). Dance

(2004) found that most urban youth are not involved in the hardcore criminal activities of the

inner city, but will take on the dress, mannerisms, language, and dispositions of the "gangster"









(p. 6). This "tough front" is used partly as a way to protect themselves within their street culture

environment, but can also become an act of "rebellion and resistance" (Dance, 2004, p. 6). She

found that some teachers do not understand the environment the students come from and the

survival skills necessary for that environment and instead label African American students as

incompetent, unintelligent, or learning disabled. She observed that student opposition was more

frequent when it involved teachers and/or administrators who did not understand the situation

outside of school. Dance (2004) found students became oppositional due to "ethnic/cultural

devaluation, low educational expectations, race- and class-based discrimination, residential

segregation, urban poverty and deterioration, and pessimistic forecasts about [future] legal means

of employment" (p. 56). According to Dance (2004), Black youths from low income urban areas

start out with the same dreams as mainstream youth, but they are often rejected and labeled as

problems by police, schools, welfare agencies, and other institutions (including the media).

Dance (2004) concluded that this "constant mainstream rejection begins to weaken their resolve"

to hold onto mainstream dreams and goals and "deflates and levels aspirations" for most black

urban youth in their late teens and early twenties (p. 5).

This becomes the point of opposition-what they dream of is opposed by the mainstream

culture creating a situation in which they have to choose to overcome mainstream culture or

create an identity that will give them some sense of self-respect, even if that identity is

oppositional to mainstream culture. By creating an oppositional identity, resistance becomes part

of that identity. Dance's (2004) definition of resistance aligns with cultural resistance-acts

against a hegemonic education system that ignores cultural differences, but without critical

inquiry or self-reflection by students.









Dance's (2004) study is important to consider when examining the ten-year study by John

Devine. Devine (1996) found that many students in inner-city schools view violent acts,

disruptions, crude comments, and violent behavior as the norm. According to Devine, students

did not expect orderly classrooms with teachers who are engaging because that was not the

pattern of education they experienced in the past. What students expected were metal detectors

and body scans at the school entrance that would alert authorities to concealed weapons.

According to Devine (1996), "This power-police intrusion is happening within school space,

which was previously conceived as a sanctuary" (p. 27). What is most evident to Devine, and

possibly to students, is that their bodies were no longer their own. "These unrecognized rites of

passage, buried in the everyday routines of school life, are the means by which students are

socialized into a world in which violence is considered part of the normal order of things"

(Devine, 1996, p. 37).

Devine noted that Willis (1988) studied an organized, traditional school that gave students

something concrete to resist. The inner city schools Devine worked in were not traditional or

organized and bore little resemblance to the established structure of Willis's school. According

to Devine (1996), the schools were an "intimidating space beyond the control of teachers,

'secured' by guards, and reinforced by armed police who routinely handcuff students," giving

students no structure to resist (pp. 136-137). The school was fragmented by the violent

environment outside and the perceived need by administrators to create a security system

patterned after maximum security prisons-a framework that expected violent behavior by

students. Devine believed students needed and sought a traditionally structured framework

within the school to help develop their identities. Finding only a framework of violence, they

were compelled to find their identity in some way within a broken, shattered system controlled as









a police state. Devine's claim that these schools did not have a structure to resist against might be

misleading. The schools he studied did not have the traditional structure of schools but they did

have a structure-one based on the hegemonic structure of prisons. Students may have been

resisting this structure and further research might reveal a new aspect of student resistance.

Like McLaren, Devine (1996) was quick to emphasize the role of students in producing the

resistance or violence themselves. Devine concluded that the traditional moral and virtuous

teachings Giroux (2001) dismisses as hegemonic are what is necessary in the schools he studied.

Devine pointed out that the topic of real violence in schools is not mentioned in Giroux's work,

as if it did not exist, and more specifically the fact that students often commit these violent acts.

The premises of social reproduction theory lead to a logical conclusion its authors fail to
appreciate: street culture in the school, rooted in the injustices of hegemony, possesses its
own (de)formative power that is capable of transforming the student into an instrument of
its own making, an instrument of violence. (Devine, 1996, p. 135)

It appeared that Devine viewed resistance as a conscious act by students in reaction to their

environment-they were trained to engage in acts of violence through constant exposure to street

violence and the police state that inhabited the school. He identified multiple social, economic,

and political reasons for these conditions, but, like McLaren, refused to view students as

innocent partakers in acts of resistance. As established previously, for oppositional acts to be

considered resistance they must be based on the tension between an oppressed group and a

dominant group exerting its power. In Devine's study, the students were still the oppressed

group. The use of police tactics in the school sent a message to students: poor people of color are

violent and unable to discipline their own behavior so they must be controlled by the state. The

"state" becomes the dominant group that students resist, but they still find no support in schools

that are not equipped to address larger economic (i.e., joblessness, homelessness) and social

issues of the community. Students resisted the culture of the police state that invaded the school.









Another study that requires examination comes from Daniel McFarland. McFarland (2001)

studied 36 classrooms in two schools and concluded that social networks and status among

students was a strong factor in the level of resistance engaged in by students. McFarland (2001)

defined resistance as "when the pupil initiates a vocalization or gesture that is meant as a

negative expression of discontent, challenge, or refusal, and it is aimed at undermining either the

task or the teacher" (pp. 632-633). Teachers and students recognize the acts as "profane

communication" and there is either a verbal or nonverbal response by teachers and/or students

(McFarland, 2001, p. 633). McFarland called these "active forms of everyday resistance" that are

transformative:

Thus, acts of resistance are observed as intentional, publicly displayed forms of student-
initiated profanations of classroom academic affairs-whether in the form of refusal,
challenge, insult, personal ridicule, or loud complaint-all are recognized by the class as a
breach, and most are redressed by the teacher or some other academically oriented
participant of the class. (2001, pp. 633-634)

McFarland (2001) claimed that previous studies of student resistance neglected the social and

academic structure of the classroom that might help explain resistant behavior that was not a

result of cultural background. He concluded that social networks within classrooms gave

students the support for acts of resistance and encouraged them to continue. While he admitted

that students bring "a wide array of cultural tools and dispositions defined by their backgrounds,"

he observed acts of resistance initiated more by the tasks and social arrangements of the

classroom then by a student's cultural background (McFarland, 2001, p. 616).

McFarland's (2001) statement that youth are a "disaffected class or subculture in relation

to adults" appears to explain the hegemony in the classroom that initiated resistance, and peer

support helped escalate these resistant acts (p. 616). The powerlessness of students is part of the

hegemony of schools, where teachers and administrators control the lives of students, from what

they learn to when they visit the bathrooms. In one high school classroom, McFarland observed









both Black and White students resisting the teacher's academic structure of the classroom due to

their frustration with the inability of the teacher to teach the subject matter in a way that students

could understand. The resistance was first observed as individual acts, but as the year continued

students were more supportive of their fellow-students' acts of resistance, and some of the

students became more openly defiant. There appeared to be a sense of injustice among students

in that they were not being taught the content as they believed they should be-they were not

receiving the knowledge they believed they were entitled to-and they united, although loosely,

in their resistance to the classroom teacher. McFarland's (2001) study reflected cultural

resistance because he concluded that students were responding to their powerlessness as

members of an oppressed group in schools-as students they were viewed as immature and

unable to make intelligent decisions about classroom instruction.

It could be argued that the classification of students as resisting when they are unaware of

the critical inquiry and self-reflection that is so much a part of resistant ideology contradicts

resistance theory. What is important to consider is the location of power. Students from

oppressed groups who engage in acts of resistance, even without the experience of critical

inquiry or self-reflection, are trying to disrupt hegemony and gain power in the classroom for

their own group. They may sense the unfairness created in the classroom toward members of

their oppressed group but are unfamiliar with the practices of critical inquiry and self-reflection.

The students' lack of critical inquiry and self-reflection is a direct result of hegemony in the

education system. The students are engaging in resistant behavior in an attempt to bring the

"other" (i.e., themselves) into the center of the curriculum and classroom while the teacher or

school is trying to maintain the hegemony of the education system. The power rests with the

teacher or school.









Counter Resistance

Recent studies examine the resistance of students from the White, Eurocentric, middle-

upper class. In classrooms where teachers remove Whiteness from the center of the curriculum

and teach a culturally diverse content, students who are members of the dominant group can

become uncomfortable and engage in acts of resistance. The difference between cultural

resistance and this form of resistance is the goal. As noted earlier, most classrooms and schools

in the U.S. reflect the White, Eurocentric, middle-upper class culture. Teachers who decenter

cultural norms and teach a culturally diverse curriculum are countering hegemony by resisting

the traditional school environment and curriculum. Students who resist the critical examination

and reflection used by teachers to uncover hegemony and introduce social justice are working

against the resistant actions of the teacher. They are countering the teacher's resistance with an

attempt to maintain hegemony. This is counter resistance: it is motivated by a desire to maintain

hegemony, can be actions of individuals or groups, and works against critical inquiry and self-

reflection.

Studies indicate that counter resistance is exhibited by students in college classrooms.

Angela Haddad and Leonard Lieberman (2002) taught an introductory honors sociology course

for undergraduates in which all of the students self-identified as White, rural, middle class.

Haddad and Lieberman (2002) concluded that due to the students' lack of experience with

domination (because they are member of the dominating group), teaching about oppression and

domination of other groups resulted in student resistance to scientific and theoretical

information. According to Haddad and Lieberman (2002), "Discussions about the flaws of

standardized tests, the social advantages of dominant groups, and the social myth of meritocracy

and individualism most likely created discomfort and cognitive dissonance" (p. 332). They









found that students reduced social issues to moral choices, believing their "norm" was the

legitimate and natural interpretation of the issues.

Nancy Davis (1992) observed acts of resistance among her White middle class college

students when they denied the existence of race, class, and gender inequalities. She found that

students believed individual choices were responsible for poverty and unemployment, not

hegemonic societal structures. She noted that her students' lives at home, which often reflected

stereotypical gender and social class roles, were at odds with what they were learning in the

classroom, and they resisted any interpretations of gender, race or ethnicity that required self-

reflection (Davis, 1992). Margaret Hunter and Kimberly Nettles (1999) taught a women's

studies course from the perspective of women of color and found that the majority of their

students, nearly all female, maintained "whiteness as the center of their analysis" (p. 386).

Hunter and Nettles (1999) concluded that the "displacement of whiteness from the center of the

course obviously made many students uncomfortable" (p. 388). Students claimed they were

being victimized due to the fact that they were White and conservative. They also observed

women of color resisting the course content and taking a standpoint of Whiteness, viewing

themselves through a White lens.

Teacher educators also witnessed resistance among prospective teachers from the dominant

group. Middleton (2002) found that White prospective teachers agreed that multicultural

education was important but could not comprehend what attitudes and skills were necessary for

effective teaching in culturally diverse classrooms. Grant and Gillette (2006) found some

prospective teachers were resistant to changing their teaching practices because they were ones

that worked well for them as students. Prospective teachers also had difficulty accepting

criticism and held biased and stereotypical beliefs about students from oppressed groups.









The student resistance in these college classrooms is similar to McLaren's (1983)

definition due to the contradiction between the students' lived cultural experiences of domination

both inside and outside the classroom, and the more critical nature of these particular college

classrooms. It does not, however, include the elements of emancipation or social justice on the

part of students. Those who are resisting are not resisting for the purpose of disrupting hegemony

and changing the balance of power to empower the oppressed. As part of the dominant group, the

students in these college classrooms resisted ideas and content that challenged the hegemony that

maintained their position as the dominant group. Applying the term resistance to the actions of

students who are members of the dominant group and who are not engaged in critical inquiry and

self-reflection seems to contradict the theoretical foundations of resistance. Once again, the

location of power must be examined. Students from the dominant group who engage in acts of

resistance to curriculum or teaching methods that challenge hegemony are trying to regain the

power they once had as the center of the curriculum and the dominant group. The power is

situated with students in the dominant group and the instructor, regardless of his or her group

membership, is challenging that hegemonic power structure. In this case, the person engaging in

resistant behavior is the instructor and the students are working to counter that resistance and

maintain hegemony.

Student Resistance: From Theory to Practice

This study will examine the various factors that explain student resistance in an internship

seminar at a large state university and how these factors may escalate and/or diminish resistance.

The purpose of examining resistance in classrooms is to better understand the power

relationships that initiate resistant acts and the implications this has for teacher education. The

review of literature is important to this study in that it provides a three-part conceptual

framework that may improve our understanding of resistance. For educators who work for social









justice, studies of resistance may reveal how to assist students in acquiring the critical inquiry

and self-reflection necessary for emancipation and the dismantling of hegemony in schools and

society, which is often lacking in current studies of students engaging in resistant behavior.

Studies of counter resistance may provide educators with a better understanding of why students

resist curriculum and methods that oppose hegemony, and how this type of resistance might be

addressed.









CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

Theoretical Perspective

The purpose of this study was to better understand student resistance by White students in

a secondary social studies internship seminar for prospective teachers by examining what might

explain resistant behavior and what causes it to escalate and/or diminish in the classroom.

Student resistance is a concept defined by critical pedagogues based on the writings of critical

theorists; therefore, this study will be conducted using a critical theory lens. The concept of

critical theory was first introduced by scholars at the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt,

Germany, also known as the Frankfurt School (Giroux, 2001; Jay, 1973). Critical theory

contends that all relationships are based on a power structure between dominant and oppressed

groups, and these power structures are influenced or created by economic, political and social

forces in society (Habermas, 1998; Horkheimer & Adorno, 1972; Laclau & Mouffe, 2001;

Marcuse, 1991).

Gramsci's (1971) ideas about hegemony are based on these complex power structures.

Hegemony describes the relationship between a historically dominant class, based on its

"position and function in the world of production," and the "great masses of the population," the

oppressed, who consent to the authority of the dominant class (p. 12). According to Gramsci

(1971), the dominant class maintains control over the masses through the exploitation of

education, religion, and popular culture. For critical theorists, the exploitation of the masses

begins in the education system where students are taught the ideology of the dominant class,

resulting in an education based on class status and not according to abilities of students or on an

equitable system of education (Althusser, 1971; Habermas, 1998; Horkheimer & Adorno, 1972).









Critical theory provided education with a method for critically examining accepted knowledge

and considering contradictory knowledge (Giroux, 2001).

Freire (1993) was one of the first educators to move critical theory into educational

practice, creating critical pedagogy. Freire and others borrowed ideas from the Frankfurt School

to develop emancipatory education, which challenges hegemony in the education system and in

society while moving toward action for social justice (Darling-Hammond, French & Garcia-

Lopez, 2002; Cochran-Smith, Davis, & Fries, 2004; Giroux, 2001; hooks, 1994; Howard, 2003;

McLaren, 2003; Shor, 1992). Freire (1993) defined the term ciu, ieitiz,',i (conscientization)

to mean "learning to perceive social, political, and economic contradictions, and to take action

against the oppressive elements of reality" (p. 35). He advocated the use of reflection and

dialogue to explore, identify, and overcome oppressive ideology. According to Freire (1998), we

are constructed, deconstructed, and reconstructed through dialogue-through what happens

when people meet to exchange ideas and alter the oppressive effects of those ideas. Dialogue

should not exclude conflict but embrace it and work to overcome it, resulting in an open form of

education that critically examines all ideas and beliefs.

Giroux (2001), influenced by the writings of Freire, advocated an education system for

social justice and "political intervention" (p. xxvii). According to Giroux, schools use the hidden

curriculum to teach ideas that perpetuate the power of the dominant class and maintain

hegemonic relationships. Giroux (2001) and other critical theorists believe educators should

critique the hegemony within schools (Freire, 1993; Horkheimer & Adorno, 1972; McLaren,

2003; Shor, 1992). Giroux maintained that schools are responsible for preparing students to not

only develop a critical self-reflective stance, but also to teach students how to live in a

democracy. Giroux called this a "radical pedagogy" that engages students in a critical discourse









of social class structure, examining who benefits and who is harmed by current power structures

(2001, p. 115).

Research based on critical theory questions the power structures that exist in society and

initiates action that will bring about social justice (Crotty, 1998). The issues of power and

oppression guide the researcher in her quest to uncover injustice and hegemonic relationships.

According to Michael Crotty (1998), critical inquiry is a type of praxis that searches for

knowledge that emancipates the learner from participating in hegemony. The use of reflective

thinking, dialogue, and action for change guide the methods of critical inquiry.

Methodology

In the first stage of this study, data were collected through classroom observations to

identify acts of resistance by students within the internship seminar. Students often resist in ways

that defy teacher and administrative authority because they are assigned positions of

powerlessness in the classroom (Cochran-Smith, 2004; Freire, 1993; McCotter, 1999; Shor and

Freire, 2003). However, other acts of resistance can be due to social class, ethnic, gender or other

biases students bring with them to the classroom (Haddad & Lieberman, 2002; Michalove, 1999;

Shor, 1992). For the purpose of this study, resistant behavior is defined as passive and/or

aggressive behavior in response to the content and/or methods used by the instructor with the

purpose of changing the balance of power in the classroom and/or challenging the authority of

the teacher as the professional educator. Resistant behaviors could include, but are not limited to,

vocal protests to course assignments, actions that disrupt the class and challenge the teacher's

authority, or disengagement during class activities. Through the observations, four students were

identified as engaging in resistant behavior and agreed to participate in the study.

In the second stage of the study, data were collected through observations of and interviews with

student participants and the course instructor. Observations of the participants' interactions with









the instructor and with each other offered data regarding what might explain resistance in this

internship seminar. Interviews provided data for analysis and an opportunity to engage

participants in reflective dialogue about their behavior in the social studies internship seminar.

Through critical analysis, self-reflection, problem-posing, and dialogue educators can better

understand what motivates resistance among prospective teachers and can address these issues

with prospective teachers (Cochran-Smith, 2004; Freire, 1993; McLaren, 2003; Shor, 1992).

Study Design

The purpose of this study is to explain the phenomenon of prospective teachers'

resistance in a secondary social studies internship seminar. With this in mind, the study was

designed so the social context of the study and the participants' beliefs and perceptions could be

considered together. The types of data collected and the analysis methods used allowed the

researcher to consider how the classroom environment and the expectations of the teacher

education program combined with the perceptions of participants as described in interviews.

Context of the Study

The study took place at a college of education in a large southeastern university. The

university is located in a city with a population of about 95,000 people (United States Census

Bureau, 2000). Of the 98% of the total city population that classified themselves as being from

one race, about 68% were White, 23% were Black, 5% were Asian, 2% were Other, and less than

1% were American Indian/Alaskan Native. About 6% of the total population classified

themselves as Hispanic/Latino or mixed ethnicity with Hispanic/Latino. In 2000, the median

household income was about $28,000 and the median family income was about $44,000. The

school populations are a more revealing aspect of the community. When the public elementary

schools that serve the city's students are located on a map, the percentage of White students in

the schools decreases the further east the school is located and the percentage of Black students









increases.1 A similar pattern occurs with the percentage of students qualifying for free and

reduced lunch-the further east the school is located the higher the percentage of students who

qualify for free and reduced lunch, which means schools on the east side of the city serve

families in the lower economic groups. The city where the university is located is divided

between east and west, with a higher population of White, economically wealthier students living

in the west and a higher population of Black, economically poorer students living in the east.

This racially and economically divided environment is where students in the social studies

internship seminar lived and completed their internships in schools.

The university and College of Education populations do not reflect that of the city. In

2000, the same year as the census and school data, the university had a population of about

46,000.2 Of those students, 69% were White, 7% were Black, 10 % Hispanic/Latino, 6% were

Asian, less than 1% were American Indian, and 5% were non-resident aliens, probably foreign-

born students. About 1% of all students entering the university did not report their ethnicity. In

the college of education, 81% of the 1,885 students enrolled in 2000 were White, 7% were

Black, 7% were Hispanic/Latino, and 6% classified themselves as other. The population of the

city was more diverse than the university and college population.

The secondary social studies internship seminar, where observations took place, was

designed to help support prospective teachers who are completing their internships in the area

schools. The course is required for graduation from a master's program in the College of

Education's secondary social studies teaching program. The social studies teacher education

program is a one year master's program in which students complete four semesters of

1 All school information on ethnic populations and free/reduced lunch percentages was obtained from the Public
School Accountability Reports, 2000-2001, through the county school board.
2 All university and college information on ethnic populations was obtained from the Office of Institutional Planning
and Research at the university.









coursework (36 credits) in fifteen months. Students entering the program have already earned a

degree in a social studies field and have completed a required number of credits in specific

courses, including history, political science, economics, geography, sociology, psychology and

anthropology. Prior to teacher certification, students are required to successfully complete two

three-credit undergraduate courses-"The Adolescent" and one ESOL course, "ESOL Strategies

for Content Areas" or "Secondary ESOL Teaching Strategies." Graduate coursework in the

program included courses on classroom management, teaching methods, technology in the

classroom, reading in the content area, and two experiences in public school classrooms-a part-

time practicum and a full-time teaching internship. The internship was completed while taking

the social studies internship seminar that was observed in the spring.

The instructor of the internship seminar was a doctoral student who had taught

undergraduate and graduate level methods courses for three years. She divided the course into

three units: (1) The Importance of Classroom Teachers, (2) Fostering Success in the Student

Teacher Experience, and (3) Preparing to Become a Professional Educator. Throughout the first

two units, prospective teachers were expected to reflect on their experiences as interns, in

particular possible reasons for successes and failures in their teaching. The first unit of the

course, The Importance of Classroom Teachers, focused on stories of successful teachers, most

in diverse schools located in high-poverty communities, and supported teaching for social

justice. Multicultural classrooms, culturally responsive teaching, critical friends, equity and

excellence, a no-excuses teaching philosophy, and democratic classrooms were topics for

readings and discussion (see Appendix B for reading list). The second unit of the course,

Fostering Success in the Student Teacher Experience, focused on state requirements for teachers

and the internship experience. The third unit of the course, Preparing to Become a Professional









Educator, provided instruction on preparing resumes and portfolios, interviewing skills, and

balancing one's professional and personal life.

Study Participants and Selection

The class was a cohort of 29 students, 20 male and 9 female. As stated earlier, 26 students

were self-classified as White/Caucasian, two as Hispanic, and one as Persian. They were in the

second semester of a 15-month master's program for secondary social studies education. This

particular cohort of prospective teachers was chosen for the study based on observations by two

instructors who taught the students in the first semester of the program. The instructors expressed

concern because they perceived that some of the students exhibited "resistance" to course

content and the instructors' authority. As mentioned earlier, the process of participant selection

began with classroom observations; four students were observed by the researcher as engaging in

passive and/or active actions that disrupted the balance of power in the classroom and/or

challenged the authority of the instructor. These oppositional acts included, but were not limited

to, refusing to complete assignments, making comments that disrupted the class or assigned

group task, appearing frustrated or bored, challenging the program's curriculum or objectives,

challenging the authority of the instructor, and disengagement with classroom instruction or

activities. Resistance was also determined not by the intensity of the oppositional behavior, but

by repetition of the behavior over time. The four students were invited to participate in the study

and told that their participation was completely voluntary and that they could withdraw from the

study at any time.

The four participants were White males ranging in age from 24 to 38 and originally from

the midwestern United States. One had just completed his undergraduate degree when he was

accepted in the teacher education program, one worked as a substitute teacher for a year before









applying to the teacher education program, and two were returning to college after working in

other fields.

Acts of Resistance in the Classroom

Each of the four participants displayed similar acts of resistance in the internship seminar,

including facial expressions that showed disgust, discontent, frustration and boredom. William's

acts of resistance in the classroom also consisted of vocal disagreements with the content taught,

sarcastic comments that disrupted the class, and body language that appeared to disconnect him

from the class (his back turned to the instructor while she was talking or slumping in his chair

and attending to something other than the instructor). Kenneth's resistance also included

vocalized opposition. He consistently helped pull his small group off task and voiced his

opposition to methods used by the instructor and to the readings about a no-excuses teaching

philosophy and democratic classroom practices. Henry's acts of resistance were made apparent

through facial expressions-he rolled his eyes or used an expression that appeared to imply that

the work was not worth his time. Like Kenneth, he expressed vocal displeasure with some of the

activities and when entering the classroom on one occasion and finding the desks in rows said,

"Thank you! Desks in rows-a real classroom." George's acts of resistance in the methods

course were made apparent through his body language-he often shook his head as if in disbelief

when engaging in some of the work, he put his head down on the desk or held his head in his

hands and looked down at the desk, appeared to check out mentally from the class, and he often

sat with his desk facing away from the overhead when the instructor was giving information to

the class. When the instructor asked students to open their notebooks, he would consistently

delay in doing this. In small groups, all four students expressed discontent and disagreement with

the methods and content used in the class and in the teacher education program. Their resistance









in the internship seminar was apparent, however, in both their vociferous complaints and in the

deafening silence of body language and facial expressions.

Data Collection

Two kinds of data were collected to address the research questions. Interviews, the primary

source of data, were conducted with the four participants. Observations of students during the

internship seminar were also conducted.

Observations

Observations of the secondary social studies internship seminar took place during the first

five weeks of the semester for three hours each week. These observations were detailed field

notes recorded in a notebook and included bracketed thoughts and questions from the researcher.

Observations were used to identify prospective teachers who would make suitable participants

for the study. Participants were selected in the third week of observations and then observations

focused specifically on interactions between the participants and the instructor. Observation data

were helpful when determining the triggers for resistance and what escalated or diminished it.

Observations also provided a context for much of the interview data and helped with

interpretation.

Interviews

Each participant was interviewed three times. The first interview provided a brief history

of each student, specifically their cultural background and experiences in schools. Student

resistance is often grounded in a student's culture and history ((Haddad & Lieberman, 2002;

McLaren, 2003; Michalove, 1999; Shor, 1992) so it was important to understand each

participant's sociohistorical context. The second and third interviews provided insight into the

acts of resistance observed in the classroom and into the beliefs that participants expressed in

previous interviews. All student interviews were semi-structured and open-ended in order to









enable the researcher to (1) understand the nature and dynamics of student resistance and (2)

stimulate participants' reflection on their resistance (Please see Appendix A for interview

protocol).

Data Analysis

Thematic Analysis

Observations were first analyzed thematically using J. Amos Hatch's (2002) inductive

analysis method, allowing the data to shape emerging themes. Similar to a puzzle, inductive

analysis identifies particular pieces and connects them with other pieces until a picture (theme)

emerges. Observation data were examined for passive and/or aggressive oppositional behavior of

students, such as refusing to complete assignments or voicing dissatisfaction with course

curriculum, which helped the researcher identify students who engaged in resistant acts. The

emerging themes also provided additional support for Discourses found in interviews since

Discourse includes not only language but also "action, interaction, values, beliefs" (Gee, 1999, p.

18).

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)

Discourse, according to James Gee (1999), is both spoken and written language and the

"other stuff" that creates who we are with a certain group of people or within a certain

community (p.7). Language creates rules that are followed for the purpose of communication

within certain social locations, like families and classrooms, but language is also political in

nature-it is used to reinforce the power and status of one group of people over another (Gee,

1999). This is the difference between what Gee calls "d"iscourse, conversations and stories, and

"D"iscourse, "clothes, gestures, actions, interactions, ways with things, symbols, tools,

technologies..., and values, attitudes, beliefs, and emotions..., and... places and time" (1999, p.

7). Discourse, with a capital "D," helps people identify with a social group or social network.









Discourse analysis (capital "D") examines a way of living and the words spoken are only part of

the data. For this reason, careful notes on elements such as location of interviews, participant

dress and mannerisms, gestures, and emotions were recorded in this study and included in the

analysis.

Discourse analysis considers five aspects of social interactions:

* Semiotic ("...language, gestures, images, or other symbolic systems")
* Activity ("... specific social activity... in which participants are engaging...")
* Material ("...place, time, bodies and objects...")
* Political ("... distribution of 'social goods'...")
* Sociocultural ("... personal, social, and cultural knowledge, feelings, values, identities, and
relationships...") (Gee, 1999, pp. 82-83)


Gee found these five aspects to be intertwined; however, discourse analysis from a critical theory

perspective uses a lens of power and naturally starts with the political aspect and the distribution

of power in the discourse.

According to Teun Van Dijk (2001), Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) "studies the way

social power abuse, dominance, and inequality are enacted, reproduced, and resisted by text and

talk in the social and political context" (p. 352). CDA attempts to explain the structure of

discourse in terms of social interactions and how discourse can "enact, confirm, legitimate,

reproduce, or challenge relations of power and dominance in society" (Van Dijk, 2001, p. 353).

For the purpose of this study, Fairclough's (1995) method of identifying ideology in language is

used. According to Fairclough, CDA "focuses on the effects of ideologies rather than questions

of truth" (1995, p. 25). The structure of ideology places it within "social conventions, norms,

histories" (Fairclough, 1995, p. 71). For example, the belief that students need to be controlled is

based on the ideology that humans of a certain age are naturally immature, impulsive, and

disobedient. This ideology helps sustain the power relations in schools in which administrators









and teachers have power over students, who are then rendered powerless. Ideology is found in

Discourse about past events but also in current events and in "the event itself" (Fairclough, 1995,

p. 72). Ideologies try to disguise themselves as common sense but are identified when they

"sustain or undermine power relations" (Fairclough, 1995, p. 82).

Fairclough's (1995) method of CDA was used to analyze interview and observation data,

identifying the codes of Discourse that might explain the ideology of student resisters in the

internship seminar. Codes of Discourse are the rules people follow that identify them as

belonging to a certain social group or network. In this study, the rules of language, values,

beliefs, mannerisms, interactions, gestures, symbols, tools, dress, and location were evident in

the observations and interviews. In the analysis process, interview data were divided into lines,

each line representing a separate thought. Within each line, or thought, the word that had the

strongest intonation was italicized indicating the emphasis the speaker made in this thought. For

example, one participant said,

I did something extremely stupid a month or so ago
where I was so tired
and I did something disrespectful (W3)

The emphasis was placed three times on the word 'I' indicating the participant took

responsibility for his actions. If the emphasis had been placed on 'month,' 'tired,' and 'did,' it

would require a different interpretation. The 'month' might emphasize a past time that maybe

should be forgotten along with the disrespectful act. His condition ('tired') might be an excuse

and an avoidance of responsibility. The act itself ('did') focuses on what was done and not the

person who did it, also a possible avoidance of blame. The word with the strongest intonation,

therefore, helps explain the meaning behind the discourse. Throughout this study, words in italics

indicate the strongest intonation and the emphasis of the participant. In addition, excerpts from

interviews that are in block quotes used punctuation as follows:









comma (,): a short pause, two seconds or less
ellipses (...): a long pause, three seconds or more
long (em) dash (-): an abrupt interruption of the flow of words

The only other punctuation used are capitalizations of proper nouns and question marks to

indicate a question, usually posed by the researcher.

The first student interviews were used to gain knowledge of the participants' cultural and

educational history. The second and third interviews focused on the resistant behavior engaged in

by participants and were analyzed using CDA. The interviews were listened to and read using a

critical lens, allowing the analysis to focus only on those parts reflecting hegemony.

According to Gee:

Besides seeing that methods change with theories, it is also important to see that research,
whether in physics, literary criticism, or in discourse analysis, is not an algorithmic
procedure, a set of "rules" that can be followed step-by-linear-step to get guaranteed
"results." ...Rather, research adopts and adapts specific tools of inquiry and strategies for
implementing them. These tools and strategies ultimately reside in a "community of
practice" formed by those engaged in such research. Such tools and strategies are
continually and flexibly adapted to specific issues, problems, and contexts of study. They
are continually transformed as they are applied in practice. (Gee, 1999, p.6)

This study was true to the principles of CDA as discussed by Fairclough (1995) but the process

of data collection and analysis were "transformed as they applied" to this study. This is explained

more fully in the next section and the use of multiple methodologies during analysis.

Trustworthiness of the Study

Various techniques were used to insure the trustworthiness of this study. Triangulation of

data sources occurred through the use of observations, interviews, and peer review. The use of

multiple methodological perspectives provided different lenses for interpreting data.

Triangulation of data

As noted earlier, there were five observations of the social studies internship seminar.

Observations are important in understanding the context of the Discourse on resistance









(Fairclough, 1995; Gee, 1999). Observations were first analyzed using Hatch's thematic analysis

in which the data revealed themes of resistance behavior. Once participants were identified, new

observation data were analyzed using critical discourse analysis. Interviews provided

opportunities for participants to explain the behavior observed in the internship seminar. These

clarifications were important for understanding their beliefs about teaching, which helped

identify their ideologies. The use of peer reviewers can help prevent researcher bias. Data from

this study were presented multiple times to a small group of qualitative research methodologists

who met regularly to share research and discuss analysis methods and findings. The members of

the peer review group were doctoral students and professors from different departments across

the university. The dissertation committee chair was another peer reviewer, and we met regularly

throughout the data collection and analysis process.

Multiple methodological perspectives

Fairclough (1995) stated that his method of discourse analysis can be used in conjunction

with other qualitative methods, thereby increasing the trustworthiness of a study. The use of

multiple methods for analyzing data can increase trustworthiness when findings are similar when

using various methods of analysis. This increases the credibility of the data and the analysis. As

noted earlier, thematic analysis was used to analyze observation data prior to participant

selection. Findings from this analysis were based on critical theory and the definition of

resistance used in this study. Case study analysis was also used and cases were written for each

participant. This provided a rich examination of the data since each case was analyzed

thoroughly prior to identifying common and unique Discourses (see Appendix C for a sample

case study). Critical discourse analysis was the predominant method used to analyze data and

provided a third methodological approach. Trustworthiness was enhanced by using multiple









methodological perspectives and methods, including thematic analysis, critical discourse

analysis, and a rich analysis of individual participant data (case studies).

Limitations of the Study

There were many possible limitations to this study. First, all four participants were White

males from middle and middle-upper class families, which could limit transferability of the

findings. Second, the study was in one internship seminar at a college of education in a

university in the southeastern United States. Readers will need to determine if this study is

transferable to other disciplines and geographic areas. Finally, studies based on critical theory are

intended to look for power structures, which are defined by the researcher. Other researchers,

including critical theorists, may view the data differently and find valid interpretations different

from the ones presented here.

Subjectivity Statement

Subjectivity, or lack of objectivity, is apparent in all research, but especially qualitative

studies (Glesne, 1999). According to Corrine Glesne (1999), subjectivity should be monitored to

understand how it influences the study and to assure trustworthiness. By recognizing the various

lenses used to view the world, researchers can recognize and avoid bias. In this study, my own

personal lenses contributed strongly to my chosen research topic and theoretical perspective.

Sociohistorical context

My most vivid childhood memories involve events of social justice. As a child, I listened

to my working-class father argue against government and corporate actions that harmed those of

his own socioeconomic class. My father spent most dinners behind a newspaper, responding to

the articles that infuriated his views of social justice. I never participated in these monologues,

neither did my mother or three sisters, but his passion and logic somehow penetrated my

childlike thinking. At the age of six, I was already responding vociferously to acts of injustice. In









Sunday school, a fellow student claimed a molded plaster picture I had done the Sunday before

was hers. Her picture had been poorly molded and she wanted mine because it had fewer

imperfections. When I claimed the picture was mine, the teacher hushed me and gave it to the

girl. This girl was the minister's daughter and her word was taken over mine. Her initials were

on her plaster picture, but the teacher would not challenge the words of the minister's daughter

even with evidence. At the age of six, I expressed my outrage in knowing this girl was able to get

away with lying because her father was the minister.

In the first grade, I had a classmate who had what I believe now to be hydrocephalus.

Hydrocephalus is an accumulation of fluid in the brain and in an infant can result in an

enlargement of the head. The boy in my class who had this disease was teased incessantly by

some of our classmates because his head was abnormally large and oddly shaped. I remember

one day becoming angry and yelling at two boys who were teasing this student, and the teacher

had to intervene to calm me down. I doubt if I understood at the time why I did this. I only knew

it was unfair to treat another human being in this way. The boy and I soon became good friends,

and I have never forgotten him, although we lost touch when my family moved.

In the sixth grade, another more appalling example of injustice was made evident. My

sixth grade teacher was racist to an extent I did not realize at the time. Thinking back, I now see

how he placed all the blue-eyed blonde children in the center of the classroom, towards the front,

and the rest of us took places outside this exclusive circle. I attended a rural high-poverty school,

mostly White, and this class had only two students who were not White-an African American

boy and a Hispanic boy. The African American boy had learned to be silent to avoid punishment

but the Hispanic boy, new to the area, was often defiant and challenged the teacher.









Unfortunately, like Peter McLaren's (1986) oppositional students, this brought him more trouble

and he was often sent to the principal's office for punishment.

One day, as the class walked back to our classroom from the library, we passed the

principal's office. His door to the hallway was open, which was unusual, and I looked in. Sitting

in a chair in front of his desk was the principal with an expression of agitated disgust. Standing

to one side was my sixth grade teacher, a smile on his face and a paddle in his hand. Standing at

the desk with his back to the door, head bowed, and both hands holding the edge of the desk, was

the Hispanic student. The door was quickly closed by the principal, but the shock that

reverberated through me at that moment I still experience today when I visualize that scene. I do

not remember the walk back to the classroom or what happened for the remainder of the day, but

I told no one about what I saw. Later that year, this same teacher punished the entire class by

taking away recess for some trivial act, which was one of his consistent forms of discipline.

Having been reared by my father and the nightly news casts on Civil Rights and Vietnam War

protests, I whispered to the girls in front of me that we should have a sit-in. I had no idea that

those words would spark a movement, but nearly the entire class agreed and a time was set.

When the time came, almost the entire class moved out of their chairs and sat on the floor. The

teacher was shocked and proceeded to scream at us until his face was red. Some students

succumbed to his threats and returned to their chairs, but some of us remained on the floor,

resistant. He stormed out of the room and our appointed classroom lookout crept quietly to the

door to watch. When it was reported that he was returning with the principal, the entire class

returned quickly to their chairs an appeared to be completely immersed in the assigned work.

The teacher and principal entered the room. The principal looked around, looked at the teacher,









looked once more at the students, and left saying nothing. At the end of the school year, that

sixth grade teacher was transferred to another school.

Events like this one continued to shape my perspectives as I grew and now strongly

influence my research. The lens of gender and the lens of the working-class are also important to

how I perceive the world and this study, but they are both closely intertwined with the lens of

social justice. I consider my gender and my working-class roots significant because of my social

justice stance-they simply present hegemony of another kind. These perceptions will greatly

influence my research, so monitoring them is essential.

Monitoring subjectivity

Critical theory requires constant reflection, or what Freire (2004) calls conscientization.

The critical theorist must examine her own beliefs for possible oppressive elements and take

action to change oppressive beliefs (Freire, 2004). Journal writing is one strategy for monitoring

subjectivity (Glesne, 1999) and exposing beliefs that support hegemony. Through self-critique

and self-reflection, researchers are better able to define the areas of research that may reflect

their own biases. Glesne (1999) suggests paying close attention to emotions since they are an

indicator as to when we engage in our subjectivity.

Throughout this study, I maintained a journal to document possible subjective attitudes and

perceptions, the most dominant being my self-proclaimed title of a critical resister. It was during

data analysis that my social justice nature was stirred, and I became emotionally upset with the

statements of some of the participants. Their obvious bias against minority groups and the

attitude that students were less than human and not capable of participating in the workings of

classrooms and schools violated my own deeply held beliefs. I was both angry and discouraged

by these insistent claims from participants. In another instance, however, I was encouraged to see

some reflection and possible change in beliefs when one participant was faced with a difficult









internship experience. My desire was to highlight his experiences because he was being self-

reflective and engaging in critical inquiry. However, the changes were not taking place in the

internship seminar and his resistance was not disrupted, so I wondered if I placed too much

emphasis on these events because they appeared to be one small light in the darkness of

hegemony. To counter my emotions and desire to find some positive change among participants,

I focused even more closely on my research questions and repeated to myself, "What does this

have to do with resistance in this classroom?" By keeping that thought foremost in my mind, I

was able to move past my emotions and prejudices and focus on the data in a way that helped

answer my research question.

The real struggle for a critical theorist and self-proclaimed resister is to maintain some

objectivity in the midst of offensive subjectivity and open bias. The desire to intercede for the

students I knew these future teachers would be responsible for, and the desire to help a fellow

struggler toward an emancipatory stance, was very strong. However, to collect data that are as

objective as humanly possible is also necessary and my desires and objectives were, at times,

incompatible. I did ask questions that forced participants to reflect on their hegemonic beliefs

about the roles of teachers. Most of these questions were necessary to better understand their

beliefs, but some were intended to nudge participants toward critical inquiry and self-reflection

that might lead to a disruption of hegemony. I do not regret, however, having pushed the edges

of research and data collection toward an emancipatory stance even if data were sacrificed for

this purpose.









CHAPTER 4
CONTEXTS OF RESISTANCE

Preface

Resistance does not happen in a vacuum and the context in which it occurs can influence

escalating and diminishing factors (Fairclough, 1995; Gee, 1999). In this study, resistance acts

took place in an internship seminar at a large university. The context of the classroom, actions by

the teacher and researcher, and the sociohistorical context of the participants all influenced the

resistance engaged in by students.

The Context of the Classroom

The classroom used for the internship seminar was one of those nondescript classrooms

that are found in many schools and colleges. The carpet was brown and worn, the walls were

dreary beige, and the fluorescent lighting too dim to reach the front of the room, making it

difficult to read what was on the chalkboard. The room had six rows of desks and was meant to

seat about 50 students, which left little space in between desks for student movement. The desks

were the type in which the desk top is connected to the chair by a metal arm on one side, with

enough space between the desk top and chair for bodies of a certain size. When facing the front

of the room, there were large windows along the left wall with brown Venetian blinds that were

rarely open, and brown wooden cabinets below. The same inevitable brown cabinets were along

the right wall of the room with bulletin boards permanently mounted above the cabinets. The

doors from the outer hallway were on the wall to the right, one in the front and one in the back of

the room. The back wall was bare and the front wall had a bulletin board and chalkboard

permanently affixed. There was a long table centered in the front of the room and a podium to

the left that opened to reveal a computer. A digital projector hung from the ceiling and projected

onto a screen on the front wall that could be lowered electronically. For the first class meeting,









there was a small table in the front of the room covered in a decorative cloth and holding a plate

of cookies. Contemporary Hawaiian music played on a CD player. The cookies and music were

provided by Rachel, the instructor.

Before class, Rachel arranged 29 of the desks into a large circle. This created a dilemma

since the remaining desks had to be shoved into any space available and hindered access to the

circle. Students were required to maneuver their way to a desk by squeezing into the circle or

around the desks outside the circle. As students entered, Rachel greeted them and offered

cookies, which they took with gratitude. The class convened from 5:00 pm to 8:00 pm. On the

first day of class, Rachel began instruction at 5:06 pm by distributing a sheet of colored paper to

each student in the circle and asking them to write their name on the paper. She then instructed

them to pass the paper to the person on their right and each student will write one positive thing

the student named on the paper brings to the classroom. The papers were then passed around the

circle, with each student writing a positive comment on every other student's paper, until the

papers arrived to their owners. Some students snickered mockingly at the activity, but they were

cooperative, and as the papers were passed laughter was heard as students read what other wrote.

Rachel moved around the classroom, monitoring the movement of the paper and reading what

students wrote. She told students to "look forward when you're finished reading," but not all

students complied. When it appeared students were done reading, she asked them how this

activity made them feel and told them to answer that question "inside your head." She then asked

if this activity would be helpful to teachers and if they felt they could do this in their own

classrooms. Responses ranged from never using it to using it in certain classrooms to viewing it

as a powerful tool for positive feedback to students. Rachel then introduced interactive

notebooks and told students this would be the cover page for their notebooks. This was the first









meeting of the internship seminar and the activity took exactly 15 minutes, a testimony to

Rachel's highly organized and timed activities that would become a familiar pattern.

Rachel organized the internship seminar in three units: (1) The Importance of Classroom

Teachers, (2) Fostering Success in the Student Teacher Experience, and (3) Preparing to Become

a Professional Educator. The classes I observed during the first unit were a combination of group

activities and direct instruction, or lecture. Rachel timed each activity so there would be adequate

time to cover everything on her agenda for that day. Table 4-1 displays a schedule for one of the

classes I observed.

Table 4-1. Internship seminar class schedule, January 17, 2007
Time Activity
5:07 pm Class began: daily assignment and sign-in sheet on table at front of room;
interactive notebook table of contents on overhead; students were to glue page 10
in their notebook; desks were grouped for small group discussion
5:09 pm Review: Rachel reviewed assignment and notebook pages; question-answer time
about the notebook assignment
5:19 pm Announcements: Rachel explained changes to the syllabus and course expectations
5:22 pm Introduction of lesson: Rachel discussed how different teaching methods and
effective teaching was hard work and would be learned over time
5:25 pm Writing assignment 1: in notebooks "describe briefly your K-12 and college social
studies learning experience"
5:30 pm Writing assignment 2: in notebooks answer the question "What is a good social
studies teacher?" and highlight important words
5:35 pm Writing assignment 3: in notebooks answer the questions "How should social
studies be taught?"
5:40 pm Small groups: share responses to the three writing assignments
5:46 pm Whole class: discuss responses to the three writing assignments
5:54 pm Jigsaw: expert groups meet (students who have read the same assignment)
6:15 pm Jigsaw: jigsaw groups meet to share their readings and what they learned from
expert groups; Rachel directed them to draw a diagram in their notebooks and
organize the information from the jigsaw using this diagram (four circles
intersecting)
6:38 pm Break
6:58 pm Speakers: a teacher and administrator from local schools; speakers talked about their
work and what they believed about teaching; students asked questions; Rachel
had students write the speakers' beliefs about teaching
8:00 pm Class ended









Table 4-1 is representative of Rachel's classroom structure during the first unit of the course

when observations were completed. She was highly organized and this was reflected in her

classroom. She followed a schedule that allowed her to cover all the material planned for that

day.

The Context of the Instructor

In interviews, Rachel said she deliberately planned the internship seminar based on events

from the fall semester. She said students in her technology class were not interested in the theory

underlying effective teaching; they wanted only the practices necessary for teaching, so she

taught the practices and then connected the theory through written reflections on why the

practice was effective. She also said her observations of the prospective teachers in a graduate

teacher education course taught by another instructor convinced her that they did better in a class

that was "more businesslike" (R4). Rachel deliberately structured the class so the dominant

voices she witnessed in the fall would not have opportunities to dominate, but said this resulted

in her "being perceived as more authoritarian, which was not intended" (R4).

Rachel said the goal of the internship seminar was to prepare students as social studies

educators, "which means understanding democracy, understanding equity versus equality. This is

a class with content, not a support of [their] nine week internship" (R3). She said many students

resisted the course content and methods because they did not view it as relevant to their

internship. She chose the content based on discussions with instructors in the program who

indicated students had not yet grasped important themes and concepts of effective teaching and

needed more time with them. Rachel said she chose the methods so students could experience

them and learn how to use them in their own classrooms. She also hoped the methods would

model giving all students a voice.









Rachel grouped students so all the ones she identified as resisters, about eight students,

were in the same small groups. She then divided the remaining students based on personality, the

ability to understand difficult concepts, and their effective implementation of best teaching

practices based on their lesson plans from the technology course. She said a veteran professor in

the college suggested this type of grouping to avoid having the most vocal students dominate

discussions with students who were less vocal.

I did not want to spread those resisters out. I wanted their voice to be encapsulated
amongst their group to give the other people a chance to have their voices heard and to
have their ideas talked about. I hate to say this, but I almost wanted to silence their voice.
They dominated too long and I would love to see them change. I'm not sure it's the best
approach. (R1)

Rachel said the methods used in the internship seminar were meant to give voice to students who

were not as assertive in the classroom. Jigsaws were used in two other classes in the education

program but Rachel said prospective teachers did not made the connection between doing the

jigsaw and how they might employ the same method in their own classroom. Chalk talks were

used to help "give more of an even voice and orally silence some voices" (R3). Later, Rachel

said putting the resisters in the same groups gave them more power and was not beneficial. A

small group of students continued to dominate classroom discussion and, after complaints from

other students, she chose to "become more proactive" (R3). She restructured the groups, putting

the four participants in this study in one group so I could work with them and distributing the

remaining dominant voices among students she knew would not allow them to be the dominant

voice. She also started calling on students and deliberately directed the discussion to give all

students an opportunity to participate. She said she was accused of "micro-managing students"

and "telling them when to talk and how to talk" (R2).









In essence, it was the methods that were telling them this and the ones who didn't like the
methods were the ones who were criticizing. A minority of students objected to anything
that decentered the mainstream. It comes down to a respect issue. Some of the students
don't have respect for themselves, for their peers, or for me. (R3)

Rachel found the interactive notebook method was another major source of resistance. She used

the interactive notebook in her methods courses to help prospective teachers understand how to

teach organizational skills. The method is normally taught in the social studies methods course

but the instructor of that course, taught in the fall, asked Rachel to teach the method in the spring

due to the amount of material she had to cover. Rachel believed most students in the internship

seminar benefited from the notebook but those who resisted the method created such a

disturbance that she said, in retrospect, she should not have used the method with these students.

In my observations, Rachel did not take class time to discuss with prospective teachers

why she chose to use certain methods and how students might implement them in their own

classrooms. She said this discussion would take place in a methods course, but this was not a

methods course. In a later interview, however, she said her focus on the steps used in the

methods and not the reasons behind them was a mistake. Rachel said when she realized students

did not understand the methods she should have stopped and discussed the theory behind the

methods. Previous experience, however, led her to closely follow her agenda.

There might have been some fear in deviating from the plan because of the dynamics of the
class. My natural reaction was to pull in the reigns versus letting the reigns go. When I let
the reigns go, it often got messy, and I can't say it was productive messy. (R4)

Rachel's decision to consciously direct voices in the classroom was an attempt to limit the

dominate voices, which were mainly students identified as resisters. Teachers who take

advantage of their position of power in the classroom to control the behavior of students often

create a classroom environment in which resistance does not stop, but moves under the radar.









Resisters will comply with teacher expectations but their reasons for resisting, the underlying

ideology that supports the oppositional behavior, remains unchanged.

The Context of the Researcher

In my observations, I was puzzled by Rachel's practice of closely following her agenda

and abruptly ending discussions in which students were fully engaged. She was a colleague and

friend who shared my ideals of social justice, so her need to time classroom activities and limit

what I considered engaging discussions among students appeared to conflict with her belief in

democratic classroom practices. When observing the internship seminar, my own desire to resist

what I considered micro-management of students and instruction was very strong. I consciously

chose to accept her management of the internship seminar until there was evidence as to why she

conducted class in a way that I thought resulted in an escalation of resistance. After all, I was a

guest in her classroom. My observation notes, however, are filled with bracketed comments

about the instruction and what I considered hidden curriculum:

* Possible disconnect between this classroom organization method that would work in K-12
but not necessary in college [interactive notebooks]
* Rachel does not explain why she uses this method
* Students brought their own lens to their interpretations, needs to be questioned
* Explaining the methods is an important element missing in this class
* None of the speakers [current secondary level teachers] discussed why they were not
successful with a student; do they really know why and had they reflected on this
* Near the end of the activity Rachel makes her way around the classroom to listen to
discussions; the noise level drops; is this due to her presence?
* Her behavior reminds me of an elementary or middle school classroom; it's condescending
* This was a surprise notebook check, which is questionable since it places the teacher in the
position of power; students are at the teacher's mercy

By the fourth observation, I had chosen the four participants and joined their small group,

which is when my acts of resistance surfaced. During small groups, when students were

participating in chalk talks, there was supposed to be complete silence. When my group was

finished writing their comments, however, we began a whispered discussion of what they had









written. Rachel gave our group a look of reprimand and shushed us. Later, she asked if it would

be better if I worked with the participants in another room. Since the study focused on resistance

in the internship seminar, I thought it best to remain in the classroom but asked if we could bend

the rules a little regarding discussion. Rachel hesitated and then suggested we move to another

area of the classroom where we would be less of a distraction.

Prior to the study, Rachel and I agreed that I would join a small group to gather data and

hopefully provide participants opportunities for critical inquiry and self-reflection. This was not

possible due to the priority Rachel placed on following her agenda, which often meant ending

discussions when students were struggling with their beliefs about teaching. My own resistance

to the classroom schedule was immediately apparent to me, but I chose to continue the resistant

behavior when I believed it was necessary for the study. I passed notes to participants asking for

responses to comments they made in class and engaging them in a brief discussion on paper.

This was done when Rachel was lecturing or during whole class discussion. In conversations

with participants I was sympathetic to their complaints about Rachel's micro-management of

instruction but told them it was unusual for her to teach in this manner. Interviews with Rachel

helped explain her decision to closely follow her agenda, but her micro-management of

instruction appeared to escalate resistance in the internship seminar.

It was evident during observations and interviews that I needed to win the trust of the four

participants before they would elaborate on their oppositional behavior in the classroom. In the

first interviews, all four participants gave very brief responses to questions. Henry and William

would not elaborate on their answers without insistent prompting. George and Kenneth were

more detailed in their responses to questions, but appeared to be suspicious of my motives. They

appeared to not trust me so I had to work to gain that trust.









The first interviews focused on the participants' sociohistorical context, which gave them

opportunities to share their childhood and school experiences. I asked questions and responded in

ways that I hoped would indicate I was interested in their experiences and perceptions of

teachers and schools. By the end of the first interviews, I felt I had established enough mutual

trust with each participant that I could explore more controversial topics. This was not always

easy, as my field notes indicated.

These students have been empowered by their place in society. They are part of the
privileged class so they have never, or rarely, been silenced. When they resist they do so
with a loud voice, unlike the oppressed groups who are used to being silenced and will
resist in other ways. How do I work with a group taught to be the dominant group, but in a
classroom where their ideas are not finding center stage? They try to make their ideas
center stage by finding the negative in every method taught, but there's always a credible
response from instructors to their objections. They're out to win and be proven right, not to
become excellent teachers. (Field notes, February, 7, 2007)

My own frustrations with the ideologies held by the participants were evident, and in the second

interviews I started asking questions that would challenge their beliefs about teaching. By the

third interview, the participants appeared more relaxed and found the interview a place where

they could talk freely about their objections to the internship seminar and how they were being

taught to be teachers. I listened, asked questions that would further clarify their ideas, but also

asked questions that challenged their thinking. My role as interviewer became both data collector

and critical questioner. I realized there would be some data I would have to ignore because my

social justice stance was obvious in the questions, but I also found the participants were open to

the challenges I posed.

It was during data analysis when the ideology of the participants had the greatest impact on

me. Their obvious bias against minority groups and the attitude that students were less than

human and not capable of participating in the workings of classrooms and schools violated my

own deeply held beliefs. I was both angry and discouraged by these insistent claims from









participants. By focusing on the research question, "What explains resistance," I was able to set

me own emotions aside and approach the data analysis with a more objective stance. The

ideologies of the participants were not surprising, but the extent to which they resisted any

opposing view was discouraging.

Participants in this study were selected specifically for their acts of resistance, so

opposition to beliefs different from their own should not come as a surprise. When I described

how I viewed the participants to Rachel, who had the students for two semesters, she said I

portrayed their behavior exactly. We were in agreement that these four students resisted both

content and methods.

The Context of Participants

The four participants were White males ranging in age from 24 to 38 and originally from

the midwestern United States. One had just completed his undergraduate degree when he was

accepted in the teacher education program, one worked as a substitute teacher for a year before

applying to the teacher education program, and two were returning to college after working in

other fields. In the following pages, the four participants are introduced with special attention to

their family structure, socioeconomic status, home communities, and the K-12 schools they

attended. Citations of participant interviews use the first letter of the participant's pseudonym

and the number of the interview. For example, WI cites William's first interview, W2 his second

interview, and W3 his third interview.

William

William spent the first twelve years of his life in a rural midwestern, "working class, blue

collar" town (WI). His father did not graduate from high school but earned a GED. He was a

foreman in the construction industry and a union member, which William believed was partly

responsible for his father being "paid pretty well" and maintaining a middle class income (WI).









He explained, "We never had any problems as far as money issues and a house with enough

rooms for all of us to have our own room and that sort of thing" (WI). William's mother had one

year of college and worked at home until the younger of his two sisters started school. Then she

found a job as an accountant and later a secretary.

When asked to provide information about his childhood and school experience, William

described the socioeconomic and ethnic make-up of the schools he attended and communities

where he lived, indicating the importance of this element of his life. He said the area where he

grew up was "night and day from down here. It's almost entirely White, for one thing, so it

wasn't really racially mixed at all" (WI). William's elementary school years were spent in a

working class neighborhood school, which William said was old but well cared for. He said they

had a library, where he was free to read as much as he wanted, and a very large playground.

According to William, the teachers were approaching retirement and most had grown children.

In the sixth grade, his family moved to a middle-upper class suburban town that was an hour

from a large, midwestern city. The move was due to his father's job and resulted in a higher

standard of living.

The schools in the suburban area they moved to were newer and better equipped than his

elementary school. The high school, which housed grades seven through twelve when he was

first enrolled, had a theater, Olympic-sized pool, large resource center for students, and a

modern gym that students could use at any time. This school was located in a middle-upper class

community. William described the teachers as younger, one "fresh out of college," which he said

made a "big difference" from the older teachers in his elementary school (WI). According to

William, the young teachers were more enthusiastic about learning and made the content more

interesting. He remembered only a few African-American students in his high school graduation









class and a larger, although still "proportionately small," population of Hmong students whose

families were originally from Vietnam and Laos (WI). He also said his teachers were all White

and said he did not have a non-White teacher until college.

William's high school used a modular schedule, which meant there were blocks of time

when students were left to themselves and William, a self-proclaimed procrastinator, said he did

not always use that time wisely. "Having all that free time to hang out with my friends was great,

and I wasn't really causing problems for anybody, not that I remember, but I could have used

that time for school work and I know I didn't. And my grades reflected that" (WI). He took

responsibility for his lack of commitment to his academic work but admitted that his parents did

not motivate him as much as he now wishes they had, and they were unable to help him with his

advanced studies courses. He gave his mother credit for making sure he took the ACT college

exam so he could attend college, and when he was accepted at a local community college she

was proud of this achievement. Ultimately, however, he said his C-average grades in middle and

high school and failing out of college after one year were due to his lack of self-discipline.

William joined the military and when his tour of duty was over he left the Army and worked in

construction with his father while he finished an Associates degree in computer science. He had

difficulty finding a job in his hometown so he moved to the southeastern United States, married,

and eventually returned to college, successfully completing a Bachelor's degree in history and

entering a Master's of Education program in social studies education.

William did not have the advantage of college educated parents but did complete advanced

placement classes in high school. He believed his success in college, however, was due to his

time spent in the military, which helped him overcome his lack of self-discipline in high school.









Kenneth

When describing the community where he grew up, Kenneth said, "there are some very

wealthy areas but there's not really like any low income areas" (KI). He also said the schools he

came from had few discipline problems "because where I come from is like working class

America," which meant there was a "high work ethic" that he felt contributed to his academic

success (Kl). According to Kenneth, he grew up in a middle-upper class midwestern town that

was part of a small city complex of about 300,000 residents. His reported family income of over

$100,000 annually placed his parents in the upper income bracket for the 1990s, when he was in

public school. His mother had a bachelor's degree and two master's degrees, and she worked as a

special education teacher and later a school counselor. His father earned a business degree from a

business college and was co-founder of a computer company that wrote programs for IBM

computers. According to Kenneth, his father "had a chance to make a lot of money but he was

working like 70 hours a week and he never saw me and so he quit the profession" (Kl). He said

his father was later employed as a real estate agent, owned a carpet cleaning business, and

worked as a medical technician setting up medical equipment. Kenneth said, "I had a somewhat

easy upbringing, I had two good parents. We didn't really have to worry about money. I didn't

live in a bad place or anything like that" (Kl).

The schools Kenneth attended catered to nearly all middle and upper class families and

were majority White. He considered his elementary school "progressive" because it "had art and

music regularly" and used a team teaching approach that followed a thematic curriculum (KI).

The school had a "decent library" and a computer lab with Apple IIGA computers where his

class went weekly (KI). He was in the gifted and talented leadership program because "they

identified leadership qualities in me" but said he was average academically (K 1). Kenneth's

middle school was older but well kept and catered to the same demographic of students. He









could not remember any good teachers in his middle school and said, "A lot of them seemed

bitter and didn't want to be there, it was just a job" (KI). He said he did not feel safe in middle

school and blamed the teachers for not creating a sense of community or a comfortable climate in

the school.

Unlike middle school, Kenneth enjoyed high school where his talent for soccer gained him

respect and stature. As a freshman, he was chosen for the varsity team, made the all-conference

team in grades nine through twelve, and the all-state team in grades eleven and twelve. The

inclusion of a large population of Hmong students, mainly from Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia,

introduced him to a culture very different from his own. As a high school counselor, his mother

worked with Hmong students and their families. The stories she brought home, combined with

his observations, led Kenneth to believe most Hmongs were very "isolationist" and were

determined to maintain their cultural beliefs (Kl). He cited the Hmong traditions of arranged

marriages for females as young as 13 and 14, multiple families living in a one-family house, and

keeping chickens in their backyard for food as cultural identifiers of the Hmong people. He also

said the gangs in the area were mainly from the Hmong community. Kenneth never developed

any friendships with Hmong students and appeared to view them as living outside the norm of

his community.

Kenneth's mother "put a lot of pressure on him to go to college," but his father thought

other career paths, like the military, were just as valuable (Kl). Kenneth said it was an athletic

scholarship to play soccer at a large midwestern university that helped him make his decision for

higher education. Kenneth graduated with a Bachelor's degree in liberal arts with a double major

in history and political science. He applied to law school but after working with prospective

college athletes and coaching a high school soccer team, he decided his commitment to









education was more important than his commitment to law. Kenneth found a job as a long-term

substitute teacher and applied to the education program at a large southeastern university.

Kenneth had the advantages of socioeconomic status and parents who were college

graduates but believed his success in school was due to a working-class work ethic. The schools

he attended prepared him for a privileged education through the gifted program in elementary

school and advanced placement courses in high school, and his talent for soccer provided him

with funding for college. He did not view these as advantages but simply a series of events in his

life. His experiences in college classrooms further solidified his beliefs about teaching and

contributed to his resistance in the social studies internship seminar.

Henry

Henry spent the first ten years of his life in the suburbs of a large midwestern urban area.

His father had a master's degree and was an editor for a building magazine. His mother was a

high school graduate and worked as a realtor. Henry considered his family middle class and said

the neighborhood where he lived was "one hundred percent White" (HI). His limited memories

of his elementary school were that the school and teachers were nice, the music teacher was very

boisterous, the predominant teaching method was direct instruction, and he had art, music and

physical education. His most memorable events at his elementary school were the fights on the

playground. He said, "Our play area was huge and we basically ran around there fighting. I got in

a few fights, but it was what you did on the playground back [there]" (HI).

Henry's family moved to a smaller city in the southeastern United States that was

predominantly White with a small percentage of Black and Hispanic residents, and more upper

class than middle class. Henry was disappointed by the response to student fights at his

elementary school: "I remember seeing fights and students were immediately suspended so they

had much less freedom" (HI). His middle school was team oriented and used cooperative









learning and Henry said he "wasn't a huge fan... [because] they weren't really well organized

but I had a pretty good middle school education" (HI).

The high school Henry attended was not the one he was zoned for; he was enrolled in a

health sciences magnet program in a large high school outside his district. He planned on

becoming a doctor but said the magnet program "completely altered my perspective" due to the

intensity of the program and his concern about "burn out" in the highly stressful medical intern

programs (HI). In addition to the academic demands of the advanced placement classes in the

magnet program, Henry was on the football and weightlifting teams, in the band, and active in

drama. His decision to go to college was based on his belief that education is important and

because he was "very self-motivated... academics always came pretty easy to me" (HI). His

parents did put some pressure on him to attend college but allowed him to make the final

decision. Henry graduated in the top ten percent of his class, which earned him a state sponsored

four-year college scholarship. He was accepted at a large southeastern university and earned a

Bachelor's degree in history. He then applied to and was accepted in the social studies secondary

education master's program at the same university.

Henry had the advantages of socioeconomic status and one parent who graduated from

college and both parents who encouraged him to go to college. He believed his success in school,

however, was due more to self-motivation than the influence of his parents or his teachers. His

elementary years appeared to reflect the education of the middle class but his secondary years

prepared him for a more privileged education, specifically his enrollment in the magnet program

and advanced placement courses and his extracurricular activities. He did not appear to view

these as advantages but simply a series of events in his life. Henry attended schools that reflected

the White, Eurocentric, middle-upper class culture of the privileged.









George

George grew up in a large midwestern urban city. His father had a Ph.D. and was

employed by the school district, first as a teacher and athletic director, then as a school

administrator, and later as superintendent. His father was a strong proponent of public schools

and when George was offered an athletic scholarship to a private school his father turned it

down. His mother had a Bachelor's degree and worked as a homemaker. George said his

"parents were always very active" in his education and "teachers knew that they had their

support" (GI). His parents placed a high priority on education and regulated the time allowed for

watching television and playing video games.

George said his family would be classified as middle class economically, which reflected

the area where he grew up. He described his elementary school as "all White middle class" and

his middle and high schools as an "all White... mix of working class and upper middle class"

(GI). According to George, the school buildings were old but well-maintained and teachers had

all the resources they needed. He classified his elementary school teachers in two categories:

"disciplinarians" and "creative" (GI). He said the disciplinarians were mainly concerned with

classroom management and reducing negative behavior but not encouraging positive behavior,

while the creative teachers encouraged learning through positive reinforcement.

George said he enjoyed middle school because "I was the top clique group... I was the top

of the heap" (GI). His middle school used tracking and placed students in learning groups based

on their academic abilities, which provided him with a good academic program since he was in

the highest academic level. According to George, the state ended tracking when he entered the

eighth grade and students were mixed academically. He said students from the highest academic

level were made group leaders in peer-led instruction and this was harmful to his education

because it was "very boring and we didn't learn anything the whole year" (GI).









As a high school freshman, George had to overcome poor study habits from his eighth

grade academic experience, which affected his performance in ninth grade, but his sophomore

year was better. He also had to contend with the academic and political reputation of an older

brother who he said was a "genius" and "very conservative" politically (GI). According to

George, teachers expected him to perform academically on the same level as his brother and to

have his brother's political perceptions, which he said could be detrimental when he had teachers

with liberal leanings. Regardless of the pressures he experienced, he did well enough in high

school to complete advanced placement courses and earn athletic scholarships to a midwestern

university. In high school, he was on the wrestling, football and baseball teams and was named

all-state in baseball.

College was George's first experience sharing classes with non-White students. His K-12

experience was in all White schools and he remembered only two non-White teachers in high

school. He said families in his school district could choose which school their children attended:

"Black teachers didn't want to teach the White kids... they wanted to be in the Black high

school. That's just the way it is there" (GI). He attended a large midwestern university but

finished his education in a southeastern university, earning a Bachelor's degree in history.

George worked in business management for 15 years before entering the Master's of Education

program in social studies education.

George had the advantages of two well educated parents who expected him to go to college

and a father in the education system. His elementary and secondary years reflected the education

of the White, middle class but also prepared him for a more privileged education, specifically his

enrollment in advanced placement courses and his talent for athletics in high school, which led to

college scholarships. He believed his success in school, however, was intrinsic and due more to









self-motivation than the influence of his parents or his older brother. His and the other

participants' acts of resistance in the classroom were due in part to their cultural beliefs and

beliefs about good teaching and the purpose of schools.

The four participants grew up in predominantly White communities and schools. They all

had the advantages of a middle or middle-upper class school environment and advanced

placement courses. Three of them had at least one parent with a college degree and one had a

parent who encouraged him to attend college. The sociohistorical context of their lives combined

with the classroom environment and the actions of the teacher and researcher influenced their

acts of resistance in the internship seminar.









CHAPTER 5
FINDINGS

Preface

Resistance often occurs because a student's lived experience is not represented in schools

or classrooms (Giroux, 2001; McLaren, 1986). Students' sociohistorical contexts, the combined

social and historical factors in their lives, influence the beliefs they have about teachers, schools

and education. The study of student resistance using critical discourse analysis must consider the

context of family, community and school because discourse does not happen in a vacuum. It is

influenced by individual and group history and by the context of the event where the discourse

takes place (Fairclough, 1995; Gee, 1999). To better understand the resistance engaged in by the

four participants, it is necessary to consider the sociohistorical context of their lives, specifically

their lives in schools. For this reason, interviews focused on participants' school experiences,

what they liked and disliked, and how this influenced their beliefs about teaching and education

and their acts of resistance in the internship seminar.

Some of the beliefs about teaching held by participants in this study were shared and others

were unique. The shared beliefs were held by two or more participants and defined the role of the

teacher: who had the important knowledge in classrooms, how participants' defined important

knowledge, who made decisions in classrooms regarding instruction and management, and the

strict micro-management of classrooms. The unique beliefs also defined the role of the teacher:

teach to assimilate to the dominant group, who is responsible for the success of students, female

teachers are nurturing and build relationships with students, and the importance of trust in

student-teacher relationships. The shared and unique beliefs appeared to lead to either counter

resistance or cultural resistance. Counter resistance is when students resist the methods and

content of an instructor teaches from a culturally conscious or social justice stance. The









instructor is resisting the traditional White, Eurocentric, middle-upper class culture of schools

and attempting to disrupt hegemonic ideology, and students are countering her resistance through

behavior that is meant to maintain hegemony. Cultural resistance occurs when students engage in

behavior that resists the hegemony of schools and classrooms. Classrooms in which the

instructor uses methods and content that maintain the perspective of the dominant White,

Eurocentric, middle-upper class culture of schools can marginalize students who are members of

other cultures and belief systems. These students might act in ways to disrupt the hegemony of

the classroom.

Participants engaged in both counter and cultural resistance. The table below summarizes

the categories of resistance for shared and unique beliefs about the role of the teacher.

Table 5-1. Categories of resistance: The role of the teacher
Counter Resistance
Shared Beliefs
Teacher is the source of important knowledge
Important knowledge is practical and relevant
Teachers control decisions about instruction and management
Teachers encourage students' ideas and opinions
Unique Beliefs
Teachers should teach assimilation to the dominant group
Teacher responsible for success of all students but...
Good female teachers are caring and build relationships with students
Cultural Resistance
Shared Belief
Teachers should not micro-manage classrooms
Unique Belief
Teachers should maintain trust in student-teacher relationships


The resistant behavior engaged in by participants was due to the dissonance created when their

beliefs about the role of teachers and schools conflicted with the content and pedagogy in the

internship seminar. These future teachers were not always "willing to be disturbed" and resisted

methods and content that disrupted their own beliefs about good teaching (Wheatley, 2002). The









methods instructor also acted in ways that reinforced hegemony, specifically the power held by

teachers, and some participants resisted this culture of power.

Counter Resistance and the Role of the Teacher

If teachers who decenter cultural norms and teach a culturally diverse curriculum are

countering hegemony and resisting the dominant school environment and curriculum, then

students who object to this decentering are working against the resistant actions of the teacher.

They are countering the teacher's resistance and attempting to maintain hegemony. Students who

engage in counter resistance are motivated by a desire-typically unconscious-to maintain

hegemony and they usually object to the cultural consciousness raising and self-reflection

engaged in by those who teach for social justice. In this study, all four participants engaged in

counter resistance and their resistance is best explained through their beliefs about the role of the

teacher in schools.

The participants in this study had very definite beliefs about the roles of teachers. Some

believed the teacher made all important decisions about knowledge, instruction and management,

while others believed student knowledge should also be welcomed in the classroom. All believed

teachers should teach content that is practical and relevant, but they had slightly different

definitions of these terms. Through their discussion about classes they liked and disliked, their

beliefs about teachers, schools and resistance were made evident. Two of the participants thought

the teacher was the source of knowledge.

Teacher as Source of Important Knowledge

The two participants who viewed teachers as the source of the important knowledge in

classrooms believed good teachers knew their content well and imparted that knowledge to

students. An instructor William admired taught political science and was knowledgeable of her

subject but used both lecture and discussion, which he found problematic.









she just had her own style of teaching,
again, it was a lot of lecture
but, um, she had so much fun teaching
and she, she would get off topic occasionally
which was kind of a, kind of a downer
she would bring up a topic
and it would be a lot of discussion
and she would ask questions and um
she would always open it up to the floor
and it tended to I think stop the flow of the class a little bit
because some people would just ramble on and on
and that's where we'd get off topic (W2)

William noted the 'lecture' focus of this class and emphasized the 'fun' this instructor had

teaching, but he complained about how class discussion would 'get off topic' (emphasized twice)

when she opened discussion 'to the floor.' The instructor would 'bring' knowledge that led to a

'lot of discussion,' and then the instructor would 'ask questions' and 'always' bring students'

ideas into the discussion. William said this 'tendedto... stop the flow of the class' and this was a

'downer.' In this class, the teacher used a lecture format that she controlled but also included a

class discussion format where knowledge and power were shared. For William, allowing

students to contribute their knowledge to discussion was detrimental to the 'flow of the class,'

indicating his belief that the teacher's knowledge was most important and was best given to

students through lecture.

In one of the classes William did not like, the instructor used methods that conflicted with

his beliefs about who should be in possession of important information and how that information

should be imparted to students. The Reading in the Content Area class was a required course in

the teacher education program and, according to William, the instructor was not qualified to

teach the course.

she'd say stuff like,
"well Dr. Quinn 's really the expert on this and stuff and, etcetera etcetera"
and I guess that kind of keys you... to what to expect









um, it essentially, it seemed like she was teaching Dr. Quinn's class,
in fact I think that's probably what she was supposed to be doing
we were using his readings
and um... and then you know trying to get, to get through 'em (W2)

William emphasized the instructor's comment, 'Dr. Quinn's really the expert,' and said she was

'using his readings,' which indicated to him the lack of knowledge the instructor had of the

content she was required to teach. According to William, the instructor was expected

('supposed') to teach another instructor's syllabus, but this conflicted with William's definition

of good teachers as those whose performance in the classroom demonstrated knowledge of their

content area. William also discussed the structure of the class.

we could have just done more-more activities
other than stuff along the lines of-
there's a sheet of paper on the wall back here
go and write five ideas
or viiethIing like that...
that's just I guess not my preferred way of learning
and I know a lot of people in the class didn't really take that seriously necessarily
they'd just take it as time to, talk
it always felt like you know
just making sure you read the paper or article

(I. When she used a particular method people didn't take seriously was there any
connection made between the method and how you could use that in your own classroom?)

well, I guess that was the purpose of it um
I mean what it turns-usually what it would be we'd take something from the reading
and write out the main idea of it
which, you don't automatically correlate it, I mean,
you have to put some effort into thinking how you do that
so, um, maybe in an indirect way that was the reasoning behind it (W2)

William admitted that the structure of the class was not his 'preferred way of learning.' He said

she 'could' have taught the class differently instead of having students 'write' ideas from the

readings on a 'sheet of paper.' For William, this 'always felt like' the instructor wanted to know

if 'you read the paper or article'-a form of busy work since, according to William, there was no

explanation as to why they were doing the activities. He said learning the methods was probably









the 'purpose' of the activity but what they 'usually' did would not 'automatically correlate' with

'the reasoning behind it' since no 'effort' was made to connect the method with what teachers

did in classrooms. For William, the structure of the class included a lot of busy work that he felt

was not connected with what he would do as a teacher. While he was open to more activities, the

method of writing comments on a sheet of paper is a form of chalk talk in which all students are

given a voice and student knowledge is valued. This technique provided space for the knowledge

of students; however, William believed that the teacher owned the important knowledge, which

conflicted with this instructor's belief that students bring knowledge to the classroom that should

be shared and discussed.

Henry also believed teachers owned the important knowledge, and this was reflected in a

history class that he liked. He mimicked a classroom scenario in which the questions asked by

the professor did not appear to be for the purpose of hearing different perspectives but to dismiss

the ones that did not agree with his line of thinking.

all right so let's give an example
it would be like
"why do you think that,
why do you think that,
well what do you think caused the Spanish-American war of 1898?
what do you think caused this?"
and he'd be like "what are the possible causes?"
and we 'd like possibly give causes
and he 'dbe like "no well that's not correct"
and then like we'd like have a discussion on what possible causes
like "well here they are,
here's the four causes you need to know"
and he'd give 'em to us,
that's like an audible and like "you'd better write this down
'cause it's gonna' be on the test"

(I: was there any discussion as to why they were wrong?)

yeah he'd tell you like
"that's not really relevant to the situation because"
then he'd give you a situation...









and then when we'd finished the discussion
"here 's the four main causes"

(I. the basic idea in his teaching was that he had all the knowledge)

yep

(I. and he was going to give it to students)

yep, yep

(I: and students didn't have any knowledge so you needed to make sure that they had it)

it's college...
that's what it's supposed to be in college
it's a university 4000 level course
there's no uh student input
there's research
and there's, understanding (H2)

In this excerpt, Henry portrays the professor as being in control of important knowledge. Henry

emphasized how the professor would ask 'what' and 'why' and student responses ('we 'd') were

met with the professor ('he 'd') correcting their thinking. 'Then' the professor would 'give'

students the answers he wanted them to remember ('four causes you need to know') and students

would 'write' them 'down' in preparation for the 'test.' The discussion did not appear to be a

sharing of ideas but more an opportunity for the professor to 'tell' and 'give' his ideas and

knowledge. If there were other possibly correct responses to his questions that he did not feel

were 'relevant,' he would dismiss them. Henry affirmed that the professor's objective was to

establish himself as the one who had all the knowledge and Henry thought that was appropriate

in a 'college' classroom. He said that was what 'college' was 'supposed' to be-students doing

'research' and gaining 'understanding' but not having any 'input' in their own education.

In a later interview, Henry described in more detail his belief that the teacher has the

important knowledge.









the professor 's the chief
and has the basic knowledge
discussion is, takes place in class
but ultimately it comes back to
the professor's responsible for what's being taught in that course

if any incorrect information is, is learned by my students,
the buck stops with me (I:. yeah)
that's why the professor is ultimately in charge
and responsible for all learning that takes place
so in the discussion he is the moderator
he is the director
he is the one who's leading it in the direction he needs to go
if students have prior knowledge
if students have questions
you use that discussion to advance your own lecture
that's the way-you 're advancing the point
directing this point delivered to the student
because you know what you're delivering,
if you allow random ad hoc comments well,
and uh you don't know where that train's going
if you don't know where the train's going
it could lead right off the cliff into the ocean (H3)

Henry described the professor as a 'chief,' 'moderator,' 'director,' leader, and conductor, which

are all terms that hold control and power. The professor 'has (or owns) the basic knowledge' and

is 'ultimately' responsible for what is taught. Henry applied this description of the professor to

his own classroom when he said, 'the buck stops with me.' He based his own teaching on how he

believed college professors teach and on how his two favorite professors taught. According to

Henry, the 'professor' is in charge of 'all' learning and 'he' (emphasized three times) 'use[s]' the

knowledge and questions from 'students' to 'advance' the teacher's knowledge. For Henry,

discussion was important for 'directing' the learning toward the professor's 'point.' Henry said

there is no place in the classroom for 'random ad hoc comments' since they might lead to a

destination, or to knowledge, that the professor is not familiar with or that does not support his

own knowledge ('destination'). He emphasized that 'random ad hoc comments' could be









disastrous since 'you' (the teacher) would not know where the learning ('train') is headed, which

clearly revealed his belief that the teacher is in control of all knowledge taught in the classroom.

Henry's belief in the teacher owning the important knowledge was explained further in the

social studies internship seminar when democratic classrooms were under discussion.

having classes set up as purely discussion
and around circle conversation,
I question whether they actually retain anything
or whether you'll have... a tale told by an idiot
full of sound and fury but signifying nothing
like nothing really going on
lots of talk
and lots of good sounding like stuff taking place
but nothing really concrete being formed (H1)

He said classes that were 'purely discussion' or that used 'circle conversation' could result in the

appearance of learning ('sound and fury,' 'lots of talk,' 'lots of... stuff taking place') but nothing

'concrete' being learned. His comment that this would result in 'a tale told by an idiot' implied

that students were not capable of having or creating 'concrete' knowledge, which supported his

belief that teachers have the important knowledge in the classroom.

William and Henry believed the teacher owned the important knowledge in the classroom

and imparted that knowledge to students, but the teacher should not include student knowledge

in the classroom. When discussion did take place, as in Henry's classes, it was for the purpose of

guiding students to what the professor considered the important knowledge and all discussion

was controlled by the teacher. William, however, believed discussion took the class away from

the important knowledge, which belonged to the teacher. Henry and William believed good

teachers owned the important knowledge, but the dilemma arises as to how they define important

knowledge. All four participants were clear as to how they defined this concept.









Important Knowledge is Practical and Relevant.

Participants believed that important knowledge was practical and relevant. In the case of

education courses, they defined practical and relevant as the tools and skills necessary for

teachers and teaching. They resisted the social studies internship seminar, and other college

courses, because they believed much of the methods and content were not practical or relevant.

Henry said his least favorite classes were those that were irrelevant to him and described

one of them.

I didn 't really like "Age of the Dinosaurs" too much,
and, I didn't really want to be there
lots of long scientific names
lots of memorization of topics
that I wasn't interested in at all
those history classes were all about critical thinking
and comprehending very, major and very large historical concepts
but this is like rote memorization of, annoying long genus and species
and all that stuff
it's like, it wasn 't relevant to me at all
especially a history major (I. Right)
I don't care what the, what this bone of this dinosaur is
it was all memorization of, stupid facts (H2)

Henry emphasized that the course 'wasn 't relevant' to him as a 'history major.' While he did not

enjoy the 'memorization' (mentioned three times), it was the content of the class that appeared to

be the problem. In addition to being irrelevant, Henry said 'I wasn't interested in it' and 'I don't

care,' which could imply that if he was memorizing facts from human history it might mean

more to him. He emphasized that 'history' studied 'major' events while 'this' class studied

'boring' fossils with 'long scientific names.' Henry believed good teaching included teaching

relevant, important content and he defined this to mean content that was interesting and useful to

him as a social studies teacher.

Another class Henry perceived as irrelevant was an undergraduate education course in

educational technology.









the undergraduate education classes were just not relevant at all,
and the teachers seemed, unqualified
educational technology, it was ridiculously stupid (I: mhmm)
she was unprepared for class
we didn't learn anything important,
she taught us things that didn't really matter,
it was like completely irrelevant

(I. what kind of teaching style did she have?)

it was like stupid group work
that was completely irrelevant
we just sat around and talked about how stupid the class was
we had a separate lab class on Wednesday
and that class was pretty, annoying too
because, we would learn something
we'd turn in the assignment
and then we would immediately forget how to use what we just did,
she's like "try to use like constructivist to like write education forms"...
I didn't learn anything in there
there was no there was no rigor
there was no relevance (H2)

Similar to the dinosaur class, Henry said the content taught in the educational technology class

was not relevant ('not relevant,' 'completely irrelevant,' 'completely irrelevant,' 'no

relevance'). He said the instructor 'was unprepared for class' and 'taught... things that didn't

matter.' According to Henry, the 'stupid group work' was 'irrelevant' and the 'assignment'

completed for the 'separate lab class' was 'immediately' forgotten. He did not learn anything in

this class that he considered relevant to him as a future social studies teacher, which differed

from another undergraduate educational technology class that he took.

it was better in another class
that was strictly technical stuff
but at least it was practical
at least I learned how to scan stuff
and like had the basic formation of making a web page using Netscape
and that was strictly a technical portion of the lab
we turned in projects
and that kind of stuff
that was all right
you're just learning how to use the technology (H2)









Henry said the 'practical' use of technology ('scan stuff and 'basic formation of a web page')

was 'technical' knowledge that was useful. Instead of applying 'constructivist' theory to

'education forms,' he was 'learning how to use the technology,' which Henry may have found

more relevant to his future career as a teacher.

In a graduate level educational technology class, Henry said he gained practical knowledge

that was especially useful to him as a teacher, even though it was not one of his favorite classes.

The class was taught by the same instructor (Rachel) who taught the social studies internship

seminar.

we learned how to write a lesson plan
if we had to jump through hoops we learned how to jump through 'em
it was we hated it at the time but...

(I: are you saying while you didn't like doing the lesson plans you felt they were helpful
later?)

no I find I'm glad we did all that work now
because now when I'm talking about it I can talk like Rachel
I can talk the language
she taught me how to speak uh, educational technology buzz words
and those... and now I'm fluent in it

(I: and how does that help you?)

in interviews
I can talk about educational technology
and its relevance
and like how you use technology effectively in a classroom,
it's nice to be able to do that

(I. so it was practical in a sense in that it prepared you for your teaching?)

for interviews
and I guess using technology too,
like we did a we did a movie project
it's nice to learn how you use movie
it all like seemed so stupid at the time
but... administrators love to hear that stuff (H2)









Henry emphasized how he 'hated' to 'jump through hoops' but said he was 'learning.' For him,

the technology class made him 'fluent' in 'the language' and 'educational technology buzz

words' so he could 'talk' about using technology in the classroom when on job 'interviews.'

Twice he emphasized how the course prepared him for 'interviews' but he could only 'guess'

that the course prepared him for 'using technology' in the classroom. He said it was 'nice to

learn' how to use the technology movievie', but his emphasis was on how school administrators

like to 'hear' the correct words used in an interview. Henry appeared to appreciate how he could

put to practical use what he learned in the educational technology course by using the language

in interviews, but he did not view the technology as relevant.

she made us do like all these activities
of like using the technology
which was not as relevant
those hoops were helpful in this field I'm in (I:. okay) (H2)

Henry said 'she made us' use the technology but the activities were 'not as relevant.' The

graduate level technology class supported Henry's belief that good teachers teach content that is

practical or 'helpful.' In this case, the content was useful in his job interviews even if it was not

relevant in the classroom.

Henry also found some of the content from the social studies internship seminar practical,

in the same way that he found the educational technology class practical.

she taught us how to speak some of the language
about professional development
and uh... continuous education
continuous improvement
reflection she really stressed reflection
and... the fact-when she was teaching us how to make the resume portfolio
and interviewing strategies
those were those were good (I:. okay)
like the finding a job aspect is what I got the most out of it (I:. okay)
but a lot of stuff was just...
seemed to be a waste of time (H2)









In the internship seminar, Henry thought being 'taught' the 'language' of the profession

('professional development,' 'continuous education' and 'reflection') was practical since it

would be used in job interviews, in the same way the language from educational technology

would be used. Other aspects of the class Henry thought were 'good' were the 'resume

portfolio,' 'interviewing strategies,' and any instruction on 'finding a job.' This 'practical'

knowledge was not a 'waste' of time since it was relevant to his future career goals, but he did

not find the methods or content practical or relevant in any other way. He said,

it wasn't relevant
the readings weren't relevant
so I didn't read 'em (I: okay)
and I didn't have to read 'em
'cause you could get by
and make something up
and not read 'em (I:. yeah)
it seemed like stressing the same points over and over again
that we had already heard a million times
plus it's pretty much common sense
like you know what... treat your kids equitably,
be culturally conscious
you know... don't like don't marginalize your kids,
make a safe classroom environment
this is very uh, the fact that she was acting like we didn't already know this stuff
was a reason so many of us felt patronized (H2)

Henry emphasized in this excerpt that the 'materials' used in the social studies internship

seminar did not make 'sense' since he could not 'apply' them in the classroom. He said the

'readings' were not 'relevant' so he did not bother reading them. According to Henry, the

readings 'seemed' to stress the same content they 'heard' before and it was really 'common

sense'-treating students 'equitably,' 'culturally conscious' classrooms, and a 'safe classroom

environment.' He said students 'felt patronized' because the instructor believed ('fact') that they

did not know the material. The instructor was familiar with the content and readings used by

other instructors in the teacher education program but chose to focus on similar content. Her









decision to teach content that had already been covered gave Henry the perception that the

instructor believed students had not mastered the content, which he thought was condescending

('felt patronized'). He believed the readings were not relevant because they had already covered

the same material in previous classes and he resisted by not reading the assignments, however,

he found the class practical and relevant because he learned the language he needed to find a

teaching job.

Like Henry, George also believed the content taught in some of the teacher education

courses was not practical or relevant. He was critical of the Reading in the Content Area class,

which was one of his least favorite college classes.

(I. what about the content in the reading class?)

it wasn't relevant
it wasn't practical
she didn't even attempt to make it practical

(I. now when you say practical, practical for what?)

practical for use
you know y1uhmeiz:ing
and using in a classroom (I:. okay)
most of the readings were completed by... Dr. Quinn
and they were extremely dry
and boring
and had nothing really to do with social studies... (I:. okay) (G2)

George emphasized that the class was not 'relative' or 'practical' for use by teachers in a

'classroom' and the instructor did not 'attempt' to make it so. He said the readings were 'dry'

and 'boring' and had 'nothing... to do with social studies.' The course was not helpful to him as

a social studies teacher so it was not practical or relevant.

George said the social studies internship seminar was also one of his college classes that he

disliked. When asked what he liked about the class his response mirrored those of the other three

participants.









(I: was there anything about the class that you liked?)

... I liked the people she brought in
the speakers
because I mean that's when I got
the most I got out of the program was in my internships
and my practicums
and that was talking to people in the field
it just seems like, people that are in-in here
for whatever reason
don't get it you know,
they're idealistic,
they have these visions of the way they want things to be
but somehow it morphs in their mind
and that's the way it really is
and that's not the way things really are, you know...
uh, whereas, it's a very hammer on the head type of philosophy that you get out in the field
because you're dealing with those kids everyday
and you're dealing with those everyday problems

(I: so then the speakers gave you practical information?)

yeah realistic
a realist perspective (G2)

George created a dichotomy between the 'philosophy' of the 'field' and that of the teacher

education program ('here'). He said he gained the 'most' from the teacher education program

through the practicum and internship experiences, where he could talk to 'people in the field.'

This is also why he enjoyed the 'speakers' ('people she brought in')-they were 'realistic' and

gave him the 'hammer on the head type of philosophy' from the 'field.' According to George,

instructors in the program ('here') were 'idealistic' and did not understand ('don't get it') what

schools were really like. He said the instructors in the program 'want' schools to be a certain way

so badly that they believed it to be so-it 'morphs in their mind' and 'that's the way it really is.'

For George, the practical and relevant information came not from program instructors but from

people in the public schools because their ideas were realistic.









As a future teacher, George did not want idealistic goals but methods that would work in

the classroom, where teachers are 'dealing' with students and 'everyday problems.' He wanted

the tools to be a good teacher.

I want your help,
to uh mold me into a better teacher
to make it more comprehensible,
I mean this is the knowledge I have
and my knowledge is up here, (indicates above head) you know
part of what I wanted to get out of this program
is to be able to make that knowledge, comprehensible, down here
I wouldn't have entered
I mean I could have done alternative certification
I wouldn't have entered the master's degree program
if I didn't want to become a better teacher
and be able to communicate those ideas better
Ifelt like I needed to find strategies
and ways to be able to communicate those ideas
and you know it's highly intellectual stuff,
I'm asking you okay show me ways to make this more comprehensible (G2)

What George ('I') wanted out of a teacher education program were 'strategies' that would

'make' his 'knowledge' more 'comprehensible' to students. He considered his knowledge more

advanced ('up here,' 'highly intellectual stuff ) than that of his students ('down here'), and he

had difficulty communicating that knowledge. He thought he would be a 'better teacher' if he

could 'communicate' his 'ideas better' in the classroom. He used the word 'communicate' twice,

emphasizing it once, and the word 'comprehensible' three times, emphasizing it once, which

indicated the necessity of getting his ideas across to his students. George thought it was

important that the teacher's knowledge be given clearly to students and the master's degree

program should give him the skills to do that. He resisted much of the methods and content of

the teacher education courses in part because they did not provide him with what he considered

practical and relevant content for social studies teachers.









Kenneth also believed that social studies teachers should be taught practical content but

through a goal-oriented classroom. He described one class that he liked as project based in

which the instructor used the first few weeks of the course to explain the projects, but students

were responsible for completing them.

The professor
who was the head instructor,
um, he you know was just like the macro management
you now, like he had, all the doc students were working under him
and then we were working under the doc students
It was like a big pyramid
so, and, uh, so I mean and that was-it was an awesome experience

To be quite honest,
I probably learned...
that's one of the classes in undergrad that had nothing to do with my major
that I learned the most practical, useful stuff from

(I:. You were actually doing it instead of hearing about it.)

And I'm sure you're making the connection right now
what I talked about before is that,
I'm all relevance...
like you know I don't feel comfortable teaching my kids in class
about... stuff that they're not gonna' use (K2)

In the excerpt above, the emphasis Kenneth placed on certain words indicated that he found the

structure of the class important. He identified the structure of the classroom as a 'pyramid' and

emphasized the role of the 'professor' ('head,' 'he,' 'he') as manager and the descending roles of

doctoral students and students. For Kenneth, the content was 'useful,' which he said reflected his

belief ('I'm all relevance') that content taught in schools should be what students can 'use.'

Kenneth believed it was important to structure a class so the goal would include useful content.

Like Henry and George, Kenneth also found some of the content in the social studies

internship seminar practical.

okay, thing% that she did well, uh
a lot of practical stuff... in there, uh you know









about getting the jobs and stuff,
the resume and cover letter,
and talking about people who have been through the process,
having other people come in,
the guest speakers come in...
that was awesome (K2)

Kenneth emphasized 'talking' to different 'people' and 'speakers' who gave them different

'perspectives' on teaching as a profession. He also emphasized the 'practical' implications of the

class-the 'resume' and information for 'jobs'-which lean toward a goal oriented structure, the

goal being employment. Kenneth believed practical and relevant content was useful to him in

understanding what it was like in the field of teaching and the job process.

William also found something practical and relevant in one of the teacher education

courses. Like George, William did not like the social studies methods class but thought writing

lesson plans was helpful to him as a teacher.

everybody knew that the unit plans weren't the sort of thing that we were gonna' write
when we got to our teaching
because they're so much more in detail um,
but I think the general consensus
and something that we actually talked about
was that... if you just made the class um lesson plans 101
then a lot of us would have been happy knowing how to do it
what to expect um
it was really time consuming to do
but it was, it made you analyze how you're going to approach it
which I mean I'm not the most um organized person in the world
so it did help me (W2)

According to William, students 'talked' about the lesson plans and there was a 'general

consensus' that the class should focus on writing lesson plans even though they 'weren 't' going

to need 'so much... detail' when they became teachers. The lesson plans were 'really time

consuming' but they helped William 'analyze' his 'approach' to teaching a lesson and helped

keep him 'organized.' The lesson plans were also an opportunity for him to focus on the









knowledge he, as the teacher, would give to students when he had his own classroom. Creating

lesson plans placed him in the role of teacher and he found that practical and relevant.

The four participants believed practical and relevant content important. William, Kenneth

and George defined practical content as the tools, skills and knowledge they would need as

teachers. Henry defined it as content useful to him as a social studies teacher and the language he

needed to get a job. Their resistance in the social studies internship seminar was due in part to

their belief that most of the methods and content used in the class were not practical or relevant

to them as teachers. The connection between the methods and content from the social studies

internship seminar and the decisions they would make as teachers was not apparent to them.

Teachers Control Decisions about Instruction and Management

All four participants believed that decisions about instruction and management should be

controlled by the teacher. The social studies internship seminar was organized around the themes

of culturally responsive pedagogy and democratic classroom practices. All four participants

experienced dissonance in the internship seminar related to democratic classroom practices and

the importance of valuing student knowledge in the structuring of classrooms and schools.

George believed that democratic classrooms were not possible because schools were not

situated in a society in which everyone was equal. He thought the theory of democratic

classroom practices was in reality egalitarianism, which he defined as everybody being equal,

but he did not define democracy in the same way.

Rachel's never been one to... be a democratic classroom manager
she has this vision of egalitarianism that isn't, part of the human condition

(I. you said methiiiiig about that during her democracy lesson and I wanted to know what
you meant by egalitarianism)

egalitarianism is egalitarianism,
it's where everybody's equal









(I: okay and how is egalitarianism different from democracy?)

well everybody's not equal in democracy
everybody gets a vote
everybody's politically equal supposedly
but there are haves and have-nots in society
where in egalitarianism there isn 't
everybody's on the same level
that's what communism's based on
it's the classless society
which isn't...
you can't have it
it's actually, almost the aintithei of democracy (I:. okay)
well I can't say that
it's the aintithesii to capitalism
which our democracy is tied to (G3)

When asked to define what he meant by egalitarianism, George said it meant 'everybody's

equal,' which is not how he defined democracy. His definition of democracy was a capitalist

democracy, where everyone appeared to be 'politically equal' because everyone could 'vote,' but

people were not economically equal. He emphasized that egalitarianism was a 'classless society,'

similar to 'communism,' and democracy was not classless because that was not possible ('you

can't have it'). According to George, egalitarianism was the 'awntithei to capitalism' and he

defined democracy in the United States as being 'tied to' capitalism and inequality-of which

the existence of the 'haves and have-nots' was proof. The 'human condition' he referred to was

the existence of socioeconomic classes, and he accepted this as a natural part of democracy. To

establish a democratic classroom, where all students were equal, was not possible for George

because the human condition naturally created a class-based society where some students would

have more than others.

George's belief that education was influenced by a society with an unequal distribution of

goods was clarified in his support of academic tracking in schools.

I keep hearing relevance and rigor
relevance and rigor









well they're just words
what's rigor and relevance to one kid
is not gonna' be rigor and relevance to another kid
or it could be, to a point where it's too rigorous
and you know, to where they 're disconnecting
whereas it could be too rigorous for somebody who disconnects
and not rigorous enough for somebody else who disconnects
that's the problem I have with you know heterogeneous classrooms you know
it puts it all you know too much on the teacher
to me it's cheating the kids to... put them in heterogeneous classrooms
cause you know it's not tracking
you can call it tracking
or what not,
its just that... I mean it's hard enough you know, in a regular US history class
because you have such a varying degree of knowledge
and interest
and this and that (I:. yeah)
and then when you throw everybody in
then all of a sudden now you're here (indicates with hand a low level)
and Ijust think you're gonna' be a much more effective teacher here (indicates with hand a
high level)
and scaffold 'em up
because you're gonna' lose the fringes
and you're gonna-that's why everybody teaches to the middle
and you lose the top
and you lose the bottom
when you teach you know to the middle (G3)

George emphasized the need to view 'relevance and rigor' based on the abilities of individual

students (compare 'one kid' to 'another kid'). Content that is 'too rigorous' or 'not rigorous

enough' could cause students to 'disconnect,' which he considered the student's problem

('they're disconnecting') and not the teacher's ('puts it all too much on the teacher'). According

to George, 'heterogeneous classrooms,' where students are mixed academically, are 'cheating

kids' since teachers are forced to teach to the 'middle.' Interestingly, he refused to use the term

'tracking' to identify the separation of students by academic ability even though that is an

accepted term. He said students' 'varying degree of knowledge and interest' should guide

student grouping, however, the knowledge and interest students have for a subject is greatly

influenced by the teacher. His reference to other reasons for grouping ('this and that') might









refer to the academic ability of students since he later indicated, through placing his hand in a

low position or in a high position, the level that teachers would teach for different groupings of

students. According to George, when schools 'throw everybody in' the same classroom

regardless of knowledge, interest or ability, the teaching will teach at a lower academic level

('here'). He ('T) believed teachers were 'more effective' when their teaching was at a higher

academic level and they would 'scaffold up' students to that level. He did not believe, however,

that this could happen in 'heterogeneous classrooms.' George believed that schools and teachers

should control instruction so students were grouped based on academic ability or intellectual

capability (the 'top,' 'bottom' and 'middle'). He resisted democratic classroom practices because

he thought it would mean treating all students as academically equal and he did not believe this

was possible or practical.

Kenneth also resisted democratic classroom practices. His resistance was due to his belief

that students should not be a part of the important decisions made in schools.

(I. You said you weren't sure if active democracy could be taught in schools, and I was
wondering if you would expand a little bit on that.)

I think my, that comment comes from the fact that
you're still gonna' have the final say, in your classroom, (I:. Oh, okay)
so I guess, you can teach it like a United States Republic
and be like "I'm George W. Bush
and I can veto what you guys want at any point,"
but you know, you're still gonna' have the final say
and you're still in control... you know, um...
so, total ownership is not with the students
and so when I say active democracy that's what I mean,
whereas, like if you have something that is totally student run,
and you just kind of like layoff, you know
that would be like teaching about active democracy
and stuff like that
so I think, like I think the fact that schools are set up in this structure
where there's where there's rules that students weren't part of the making, you know,
and I mean, the students are so far removed from that,
and they're never gonna' view it as you know
"oh my people had ownership in the creation of this institution," you know (K3)









For Kenneth, there were two 'facts' that he claimed prevented 'active democracy' in schools:

'you 're (the teacher) still gonna' have the final say, in your classroom' and the structure of

schools is such that there are 'rules that students weren't part of making.' He then said if students

had 'something that is totally student run, and you just kind of like layoff... that would be...

teaching about active democracy.' His emphasis on the phrases 'total ownership' and 'totally

student run' to describe what active democracy should look like excludes the context of

democracy. He defined democracy as "rule by the people" (K3) so active democracy would

mean shared ownership and shared governance with everyone in a classroom and/or school.

Kenneth, however, believed students needed a separate space to experience active democracy,

which limited their voice to a place outside the power of schools. He did not recognize students

as part of the education system but as a group that was controlled by the system ('rules that

students weren't part of the making' and 'students are so far removed from that'). The phrase

'my people' in his final statement emphasized his view of students as a separate 'people' or

group outside the governance of schools. For Kenneth, schools and the education system were

not created to include students in the structure and governance of the institution. He believed in

the status quo, whether it was the 'United States Republic' where the teacher has the final

authority or the schools where students are excluded from governance, which is why he vocally

resisted the readings on democracy and democratic classroom practices. He believed students

should be controlled by schools and not have any role in school administration and rule-making.

Henry also believed teachers controlled decisions about instruction and management in the

classroom. His resistance to the methods used in the social studies internship seminar was

notable when discussing democratic classrooms.

(I. when I observed you in the classroom you did resist a lot of the stuff that was being said
like culturally responsive teaching and democratic classrooms)









I don't agree with having students make their rules,
chaos will ensue,
you-there has to be some sense of order,
the teacher 's in charge (H1)

Henry believed good teachers are in control of the classroom and make the rules. He emphasized

the 'teacher's' role as the sole authority for the purpose of avoiding 'chaos,' which supported his

belief that teachers must control the instruction in the classroom.

Henry resisted the idea that students could be involved in the decisions teachers made

about instruction and the management of classrooms. Twice during a classroom observation

Henry referred to the teacher as "king" (Observation, February 28, 2007). When questioned

about this idea of the teacher/king, he said it was his classroom management style.

in order to have an effective classroom management
you have to have student participation
they have to buy into what you're doing
they have to uh, they have to have a say in what you're doing
at the same time though the teacher is in control
so that's why I have my image
which coincides with Dr. Joseph's
and uh, which is that of a benevolent king...
or benevolent dictatorship
in the fact that students have a voice in their affairs (I:. okay)
but ultimately the teacher's in charge

it goes back to the basic philosophy of a teacher education program
you gotta help teachers grow
and find their it ength,
and then use those use those strengths
if a teacher is, that's their... if that is effective with that particular teacher than fine
I am most effective doing what I do best
and that's more on the lines of Dr. Joseph
or, the benevolent dictator (H3)

Henry emphasized that his 'classroom management' style was that of the 'benevolent king' or

'benevolent dictator.' As the 'benevolent dictator,' he would 'have to have student participation'

and give students a 'say' in his teaching, but for the purpose of having students 'buy into' what

he was doing in the classroom. According to Henry, the 'students have a voice' but the









'teacher's in charge' ('teacher is in control'). He believed this classroom management style was

one of his 'strengths,' and he validated it twice by citing a respected instructor in the social

studies education program whom he believed used this method ('Dr. Joseph'). Henry explained

what methods he used as the benevolent dictator or king.

the image of a benevolent king
is still the king no matter what
but also gets feedback from the students as,
that's just my classroom management
and classroom philosophy

I did uh weekly surveys (I: okay)
it was-I had an index card system
and they uh, every Friday I had question time
meaning students bring their index cards
they could write anonymous comments
put 'em in a box
they could write a question
and put their name on it
and I'd answer back on the card
to ensure that it just stays between us
or they can ask a question and put no name on it
and I'll answer that question in class
I was getting feedback
and the students were writing
they are very aware of their own education
and that's why I uh getting feedback from them is very important
it's like the king sitting under the oak tree
having the students come to him directly with their individual complaints (H3)

Henry emphasized that his 'classroom management' style maintained his role as 'king' but 'also'

solicited 'feedback' from students. He explained that he provided 'weekly' opportunities for

students to write a 'question' or 'comment,' signed or 'anonymous,' on an 'index card' and 'put'

it in a box. It should be noted that students had to 'bring' their own index cards and these were

not supplied by the 'king.' Henry would read the cards and 'answer' either on the back of the

card (for signed cards) or in class (for unsigned cards). He emphasized twice that he was 'getting

feedback' from 'students' because they were 'very aware' of their educational needs. This









classroom management method was modeled after a story he heard about a French king from the

Middle Ages who, every Sunday, sat by an oak tree and citizens brought concerns to him

(Observation, February 28, 2007). Henry visualized himself as the 'king' whose students came

'directly' to him with concerns.

The dilemma that arises with this model is that the 'king' or 'benevolent dictator' is, as

Henry said, 'still the king no matter what.' A king or dictator, no matter how benevolent, still has

the power to ignore questions and comments that contradict his philosophy and goals, just as a

teacher who models classroom management after a benevolent dictator has the power to ignore

student questions and comments that conflict with his teaching philosophy and classroom goals.

Henry resisted democratic classroom practices because they did not support his belief that good

teachers maintained all control in the classroom.

Henry believed good teachers were dynamic lecturers and used lecture as the preferred

instructional method. His favorite college classes were in his major program, history, and he said

he liked the courses for their rigor and the instructional style of the professors. According to

Henry, both professors were British and used lecture exclusively and his description of the two

courses often overlapped.

they made the, the lectures were fun to go to
for one they were interesting (I:. mhmm)
because they're dynamic lecturers

[the Caribbean history course] was a very intense course
all lecture based
and, he was a very dynamic professor
he was extremely academic
and extremely elite... (H2)

Henry enjoyed both professors for the same reasons and emphasized their 'dynamic' and

'interesting' 'lectures.' He described the Caribbean history course as 'intense' and the professor

as 'extremely academic' and 'extremely elite.' Henry believed good teachers were dynamic









lecturers and used lecture almost exclusively as an instructional method. When asked later to

elaborate on teachers as dynamic lecturers, he said,

I see teaching as an art
it's a-you are on stage
it's a performance
it's a-it's a glorious art (H3)

Henry emphasized his ('I') belief that the teacher ('you') engages in a 'performance' that is

'glorious.' The classroom becomes the 'stage' where teachers perform, which would mean

students are the audience, they view the performance but do not actively partake in their own

learning-their role is to receive the teacher's performance. This type of instructor could be

described as a passionate performer. Henry extended the idea of performance to the interview by

using a British accent with dramatic flair when quoting the British professors. The interview took

place in a moderately crowded coffee shop, which did not appear to affect his behavior and he

was either unaware of inquisitive looks from neighboring customers or did not mind them. This

Discourse (i.e., language, gestures, dialect) is important to understanding how Henry perceived

the role of the teacher. His Discourse indicated that he believed teachers control the decisions

about management through the role of the benevolent dictator, and the decisions about

instruction through the role of the passionate performer, where directed lecture is the only

method used.

William also admired instructors whose instructional style was passionate and was

exclusively lecture-based. He described a college professor of American history whom he

greatly admired as a teacher.

the one thing I remember the most about it is the...
the passion that the teacher had,
and he, uh, he was so animated
and it was, all he did was lecture, that's it,
and we had some, some books that we read um,
but, all he did was lecture









and you'd take notes
but I'd-I'd find myself listening to him so much
that I wouldn't even take notes
because I would get so engrossed in what he was saying (I: mhmm)

it was storytelling
but it was, it was so much more analytical
I think it was maybe the first time I really connected the past with the present,
and it fascinated me (I. Hmmm. Okay...)
and yes, he was a great storyteller
again, that animated,
he always, pounded on the desk for emphasis (W2)

William emphasized the 'lecture' format of the class where students were passively 'listening'

and taking 'notes' as the professor was actively 'animated' and 'pounded on the desk for

emphasis.' The 'lecture' was 'analytical' but delivered with 'passion,' making the instructor a

passionate performer. It was the combination of this instructor's passionate 'storytelling' and

how he 'connected the past with the present' that 'fascinated' William.

Passionate performers must rely heavily on lecture as the instructional method for

delivering knowledge to students. Lecture provides them with both the stage where they can

perform what Henry calls their 'glorious art,' and the audience (students) who passively watch

their performance. This method of instruction gives the teacher control in the classroom and

William believed that good teachers control decisions about instruction and management.

I lean a lot toward traditional methods
with lecture, um and stuff like that
but um, I mean as far as like having just rows straight rows
and columns across um I can't
it's hard for me to fathom doing it in a different way you know
and, I hear my classmates talk about it all the time
and it just doesn't seem right, um
I guess I'm more comfortable in a traditional setting (W3)

William is aware of his preference for traditional teaching methods ('lean a lot toward' and 'I'm

more comfortable'), including 'lecture.' According to William, the arrangement of the room,

desks in 'rows' and 'columns,' was so ingrained that he could not 'fathom doing it a different









way' because it 'doesn't seem right.' His belief in traditional methods for teaching and

structuring his classroom were reflections of how he was taught and the kind of teaching he

believed to be best. His favorite teachers were passionate performers and used lecture almost

exclusively, which required the traditional classroom arrangement that placed the teacher as the

center. This results in the teacher being in control of decisions about instruction and management

and this was reflected in his own teaching.

William's belief that teachers control methods of classroom instruction and management

was made more apparent in an incident he shared from his internship experience in a sixth grade

classroom. The Black girls in his classroom accused him of being racist because of his higher

discipline rate for Black students.

I talked to Mr. Smith [cooperating teacher] about this all the time that, um,
one of the biggest problems that I had was, not misbehavior in class
but that, the people who acted out happened just to be Black
the ones that acted out the most I should say
and um, I flat out told him, I'm like, you know,
sometimes I feel almost relieved when I have to give lunch detention to a White kid
so that it appears to be equal um
and that was I think the basis of them thinking I was racist

(I: so then the behavior of the Black students in your class, was that disrupting the
learning of other students?)

yeah that's when it became a problem, definitely
I and... yeah and that's not limited to Black students at all um,
it just seemed that the kids that were, problem kids tended more often than not to be Black
and that's unfortunate (W3)

According to William, the basis for the racist accusation was his disciplinary policy (decisions

about management). He said, 'the people who acted out happened just to be Black' and 'it just

seemed that the... problem kids tended more often than not to be Black and that's unfortunate.'

He said he was 'almost relieved when' he had to punish 'a White kid' because it 'appears to be

equal.' In this excerpt, William did not reflect on his reaction to the behavior of students in his









class based on their cultural beliefs and practices; he blamed the high rate of punishments for

Black students on their behavior, saying it was an 'unfortunate' coincidence ('happened just to

be Black'). William's decision to use traditional methods of instruction and classroom

management, which are based on the White, Eurocentric, middle-class culture, resulted in

expectations of students that were not culturally responsive. His belief that the teacher controls

instruction and management prevented him from reflecting on how his sociohistorical context

(the White, Eurocentric, middle class culture of schools and community he identified with) might

influence his actions in the classroom such that he might marginalize students of color and

reinforce the hegemony of schools.

George, Kenneth, Henry and William believed good teachers controlled the instruction and

management of classrooms. George applied society's unequal distribution of goods to the

classroom and thought academic tracking, where teachers and schools controlled the decisions

about instruction and management (means of production), was effective since he believed it

served the unequal distribution of knowledge, interest, and intellectual ability of students.

Kenneth wanted to create a place for students outside of schools and classrooms where they

could practice democracy because they should not be permitted to participate in the important

decisions that directly or indirectly influenced their lives in schools. Henry's self-image of the

benevolent dictator gave the appearance of student involvement, but the teacher was still the

dictator and the one who made the ultimate decisions about instruction and classroom

management. William felt more comfortable in a traditionally structured classroom, with desks

in rows, and said he used this type of classroom in his internship since it was most effective for

lecture-based instruction. All four participants believed in traditional classroom instruction and









management and resisted the content of the social studies internship seminar that taught

otherwise.

Teachers Encourage Students' Ideas and Opinions

Kenneth and George believed there was a place in the classroom for the ideas and opinions

of students, which appeared to contradict their belief that teachers should control decisions about

instruction and management. Their definition of whose ideas and opinions should be given

greater consideration helped clarify this contradiction. They described instructors of courses they

liked who made discussion an important part of the classroom; however, they both believed the

most important ideas and opinions expressed in the classroom were their own.

One of the classes Kenneth enjoyed most was an honors history seminar that examined

modern Middle Eastern history.

we had, you know, class was fourteen weeks,
we had fourteen books to read
and you know you went in there
and you talked about the book
what did you think
it was bullshit
or do you think it was for real

you know, it was just very interesting
and the discussion component was awesome
because, the way the professor worked is like, you
it wasn't him talking at you,
it wasn'tfive hundred people
in a lecture hall
and him talking
and you writing down,
it was like, "man, you just read a book,
what did you think" (K2)

For Kenneth, this class was 'interesting' because it was not the professor 'talking' and students

'writing' what the professor thought was important-it was a small group of students ('wasn't

five hundred people') discussing what they 'think' about a 'book' (was it 'bullshit' or 'real') and









that was how the professor 'worked.' He appeared to find the sharing of students' ideas and

opinions an important element of this class.

Kenneth's ideas about valuing student voice were made clearer when describing a

Scandinavian literature class. He was the only non-English major in the class.

[the instructor] was so cool
'cause she welcomed me in
and said, "You know what, I love a fresh perspective,
I love what you have to say,
I think it's really valuable
because everybody here has their heads buried in plays
and stuff like that,
and I want to hear what somebody who's not in that has to say."

so you know we 're talking
"well... well what do you think" you know
and "apart from the saga,
what do you think that he meant when you know,
he you know murdered you know, his ,v,"
or ,uviniehing like that...
"I just think he was pissed at his son..." you know
"you don't think there's any underlying thing there?..."
"no, I think honor was a big deal
and... he wasn't honorable so his dad offed him," you know...
"that's imue eating" you know
some other people are raising their hands,
"well I think you know I think it had to do with
maybe his dad was insecure about you know, his masculinity"
or something like that
and I'm like... "no" you know
and I was always like the frank
like "I think I think they meant what they wrote" kind of thing

she really valued what I had to say
because I was from a different perspective
and that was one of the things that really enlightened me to, you know,
valuing other perspectives
I had a great time
she thought I had a lot of good things to say
and I... like, participated like crazy
'cause that's what I do
and so um, she said she really liked having me in class (K2)









In the above excerpt, Kenneth used a derivative of the word 'value' three times to emphasize the

value his teacher placed on his contributions to class discussion. According to Kenneth, it was

the teacher who valued his participation and ideas but there is no indication that other students

found his insights valuable. In the first and third excerpts, Kenneth focused on his relationship

with the instructor and how she 'welcomed' him, thought what he had to 'say' was 'valuable,'

'valued' his 'different' perspective, 'she' thought his contributions were important and 'really'

liked having him in the class. In his mind, the teacher validated Kenneth's knowledge, making it

valuable. In the third excerpt, Kenneth said the class 'enlightened' him to 'valuing other

perspectives,' but the second excerpt contradicts this assertion. He mimicked what might be

considered a class discussion in which Kenneth's perspective was challenged and twice his

response was 'no,' meaning he would not consider ideas that differed from his. He appeared to

enjoy this class because his ideas were solicited and valued by the instructor, not because there

was a culture of valuing all students, although this might have been the case. Kenneth's

description of the class indicates the importance he placed on being valued as a student, but

perhaps not necessarily on the value of all students. He said he liked this class because students

were able to share their knowledge and ideas. Based on the excerpt, however, he appeared to

believe that his knowledge and ideas were the correct ones, which challenged the value he placed

on student voices that were in opposition to his ideas and opinions. He may not value other

student input as much as the opportunity to voice his views.

Kenneth described two classes he did not like where he believed students were not allowed

to participate, one a course on medieval history and the other the social studies internship

seminar where observations took place for this study. Regarding the instructor of the medieval

history course, he said,









he was talking at you, for one,
he was disrespectful,
you were nothing, you know
there was no value,
you were of no value to him

he didn 't take attendance
and it was just, "You shut up
and it better be quiet now
I'm talking
and you're listening." (I:. all lecture?)
yep, all lecture, no questions (K2)

Kenneth described this instructor as 'talking at you,' which implied the instructor had the active

role and students were passive. He emphasized that the instructor was 'disrespectful' and

students were 'nothing' ('no value' emphasized twice), making them nearly invisible. According

to Kenneth, the instructor's role was to talk ('I'm talking') and the students' role to listen

('you're listening'), so students were to 'shut up' and 'be quiet.' In this classroom, knowledge

was the sole possession of the teacher and it was the student's responsibility to acquire that

knowledge. This contradicted Kenneth's belief that good teachers make room for ideas and

opinions from students.

Much of what he did not like about the social studies internship seminar appeared to be

how the structure of the class created an environment in which students could not share their

ideas and opinions out loud.

the way Rachel ran class, nobody wanted to mess with her
so, it'd feel like, okay, it's not appropriate for me to talk to somebody else right here,
because if you notice it's like, before class, everybody's talking,
"hey, how's it going, what's going on" you know
we were in our internship
so we didn't see each other
we missed each other
and everything like that,
it was cool
and all of a sudden
"No talking, time for chalk talk," you know and it was like
and so nobody wanted,









everybody just kind of wanted to go through the motions
and get through class
and not ruffle feathers

there were so many components where it was,
where she seemed like she was so focused on, it going the way she wanted
in terms of the structure of the class
rather then what we were getting out of it
and that's like, chalk talks, "nobody talking right now," you know, (I: Right)
and that, and I'll be honest,
those turned into a joke,
nobody cared, you know
they wrote them in there
because they needed to get the grade
and that was it
if we had,
if we had talked to do that
would have been totally different
and very, very, very beneficial, I think (K2)

Based on Kenneth's description and his emphasized words, he perceived that student voice was

not valued in the internship seminar. As the excerpt indicates, students did not 'feel' like they

could talk or socialize, and 'it' (the class) had to follow the instructor's plan 'rather' then meet

the needs of students. Kenneth described two altercations with the instructor which he perceived

as silencing students ('No talking, time for chalk talk,' and 'nobody talking right now'). He

asserted that if students had 'talked' instead of using chalk talks it would have been 'totally

different' and 'very beneficial.'

Chalk talks are a teaching strategy that uses no verbal interaction-all comments are

written. One purpose for chalk talks is to provide an opportunity to participate for students who

would not normally participate in an oral class discussion. In a chalk talk, all students have a

voice and are equally recognized through what they have written. When Kenneth discussed his

Scandinavian literature class, he emphasized the value the instructor placed on his contributions

to discussion but did not emphasize how all contributions were valued. In fact, he considered his

ideas the correct ones over all others. His dislike for chalk talks might be based on their









equalizing power-all ideas are treated equally and given equal voice. His resistance to this

method might have been due to his desire to have his ideas considered the most valuable and

correct and not equal to all other ideas, which is contrary to the goal of chalk talks. Kenneth

resisted the methods used in the social studies internship seminar because he could not assert his

views through a traditional method of discussion.

George also believed good teachers used discussion and, like Kenneth, felt the important

knowledge he brought with him to the internship seminar was silenced. George's favorite college

classes allowed students to share their opinions and ideas. One was a political science class that

was discussion based and George said used a Socratic method of questioning to study political

philosophers.

[the instructor] has very uh, radical social ideas
but he had this course in political philosophy
that he allowed everyone to be able to voice their opinions you know
so it was a true democratic classroom (I:. mhmm)
and he was not judgmental

and uh considering he was the most directly polar opposite ideologically from me
he uh... he was a talker you know
so he lectured a lot
but he was also Socratic
and he would lecture for twenty minute spurts
and then go into these deep discussions
and he would really try to get passions involved
passions of the students involved

his ideas were that people understand the basic political philosophies
you know all ranges
from everywhere
if people understood what that perspective was
yet could formulate critically in their own minds
uh, how to process all that
so that's why I enjoyed that so much (G2)

What appeared to interest George in this class was first, the instructor's 'radical social ideas' that

were 'polar opposite ideologically' to his, and second, the 'discussions' that were 'not









judgmental,' which he perceived as a 'true democratic classroom.' According to George, the

instructor ('he') was a 'talker' but 'he' also gave students the opportunity to 'voice their

opinions.' The instructor 'lectured' in 'spurts' and then used 'Socratic' questioning in

'discussions' with students. Socratic questioning is a teaching method that uses a series of

questions to determine if a particular line of thinking or belief is supported. The method may be

used in different ways, depending on the person doing the questioning, but it usually includes six

types of questions that: (1) clarify ideas; (2) probe assumptions; (3) analyze reasons and

evidence; (4) explore alternative views and perspectives; (5) explore implications and

consequences and; (6) consider why certain questions were asked. It is not meant to be debate

but an opportunity to reflect on beliefs and knowledge and to consider other perspectives.

Depending on who is leading the questioning, Socratic method can be used to help students

analyze their own assumptions and ideas, or it can be used to lead students to certain conclusions

that agree with the questioner's assumptions and ideas. According to George, the goal of the

political science instructor was to initiate 'passions' about the beliefs of many different

philosophers ('all ranges,' 'from everywhere'). Ultimately, however, the professor wanted

students to 'understand the basic political philosophies' so they could 'formulate' and 'process'

each 'perspective.' Based on George's description, the professor wanted students to know the

different philosophical perspectives and think critically about the philosophers' beliefs, but it

appeared students could leave the classroom with their own perceptions unchanged. This might

indicate that probing assumptions and exploring implications and consequences (two steps in

Socratic method) were not a major focus in this classroom, but these can lead to the critical

inquiry and self-reflection necessary to disrupt hegemony.









Another class George enjoyed was a history class entitled "Cultural Wars," which he said

was similar to the political science class.

he was a very conservative professor
far more conservative than I am
it was a lot of talk
I mean that particular class
it was just the subject material
and as well as just a wonderful teacher

that was also a three hour class
so it's impossible to lecture for three hours (I:. yeah)
so he-he would usually lecture the first half
and then he'd... use Socratic method
or questioning um
discussion off of people's comments
the second half (G2)

It was the %uljei i and 'teacher' that made this class one of George's favorites. To indicate the

political positioning of the class, he emphasized that he ('I') was conservative but this professor

was 'far more conservative.' He also emphasized the focus on 'talk,' 'Socratic method,'

'questioning,' and 'discussion' during the second half of class, which appeared to be a method he

enjoyed. George described another of his favorite classes that gave students the opportunity to

voice their ideas and opinions without judging those ideas or opinions.

a young idealistic professor
with very concrete views of the literature that we read
opinions you know
and yet still he allowed you to be able to express your own
it was all reflection
and critical thinking (I: okay)
he would profess his ideas
and then he'd ask what you thought of that
then he would defend his ideas
and you would try to strengthen your argument
or your ideas
through excerpts from the text (G2)

In this literature class, the 'professor' had 'concrete views' and 'opinions' of the literature but

'still allowed' students to express their ideas. According to George, once the instructor explained









'his idea' he would ask students what they thought of 'that,' which would result in everyone

taking and defending positions. It was 'he' against 'your' and the support for all 'views' and

'opinions' came from the 'text.' George emphasized the 'reflection' and 'critical thinking' that

was a major part of the class but also the debate between what the instructor believed was a

correct 'view' and what the student believed was a correct 'view.' Whether the reflection and

critical thinking led to any constructive changes in views and opinions on either side is unknown.

George said it was not a coincidence that two of the classes he really enjoyed were

philosophically based. The instructor of the political philosophy class wanted to inspire the

passions of students with lecture and Socratic questioning on different philosophers throughout

history. His goal was to help students understand and think critically about the perspectives and

ideas of the philosophers. George liked this class because it allowed him to voice his opinions

and was 'not judgmental,' which could mean it did not challenge students to critically evaluate

their own beliefs. The literature class was a favorite for similar reasons-the instructor allowed

students to express their own opinions. This class leaned more toward debate, with the instructor

and students defending their positions. He enjoyed the history class due to the subject matter

(culture wars) and the conservative teacher. George described instructors for the political science

and literature classes as liberal in their thinking, and it was their willingness to allow student

ideas and opinions that made the classes two of his favorites. Whether he enjoyed Socratic

questioning that included the fifth step (explore implications and consequences of ideas and

beliefs), which could lead to change, or simply enjoyed the debate that occurred during the

questioning is difficult to assess. He did enjoy classes that allowed him to state and defend his

position on what was being taught. The classes he disliked provided further insight into his

beliefs about the role of the teacher in the classroom.









As noted earlier, the class that George said he disliked the most was Reading in the

Content Area, a graduate level course in his teacher education program.

(I: what kind of teaching methods did she use?)

some... very unstructured group work
nobody wanted to do the group work
nobody took it seriously
so even if you wanted to do it seriously
the other three people in your group didn 't want to do it seriously
so, um, and then she just let it go,
and she had other things going on in her life

(I. did she do class discussions?)

yeah... they were just,
they were not productive
there was just no opinions being brought
by anybody so
and I did bring out opinions
and I wrote long
we had this Google group
and I wrote long opinions on it
and nobody cared
so I just said "hell with it" (G2)

George emphasized that the 'unstructured group work' was not taken 'seriously' and students

did not want to 'do' the work. Class discussions, which was a method George enjoyed, were 'not

productive' because there were 'no opinions' expressed by 'anybody' (except George) because

'nobody cared.' While he 'wrote long' 'opinions' in the online discussion, no one wrote back.

Unlike his favorite classes, this class did not provide him with opportunities for debate since

students did not share their ideas and opinions.

George's resistance in the social studies methods course was due in part to what he

perceived as the lack of 'deep' discussion in the course.

Rachel's not the type of teacher that goes deep in anything
I mean, she talks like she wants to
but never does (I:. right)
I think she understands it









and wants to talk about it
but then, uh for whatever reason
she has all these things planned for that day
and she's gotta get to 'em, you know
discussion is uh sometimes you've just gotta write the rest of your class off
if you're having a good discussion
but she'll cut it off
and end it just as it's beginning to blossom
because something else was on her agenda (G2)

George emphasized twice that Rachel 'wants' to have meaningful discussions and 'understands'

the importance of them, 'but never does' engage in discussions. According to George, the

'reason' she did not attempt them in the social studies methods course was because she had to

'get' to what she 'planned' and a 'good discussion' might require her to change her plan ('write

the rest of your class off). He said she would 'end' ('cut it off) a discussion because it was not

'on her agenda.' Observations of the social studies internship seminar confirmed George's

reasoning-Rachel appeared to end discussions when students were fully engaged in them

because she needed to move to the next item on her agenda. Discussions, including chalk talks

and jigsaws, were often timed and students were required to stop when the time expired. This

was frustrating for George because it prevented him from engaging in debate and sharing his

ideas and opinions.

What appeared to be the underlying problem for George, however, was that his ideas and

opinions were not respected in any of the courses in the teacher education program, and when he

did respond with viewpoints that opposed the instructor's he said he felt marginalized.

the thing that really bugged me about everything
was that... my knowledge base was never,
my experiential base was never tapped into (I:. okay)
you know um the things that I've done
and the jobs that I've had
I don't like to talk about 'em
and, I'm not the type of guy that's going to take people aside
and be some sort of mentor you know,









but there were certain things that I could have certainly added to, you know...
definitely the global studies class

(I. was it in the global studies class that you said you felt the most marginalized?)

definitely
she would comment on something I'd say
and then not let me rebut... (I:. okay) (Gl)

George emphasized that what bothered him ('me') was that his 'knowledge' and 'experiential

base' was not taken advantage of through class discussion. He was an older student returning to

complete a master's program after working fifteen years in the business world and felt what he

had 'done' prior to entering the program, the 'jobs' he held, provided him with 'certain'

knowledge and experience that would have 'definitely' added an additional dimension to the

global studies class. George did not like to 'talk' about his experiences, and said he was 'not' a

'mentor' to others less knowledgeable, but was willing to share his knowledge and experience as

it pertained to coursework. He felt his 'knowledge' was marginalized in the global studies class

when the instructor ('she') would 'not' let him 'rebut' her response to his comments.

George believed good teachers allowed students to voice their ideas and opinions without

judgment. This could present problems in a classroom where critical inquiry and self-reflection

were important and challenging ideas and opinions is part of the learning process. George had a

preference for discussion and what he referred to as Socratic questioning but what also

resembled debate in which establishing ones own ideas and opinions was more important than

critical examination or understanding the ideas and opinions of others. The classes he enjoyed

had some structure in which the instructor lectured and then led discussion but George

considered them all discussion based classes. In the classes he did not enjoy, discussions were

unproductive because he was the only one sharing any opinions, there was no debate, the

discussions were ended too quickly, or his ideas and opinions were not given prominence (they









were marginalized). Kenneth also believed good teachers allow students to voice their ideas and

opinions, but he found the discussion method (chalk talks) used by the social studies methods

instructor too restrictive because he believed his ideas needed to be heard above the ideas of

others. As a student who valued voicing his ideas and perceptions and viewing them as correct,

Kenneth resisted the idea that all student voices are equal. George and Kenneth believed good

teachers allow room for the ideas and opinions of students, but in the internship seminar, they

wanted to assert their own ideas and opinions as the correct ones or ones that deserved a place of

prominence. Democratic classroom practices, however, does not allow one voice to dominate the

class, which helps explains the contradiction between their belief that teachers should control

decisions about instruction and management and their belief that students' ideas and opinions

should be shared.

Teachers Should Teach Assimilation to the Dominant Group

One of the unique Discourses about the role of teachers was that teachers should teach

assimilation to the dominant group. George resisted the teachings and content in the social

studies internship seminar that supported culturally responsive pedagogy due to his belief that

teaching should help students assimilate to the dominant culture. He thought teachings on

diversity and multicultural education divided people instead of bringing them together.

there is no melting pot, you know
people always wanna' accentuate differences
in fact, I've always contested that diversity
and multicultural training
has always accentuated differences
rather than making connections

(I. okay so how do we teach the fact that we do have so many cultures)

I would teach through geography
where do these people come from,
where do we come from
nobody's from here (I. right)









not even Native Americans arefrom here, you know
and you start there
but then accentuate similarities
not the differences
because you know uh... there's no melting pot
but there's something to be said for, winething of a melting pot

there are essential parts of Italian
and African American
and Irish
and, different parts of culture that are now part of the American culture (I: right)
that happened naturally you know
and it has nothing to do with assimilation
but it has to do with being an American
and there is an American culture
and for a culture
for a country
for a nation to go forward
there has to be a feeling of oneness you know
and we've gotten away from that
and I think that's the weakness of multicultural education (G3)

George believed the 'weakness of multicultural education' was due to the emphasis on

'differences' instead of 'connections' and this hindered the formation of a unified ('oneness')

'American culture' that could move 'forward.' He said he would teach multicultural education

from the perspective of many different cultures coming together ('through geography

where do these people come from, where do we come from nobody's from here'). He would then

'accentuate similarities... not differences.' The only differences he would teach would be the

geographical homelands of the various cultures; all other teaching would be about things various

cultures had in common. He believed the blending of 'different parts of culture' to create the

'American culture' happened naturally, and is not 'assimilation' but has to do with being an

American. However, the culture of any nation is dominated by the most powerful and,

historically, the most powerful in the United States have been White, Eurocentric male, middle-

upper class citizens. The elements of non-dominant cultures that have been absorbed into what









George calls 'American culture' were accepted because the dominant group, those in power,

thought it beneficial to accept them.

According to George, his opinions about diversity and multiculturalism were not always

well received in the teacher education program.

I came in here wanting to talk about all kinds of things
and uh... just would either A not get, to the aspects that I want to talk about
or B when I was caught up in the
and a lot of this program is caught up in multiculturalism
and diversity
and uh, equity
and all that
uh that when I gave a, uh, differing opinion it was, ignored (G2)

George felt the 'kinds of things' he wanted to discuss were not addressed ('not get to') or when

they were addressed and he gave a 'differing opinion,' he 'was ignored.' He also felt the program

was 'caught up in multiculturalism... diversity... equity and all that,' meaning issues that

supported ideals that he did not agree with. Statements George made during the interview were

often biased against lower socioeconomic groups, women, certain ethnic groups, and certain

religions. When these statements where challenged he would respond by directing the interview

away from the topic. For example, George felt it was important that schools represent the

majority population within the community where they are located but refused to consider how

the minority population might be affected.

schools are meant to be a reflection of their communities,
and we've made them a reflection of the national um multicultural values rather than...
if you live in a town where church is the center of the town
it only makes sense to have that as part of the curriculum you know...
and-I can't say part of the curriculum
but... as part of... discourse you know
cause it's viiething that's very real in people's eyes

(I. what's the difference between having it part of a discourse and having it part of the
curriculum?)









I understand
what you're saying is protecting minority rights
I think we're intelligent enough as a society
to be able to tell the difference between, um, putting a Christmas tree in a classroom
and somebody uh... teaching that you're gonna' go to hell if you don't believe in god
now people are afraid to even say the word god in school...
I think that hurts society

(I. you have maybe Jewish children ahug n ith children who come from homes who don't
believe and possibly even coming from Muslim homes and how do you come together in a
classroom i ith all these kids i ith the idea of a Christmas tree? as a teacher you 're setting
up this piece which is connected more closely in ith a specific religion, is that okay when
you have students who might not necessarily be offended but almost left out-)

-exclusion-

(I. -because it's not part of their beliefs in the same way that you as a conservative in the
classroom often felt left out and pushed aside because your ideas didn't coincide I ith the
teacher 's and the main thinking?)

I think it's a travesty that religion's not taught
and... if you have Muslim people
and you have Jewish people living in the society
they should know where the majority's coming from...
but again I want to get back to indoctrination (G3)

The two main points of this discourse are first, the emphasis George placed on the role of

Christianity in schools, which he considered the majority religion, and second, his refusal to

address the issue of ignoring the beliefs of students when they do not coincide with the beliefs of

teachers or the community. He argued that if the 'church' is the 'center' of a community, it

should be included in the 'discourse' of the school ('makes sense'). He does not identify which

religion the church represented but his later reference to a Christmas tree made it clear that he

was referring to a church that followed the Christian religion. When questioned as to the

difference between curriculum and discourse, George responded with the difference between a

'Christmas tree' (an inanimate object) and 'somebody teaching that you're gonna' go to hell if

you don't believe in god.' He did not appear to make a connection between a teacher's actions

and the message those actions send to students. In his mind, a Christmas tree was not offensive









because it was not teaching anything in the way a teacher ('somebody') would. When questioned

what a Christmas tree represented and the effects that might have on students whose beliefs did

not support that particular religion, George used the word 'exclusion' but then changed the

subject. He said it was a 'travesty' that religion was not taught in schools but 'again' wanted to

return to a discussion on indoctrination. Ironically, the discussion on indoctrination, which

occurred much earlier in the interview, involved his belief that teacher education programs were

liberal and indoctrinated students to believe the same way, which offended him as a student with

conservative beliefs.

George believed fear prevented people from including 'god in school' and 'that hurts

society,' but the god he referred to was the Christian god. He said he understood ('understand')

the issue of 'protecting minority rights,' but also said minorities ('Muslims' and 'Jewish people')

should 'know' the beliefs of the majority. He never suggested or implied that the majority should

know the beliefs of minorities. This reflected George's ideology, or political beliefs, about

education. He did not believe culturally responsive teaching (multiculturalism) was

advantageous because it was divisive and not unifying. He also believed schools should reflect

the dominant culture within the community regardless of how that might affect minority groups.

His unique 'uiiething of a melting pot,' or assimilation, theory about multicultural education

appeared to give precedence to the dominant group and marginalize non-dominant groups.

Teacher Responsible for Success of all Students But...

Another of the unique teacher beliefs was Kenneth's resistance to course content based on

a no-excuses teaching philosophy. He was required to read a chapter in Leadership for Equity

and Excellence by James Joseph Scheurich and Linda Skrla and responded to the reading in a

small group by stating that society is capitalist so some students will fail, or be at the bottom, and

it is not the teacher's fault. He was asked during an interview to elaborate on this response.









(I: What do you see, or can you explain the relationship between capitalism and what goes
on in classrooms?)

schools never end up being funded equally
and then you give grades, and grades,
there's a top and a bottom,
just like capitalism,
there's rich and poor
and a lot of people in the middle
and yeah I mean that's kind of the way it the way it ends up
and you know... the student doesn't have to necessarily get the F you know
or the failing grade,
but if they get the D
or aC
because of their ability level, I mean,
what do you, you know, there's nothing that you can do about that
you can help 'em
and help 'em
and help 'em
and try your best, you know,
but, if they don't produce those kind of, you know
if they don't produce any results,
if they 're not moving,
getting any better quality wise then they were, you know,
there's not a ton you can do about that
and then there are certain,
I think there are certain things that are outside of your control
that you can't help
if they have a bad home life,
you can certainly do your best to try to, control the damage that is done by that
but there's nothing that you, are going to be able to do that's gonna' be, you know,
probably not, there's probably not much that you can do
that's gonna' be more powerful than what mom or dad says at home, you know (K3)

Kenneth does not believe in a no-excuses teaching philosophy, which takes into consideration

the factors that contribute to student failure but does not place blame. In this excerpt, Kenneth

first placed blame for failure on a student's 'ability level,' saying 'if they don't produce,' 'if

they're not moving,' 'there's not a ton' a teacher can do to help the student. He also blamed a

student's home life-'if they have a bad home life' there is 'nothing' a teacher can do, or there is

'probably not much that you can do,' that will 'be more powerful' than the parents. The

emphasis on 'they' and 'they're' places the responsibility for learning and the blame for failure









on the student. What is most telling about this excerpt, however, is Kenneth's application of

capitalism to the classroom, teaching, and the education system. He views capitalism as a natural

sorting system in which some succeed and some do not depending on their own abilities or other

factors, and the teacher is powerless to change this sorting system. Kenneth's belief that

capitalism creates schools as natural sorting machines, where some are going to be 'on the

bottom,' prevented him from accepting a no-excuses teaching philosophy and believing it was

his responsibility to help students overcome some of the obstacles to their own education.

Kenneth established a belief about teaching that allowed him to blame students or circumstances

for failure in the classroom, which was evident in his resistance to a no-excuses teaching

philosophy.

I know that specifically,
with kind of an idealistic fervor in the class
where there was a whole lot of talk
and a whole lot of readings
about, you've gotta reach every kid you know
and that I perceived as a big problem
it was never explained to anybody that, you know what,
as long as you try hard it's gonna' be cool, you know
that was never made explicit
it was, oh, you're not reaching a kid, there's something wrong, you know
and it needs to be explained more then that
okay, there's something wrong
and how can we rework this
and put our efforts to try get that kid back on track,
it was just like you're doing something wrong

it's your fault
it's always the teacher's responsibility
you probably noticed this but,
I'm sure the reason that I was identified [as resisting]
is because from the fall on
I was the one who always objected to that [idea] (K2)

In his discussion of what caused him to resist in class, Kenneth cited the 'ideological fervor' of

the class and the no-excuses teaching philosophy supported through a 'whole lot of talk' and a









'whole lot of readings.' He believed he was identified as being resistant because of his objections

to a no-excuses teaching philosophy. He understood this philosophy to mean 'you've gotta reach

every kid' and if not then 'you're doing something wrong.' He agreed that teachers must 'try

hard,' 'rework' the lesson, and focus their 'efforts to try to get that kid back on track,' but he also

wanted someone or something to blame (other than the teacher) when a student did not succeed.

The readings for the social studies internship seminar (see Appendix B) were based on

research from well known educators and explained a no-excuses teaching philosophy. The

instructor of the social studies methods course was never observed saying teachers were to be

blamed for student failure. During an observation, Kenneth said the readings were too idealistic

and reflected the curriculum of the teacher education course, which he said was inappropriate

since it taught teachers to think everything was their fault and it expected schools to fix

everything. Kenneth's oppositional statements and resistance to the readings were due to his

belief that classrooms are natural sorting machines, just as capitalism is a natural sorting

machine, and there will always be students who fail or do not do well in the classroom regardless

of the quality or efforts of the teacher. Kenneth was the only participant who explicitly resisted

the content on a no-excuses teaching philosophy, and William was the only participant to give

strong evidence of biased beliefs about gender and teachers.

Good Female Teachers are Caring and Build Relationships with Students

William believed good teachers had a deep knowledge of content and were good

storytellers, however, he also described the female teachers he liked as nurturing. None of the

male teachers he liked were described as caring or nurturing. A memory from his fifth grade

class helps clarify his beliefs about good female teachers.

(I: is there anything in particular that you can remember about your elementary years?
especially oiehiiiiig that might influence you now when you think about teaching?)









well, yeah, I mean, I had some teachers that I really enjoyed being with
my fifth grade teacher
she took us on a field trip, um
just our fifth grade
there were, I think, three fifth grade classes
and, ours was the one that went on the 3-day field trip
where we got to like stay overnight
it was like at a ski resort
cross-country skiing
and, I just remember her classroom for doing stuff like that all the time
we put on a play once
and some stuff that the other classes never did
and, I mean it really stood out in my mind
because, she liked doing it
and you could really tell she cared about us
I remember being in 4th grade
and seeing her yelling at a student once out in the hallway
and thinking I never want to have that lady as a teacher
and then when I got her
I absolutely loved her...
I was so glad that I ended up with her (Wl)

William remembered this teacher because she was 'doing stuff that showed 'she cared.' His

emphasis that 'she took us,' 'just our,' 'ours was the one,' and 'we got to' indicated the

importance he placed on the caring relationship between the teacher ('she') and the students

('we'). William said this teacher 'really stood out' because she 'liked doing it' and it was

obvious to him that 'she cared about us.' According to William, a good teacher is caring and

incorporates activities and events to show students they are special.

Another female instructor William admired taught political science and was passionate

about her subject but also built relationships with students.

she just had her own style of teaching,
again, it was a lot of lecture
but, um, she had so much fun teaching
and you could tell just from her interaction with students...
I really like that and, uh
she's the first college professor I've ever had that I, I've had a relationship with
like that that I would go talk to (I: Mhmm)









she, she would just voice her opinion no matter what
she loved talking to people that were conservative
and stuff like that
and would never belittle their view
or anything like that
but um would let them voice their opinion,
and um... lay out her side
and then let everyone else choose what they, what they, felt they should do
and that's why I had her for one class,
like state politics,
and then I took her again for a broader political class, um...
but um she would cultivate personal relationships with the s-with the people in her class,
she always knew us by she called us by our last name,
she... same thing she just loved what she was doing,
she loved talking about it
and um encouraged people to get active in politics (W2)

William noted the 'lecture' focus of this class but emphasized the 'fun' this instructor had

teaching and how this was evident through 'her interaction with students.' He said she 'loved'

hearing differing opinions and 'would never belittle' another point of view. This respect for

students was also evident in the way 'she would cultivate personal relationships' and 'she always

knew us by... out last name.' As with his fifth grade teacher, William emphasized the actions of

the teacher ('she') that indicated a nurturing attitude. He said this instructor was not only

passionate about her subject area ('same thing she just loved what she was doing' and 'she loved

talking about it') but she also made an effort to show students she cared by making herself

available outside the classroom ('I would go talk to her'). William said this was the 'first college

professor' he had a relationship with and in a later interview called her a mentor.

William's fifth grade teacher and his political science teacher, both females, made learning

fun and acted in ways that built caring relationships with students. However, he did not perceive

the social studies methods instructor, also a female, in this way. Interestingly, he said Rachel was

not like this in the fall when she taught an educational technology class.

when we had her in the fall um
it started out, she was um, that she was dynamic









I mean she'd come in
and some things would make you feel a little uncomfortable
she'd you know come in dressed in a wig
and stuff like that
it's a little weird but you know,
it-it switched things up
but um somewhere along the line um
I don't know
it went from being, um she's the fun teacher to being
she um, it's her way or the highway
and I don't know
for whatever reason a lot of people rebelled against that (W2)

William emphasized that Rachel was 'fun' and 'dynamic' in the fall, like the female teachers he

enjoyed. He said she made him 'feel a little uncomfortable' but she 'switched things up,' making

class more interesting-building a relationship with students through what she did in the

classroom. That changed, however, and it became 'her way or the highway.' He described his

confusion over this by twice stating 'I don't know' and then said students, for 'whatever reason,'

rebelled against her. The change in the instructor's classroom management style did not support

William's belief that good female teachers are caring and build relationships with students. This

was further illustrated in an incident in the spring internship seminar.

Wednesday I was taking notes on my laptop
and she stopped class
"William, um can you put that away
I can't think of any reason why you might be using it,"
and then just kept going before I could even respond
well, Ijust kept typing away
and eventually when we came to a short break she came up behind me
and looked at what I was typing
she like, "You could have just said you were taking notes,"
"Well you didn't give me the chance to, Rachel"
so, um, her classroom management seems to me to change
to evolve to a point
where it's assumed that people are doing something wrong and disruptive
and deal with it, sometimes um confrontationally (W2)

According to William, the instructor 'assumed' he was taking class time to do something other

than class work. When Rachel did not give him the 'chance' to 'respond' to her request, he









continued the behavior but took responsibility for his actions ('Ijust kept typing'). His response

to continue the behavior can be considered an act of resistance since he deliberately challenged

the authority of the teacher and admitted that was what he was doing. During the break, the

instructor 'came up behind' William, possibly to see what he was doing on the laptop, and found

he was 'taking notes.' According to William, the instructor did not apologize but instead blamed

him for not telling her that he was 'taking notes.' He said her 'classroom management' style

seemed 'to evolve' from a more constructive and positive style to a more authoritative style

('assumed that people are doing something wrong'), and William found this strict disciplinarian

classroom management style 'sometimes confrontational.'

In the descriptions of the two female teachers William admired, he emphasized their caring

natures and how they worked to build relationships with students. He did not do this with any of

the male teachers whom he appeared to admire almost exclusively for their lecture performance

and passion for the subject they taught. His fifth grade teacher, a female, was admired and

remembered for the special activities she created for students outside of the classroom. And the

political science professor, also female, was admired not only for her passion for her subject area

but also for building personal relationships with students by remembering their names and

making herself available to them outside the classroom. William's emphasis on the caring aspect

of the two female teachers he admired might indicate he believes good female teachers are

nurturing in addition to knowing their content area and loving what they do. He did not view the

instructor of the social studies internship seminar as nurturing or fun, although she was when he

had her in the fall technology class. The change in her way of teaching, from the 'fun' teacher to

the strict teacher, and his belief that good female teachers are nurturing and build student

relationships, may have helped escalate the resistance to the methods and content of the class.









His acts of resistance during the laptop incident might be considered cultural resistance, not

counter resistance, because he was resisting a power structure established by the instructor. His

reasons for resistance, however, appeared to be for the purpose of maintaining his belief that

female teachers are nurturing and build relationships with students. This contradiction will be

discussed further in the next section.

Cultural Resistance and the Role of the Teacher

The participants engaged in what is called in this study counter-resistance when they

resisted methods or content meant to create dissonance and disrupt hegemony in teaching and

schools. Participants also, however, engaged in what can be called cultural resistance due to the

instructor of the social studies internship seminar using rigid classroom management and due to

the handling of the student-teacher relationship throughout the program. Cultural resistance is

when oppositional behavior by students works to disrupt the White, Eurocentric, middle-upper

class culture reflected in most U.S. schools. The students' cultural beliefs conflict with the

cultural beliefs of schools and classrooms, and students might express their discontent through

resistant behavior, as appeared to be true of William and Kenneth.

Teachers should not Micro-manage Classrooms

When William complained of the change in the way Rachel taught class between the fall

and spring semesters, he indicated the strictness that was used in the spring class that was not

evident in the fall.

(I. what was it about that class that you did not like?)

I don't know
I guess the strictness of it...
there was, it seemed like there was an expectation
to be um, creatively thinking a lot of the time
but at the same time
we were expected to do-to toe the line
on everything up to and including the way we presented ourselves in class









um it was... and I think I said this to you last time
a lot of the class was kind of a rebellion against Rachel
more than the content of the class

According to William, the 'expectation' of the class, to be 'creatively thinking,' conflicted with

the demand that students 'toe the line on everything.' He perceived that the demand on students

to adhere strictly to classroom expectations prevented the critical thinking expected of students.

He believed this 'strictness' resulted in resistance ('rebellion') to the instructor more than the

'content.' Kenneth also complained about the strictness of the class.

the other thing I disliked about the [methods] class
obviously the structure was so rigid at times that... you just, you know it was like
you didn't feel like you could, ask questions or do anything-I mean
I got snapped at several times
you were you saw me get snapped at
and I'm like, I'm not an unruly type of person or anything
um you know, like when I was outside the circle
and I was, "oh, cool, I can see."
"nope, in the circle."
whoa! whoa, you know

there were so many components where it was,
where she seemed like she was so focused on, it going the way she wanted
in terms of the structure of the class
rather than what we were getting out of it

Kenneth emphasized the 'rigid' structure of the internship seminar and how he felt

uncomfortable asking 'questions.' He said he was 'snapped' at for sitting outside the 'circle'

during a class activity and the observation that day confirmed his description. The circle of 29

students was large and Kenneth chose to sit behind another student but the instructor did not like

that arrangement and demanded the desks be moved so he could sit in the circle. Kenneth felt the

instructor was more concerned that the 'many components' of the class follow her 'structure'

('focused on it going the way she wanted') 'rather than' what would be best for student learning.

Both William and Kenneth believed good teachers control the instruction and management

of classrooms, but resisted when the instructor of the internship seminar did this in her









classroom. For William, this may have been due partly to his belief that good female teachers are

nurturing and build good relationships with students, and he did not define the methods

instructor as a good female teacher. Kenneth may have felt the control excluded any student

input, even in the smallest ways like where a student sat, and he believed his ideas and opinions

should be asserted in the classroom. The strictness of the class may have escalated their acts of

resistance. Based on the methods and content of the class, it appeared the instructor was intent on

disrupting hegemony; however, observations indicate that her reliance on rigidly timed activities

created an environment that was so strict participants felt uncomfortable asking questions or

feared retribution for the way they behaved in class. An instructor who reinforces her agenda

through rigidly timed activities is maintaining the current culture of schools in which the teacher

holds power over student learning and movement. William's and Kenneth's resistance to the

strictness of the class appeared to be cultural resistance because it worked against the traditional

culture of classrooms. William also believed the resistance in the class was due to a classroom

culture that lacked trust between students and teacher.

Teachers should Maintain Trust in Student-Teacher Relationships

Trust in student-teacher relationships was important to William and he expressed deep

disappointment in how that trust was violated by the instructor of the social studies internship

seminar. According to William, the instructor consistently referred what she perceived as

misbehaving students to college administrators without investigating the incidents or speaking

with the students. This element of classroom management can reinforce the hegemonic hierarchy

of schools and the powerlessness of students. William said his resistance in the internship

seminar was due mainly to the lack of trust between students and teacher and that resulted from

events during the fall semester.









in the fall she overheard a conversation
between me and another student
we were in class
and um getting ready to leave
I don't remember exactly what had happened with him that prompted the whole thing
but he was pretty upset about it
I mean, it was about another instructor actually,
the um... the other student I was talking to had a particular complaint
and um, he was just venting to me
and I was listening
and I was, "yeah, you know I agree, you might be right"
and just along those lines
and, I was just there
and the next thing I knew
I was called into Dr. Boyson 's office
and that to me was just unacceptable

you had to be careful
because it wasn 't worth the
it wasn't worth the pain in the butt to uh
to um say something that might
that's just gonna' cause you problems later on

(I. was there any time during the conversation, or after it, or prior to getting the email,
when you might have thought this conversation was inappropriate?)

um I... looked over
and I saw Rachel there
and I thought, maybe this isn't the best place to talk about this, (I:. okay)
um but, she seemed absorbed in what she was doing
and I really didn't pay much attention to her
inappropriate? at the place? yeah probably,
I mean it's the sort of thing that you should talk about outside of class
class was over, by the way (W2)

The conversation between William and the other student took place in 'class' when they were

'getting ready to leave.' The other student was 'talking' and 'venting' but William perceived his

role as more passive-he was 'just there,' 'listening,' and verbally agreeing with the student's

statements ('I agree, you might be right'). During the conversation with the other student, he

questioned the appropriateness of the place for this discussion (he deliberately 'looked' at Rachel

'but she seemed absorbed') and said 'maybe' it was not the best place. His indecision was not









with the topic of the conversation ('another instructor') but with the 'place' (the classroom)

where the conversation was being held and the possibility of being overheard. The thought that

they would be reported to the associate director of the department ('Dr. Boyson') probably did

not enter his mind since he viewed it ('that') as 'unacceptable' to do so. Ultimately, William

believed this incident, and others like it, disrupted the trust between students and teacher, and

students in the internship seminar 'had to be careful' they did not say anything that 'might' cause

problems later.

He recalled other incidents reported to administrators that he felt undermined the student-

teacher relationship but also admitted that his own behavior often disrupted class.

I did something extremely stupid a month or so ago
where I was so tired
and, and I did something disrespectful
and because I did it
the way I did it
I called Karen's cell phone and
to get it to ring and anyway-

(I. -you did it during class?)

I did it during class
but the thing was
I know this sounds dumb
but Rachel wasn't in my thoughts when I did it at all
I was tired
I was trying to make Karen laugh
and the fact that I didn't think about Rachel is disrespectful in itself but um
and I just pushed it a little too far
not to mention I mean I make sarcastic comments
and I'm trying to keep things light for people in there the best I can
and I go overboard sometimes
I know it um
I've on occasion
I've apologized for it
and I've stopped doing that all together but...

(I: did you apologize for the cell phone thing?)









um no she sent me an email
saying it wasn't appropriate and uh
but I mean I knew that so...
the fact that it was copied to Dr. Hunter kind of irked me a little bit
so no I didn't apologize
although uh, maybe in retrospect
I mean that was probably the worst thing I did in any of the classes
so maybe I should have but...

Dr. Hunter didn't say anything to me about that
but with other people,
yeah I hear that they 'll get called in
you know "you did this"
and like "well Rachel didn't say anything to me about it
I just I didn't realize anything was wrong
until I get called by the higher ups"
and that's just, a method of instruction that I don't agree with at all (W3)

When describing an incident where he was at fault, William emphasized 'I' three times, which

placed responsibility for the action on himself. Later, he emphasized 'I' four times when

discussing some of his behavior that went too far. His willingness to take responsibility for

behavior that might he considered disrespectful or that could have 'pushed it a little too far'

indicated his ability to see the role he played in the development of the student-teacher

relationship. When explaining why he behaved in this way, he admitted to the 'dumb' nature of

his actions and the reasons behind them ('Rachel wasn't in my thoughts,' 'I was tired,' 'trying to

make Karen laugh'). He considered the cell phone incident his most disrespectful act toward a

teacher but he admitted he did not apologize for disrupting class, 'although... in retrospect

maybe I should have.' Looking back on the incident, he said the 'fact' that he did not think about

the instructor before the incident was disrespectful, but the 'fact' that the program chair was

copied on the disciplinary email 'irked' him. It appears that William believed teachers should be

respected, but they are also responsible for building a student-teacher relationship that includes

trust. The consistent reporting of student behavior problems to the 'higher ups' was a 'method of









instruction' that William strongly disagreed with and eroded the trust William believed teachers

should have with students.

According to William, the lack of trust between students and instructor also inhibited

classroom learning.

it got uncomfortable
when we'd sit in our small groups
and, you always felt like you could be open and honest
with the people that you're i/ ith
because you're friends with them
but then when Rachel would come over
and sit next to you
to find out you know what's going on
then you had to, go back to all right, by the book
and everything along those lines so,
and that was tangible
I mean you could you could see it (W2)

In observations, changes in group dynamics were noted during small group discussions when

Rachel was present. Even when discussions were on task, students often became silent or the

discussion faltered when the instructor joined the group. William felt the instructor's presence

during small group discussions was 'uncomfortable' and prevented an 'open and honest'

discussion. He emphasized that students were comfortable '1i ilh' each other because they were

'friends,' but when the instructor joined them they felt compelled to go 'by the book.' According

to William, his acts of resistance in the social studies internship seminar were due mainly to the

erosion of trust between the students and teacher, something he valued in the student-teacher

relationship. He believed Rachel created an authoritarian culture in the classroom and used

management techniques that disrupted the trust with students. By doing this, she reinforced the

hegemonic hierarchy of schools and the powerlessness of students, which appeared to be why

William engaged in acts of resistance in the social studies internship seminar.









Finale

Participants engaged in two types of resistance, counter and cultural. They engaged in

counter resistance when they resisted content and methods that conflicted with their beliefs about

the role of the teacher-teacher is the source of important knowledge, important knowledge is

practical and relevant, teachers control decisions about instruction and management, teachers

encourage students' ideas and opinions, teacher should teach assimilation to the dominant group,

teacher is responsible for the success of all students but..., and good female teachers are caring

and build relationships with students. These beliefs about the role of teachers maintain

hegemony. They engaged in cultural resistance when they opposed actions by the teacher that

appeared to maintain hegemony-teachers should not micro-manage classrooms and teachers

should maintain trust in student-teacher relationships. Resistance can be better understood by

insights into participants' ideology about education, which is explained through the connection

between sociohistorical contexts and beliefs about the role of teachers. Participant ideologies are

examined in chapter five.









CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

The purpose of this study was to better understand student resistance by White students in

a secondary social studies internship seminar for prospective teachers. Student resistance has

been described as oppositional behavior by students whose cultures are not represented in

classrooms and schools (Anyon, 1981; Cochran-Smith, 2004; Dance, 2004; Devine, 1996; hooks

2002; McCadden, 1998; McLaren, 1986, 2003; Miron & Lauria, 1995; Willis, 1988). More

recently, however, instructors who teach classes on diversity and ethnic studies witnessed White

students from the privileged group resisting the content presented in the classroom (Davis, 1992;

Haddad & Lieberman, 2002; Hunter & Nettles, 1999; McFarland, 2001; Middleton, 2002).

This presents a unique problem for teacher educators since the student population in many

schools is becoming more diverse but the pool of prospective teachers is still predominantly from

the privileged group-White, Eurocentric, female, and middle-upper class (Cochran-Smith,

Davis & Fries, 2004; Gay, 1997). Resistance by prospective teachers to methods and content

many teacher educators believe to be essential for effective teaching in schools, and more

specifically culturally diverse schools, could result in poor teaching of culturally diverse learners

and the reinforcement of hegemony in schools.

There is little research on resistance by White prospective teachers in teacher education

programs, but what does exist indicates reluctance by White prospective teachers from the

privileged group to change practices that they believe were effective in their own schooling (Grant

& Gillette, 2006). They also have difficulty accepting criticism of their practices and hold certain

biases and stereotypes about students who are members of minority groups (Grant & Gillette, 2006).

Even among prospective teachers who agree that multicultural teaching is necessary, there is little

understanding as to what that means or how to go about doing it (Middleton, 2002). When









classrooms teachers attempted to decenter cultural norms and teach a culturally diverse curriculum,

they found this created discomfort and cognitive dissonance among students (Davis, 1992; Haddad

& Lieberman, 2002; Hunter & Nettles, 1999). Their findings are confirmed in this study of student

resistance engaged in by White prospective teachers.

Critical theory was used to understand what explains resistance among prospective teachers.

A critical theory framework was chosen because student resistance is a concept grounded in that

theory. Four participants were selected based on observations of what appeared to be resistant

behavior in the social studies internship seminar. There were three observations of the class prior to

selecting participants and two observations following the selection. The first three observations

focused on identifying acts of resistance by students; the remaining observations focused on the four

participants' interactions with the instructor, with each other, and with their peers. There were also

three interviews with each participant. Interviews focused on participants' sociohistorical context,

their beliefs about teachers, and explanations of their reactions to and behavior in the internship

seminar. The data were presented on multiple occasions to a small group of qualitative methodology

researchers (professors and doctoral students) for peer review.

Analysis began with the observation data, and Hatch's (2002) inductive analysis method was

used to identify patterns of resistant behavior for the purpose of selecting participants. Once

participants were selected, Fairclough's (1995) critical discourse analysis method was used to

analyze interviews and observations, in order to identify the codes of Discourse that might explain

the ideology of student resisters and their reasons for resisting. Codes of Discourse are the rules

people follow that help them to identify with certain social groups or networks (i.e., rules of

language, values, beliefs, mannerisms, interactions, gestures, symbols, tools, dress, and location).

Participant interviews were analyzed individually and then compared for similar and unique codes









of Discourse, (i.e., teachers have the important knowledge, teachers control decisions about

instruction and management, teachers are responsible for the success of students but...). From these

codes of Discourse and the sociohistorical context of participants, the ideology of the participants

emerged. The codes of Discourse were first identified as either counter or cultural resistance, and

then identified as shared or unique. Of those identified as counter resistance, four were shared

beliefs and three unique beliefs. All seven beliefs served to maintain and/or reproduce the

hegemony of schools and classrooms. Of those identified as cultural resistance, one was a shared

belief and one a unique belief, and both attempted to disrupt the hegemony of the classroom.

Explaining resistant behavior using Fairclough's (1995) method of analysis requires considering the

social context and histories of participants and where the resistance took place.

Explaining Resistance through Ideology

This study was designed to answer the following questions:

* What explains resistant behavior among prospective teachers in an internship seminar?
* What factors shape resistance?
o How is resistance escalated?
o How is resistance diminished?


Explanations for resistant behavior can be understood through participants' ideology about

education. Ideology is defined in this study as political, economic, or cultural beliefs that

maintain or disrupt hegemony in education or society. Examining the sociohistorical context of

the participants, as presented in chapter four, and the participants' beliefs about the role of the

teacher helped explain their ideologies and reasons for resistance.

Based on their sociohistorical contexts, the four participants have some similarities. They

all attended predominantly White schools and had predominantly White teachers until they

reached college. The communities they lived in were also predominantly White and they all









enjoyed membership in the dominant group in their communities and schools. Their secondary

schools were located in middle or middle-upper class communities and offered advanced

placement courses, of which all four of them took advantage. They were also all involved in

extracurricular activities, specifically athletics. The differences in their sociohistorical contexts

are most evident in their family lives. Both Kenneth and George had two parents with college

degrees, George's father having a Ph.D. and being employed in the education system. Henry had

one parent with a college degree, and William's mother had one year of college. Studies indicate

that students with parents who have a college degree are more likely to graduate from college

(American Council on Education, 2002; Sewell & Shah, 1968). With this in mind, Kenneth and

George had the greatest educational advantage. William had the least advantage and this may

have contributed to why he did not do as well in school (C-average grades) and why he later

dropped out of college. William was also the only participant whose elementary school was

located in a rural area and working class community, which may have given him less advantage

academically (Anyon, 1981). The other three participants attended elementary schools similar to

their secondary schools. George and Kenneth described bias in their communities against people

of color (African Americans and Hmong respectively), and they both appeared to accept these

biases. None of the participants were aware of the advantages they had that led to a more

privileged education.

William thought his success in college was due to the military, where he gained self-

discipline, but he never viewed his secondary school, with its theater, Olympic-sized pool, large

resource center for students, modem gym that students could use at any time, and advanced

placement courses, as an advantage. Kenneth did not recognize the role his mother played in his

education-she had two master's degrees and worked in the school system. He was unaware of









the advantage he had in an elementary school that had a computer lab and gifted and talented

programs. He had the advantage of advanced placement programs and an athletic scholarship,

but said his success in college was due to his working-class work ethic. Henry believed his

success in college was due to self-motivation, not the health sciences magnet school he attended

where he took advanced placement courses or the numerous extracurricular activities he had to

choose from. His father had a master's degree and his parents encouraged him to attend college,

but a state-sponsored scholarship paid for his tuition. Both of George's parents had college

degrees. His father had a Ph.D. and worked as superintendent of schools, but George did not

view this as an advantage. He believed his success in college was intrinsic and due more to self-

motivation than the advanced placement courses he took in high school or the constant attention

his parents and older siblings gave to his education. None of the participants considered the fact

that money was not an issue for their families as an advantage that students in other

socioeconomic groups may not have, or that the education level or knowledge of their parents

helped them gain entrance into higher education. They were blind to the advantages their

middle-upper class school environments gave them that are often missing in schools located in

high poverty and working class communities. These advantages were invisible to them, possibly

accepted as the norm, and contributed to their ideas about people and schools different from what

they experienced.

The sociohistorical context of each participant, and especially their experiences in schools,

helped construct their ideology. According to Fairclough (1995), ideology is often disguised as

common sense and can only be uncovered by identifying the power relations the ideology

attempts to maintain or disrupt. Fairclough's (1995) method of critical discourse analysis helped

identify the codes of Discourse for the purpose of explaining the educational ideology of student










resisters in the internship seminar. Ideologically, all four participants believed in maintaining the

hegemony of the White, Eurocentric, middle-upper class culture of schools. This should not be

surprising since they were all strongly grounded in that same school and community culture.

Their ideology was best explained when they defined what they perceived to be the role of the

teacher. Table 6-1 represents their beliefs about the role of the teacher that helps explain their

counter resistance in the classroom.

Table 6-1. Counter resistant beliefs about the role of the teacher
William Kenneth Henry George
Teacher is source of Teacher is source of
important knowledge important knowledge
Important knowledge Important knowledge Important knowledge Important knowledge
practical and relevant practical and relevant practical and relevant practical and relevant
Teacher controls Teacher controls Teacher controls Teacher controls
I= decisions about decisions about decisions about decisions about
^ instruction and instruction and instruction and instruction and
management management management management
Teacher encourages Teacher encourages
students' ideas and students' ideas and
opinions opinions
Teachers should teach
assimilation to the
dominant group
Teacher is responsible
for success of all
students but...
a Good female teachers
are caring and build
relationships with
students


Table 6-1 organizes the counter resistant beliefs of participants by each participant and whether

it is a shared or unique belief. This representation is helpful in understanding the codes of

Discourse that might explain the ideology of each participant and the reasons for resistance.

Teacher is Source of Important Knowledge

William and Henry believed that teachers were the source of important knowledge, which

reinforces Freire's (1993) banking method of teaching where the instructor has possession of the









knowledge and deposits it through lecture into the minds of students. At some point, the

instructor withdraws the knowledge through various assessments and determines if the student

has the knowledge valued by the instructor. This ideology maintains the hegemony of schools as

places where knowledge from those in power, the dominant class, is passed on to students who

then accept it as fact, thereby reproducing the hegemonic ideology in their own lives. Henry

believed 'the professor's the chief and should control all aspects of the classroom, and William

thought student participation in the classroom interrupted instruction, or the delivery of

important knowledge. The social studies methods instructor used instructional activities, like

chalk talks, small group discussions, and jigsaws, which resulted in important knowledge being

shared between the students and teacher. Democratic classroom practices also support giving

students a voice in the classroom, which William and Henry resisted since that would allow

student knowledge a place of importance. Henry's and William's resistance to the content and

methods of the social studies internship seminar might be due to their belief that the teacher has

the important knowledge and students should not be involved in the creation of knowledge. Their

ideology maintained the hegemony of the dominant group and the White, Eurocentric, middle-

upper class culture of schools.

Important Knowledge is Practical and Relevant

All four participants believed the teacher education program should teach practical and

relevant content, which they defined as the knowledge and skills they would need as social

studies teachers. William found the lesson plans helpful because they prepared him to think like

a teacher and to determine the important knowledge he would teach in the classroom. Henry

thought practical and relevant content should give him knowledge to teach social studies and the

language to navigate job interviews. George defined practical and relevant knowledge as the

tools he needed to communicate his knowledge and ideas to students so they could comprehend









them. Kenneth believed practical and relevant knowledge was goal-oriented, and that goal was

employment. The definition of important knowledge as practical and relevant-the knowledge

and tools needed to gain employment as a teacher and to teach social studies-relegated content

that did not meet that definition as unimportant to teaching. In the internship seminar this

included content related to culturally responsive classrooms, democratic classroom practices, and

a no-excuses teaching philosophy. The only participant who found this content relevant was

Henry and that was because it equipped him with the educational 'buzz words' he needed for job

interviews. Participants resisted much of the content taught in the social studies internship

seminar because they perceived it as impractical, irrelevant and in opposition to their own

ideology about education.

Teachers Control Decisions About Instruction and Management

The four participants also believed that teachers control decisions about instruction and

management, but for different reasons. George believed teachers needed to control instruction

because students have different levels of knowledge, interest, and academic ability. Because of

this belief, he supported tracking in which students are placed with those of their own ability

level. This not only maintains but reproduces a class culture in which those with less usually

receive less. Students whose families can afford reading materials, computers, and regular

vacations usually perform better academically than those who do not. George may have resisted

teachings on democratic classroom practices because they opposed his fundamental belief that

students are not equal. He defined democracy as a way of governance that was controlled by

capitalism, in which there would naturally be an unequal distribution of wealth. George viewed

knowledge and intellectual ability as naturally unequal among students but never identified what

factors might contribute to this inequality. His access to schools that provided him with certain

privileges, like advanced placement courses, and the fact that his father was school









superintendent did not appear to him as an advantage or privilege that influenced his own

education.

Kenneth believed students should not be a part of the important decision making that

occurs in classrooms and schools. He recommended a space outside of the governance of schools

for students to practice active democracy. These spaces are rare, however, since even student-

run newspapers and student-organized events are monitored by school administrators or

teachers. Kenneth said schools were not created to include students in the decision-making, so

finding a separate space within this exclusionary structure would be difficult. Like George,

Kenneth may have resisted democratic classroom practices because they would give students a

voice and power in the decisions about instruction and management of classrooms and schools,

and he believed that violated the role of the teacher.

Henry said chaos would result if students were included in decisions about instruction or

management. His believed the 'teacher's in charge' and viewed himself as a 'benevolent

dictator,' which he thought an appropriate approach to classroom management. Any dictator,

benevolent or tyrannical, is still a dictator and works to maintain his own power and the

hegemony that reproduces that power. Henry admitted that he did not read the material for the

social studies internship seminar, but his belief in the teacher as the benevolent dictator would

contradict democratic classroom practices and may have resulted in resistant behavior. Henry

equated democracy with chaos, or anarchy, which is why he believed classrooms needed to be

dictatorships, where teachers ruled as dictators. He did not view students as having the

compassion or intelligence to engage in the governance of classrooms. Based on his view of

democratic classroom practices, he defined students as lawless, unruly creatures who would take

any opportunity to participate in the governance of classrooms as an opportunity for inflicting









damage and creating chaos. His belief that democracy was equivalent to chaos defined his belief

about the role of teachers as dictators.

William was uncomfortable in any classroom setting that was not the traditional lecture

format with rows of desks where students absorbed the important knowledge of the teacher. His

belief in teaching as a passionate performance reinforced his need for instructional methods and

classroom management that controlled the instruction and the movement of students. William

resisted democratic classroom practices and methods used in the social studies internship

seminar because they opposed his belief that teachers control decisions about instruction and

management. The belief that teachers control decisions about instruction and management in

classrooms maintains the hegemony of schools as places where the movement and activities of

students are controlled because students are considered too immature and irrational to understand

how schools function or to participate in the administration of classrooms.

Teachers Encourage Students' Ideas and Opinions

George and Kenneth believed teachers should encourage students' ideas and opinions in

the classroom, which appears to contradict their belief that teachers control decisions about

instruction and management. The value they placed on students' ideas and opinions, however,

was directly connected with the belief that their ideas and opinions should be asserted in the

classroom. Kenneth valued his own voice in the classroom as the most important but did not

value the perspectives of others even though he believed they should be shared. His resistance in

the internship seminar might be explained by the methods used for discussion (like chalk talks)

that prevented any one voice from being asserted as dominant. George valued his own ideas and

opinions and thought they should be welcomed in the classroom, but did not want them

challenged. He enjoyed debate but was not open to critical reflection. His resistance might be

due to his perception that productive discussion (debate) did not take place in the classroom and









when it did, his ideas were marginalized. This belief that teachers should encourage students'

ideas and opinions in the classroom maintained hegemony because Kenneth and George believed

some ideas were more valuable than others and should be asserted more prominently. The

absence of critical reflection and valuing of other perspectives also helps maintain hegemony.

This Discourse reflected an ideology that gave power to some voices and not to others.

Teachers Should Teach Assimilation to the Dominant Group

The three unique Discourses served to maintain the hegemony of the privileged class in

very specific ways. George believed teachers should teach assimilation to the dominant group

and not follow the teachings of culturally responsive classrooms or multicultural education,

which may have explained his resistance in the social studies internship seminar where these

ideas were taught. He believed teachers should teach similarities between different cultures and

not focus on differences; however, he also believed schools should reflect the culture of the

community. If the dominant religion in a community was Christian, George believed Christianity

should be reflected in the school whether or not there were students and families whose religious

beliefs differed from the dominant religion. He claimed he wanted teachers to teach similarities

between cultures but supported teaching assimilation to the dominant culture. This ideology

reinforces the hegemony of the White, Eurocentric, middle-upper class culture of schools and

could be detrimental to students whose cultures differ.

Teacher is Responsible for Success of all Students But...

Kenneth resisted the content in the social studies internship seminar that focused on a no-

excuses teaching philosophy. He believed teachers could not expect all students to succeed

because there were circumstances outside of their control, like an unsupportive home life or a

lack of academic ability on the part of the student. While he said teachers should always make an

effort, he also believed others could be blamed for the failure of students and expected some of









his students to perform poorly. This belief was based on his definition of schools as capitalist

societies where some students will naturally have more advantages and intellectual ability than

others. He did not take into consideration the political, economic and social factors in place that

produce an unequal and inequitable education system, like the level of unemployment or

underemployment in a community and how that directly affects the funding of schools. His

ideology maintains a power structure in which students from a higher socioeconomic group are

likely to excel because they have the supports in place to help ensure their success, whereas less

economically advantaged students may not have those supports, but the socioeconomic factors

are invisible to him. Furthermore, his ideology encourages teachers to reproduce that power

structure by providing them with excuses for students who fail.

Good Female Teachers are Caring and Build Relationships with Students

What appeared to be the only obvious Discourse on gender bias was William's belief that

good female teachers are caring and build relationships with students. He applied these attributes

to two female teachers that he liked but not to the instructor of the social studies internship

seminar. He also did not apply this to any of the male teachers who taught the classes he liked.

His resistance in the social studies internship seminar may have been due in part to the instructor

not fulfilling his belief that good female teachers are caring and build relationships with students.

The counter resistance codes of Discourse indicate that all four participants followed an

ideology based on the culture of the White, Eurocentric, middle-upper class, which is also their

own culture. William added the element of 'male' to that ideology based on his belief that female

teachers are caring and build relationships with students. Their resistance in the social studies

internship seminar might be explained by the instructor's content (i.e., culturally responsive

pedagogy, democratic classroom practices, a no-excuses teaching philosophy) and methods (i.e.,

small group discussions, chalk talks, and jigsaws) that decentered the White, Eurocentric,









middle-upper classroom culture, with which they identified. Their resistance might also be

explained by their belief that knowledge should be practical and relevant, and by that they meant

a teacher-education program should teach the knowledge and tools necessary for teaching social

studies and finding employment.

The codes of Discourse related to cultural resistance were not as numerous, yet they were

important for explaining why resistance escalated. Cultural resistance in the classroom occurs

when the instructor attempts to maintain hegemony in the classroom and participants resist her

actions. The cultural resistant codes of Discourse are shown in Table 6-2.

Table 6-2. Cultural resistance beliefs about the role of the teacher
William Kenneth
Shared Beliefs Teachers should not micro-manage Teachers should not micro-manage
classrooms classrooms
Unique Beliefs Teachers should maintain trust in student-
teacher relationships


Table 6-2 organizes the cultural resistance beliefs of two participants and whether they were

shared or unique beliefs. This representation is helpful in understanding the ideology of each

participant and possible explanations for their resistance. These beliefs are considered cultural

resistance because the teacher is maintaining hegemony through her position of power and

students are acting in ways to disrupt hegemony.

Teachers should not Micro-manage Classrooms

William and Kenneth believed the social studies internship seminar was too strict and rigid

in its structure. They both agreed that the instructor micro-managed the class and was more

intent on following her agenda than taking time to consider the needs of her students.

Observations confirmed that the instructor did follow a strict time schedule for classroom

activities and often ended them when students were fully engaged. Rachel also recognized her

role in directing discussion so the less dominant students would have an opportunity to share









their ideas and knowledge. Participants did not object to the way she led discussions, but more to

the way she restricted discussion by putting a time limit on it. They also said she taught the class

as if they were middle school students, and Kenneth cited the notebooks as a way of organization

that might be used in middle school but was inappropriate for graduate students. Rachel said she

had been accused of micro-managing students and changed her expectations for the notebook to

help alleviate that problem.

Participants' beliefs about the role of the teacher may have influenced their belief that they

were being micro-managed. William's belief that good female teachers are caring and build

relationships with students may have contributed to his resistance since he would probably not

define a female teacher who micro-managed instruction as caring. Kenneth's belief that students

should be encouraged to share ideas and opinions may also have contributed to the resistance

since the instructor's focus on completing her agenda often ended activities involving student

discussion. The instructor's use of instructional management that strictly followed her agenda

and did not consider the immediate needs of students in the classroom created an imbalance of

power. This did not appear to be her intention, but it emphasizes the contradictions teachers

might experience between what they believe is effective teaching and what they actually do in

the classroom. Although Rachel voiced a commitment to democratic classroom practices, she

sometimes acted in ways that violated them, which helped to maintain hegemony in the

classroom. The instructor's actions may have served to escalate resistance in the social studies

internship seminar.

Teachers should Maintain Trust in Student-Teacher Relationships

William also believed the instructor acted in ways to erode the trust that he believed

teachers should maintain in the student-teacher relationship. William had a class in the fall with

the social studies methods instructor, and he said she would report to college administrators what









she perceived as misbehavior by students. This was usually done through a disciplinary email in

which she would copy the program chair or the associate director of the department. The use of

emails for this purpose was confirmed by all four participants and through conversations with

instructors in the program. William may have resisted this disciplinary method because he

believed female teachers are caring and build relationships with students, and this method of

discipline would hinder building good relationships. The instructor's actions, however, attempted

to maintain her authority as teacher and the hegemony of the classroom. William believed trust

between teachers and students should be part of the culture of the classroom, but the instructor

acted in ways that violated his cultural belief. He said this was the main reason he engaged in

oppositional behavior in the social studies internship seminar.

Escalating and Diminishing Resistance

There is some evidence that resistance was escalated due to the actions of the instructor.

Whether different actions by the instructor would have diminished resistance is not evident from

this study mainly because there was no evidence that resistance had diminished. Throughout the

observations and the interviews, the resistance by participants to the content and methods used in

the internship seminar was consistent and ongoing. It appeared that challenges to participants'

ideologies led to their resistance.

Louis Althusser said, "the school... teaches 'know-how', but in forms which ensure

subjection to the ruling ideology or the mastery of its 'practice'." (1971, p. 133). Schools teach

academic and social knowledge that reinforce the ideology of the dominant group. This is

evident in William's and Henry's belief in Freire's (1993) banking system of education in which

teachers decide what knowledge is important and students passively accept that knowledge. It is

also evident in the participants' belief that teachers control decisions about instruction and

management, which reinforces the ideology that children are immature and undisciplined and,









therefore, unable to be part of important decision-making. Participants' sociohistorical context,

especially their experiences in schools, contributed to their mastering the ideology of the

dominant group. As classroom teachers, they are equipped to ensure the subjection of their own

students to the "ruling ideology" (Althusser, 1971, p. 133). Disrupting the reproduction of

hegemonic ideology might require teacher educators to reconceptualize student resistance and

reconsider how they address resistance in the classroom.

Extending the Literature

Findings in this study extend the literature base regarding how resistance is defined,

student resistance in college classrooms and teacher education, and the connection between

sociohistorical context and beliefs about teaching. These ideas will be discussed and then

implications for teacher educators and the research community presented.

Redefining Resistance

Critical theorists frame resistance as actions intended to bring about long-term, far-

reaching political change resulting in the emancipation of oppressed populations (Adorno, 1984;

Gramsci, 1971; Habermas, 1991; Horkheimer, 1972; Lukacs, 1989; Marcuse, 1991; Marx, 2005).

Critical resistance is motivated by social injustice and requires what Freire (1993) calls

conscientization. Conscientization requires critical inquiry and self-reflection to determine the

reasons for hegemony and then transformative action to liberate the oppressed from hegemony.

Cultural resistance is also motivated by social injustice but occurs in schools and classrooms

where the White, Eurocentric, middle-upper class culture of schools conflicts with the cultural

lives of students who are not members of this group (Anyon, 1981; Dance, 2004; Delpit, 1996;

hooks, 2002; McCadden, 1998; McLaren, 1986; Willis, 1988). Cultural resisters do not always

practice the critical inquiry or self-reflection necessary for conscientization, but that does not

lessen the importance of their actions. Students who engage in cultural resistance are expressing









their sense of inequity or injustice in the classroom or school. The overall purpose of cultural

resistance may not be broad, long-term change but liberation from hegemony in classrooms and

schools.

Counter resistance is a term I created based on studies of resistance engaged in by students

in the dominant group, including participants in this study. Counter resistance is motivated by a

desire to maintain hegemony and works against critical examination and reflection. Researchers

concluded that students from the dominant group experienced cognitive dissonance when their

beliefs were contradicted by culturally responsive content (Grant & Gillette, 2006; Haddad &

Lieberman, 2002). When Whiteness was decentered by the instructor, White students often

worked to recenter it in the classroom, and thereby reinforce their own beliefs and maintain

hegemony (Davis, 1992; Hunter & Nettles, 1999; Middleton, 2002). Critical theorists define

hegemony as control by the dominant group over oppressed groups through the control of

politics, economics, culture and education (Gramsci, 1971). White students who act in ways to

maintain hegemony cannot be engaging in resistance since resistance has the goal of disrupting

hegemony. There are, admittedly, contradictions and overlaps in the three categories of

resistance described in this study. However, the use of counter resistance to describe students

from the dominant group who oppose teachers who attempt to disrupt hegemony extends the

literature base by presenting a new way of viewing resistance by members of the privileged

group.

Student Resistance in College Classrooms and Teacher Education

As noted previously, teachers who decenter cultural norms and teach a culturally diverse

curriculum found that students from the dominant group resisted the content taught and the

critical examination and self-reflection used to uncover hegemony (Davis, 1992; Grant &

Gillette, 2006; Haddad & Lieberman, 2002; Hunter & Nettles, 1999; Middleton, 2002). Davis









(1992) found that her students engaged in counter resistance because their lives at home

contradicted what was being taught in her classroom. This study confirmed her findings but

increased the importance of school experiences as factors that influence the cultural beliefs of

college students. This study also confirms Hunter's and Nettles' (1999) finding that students

thought they were being victimized because they were White and conservative. George claimed

he was being marginalized because his conservative beliefs conflicted with the beliefs taught in

the education program. Middleton (2002) found students in her study agreed that multicultural

education was important but were unable to comprehend what attitudes and skills were necessary

for effective teaching in culturally diverse classrooms. Interviews with participants in this study

revealed they were also unable to understand the attitudes and skills needed. Henry said it was

common sense not to marginalize students but was unable to see how his own beliefs about

teaching (the teacher has the important knowledge and controls decisions about instruction and

management) could prevent culturally responsive teaching. Students from non-dominant groups

might feel uncomfortable and marginalized in a classroom where they can not share their

knowledge or are restricted to teacher-centered instruction and management. William held the

same beliefs as Henry and said he established his sixth-grade classroom to support lecture-based

instruction and management, which would exclude students from cultures that value social

learning. He did not appear to understand the connection between his beliefs about teaching and

the need for culturally diverse classrooms.

Most studies of counter resistance are self-studies in which the researchers were also

instructors of the courses they studied. Self-studies provide valuable information but might be

hindered by the fact that the instructor/researcher is also in the position of assigning students'

grades. In my study, I was not an instructor in the course or the program, and only one of the









students in the course took a class I taught two years earlier. He was not one of the participants in

this study. None of the studies on counter resistance cited here included interviews with students.

Interviews can provide rich data that would be difficult to collect through classroom

observations, group discussions, and assignments. This study contributes to the literature a

richer, deeper analysis of the phenomenon of resistance in an internship seminar.

Sociohistorical Context and Beliefs about Teaching

Sociohistorical context has always been important to how resistance is defined (Anyon,

1981; Dance, 2004; Delpit, 1996; hooks, 2002; McLaren, 2003; Miron & Lauria, 1995).

However, this definition is nearly always applied to students from cultures that are not the

privileged culture. Davis (1992) included students' home lives as influencing their resistant acts

in the classroom, but there are no other studies of student resistance among prospective teachers

that take sociohistorical context into account. There are no studies of prospective teachers in

social studies teacher education programs that consider the link between sociohistorical context

and teacher beliefs. All four participants' beliefs about teaching were influenced by their

families, the schools they attended, and their communities. However, the schools they attended

probably influenced their beliefs about teaching more than family or community since their

beliefs about the role of teachers is based on their experiences in schools. This insight highlights

the role of K-12 schools and undergraduate college courses in training future teachers. The

participants in this study established their beliefs about teachers and teaching throughout their

experiences as students in schools. The teachers in their K-12 and undergraduate college

experience that were most influential provided them with role models for teaching that were

internalized. Henry's and William's belief that lecture was the best instruction method was based

on their experience in classrooms with lecturers they admired as teachers. This study extends

Lortie's (1975) concept of the apprenticeship of observation.









This study extends the literature through redefining resistance when oppositional behavior

is engaged in by members of the dominant group, and through a deeper, richer analysis of why

resistance occurs in teacher education classrooms. It also creates new avenues for research

through the connections between sociohistorical context and teacher beliefs.

Implications

The findings of this study can not be used to generalize to the population of White,

Eurocentric, middle-upper class prospective teachers. Participants in this study were selected

specifically because of the oppositional behavior they engaged in during an internship seminar.

Despite these limitations, the findings do have implications for teacher educators and the

research community.

Implications for Teacher Educators

Understanding the explanations for participants' counter resistance in an internship

seminar is helpful to teacher educators as they plan teacher education programs and courses that

incorporate methods and content that decenter the ideology of the dominant group. As indicated

in the conclusions, participants had similar sociohistorical contexts, which helped explain the

beliefs they had about the role of teachers. Knowing the sociohistorical contexts of prospective

teachers might better prepare teacher educators for challenges to methods and content that could

conflict with prospective teacher beliefs.

Giving prospective teachers the opportunity to explore their beliefs by examining

controversial issues in education (i.e., ethnicity/race, multicultural education, socioeconomic

status, poverty, gender, sexual identity, age, and religion) in a non-threatening environment

could help them learn the importance of critical consciousness and self-reflection in their future

work as teachers. Teacher educators can accomplish this by using democratic classroom

practices to create a safe, reflective environment in which students can safely voice their beliefs.









These conditions foster a dialogue in which teacher educators help students reflect on their

beliefs through the use of content that presents differing perspectives through personal stories of

dominance and the use of relevant data. Personal stories of dominance are the stories of

oppressed people that help those from the privileged group better understand hegemony in

society (e.g., Hear Us Out: Commentary by Youth on School and Society from What Kids Can

Do or "Finding Words to Talk About Race" by Maria Luisa Tucker posted at

http://www.alternet.org/story/30755/). Combined with data that support the experiences of the

storyteller, the teacher educator has a very powerful tool in helping students from the privileged

group understand their own privileged positions, which might lead to disrupting hegemony.

Disturbing beliefs is not an easy task but is essential before some prospective teachers will

accept and master the methods and content that result in highly effective instruction. Teacher

educators need to pay closer attention to the vociferous complaints and deafening silences in

which prospective teachers engage when their beliefs conflict with the beliefs necessary for

effective teaching. Their unwillingness to be disturbed must be addressed in ways that will

promote dialogue and collegiality and reduce resistance. Before this can happen, however,

teacher educators need to have their own beliefs disturbed. They need to enter into dialogue with

colleagues for the purpose of reflecting on their own biases and hegemonic beliefs. They need to

experience Freire's (1993) conscientization to be fully prepared to help their students do the

same. The move toward full emancipation from hegemonic influences requires constant critical

inquiry and self-reflection-it is a process that happens over time and we must expect the same

of ourselves and our students.

Teacher educators need to make better connections between effective teaching practices

and what they might look like in the classroom. Participants in this study considered as irrelevant









those courses in the social studies program that included effective teaching practices. Participants

thought courses were practical and relevant when they taught knowledge and tools they would

need as social studies teachers. They apparently did not make the connection between what was

taught in the education courses and the decisions they would make as teachers. According to

Middleton (2002), prospective teachers who agreed that multicultural education was important

still had difficulty understanding what attitudes and skills were necessary for effective teaching

in culturally diverse classrooms. It is imperative that teacher educators examine this discrepancy

so they can structure courses that will clarify the connection between effective teaching practices

and what those practices might look like in the classroom. Engaging prospective teachers in

methods like interactive notebooks or chalk talks is important but needs to be followed by

questions about why and when the methods would be used. For example, which students would

benefit most from chalk talks? How might the workload of grading assignments be reduced by

using interactive notebooks? What are other ways to help students organize their work and think

critically about what they are learning? Which students would benefit most from the interactive

notebook? These types of questions might help prospective teachers better understand the

method as an effective teaching practice for diverse learners.

The obvious, yet impossible, solution to counter resistance is to recruit students into

teacher education programs who already have the dispositions necessary to implement effective

teaching in diverse classrooms. Teacher educators, however, are often pressured by

administrators and state and local education agencies to provide teachers regardless of their

dispositions on teaching (Grant & Gillette, 2006). Regardless, it would be advantageous to

teacher educators and colleges of education to create networks with instructors who teach to

disrupt hegemony for the purpose of recruiting prospective teachers. Educational foundations









courses might be a place where potential teacher candidates could be identified. In my

experience teaching a social foundations of education course in which the ideology of the

dominant group was decentered, I had a number of students who chose a career in teaching. Two

of them had test scores and GPAs that might have prevented them from entering the master's

program in teacher education. Their dialogue and written work in my course, however,

convinced me they had the dispositions to teach in diverse communities and only needed further

teacher education to prepare them for a career in teaching. I wrote strong letters of

recommendation, and they were both accepted and completed the program successfully.

Implications for the Research Community

This study also has implications for the research community in terms of identifying what

aspects of the study might warrant further investigation. Participants' perspectives are

represented in this study; however, the role of the instructor in resistance is also important and

warrants further research. William conveyed how the social studies methods instructor acted in

ways that violated the trust he believed necessary in student-teacher relationships. This resulted

in his engagement in acts of resistance. He and Kenneth also said the micro-management of the

class by the instructor created an environment in which learning was interrupted. It would be

helpful for teachers who teach to disrupt hegemony to better understand how their actions might

escalate or diminish resistance in the classroom. Observations of and interviews with the

instructor in addition to the students might provide important data for furthering the study of

counter resistance. A study of pedagogy that is more sensitive to the points of resistance might

help teacher educators refine their instruction so as to promote critical inquiry and self-

reflection.

This study used critical theory as the framework and thematic and critical discourse

analyses as the methods for analyzing data. Using a different methodology might result in a









better understanding of counter resistance. Cynthia Tyson's (2006) emancipatory research

methodology would allow researchers to not only collect data to better understand counter

resistance but also engage prospective teachers in dialogue to promote critical inquiry and self-

reflection about hegemony in classrooms and schools. Emancipatory research methodology

echoes the medical directive of "do no harm" in that patients (participants) are not left to their

(social) illnesses (i.e., biases based on race, gender, social class, age, sexual identity) when relief

(a solution) is possible. Tyson (2006) applies this methodology specifically to critical race theory

and studies of race, but identifies two actions necessary for emancipatory research work.

First, we must systematically and consciously resist the injustices of racism. Second, we
must work constructively to improve the ways in which racism surfaces in the vocalized
assumptions of those in power. In essence, we simultaneously attack the causes and heal
the effects. (Tyson, 2006, p. 44)

Critical theory not only requires that we understand the impact of hegemony-who benefits and

who is harmed-but also that we take action to help change those structures (Crotty, 1998;

Freire, 1993; Tyson, 2006). Further research using emancipatory research methodology would

allow researchers engaged in critical theory to take steps with their participants that might result

in the disruption of hegemony. A study of this type would allow the researcher and participants

take actions that might protect and benefit oppressed groups in their classrooms and schools.

According to Tyson (2006), "if we are to engage in emancipatory research, we must stop trying

to benefit ourselves and engage in the process of researching for the greater good of our

communities" (p. 46). Further research on counter resistance using emancipatory research

methodology might help educators to not only better understand the explanations for resistance,

but might also help explain what diminishes resistance.

Student resistance in college of education classrooms is becoming an important issue in

education as more studies are being done to examine this phenomenon. The dominant culture of









schools, based on the White, Eurocentric, middle-class culture, is reproduced in schools by

teachers whose actions in the classroom maintain hegemony. Teacher educators need to find

ways to promote critical inquiry and self-reflection among prospective teachers for the purpose

of helping them teach for social justice. Teachers whose actions disrupt hegemony work to

promote social justice in their classrooms and schools. While this study can not be generalized to

other students, classrooms, or schools, it can be considered a beginning in countering the

reproductive mechanism that currently prevents schools and society from disrupting the

hegemony that guides their practices. As teacher educators, our willingness to be disturbed is

necessary before we can guide students down the same road.









APPENDIX A
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Student Interview One

For the first interview, participants' were asked to describe their experiences in elementary,

middle and high school. They were also asked to describe their families and communities where

they grew up.


Questions about schools:

* Did you attend a private or public school?
* If private, who paid for your school?
* Were you in any special programs at the elementary school?
* What was the building like?
* What kinds of resources were available to you? (library, materials available in the
classroom, music, art, athletics, AP courses, magnet program, etc.)
* What were the teachers like?
* How did they influence you as a student?
* What were the students like?
* How did they influence your education?
* Who were some of your best friends?
* What were the demographics of the teacher and student population?

Questions about family:

* How would you classify your family/guardians-working class, middle class, upper class?
Why do you classify them in this way?
* Did your parents/guardians attend college? Did they graduate?
* What career fields are they in?
* How did they influence you as a student?

Questions about community:

* What were the demographics of the community where you grew up?
* What was the approximate population?
* What ethnic groups comprised your community?
* Was it urban, suburban or rural?









Student Interviews Two and Three


The second and third interviews were based on responses from the first interviews and

observations in the classroom.


* Tell me about teachers and/or classes you especially liked and disliked. What did you like
about these classes? What content was taught? What teaching methods were used?
* What has the social studies internship seminar been studying?
* Tell me about something you've read recently for the class. What do you think of it?
* What does the class seem to be about? What are the themes you notice?
* What is it like for you to attend this class?
* Is this class important for people who intend to become teachers? If so, why? If not, why
not?

There were also a series of "I noticed..." questions in which I stated something I noticed that

happened in the classroom or that they said in the previous interview. I presented the event or

statement and asked for the participant's assessment of and reaction to it. Examples of these

questions are below.

* In class, you said you weren't sure if active democracy could be taught in schools. Can you
expand on that?
* You walked into class and the desks were in rows instead of grouped. You said, "Thank
you! Desks in rows-a real classroom!" Can you explain what you meant by that
statement?
* In class, you often appeared frustrated and bored. You would often put your head down on
your desk or hold your head in your hands and look down at the desk. You appeared to
mentally check out of the class and, at one point, had your back to the instructor while she
was lecturing. Can you tell me what you might have been thinking during these times?









APPENDIX B
SOCIAL STUDIES INTERNSHIP SEMINAR ASSIGNED READINGS

The following is a list of reading materials assigned in the social studies methods course.

The readings were assigned so students did not read every reading but shared what they read

with their group.

* Clark, R. (2004). Excellent 11. New York: Hyperion.

* Corwin, M. (2001). And still we rise: The trials and triumphs of twelve gifted inner-city
students. New York: HarperCollins.

* Cushman, K. (2003). Fires in the bathroom: Advice for teachers from high school students.
New York: The New Press.

* Johnston, M. (2003). In the deep heart's core. New York: Grove Atlantic.

* Ladson-Billings, G.L. (1997). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American
children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

* Mitchie, G. (2004). See you when we get there: Teaching for change in urban schools.
New York: Teachers College Press.

* Corbett, H.D. (2003). Effort and excellence in urban classrooms. New York: Teachers
College Press. (Chapter 2, The Different Meanings of "All Children Can Succeed")

* Villegas, A.M. & Lucas, T. (2002). Educating culturally responsive teachers: A coherent
approach. New York: SUNY Press. (Chapter 4, Modeling the Practice of Culturally
Responsive Teaching)

* Scheruich, J.J. & Skrla, L. (2003). Leadership for equity and excellence. Thousand Oaks:
Corwin Press. (Chapter 2, Learning to Believe the Dream is Possible, and chapter 4,
Instruction and Classroom Climate)

* Parker, W. (2003). Teaching democracy. New York: Teachers College Press. (Chapter 2,
Democracy and Difference)

* What Kids Can Do, Inc. (2004, October). Students as allies in improving their schools: A
report on work in progress. New York: What Kids Can Do, Inc.

* What Kids Can Do, Inc. (2002, May). Taking democracy in hand: Youth action for
educational change in the San Francisco Bay area. New York: What Kids Can Do, Inc.









* Marri, A.R. (2005). Building a framework for classroom-based multicultural democratic
education: Learning from three skilled teachers. Teachers College Record, 107(5), 1036-
1059.









APPENDIX C
HENRY'S CASE STUDY

Resistance often occurs because a student's lived experience is not represented in schools

or classrooms (Giroux, 2001; McLaren, 1986). A student's beliefs about schools and education

are based on the sociohistorical context of schools. The study of student resistance using critical

discourse analysis needs to consider the context of family, community and school; discourse

does not happen in a vacuum, it is influenced by individual and group history and by the context

of the event where the discourse takes place (Fairclough, 1995; Gee, 1999). To better understand

the resistance engaged in by the four participants, it is necessary to consider the sociohistorical

context of their lives, specifically their lives in schools. For this reason, interviews focused on

participants' school experiences, what they liked and disliked, and how this influenced their

beliefs about teaching and education and their acts of resistance in the classroom.

Sociohistorical Context of a Resister

Henry spent the first ten years of his life in the suburbs of a large Midwestern urban area.

His father had a master's degree and was an editor for a building magazine. His mother was a

high school graduate and worked as a realtor. Henry considered his family middle class and said

the neighborhood where he lived was "one hundred percent White" (HI). His limited memories

of his elementary school were that the school and teachers were nice, the music teacher was very

boisterous, he had art, music and physical education, and the predominant teaching method was

direct instruction. Henry said he was an auditory learner and remembered much of the lectures so

direct instruction worked well for him. His most memorable events at his elementary school

were the fights on the playground. He said, "Our play area was huge and we basically ran around

there fighting. I got in a few fights, but it was what you did on the playground back [there]"

(HI).









When his family moved to a smaller city in the southeastern United States, Henry was

disappointed by the time allowed for recess compared to the school he came from: "We had an

hour for recess, lunch recess, and that was a long recess, and when I got here it was only fifteen

minutes, so it was pretty ridiculous" (HI). He was also disappointed by the response to student

fights: "I remember seeing fights and students were immediately suspended so they had much

less freedom. But I remember thinking that was interesting and how much recess sucked here

compared to where I came from" (HI).

Henry's new neighborhood was predominantly White with a small percentage of Black

and Hispanic residents, and it was more upper class than middle class. The middle school was

team oriented and used cooperative learning and Henry said he "wasn't a huge fan... they

weren't really well organized, but I had a pretty good middle school education" (HI). He said he

remembered all his teachers but none of them were "particularly mind-blowing... they're all just

decent teachers" (HI). When asked if there were any teachers who influenced him, Henry

questioned the environment of middle school as a place where students can be strongly

influenced by teachers. He said, "How can you really inspire a 12-year-old or 13-year-old

because, me personally, I don't see it, you're too young, you're evolving and changing into an

adult and you don't really remember a lot" (HI). For Henry, middle school students were not at

an age to be influenced by their teachers.

The high school Henry attended was not the one he was zoned for; he was enrolled in a

health sciences magnet program in a large high school outside his district. He planned on

becoming a doctor but said the magnet program "completely altered my perspective" due to the

intensity of the program and his concern about "burn out" in the highly stressful medical intern

programs (HI). In addition to the academic demands of the advanced placement classes in the









magnet program, Henry was on the football and weightlifting teams, in the band, and active in

drama. His decision to go to college was based on his belief that education is important and

because he was "very self-motivated... academics always came pretty easy to me" (HI). His

parents did put some pressure on him to attend college but allowed him to make the final

decision. Henry graduated in the top ten percent of his class, which earned him a state sponsored

four-year college scholarship. He was accepted at a large southeastern university and earned a

Bachelor's degree in history. He then applied to and was accepted in the Social Studies

Secondary Education Master's Program at the same university.

Henry had the advantages of socioeconomic status and at least one parent who graduated

from college and both parents who encouraged him to go to college. He believed his success in

school, however, was due more to self-motivation than the influence of his parents or his

teachers. His elementary years appeared to reflect the education of the middle class but his

secondary years prepared him for a more privileged education, specifically his enrollment in the

magnet program and advanced placement courses and his extracurricular activities. He did not

appear to view these as advantages but simply a series of events in his life. Henry grew up in a

White, Eurocentric, middle class environment for his elementary years and a White, Eurocentric,

upper class privileged environment for middle and high school. Examining more closely the

college classes he liked and those he disliked might help clarify his beliefs about teaching and his

acts of resistance.

Foundations of Resistance: Beliefs about Good Teaching

If resistant behavior occurs in classrooms where a student's lived experience is not

represented, then Henry's resistance might be explained by the disconnect between what he

believed was good teaching and what he experienced in the internship seminar. Henry's beliefs

about teaching and education are best understood through his descriptions of the courses and









instructors he liked best and least. He described three aspects of good teaching that he believed

were important: the teacher was a passionate performer, the teacher controlled all knowledge in

the classroom, and methods and content were relevant and practical.

Henry's favorite college classes were in his major program-history. He said he liked the

courses, "Caribbean History" and "Twentieth Century German History," for their rigor and the

instructional style of the professors. According to Henry, both professors were British and used

lecture exclusively.

they made the, the lectures were fun to go to
for one they were interesting (I:. mhmm)
because they're dynamic lecturers

[the Caribbean history course] was a very intense course
all lecture based
and, he was a very dynamic professor
he didn't take any crap
so, like ha/f the kids dropped his class
he was extremely academic
and extremely elite... (H2)

Henry's description of the two courses often overlapped. He enjoyed both professors for the

same reasons and emphasized (in italics) their 'dynamic' and 'interesting' 'lectures.' He

described the Caribbean history course as 'intense' and the professor as one who would not 'take

any crap' off students so 'half of the students dropped the class. He also described the professor

as 'extremely academic' and 'extremely elite.' According to Henry, one student who dropped the

course returned to reprimand the professor for not teaching anything of value. Henry said this

student would sit in the back of the class and make 'ridiculous comments' (HI).

(I. did anybody in the class make intelligent comments?)

yeah there was uh intelligent questions [from students]
and discussions
and naturally he asked questions
and like to make sure you know, you were following along with him
but, there were no slides









no PowerPoints
no visuals
just one hundred percent write down what he said

(I: but you said that he did ask questions, right?)

he would like ask us what we thought the issue might be
and then he'd actually tell us what it would be (H2)

Henry said students asked 'intelligent questions' and that there were 'discussions.' The

professor's questions, however, were a natural ('naturally') part of the class to 'make sure'

students were 'following along' with the professor's thinking. The fact that there was 'no' visual

support for the lectures made the professor's words more important ('one hundred percent')-the

professor was the focus of learning. The questions asked by the professor did not appear to be for

the purpose of hearing different perspectives but to dismiss the ones that did not agree with the

professor's line of thinking. After asking their thoughts[s' he would 'tell' them the correct

answer. This was emphasized even more strongly when Henry mimicked a classroom scenario.

all right so let's give an example
it would be like
"why do you think that,
why do you think that,
well what do you think caused the Spanish-American war of 1898?
what do you think caused this?"
and he'd be like "what are the possible causes?"
and we 'd like possibly give causes
and he 'dbe like "no well that's not correct"
and then like we'd like have a discussion on what possible causes
like "well here they are,
here's the four causes you need to know"
and he'd give 'em to us,
that's like an audible and like "you'd better write this down
'cause it's gonna' be on the test"

(I: was there any discussion as to why they were wrong?)

yeah he'd tell you like
"that's not really relevant to the situation because"
then he'd give you a situation...









and then when we'd finished the discussion
"here 's the four main causes"

(I. the basic idea in his teaching was that he had all the knowledge)

yep

(I. and he was going to give it to students)

yep, yep

(I: and students didn't have any knowledge so you needed to make sure that they had it)

it's college...
that's what it's supposed to be in college
it's a university 4000 level course
there's no uh student input
there's research
and there's, understanding (H2)

In this excerpt, the professor is in control of important knowledge. Henry emphasized how the

professor would ask 'what' and 'why' and student ('we 'd') responses were met with the

professor ('he 'd') correcting their thinking. 'Then' the professor would 'give' students the

answers he wanted them to remember ('four causes you need to know') and students would

'write' them 'down' in preparation for the 'test.' The discussion did not appear to be a sharing of

ideas but more an opportunity for the professor to 'tell' and 'give' his ideas and knowledge. If

there were other possibly correct responses to his questions that he did not feel were 'relevant,'

he would dismiss them. Henry affirmed that the professor's objective was to establish himself as

the one who had all the knowledge and Henry thought that was appropriate in a 'college'

classroom. He emphasized (italics) that is what 'college' was 'supposed' to be-students doing

'research' and gaining 'understanding' but not having any 'input' in their own education.

Based on his statements, Henry believed good teachers were dynamic lecturers and

controlled the knowledge in the classroom. When asked later to elaborate on teachers as dynamic

lecturers, he said,









I see teaching as an art
it's a-you are on stage
it's a performance
it's a it's a glorious art (H3)

Henry emphasized his ('I') belief that the teacher ('you') engages in a 'performance' that is

'glorious.' The classroom becomes the 'stage' where teachers perform, which would mean

students are the audience, they view the performance but do not actively partake in their own

learning-their role is to receive the teacher's performance. This is similar to William's belief

that teachers are passionate performers. Henry extended the idea of performance to the interview

by using a British accent with dramatic flair when quoting the British professors. The interview

took place in a moderately crowded coffee shop, which did not appear to affect his behavior and

he was either unaware of inquisitive looks from neighboring customers or did not mind them. He

was observed to use a dramatic flair in most of his communications during interviews and in the

internship seminar.

Henry's belief that teachers perform and students are the audience supported the second of

his beliefs about teaching-that the teacher holds all the knowledge.

the professor 's the chief
and has the basic knowledge
discussion is, takes place in class
but ultimately it comes back to
the professor's responsible for what's being taught in that course

if any incorrect information is, is learned by my students,
the buck stops with me (I:. yeah)
that's why the professor is ultimately in charge
and responsible for all learning that takes place
so in the discussion he is the moderator
he is the director
he is the one who's leading it in the direction he needs to go
if students have prior knowledge
if students have questions
you use that discussion to advance your own lecture
that's the way-you 're advancing the point
directing this point delivered to the student









because you know what you're delivering,
if you allow random ad hoc comments well,
and uh you don't know where that train's going
if you don't know where the train's going
it could lead right off the cliff into the ocean
it woul-with uh discussion
and input
and student uh input
and student uh prior knowledge
that merely speeds up the train
cause you know the destination (H3)

Henry described the professor as a 'chief,' 'moderator,' 'director,' leader, and conductor, which

are all terms that hold control and power. The professor 'has (or owns) the basic knowledge' and

is 'ultimately' responsible for what is taught. Henry applied this description of the professor to

his own classroom when he said, 'the buck stops with me.' He based his own teaching on how he

believed college professors teach and on how his two favorite professors taught. According to

Henry, the 'professor' is in charge of 'all' learning and 'he' (emphasized three times) 'use[s]' the

knowledge and questions from 'students' to 'advance' what he believes is the most important

knowledge. He emphasized this idea a second time at the end of the excerpt when he said

'discussion,' 'input,' and 'prior knowledge' from a 'student' can speed up the process of learning

('train') what the professor ('you') has decided is the most important knowledge ('destination').

For Henry, the 'place' in the classroom for discussion was in 'directing' the learning toward the

professor's 'point.' Henry said there is no place in the classroom for 'random ad hoc comments'

since they might lead to a destination, or to knowledge, that the professor is not familiar with or

that does not support his own knowledge ('destination'). He emphasized twice the idea that

'random ad hoc comments' could be disastrous since 'you' (the teacher) would not know where

the learning ('train') is headed, which reinforces his belief that the teacher is responsible for all

knowledge taught in the classroom.









Henry's beliefs that good teachers are passionate performers, have the important

knowledge, and use what goes on in classrooms to direct learning toward what they deem

important was not always reflected in the classes he did not like. One course, "Age of the

Dinosaurs," fulfilled a biology credit requirement and the other course was one of his

undergraduate educational technology courses. When asked to describe his least favorite classes

in college were, he said,

that'd be ones like really uh... not relevant for me
I was just in because I had to be there...
I didn 't really like "Age of the Dinosaurs" too much,
and, I didn't really want to be there

she made it a lot more serious than I thought it would be
we got into dinosaurs
and very technical and scientific
and that ain't really my thing

(I: okay so it was the content more?)

yeah it was it was dry
it was dry
and boring as the fossils that we were learning about
lots of long scientific names
lots of memorization of topics
that I wasn't interested in at all
those history classes were all about critical thinking
and comprehending very, major and very large historical concepts
but this is like rote memorization of, annoying long genus and species
and all that stuff
it's like, it wasn 't relevant to me at all
especially a history major (I: Right)
I don't care what the, what this bone of this dinosaur is
it was all memorization of, stupid facts (H2)

According to Henry, a 'serious' study of dinosaurs was not what he expected. He emphasized

twice that the course was not relevant to him as a 'history major' ('not relevant for me' and 'it

wasn't relevant to me'). While he did not enjoy the 'memorization' (mentioned three times), it

was the content of the class that appeared to be the problem. In addition to being irrelevant,









Henry said 'I wasn't interested in it' and 'I don't care,' which could mean if he was memorizing

facts from human history it might mean more to him. He emphasized that 'history' studied

'major' events while 'this' class studied 'boring' fossils with 'long scientific names.' Henry's

beliefs about good teaching appear to include teaching relevant, important knowledge and he

defined this to mean knowledge that was interesting to him.

Another class he did not enjoy was an undergraduate educational technology class.

the undergraduate education classes were just not relevant at all,
and the teachers seemed, unqualified
educational technology, it was ridiculously stupid (I: mhmm)
she was unprepared for class
we didn't learn anything important,
she taught us things that didn't really matter,
it was like completely irrelevant

(I. like what?)

can't think of any it's like
cause I didn't learn anything in that class whatsoever
just blanked that completely out of my mind
'cause it's like, completely irrelevant
she said "I don't know anything about technology"

(I. what kind of teaching style did she have?)

it was like stupid group work
that was completely irrelevant
we just sat around and talked about how stupid the class was
we had a separate lab class on Wednesday
and that class was pretty, annoying too
because, we would learn something
we'd turn in the assignment
and then we would immediately forget how to use what we just did,
she's like "try to use like constructivist to like write education forms"...
I didn't learn anything in there
there was no there was no rigor
there was no relevance (H2)

Similar to the dinosaur class, Henry emphasized fives times that the content taught in the

educational technology class was 'not relevant.' He said he 'didn't learn anything,' the instructor









'taught... things that didn't matter,' and emphasized how the class had 'no rigor.' This supported

his belief that good teachers taught relevant content. He also said the instructor was 'unprepared

for class' and admitted she was not knowledgeable of the subject area ('I don't know anything

about technology'). For Henry, the instructor was not fulfilling his belief about good teaching-

that the teacher has the important knowledge and directs the class toward acquiring that

knowledge. His description of the instructor's teaching method as 'stupid group work' might be

viewed as supporting his belief that teachers are passionate performers and use dynamic lecture

to direct student learning. Henry said they would 'immediately forget' what they learned in the

lab, which differed from another undergraduate educational technology class that he took.

it was better in another class
that was strictly technical stuff
but at least it was practical
at least I learned how to scan stuff
and like had the basic formation of making a web page using Netscape
and that was a strictly a technical portion of the lab
we turned in projects
and that kind of stuff
that was all right
you're just learning how to use the technology (H2)

Henry said the 'practical' use of technology ('scan stuff and 'basic formation of a web page')

was 'technical' knowledge that was useful. Instead of applying 'constructivist' theory to

'education forms,' he was 'learning how to use the technology,' which Henry may have found

more relevant to his future career as a teacher.

Another class he did not like while he was taking it was a graduate level educational

technology class.

it was jumping through hoops
we had to make it precisely the way she wanted it
and it was-and she wanted every single little detail like you could possibly imagine
my lesson plans were nine pages long for a single lesson
one day lesson nine pages...
and then questions afterwards









about how it was used in technology
how is it applicable here
show like how technology was uh, effective use of technology in the class in this lesson
like we had to like answer all these like complicated questions
it was so, it was mind numbingly tedious
but it taught us
in a way that's like the same reason that-
I didn't like the subject as much as I liked Caribbean or German history
but in the same way it was a lot like-
a lot like the rigor in that course was similar to those history courses that I liked so much
(H2)

Henry did not like the graduate level technology course because he had to jump through 'hoops'

and complete assignments in 'precisely' the way the instructor 'wanted.' What the instructor

'wanted' were detailed lesson plans (Henry's were 'nine pages' 'long') that included responses

to 'questions' on 'how' technology was applied and would 'show' the effective use of

technology, which he found 'mind numbingly tedious.' He said the 'rigor' in this course was

similar to the history classes he enjoyed and, even though he did not like the 'subject,' he

admitted the work 'taught us.'

Henry gained practical knowledge in the graduate level educational technology class that

he said was especially useful to him as a teacher.

we learned how to write a lesson plan
if we had to jump through hoops we learned how to jump through 'em
it was we hated it at the time but...

(I: are you saying while you didn 't like doing the lesson plans you felt they were helpful
later?)

no I find I'm glad we did all that work now
because now when I'm talking about it I can talk like Rachel
I can talk the language
she taught me how to speak uh, educational technology buzz words
and those... and now I'm fluent in it

(I: and how does that help you?)

in interviews
I can talk about educational technology









and its relevance
and like how you use technology effectively in a classroom,
it's nice to be able to do that

(I. so it was practical in a sense in that it prepared you for your teaching?)

for interviews
and I guess using technology too,
like we did a we did a movie project
it's nice to learn how you use movie
it all like seemed so stupid at the time
but... administrators love to hear that stuff (H2)

Henry emphasized again how he 'hated' to 'jump through hoops' but said he was 'learning.' For

him, the technology class made him 'fluent' in 'the language' and 'educational technology buzz

words' so he could 'talk' about using technology in the classroom when on job 'interviews.'

Twice he emphasized how the course prepared him for 'interviews' but he could only 'guess'

that the course prepared him for 'using technology' in the classroom. He said it was 'nice to

learn' how to use the technology movieie, but his emphasis was on how school administrators

like to 'hear' the correct words used in an interview. Henry appeared to appreciate how he could

put to practical use what he learned in the educational technology course by using the language

in interviews, but he did not view the technology as relevant.

she made us do all like she made us do all these activities
of like using the technology
which was not as relevant
and then like... all this stuff we had to write for it
and she worked us to the bell every single day

(I: intellectually there was some challenge)

well, it didn'tfeel like it at the time
it felt like just jumping through hoops
but those hoops were helpful in this field I'm in (I:. okay)
see dinosaur bones aren't helpful to me now (H2)

Henry said 'she made us' use the technology but the activities were 'not as relevant.' He

emphasized 'all' the writing they had to do and how the instructor 'worked us to the bell,'









indicating there was no down time in the classroom. Again, he emphasized how 'jumping

through hoops' was 'helpful' and 'dinosaur bones' were not. The graduate level technology class

supported Henry's belief that good teachers are rigorous and teach content that is practical or

'helpful.' In this case, the content was useful in his job interviews even if he did not use it in the

classroom.

Henry believed good teachers were passionate performers, had command of the important

knowledge and controlled the direction of learning in the classroom, and taught relevant or

practical content. He preferred lecture or direct instruction, the methods of a passionate

performer. In the classes he did not enjoy, one was rigorous but did not teach what he considered

practical content, and another used group work (no passionate performance), the instructor was

not knowledgeable of the content, and she did not teach what he considered practical content.

Acts of Resistance: Challenging Beliefs about Good Teaching

Henry thought inappropriate teaching methods and classroom structure, and content that

was not relevant or practical, were problems in the social studies methods course he took in the

spring. The methods and activities used by the instructor did not support his belief that good

teachers were passionate performers and controlled the learning in classrooms. Like the other

participants, Henry's acts of resistance were made apparent through facial expressions-he

rolled his eyes or used an expression that appeared to imply that the work was not worth his

time. He also expressed vocal displeasure with some of the activities and when entering the

classroom on one occasion and finding the desks in rows said, "Thank you! Desks in rows-a

real classroom." For Henry, the point where his beliefs about good teaching were challenged by

oppositional ideas (where "contradictory positions overlap") was in the internship seminar, and

this is where resistance occurred.









Practical and Relevant Content

Henry resisted most of the methods and content in the social studies internship seminar

because he thought they were not practical or relevant. Like William, he thought the instructor of

the social studies internship seminar did a better job teaching the educational technology course

in the fall.

Rachel's technology course is much stronger than her internship course
'cause it was practical stuff that we could use
her internship class had a problem
because it's not practical
some of the same things,
she taught us how to speak some of the language
about professional development
and uh... continuous education
continuous improvement
reflection she really stressed reflection
and... the fact-when she was teaching us how to make the resume portfolio
and interviewing strategies
those were those were good (I:. okay)
like the finding a job aspect is what I got the most out of it (I:. okay)
but a lot of stuff was just...
seemed to be a waste of time (H2)

It was important for Henry to gain something 'practical' from his education courses, which is

why he perceived the educational technology class as 'much stronger' than the internship

seminar. In the internship seminar, learning the 'language' of the profession ('professional

development,' 'continuous education' and 'reflection') was practical for him since it would be

used in job interviews, in the same way the language from educational technology would be

used. Other aspects of the class Henry thought were 'good' were the 'resume portfolio,'

'interviewing strategies,' and any instruction on 'finding a job.' This 'practical' knowledge was

not a 'waste' of time since it was relevant to his future career goals, but he did not find the

methods used and the content taught in the internship seminar practical or relevant.

there really wasn 't
like some of the material like we learned about









you couldn't apply it to our classrooms at all...
and it really made no sense for us to be doing that
yet she, forced it on us
I don't know
she lost the class
in the class people lost respect for her

(I: now why do you think that was so?)

she... the interactive notebooks
and like the stuff we like had to do for the class
she really didn't give reasons for it
just like she said like "I'm doing this for you so you'll do this for your classes
and know like actually have experience,"
we hated those damned things
and I'll never make my kids-
in high school do an interactive notebook?
are you kidding me?
just glue some stuff in there it's like...
the way like, some of her assignments
it's the way she conducted class she just...
Don't know
she lost people that semester (H2)

Henry emphasized (in italics) in this excerpt that the 'materials' used in the social studies

internship seminar did not make 'sense' since he could not 'apply' them in the classroom. Like

Kenneth, the 'interactive notebooks' were a point of contention for Henry and he emphasized

how students were 'forced' or 'had' to do them along with other assignments. During class,

Henry and other students were observed asking the instructor the purpose of the interactive

notebooks. According to Henry, she said she was 'doing' the notebook to give them 'experience'

so they could use it in their own classrooms, but he viewed this as insufficient ('she really didn't

give reasons'). He 'hated' the notebook and said he would 'never' use it with 'high school'

students. He stated twice that he was not sure why ('I don't know') the instructor chose the

methods and assignments, but also emphasized twice that she 'lost people' in the class and 'lost

respect' from students, possibly because of the 'way' she conducted class. Henry resisted the

methods used by the instructor, specifically the interactive notebook, because he considered it









not practical or useful and he would not apply it to his classroom. He resisted the content taught

in the class for similar reasons.

(I: so like the readings she gave you?)

it wasn't relevant
the readings weren't relevant
so I didn't read 'em (I: okay)
and I didn't have to read 'em
'cause you could get by
and make something up
and not read 'em (I:. yeah)
it seemed like stressing the same points over and over again
that we had already heard a million times
plus it's pretty much common sense
like you know what... treat your kids equitably,
be culturally conscious
you know... don't like don't marginalize your kids,
make a safe classroom environment
this is very uh, the fact that she was acting like we didn't already know this stuff
was a reason so many of us felt patronized (H2)

For Henry, the 'readings' were not 'relevant' so he did not bother reading them. He said the

readings 'seemed' to stress the same content they 'heard' before and it was really 'common

sense'-treating students 'equitably,' 'culturally conscious' classrooms, and a 'safe classroom

environment.' It appeared Henry agreed with the content of the readings but thought they were

not relevant in this classroom since they had already read similar material in another class. He

said students 'felt patronized' because the instructor believed ('fact') that they did not know the

material. The instructor was familiar with the content and readings used by other instructors in

the teacher education program but chose to focus on similar content. Her decision to teach

content that had already been covered gave Henry the perception that the instructor believed

students had not mastered the content, which he thought was condescending ('felt patronized').

This resulted in him resisting the readings by not reading them.









Henry appeared to connect the methods used by the instructor to the way she perceived

students in the classroom.

Rachel's class she was patronizing
'cause it kind of felt like we were in eighth grade (I:. okay)
that's where I get angry
she was trying to model the class as a
as a cighln grade class might be taught
Rachel tried to treat us like we're eighth graders
by doing that she failed everybody,
'cause she didn't match up the curriculum with the age level
that's one of the first things you should learn as a teacher
make sure it matches
are you treating us like college kids
or are you treating us like eighln graders
she treated us like eighln graders
we 're beyond that as master's students
you don't have to treat us
we don't have to do eighth grade activities
to know how to do eighth grade activities (H3)

Henry emphasized (in italics) four times that the structure of the classroom followed what

teachers would use with 'eighth graders.' This made him 'angry' because it felt 'patronizing.' He

emphasized how the instructor 'failed' students because the 'curriculum' did not reflect

('matches') what was appropriate for 'college kids.' Henry resisted the interactive notebook and

other activities because he believed they were not the way 'master's students' should be taught.

He thought students could learn the activities by being taught about them instead of doing them.

Henry resisted the methods used and content taught in the social studies internship seminar

because he perceived the instructor as condescending when she ignored what they had learned in

earlier classes and structured the class on a middle school level. He also perceived the methods,

like the interactive notebook, as inappropriate for high school and college students, so they were

not practical. The readings were similar to ones they had in previous classes so were not relevant

in this class. He believed good teaching included relevant and practical content and resisted the









social studies methods course because he perceived it had neither. He also resisted the class due

to the lack of passion displayed by the instructor.

Passionate Performer

In earlier excerpts, Henry emphasized that good teaching was a 'performance' and a

'glorious art.' He described the instructors he liked as 'dynamic' lecturers. This was a point of

resistance in the social studies internship seminar.

Rachel saw teaching as a science
it's very technical
like there were the-you can use these techniques
and they will work
you model this correctly
and it will work
her experiment failed,
because she did not bring enough of the art
she did not bring the art
and the feeling
and the emotion, into that (I:. okay)
she brought this-it says in my science book
these studied scientific methods will work in this teaching environment...
but surprise... this ain't chemistry,
sometimes you get unforeseen reactants involved (H3)

Henry emphasized what he perceived as the instructor's belief that the 'technical' or scientific

aspect of teaching was more important than the 'art... feeling... emotion' of teaching. He said

the instructor believed if teachers 'use' and 'model' certain teaching methods correctly they will

'work' in the classroom. He emphasized (in italics) that the instructor ('her,' 'she') failed in the

classroom because she relied too much on science and not enough on 'art' and could not handle

the reactantss.' For Henry, the art of teaching was more important than the science and he related

this directly to how he taught in the classroom.

lecture slash direct instruction is a very, it's a performance
I'm walking around the class
and conducting the material as a performance
using repetition
theater









visuals
and such as means of instruction (I: okay)
now students have to be involved in the lecture
'cause if you're just standing up there talking
then they 're going to go to sleep
you keep after 'em
questioning,
rapid fire questions to make sure everybody's
keeping everybody on task
and telling lecture in a narrative structure
like a story
you put on a show
I'm an actor
teaching is not a science
it's an art (HI)

Henry emphasized his active role ('walking,' 'conducting,' 'questioning,' 'keeping,' 'telling') as

teacher, which implied the role of students was more passive by responding to questions from the

teacher and observing the performance. The use of 'repetition... theater... visuals' and 'story'

were meant to help keep students watching the 'actor' in the 'show.' Henry appeared to view

teaching social studies as an opportunity for him to perform since that is what he described as the

most effective way for him to teach. He believed teacher education programs should help

teachers find their most effective way of teaching, and for him that was lecture.

teachers have to find their strengths
and lecture's a strength of mine
if I'm extremely effective doing that then why do something I'm not so effective at
and different subjects require different, different means of teaching
a lecture is a very effective means of teaching social studies for me,
because I'm very good at it (H3)

Henry said that 'teachers' have 'strengths' and his ('mine') was 'lecture' so why should he use

other methods that were not as 'effective' for him. He said that 'different subjects require

different... means of teaching' and that 'lecture' worked best when teaching social studies. His

resistance to the social studies methods course was partly due to the emphasis the instructor

placed on teaching methods other than lecture (group work and cooperative learning).









His resistance to the class and to the teacher education program was also due to his belief

that the program did not meet the needs of future teachers.

we were resisting because there are there are problems in this program that need to be
addressed,
and we're not being uh trained
and receiving the training necessary to make us effective teachers
we need a prog-a teacher education program should be designed to help individual
teachers meet their unique needs
because every teacher is unique
everybody has their own unique strengths
so teacher education programs should meet the needs of its students
and prepare those teachers to meet their niches
find their niches
and be the best teachers that they can be (H3)

Henry included the cohort ('we') when he explained the reason for his resistance. According to

Henry, the 'teacher' should be 'trained' to be 'effective' by preparing them to 'find their niches,'

and this was applicable to 'every' teacher and 'everybody.' He viewed the goal of teacher

education programs as meeting the 'unique needs' of 'individual teachers' and believed this

would create the 'best' teachers. He considered his 'niche,' or his strength, the role of the

passionate performer.

While Henry believed good teachers used effective teaching methods based on the subject

taught, his belief that good social studies teachers used lecture almost exclusively and that

lecture, or a passionate performance, was his strength contradicted what was taught in the social

studies internship seminar and in the teacher education program. The use of culturally responsive

pedagogy and the creation of democratic classrooms made room for methods other than lecture

(chalk talks, democratic dialogue, circle conversations, jigsaws, reading groups, etc.) and the

methods modeled by the instructor of the social studies methods course were not lecture based.

Henry resisted these methods. He thought a teacher education program should help future

teachers develop the teaching style at which they excelled (which for him was the passionate









performance) instead of teaching them how to use various methods of instruction to meet the

learning needs of all students.

Control of Knowledge and the Benevolent Dictator

Henry's favorite instructors were passionate performers and controlled the knowledge in

the classroom, which he believed was the sign of a good teacher. His resistance to the methods

used in the social studies internship seminar was most notable when discussing democratic

classrooms.

(I. when I observed you in the classroom you did resist a lot of the stuff that was being said
like culturally responsive teaching and democratic classrooms)

I don't agree with having students make their rules,
chaos will ensue,
you-there has to be some sense of order,
the teacher 's in charge,
like having classes set up as purely discussion
and around circle conversation,
I question whether they actually retain anything
or whether you'll have... a tale told by an idiot
full of sound and fury but signifying nothing
like nothing really going on
lots of talk
and lots of good sounding like stuff taking place
but nothing really concrete being formed (H1)

Henry's belief that good teachers are in control is extended to classroom management and who

makes the rules in classrooms. He emphasized (in italics) the 'teacher's' role as the sole

authority for the purpose of avoiding 'chaos.' He said classes that were 'purely discussion' or

that used 'circle conversation' could result in the appearance of learning ('sound and fury,' 'lots

of talk,' 'lots of... stuff taking place') but nothing 'concrete' being learned. His comment that

this would result in 'a tale told by an idiot' implied that students were not capable of creating

'concrete' knowledge, which supported his belief that teachers must control the knowledge in the

classroom.









Henry resisted the ideas that students could be involved in both creating knowledge and in

the management of classrooms and these were core ideas supported in the internship seminar.

Twice during a classroom observation Henry referred to the teacher as "king" (Observation,

February 28, 2007). When questioned about this idea of the teacher/king, he said it was his

classroom management style.

in order to have an effective classroom communi-classroom management
you have to you have to have student participation
they have to buy into what you're doing
they have to uh, they have to have a say in what you're doing
at the same time though the teacher is in control
so that's why I have my image
which coincides with Dr. Joseph's
and uh, which is that of a benevolent king...
or benevolent dictatorship
in the fact that students have a voice in their affairs (I:. okay)
but ultimately the teacher's in charge

it goes back to the basic philosophy of a teacher education program
you gotta help teachers grow
and find their it ength,
and then use those use those strengths
if a teacher is, that's their... if that is effective with that particular teacher than fine
I am most effective doing what I do best
and that's more on the lines of Dr. Joseph
or, the benevolent dictator (H3)

Henry emphasized that his 'classroom management' style was that of the 'benevolent king' or

benevolent dictator.' As the 'benevolent dictator,' he would 'have to have student participation'

and give students a 'say' in his teaching, but for the purpose of having students 'buy into' what

he was doing in the classroom. According to Henry, the 'students have a voice' but the

'teacher's in charge' ('teacher is in control'). He believed this classroom management style was

one of his 'strengths,' just as he believed a passionate performance was his strength, and he

validated it twice by citing a respected instructor in the social studies education program whom









he believed used this method ('Dr. Joseph'). Henry explained what methods he used as the

benevolent dictator or king.

the image of a benevolent king
is still the king no matter what
but also gets feedback from the students as,
that's just my classroom management
and classroom philosophy

I did uh weekly surveys (I: okay)
it was-I had an index card system
and they uh, every Friday I had question time
meaning students bring their index cards
they could write anonymous comments
put 'em in a box
they could write a question
and put their name on it
and I'd answer back on the card
to ensure that it just stays between us
or they can ask a question and put no name on it
and I'll answer that question in class
I was getting feedback
and the students were writing
they are very aware of their own education
and that's why I uh getting feedback from them is very important
it's like the king sitting under the oak tree
having the students come to him directly with their individual complaints (H3)

Henry emphasized that his 'classroom management' style maintained his role as 'king' but 'also'

solicited 'feedback' from students. He explained that he provided 'weekly' opportunities for

students to write a 'question' or 'comment,' signed or 'anonymous,' on an 'index card' and 'put'

it in a box. It should be noted that students had to 'bring' their own index cards and these were

not supplied by the 'king.' Henry would read the cards and 'answer' either on the back of the

card (for signed cards) or in class (for unsigned cards). He emphasized twice that he was 'getting

feedback' ('getting feedback') from 'students' because they were 'very aware' of their

educational needs. This classroom management method was modeled after a story he heard about

a French king from the Middle Ages who, every Sunday, sat by an oak tree and citizens brought









concerns to him (Observation, February 28, 2007). Henry visualized himself as the 'king' whose

students came 'directly' to him with concerns.

The dilemma that arises with this model is that the 'king' or 'benevolent dictator' is, as

Henry said, 'still the king no matter what.' A king or dictator, no matter how benevolent, still has

the power to ignore questions and comments that contradict his philosophy and goals, just as a

teacher who models classroom management after a benevolent dictator has the power to ignore

student questions and comments that conflict with his teaching philosophy and classroom goals.

Henry resisted democratic classroom practices because they did not support his belief that good

teachers maintained all control in the classroom. His belief that good teachers are passionate

performers was related to his commitment to control because as a passionate performer, the

teacher controls the knowledge in the classroom. He resisted methods used and content taught in

the social studies internship seminar because they conflicted with his belief that good teachers

control the behavior of students and the important knowledge in classrooms. He also perceived

much of the class as impractical or irrelevant to his future career as a teacher. His beliefs about

teaching were the basis for his educational ideology.

Ideology of a Resister

Educational ideologies are political beliefs about teaching, schools and education that

maintain or disrupt the hegemony of schools. In the United States, the culture of most schools is

grounded in White, Eurocentric, middle-upper class cultural beliefs. Henry's sociohistorical

context placed him in a White, Eurocentric, middle and middle-upper class environment similar

to how schools are structured in the United States. He attended predominantly White schools that

catered to mainly middle and upper class families. According to Henry, his elementary school

was all White and his secondary schools were predominantly White. He attended a health

sciences magnet program in high school that he said was academically rigorous.









Henry's father had a master's degree and his mother had a high school diploma and they

both encouraged him to go to college. He believed his success in high school and college was

due to his self-motivation, not to his father's education level, parents' socioeconomic status, a

rigorous magnet program, or a four-year scholarship. Due to his family background, he fit well

in the White, Eurocentric, middle-upper class culture that dominates schools in the United

States.

Henry believed good teachers taught practical and relevant content. The two classes he

enjoyed most were both in his major field-history-and the instructors were demanding. For

Henry, the content was relevant as well as interesting to him as a future social studies teacher. He

did not like two graduate level courses in his social studies education program but said they

taught what he considered practical content. The educational technology class and the social

studies internship seminar taught him how to speak the language that school administrators

wanted to hear. That was not the expressed purpose of either class, although the internship

seminar did help future teachers create a portfolio of their work. The social studies internship

seminar explored issues in classroom teaching, like culturally responsive pedagogy, democratic

classrooms, and a no-excuses teaching philosophy. He resisted the material related to these

issues. Henry, however, found the class practical and useful because it helped him learn the

'buzz words' that could help him get a job.

Henry also believed that good teachers are passionate performers and control the most

important knowledge in the classroom. As discussed in William's chapter, a passionate

performer is a lecturer with a flair for drama and a good memory for stories. Henry confirmed

this idea when he said teaching was an art and he was a performer. This approach is similar to

Freire's (1993) banking method of teaching where the instructor has possession of the









knowledge and deposits it through lecture into the minds of students. At some point, the

instructor withdraws the knowledge through various assessments and determines if the student

has memorized what the instructor values as knowledge. Henry's ideology supports the

hegemony of schools in which the teacher owns and controls all the knowledge.

His belief that good teachers are benevolent dictators reinforces the ideology that teachers

must control student behavior and students are powerless. His use of index cards as a way for

students to participate in the way the classroom is run is an illusion of shared power since, as

Henry said, the teacher is still the king. He resisted democratic classrooms or sharing power with

students in the management of the classroom because he felt this would lead to chaos. In the

United States, schools are expected to maintain the power of the administrators, faculty and staff

over students. Henry supports this order, which maintains the hegemony of schools.

Henry's resistance to the methods used and content taught in the social studies internship

seminar and the teacher education program was based on his ideology that schools and teachers

control the behavior and knowledge of students. The instructor of the internship seminar

attempted to disrupt this by using methods and content that challenged this ideology. Henry's

resistance was counter-resistance since he was resisting ideas that could potentially disrupt

hegemony in schools.









REFERENCES

Adorno, T. (1984). Aesthetic theory. New York, NY: Routledge.

Althusser, L. (1971). Ideology and ideological state apparatus (notes toward an investigation). In
B. Brewster (Trans.), Lenin and philosophy and other essays (127-193). New York, NY:
Monthly Review Press.

American Council on Education. (2002). Access and persistence: Findings from 10 years of
longitudinal research on students. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Anyon, J. (1981). Social class and school knowledge. Curriculum Inquiry, 11(1): 3-42.

Bahrampour, T. & Glod, M. (2006, March 29). Students walk out in 2nd day of immigration
rights protest. The Washington Post, p. B03.

Barton, K. and Levstik, L. (2004). Teaching history for the common good. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Cochran-Smith, M. (1995). Color blindness and basket making are not the answers: Confronting
the dilemmas of race, culture, and language diversity in teacher education. American
Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 493-522.

(2004). Walking the road: Race, diversity, and social justice in teacher
education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Cochran-Smith, M., Davis, D. & Fries, K. (2004). Multicultural teacher population: Research,
practice and policy. In J.A. Banks and C.A.M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on
multicultural education (2nd edition, pp. 931-975). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.

Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research
process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Dance, L.J. (2004). Tough fronts: The impact of street culture on schooling. New York, NY:
RoutledgeFalmer.

Darling-Hammond, L., French, J. & Garcia-Lopez, S.P. (2002). Learning to teach for social
justice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Davis, N.J. (1992). Teaching about inequality: Student resistance, paralysis, and rage. Teaching
Sociology, 20(3): 232-238.

Delpit, L. (1996). Other people 's children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York, NY:
The New Press.

Devine, J. (1996). Maximum security: The culture of violence in inner city schools. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.









Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education.
New York, NY: The Free Press.

Ford, P. (2006, March 28). Why French youths protest an age of insecurity. Christian Science
Monitor. Retrieved September 15, 2006, at http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0328/p01s03-
woeu.html.

Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum Publishing Co.

(1998). Pedagogy offreedom. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

(2004). Pedagogy of indignation. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.

Gay, G. (1997). Multicultural infusion in teacher education: Foundations and applications.
Peabody Journal of Education, 72(1), 150-177.

(2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education,
53(2), 106-117.

Gee, J.P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis theory and method. New York, NY:
Routledge.

Giroux, H.A. (2001). Theory and resistance in education: Towards a pedagogy for the
opposition. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc.

Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
Addison Wesley Longman.

Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. New York, NY: International
Publishers.

Grant, C.A. & Gillette, M. (2006). A candid talk to teacher educators about effectively preparing
teachers who can teach everyone's children. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 292-
299.

Habermas, J. (1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a
category of bourgeois society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

(1998). Communicative dci,i %. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Haddad, A.T. & Lieberman, L. (2002). From student resistance to embracing the sociological
imagination: Unmasking privilege, social conventions, and racism. Teaching Sociology,
30(3), 328-341.

Hatch, J.A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. New York, NY: State
University of New York Press.

hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice offreedom. New York, NY:
Taylor & Francis, Inc.









(2000). Where we stand: Class matters. New York, NY: Routledge.

Horkheimer, M. (1972). Critical theory. New York, NY: Seabury Press.

Horkheimer, M. & Adorno, T. (1972). Dialectic of enlightenment. New York, NY: Seabury
Press.

Howard, T. (2003). Culturally relevant pedagogy: Ingredients for critical teacher reflection.
Theory into Practice, 42(3), 195-202.

Hunter, M.L. & Nettles, K.D. (1999). What about the white women? Racial politics in a
women's studies classroom. Teaching Sociology, 2 7(4), 385-397.

Irvine, J.J. (2003). Educating teachers for diversity: S.eeing n ith a cultural eye. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.

Jay, M. (1973). The dialectical imagination: A history of the Frankfurt School and the Institute
of Social Research, 1923-1950. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Jensen, R. (2005). The heart of whiteness: Confronting race, racism, and white privilege. San
Francisco, CA: City Lights Books.

Laclau, E. & Mouffe, C. (2001). Hegemony and socialist strategy. London, UK: Verso.

Loewen, J. (1995). Lies my teacher told me. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.

Lukacs, G. (1972). Political Writings: 1919 1929 (R. Livingstone, Trans.). London: NLB.
(Original work published 1919).

(1989). History and class consciousness. In R.S. Gottlieb (Ed.), An anthology of
western Marxism: From Lukdcs and Gramsci to socialist feminism. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.

Lucal, B. (1996). Oppression and privilege: Toward a relational conceptualization of race.
Teaching Sociology, 24(3), 245-255.

Marcuse, H. (1991). One dimensional man (2nd edition). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Marx, K. (2005). The German ideology. In D. McLellan (Ed.), KarlMarx: Selected writings (2nd
ed., 175-208). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

McCadden, B.M. (1998). It's hard to be good. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.

McCotter, S.S. (1999). Team meetings, integrated curriculum, and literature groups: Forums for
democratic decision-making. In J. Allen (Ed.), Class actions: Teaching for social justice
in elementary and middle schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.









McFarland, D.A. (2001). Student resistance: How the formal and informal organization of
classrooms facilitate everyday forms of student defiance. American Journal of Sociology,
107(3), 612-678.

McIntyre, A. (1997). Making meaning of whiteness: Exploring racial identity / ith white
teachers. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

McLaren, P. (1986). School as a ritual performance. London, England: Routledge & Kegan
Paul.

(2003). Critical pedagogy: A look at the major concepts. In Darder, A., Baltodano,
M., and Torres, R.D. (Eds.), The critical pedagogy reader. New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.

Michalove, B. (1999). Circling in: Examining prejudice in history and in ourselves. In J. Allen
(Ed.), Class actions: Teaching for social justice in elementary and middle schools. New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Middleton, V.A. (2002). Increasing prospective teachers' diversity beliefs and commitment. The
Urban Review, 34(4), 343-361.

Miron, L.F. & Lauria, M. (1995). Identity politics and student resistance to inner-city public
schooling. Youth & Society, 27(1): 30-47.

Sewell, W.H. & Shah, V.P. (1968). Parents' education and children's educational aspirations and
achievements. American Sociological Review, 33(2), 191-209.

Shor, I. (1992). Empowering education: Critical teaching for social change. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.

Shor, I. & Freire, P. (2003). What are the fears and risks of transformation? In A. Darder, M.
Baltodano & R.D. Torres (Eds.), The critical pedagogy reader. New York, NY:
RoutledgeFalmer.

Tyson, C. (2006). Research race and social education. In K. Barber (Ed.), Research methods in
social studies education: Contemporary issues and perspectives. Greenwich, CT:
Information Age Publishing.

United States Census Bureau. (2000). Census 2000. Retrieved online April 20, 2008 from
http://www.census.gov.

Van Dijk, T.A. (2001). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, and H.E.
Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Villegas, A.M. & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: Rethinking the
curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 20-33.

Wheatley, M.J. (2002). Turning to one another: Simple conversations to restore hope to the
future. San Francisco, CA: Barrett-Koshler Publishers, Inc.









Willis, P. (1988). Learning to labour: How working class kids get working class jobs.
Hampshire, England: Gower Publishing Company Ltd.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Sheryl Marie Howie was born in Washington, D.C. and raised in central Maryland among

cows and corn fields. In 1988, she earned an Associate of Arts degree from Windward

Community College, Kaneohe, Hawaii and in 1994, earned a Bachelor of Arts in history and a

secondary social studies teaching certification from Virginia Wesleyan College, Norfolk,

Virginia. She worked as an editor for various publishing companies in Boston, Massachusetts,

before applying to graduate school at the University of Florida. She earned a master's degree in

education in 2004 and a doctorate in education in 2008 from the University of Florida, both in

foundations of education.





PAGE 1

1 RESISTANCE AMONG PROSPECTIVE TEACHERS IN A GRADUAT E SOCIAL STUDIES COURSE By SHERYL MARIE HOWIE A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008

PAGE 2

2 2008 Sheryl Marie Howie

PAGE 3

3 To my children, Jennifer, Amy, Aaron, and Matthew. You are dear friends and trusted accomplices.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS In 1987, Paulo Freire and Myles Horton had a co nversation at Highlande r in the m ountains of Tennessee. It was late r published as a book entitled We Make the Road by Walking Their premise was that those of us who work for so cial justice do so thr ough collective struggle, through walking the road to emancipation together. This dissertation is part of my walk on that road and I want to thank those who walked with me and those whose resistance to the ideals of social justice compelled me to continue. Dr. Elizabeth Bondy brought me back to my root s of social justice. She introduced me to the teachings of Paulo Freire and the many other a dvocates for social justice, of whom I formed an allegiance. As my dissertati on chair, she kept me focused on the task at hand while inspiring me to explore the depths of resistance and conscientization. Dr. Eli zabeth Yeager not only encouraged me in my work in student resistance but gave me oppor tunities to grow as a scholar. The many hours we spent together on other projects were opportunities to tap her wisdom and intelligent guidance. Dr. Sevan Terzian brought me into the fold and provided me with endless opportunities to grow intellectuall y. His dedication to graduate st udents and their research is deeply appreciated. Dr. Sharon Austin showed me how to teach controversial issues and challenge hegemony while preventing resistance. I am still learning. I have the deepest gratitude and respect for these professors who treated me as a colleague and, at times, a conspirator. I also must thank my fellow travelers who sp ent time with me at local watering holes Michele, Cheryl, Bob, Patrick, and Lea. We still walk this road together, mixing high ideals with high comedy, but never giving up. I also want to thank Dr. Art Ne wman, who inspired critical inquiry and selfreflection along the road that was so very familiar to him. I must also thank my colleagues from Critical Pedagogy I and II. What a wonderful time we had challenging each other as we examined and experienced conscientization.

PAGE 5

5 The participants in this study, unknowingly, walk ed with me in my struggle to understand resistance. Their willingness to explore places that must have felt very uncomfortable is deeply appreciated. They taught me a lot. My father, also unknowingly, set me on this road through his discour se on issues of inequity, building within me a pa ssion for social justice. My moth er balanced the social justice fervor in our home by finding good in everyone and teaching me compassion for others. I am still learning the lessons from my walks with them. Finally, I must thank my children. Jennifer, Amy, Aaron and Matthew encouraged me to pursue a dream, lifted me up during difficult ti mes, and kept me from taking myself too seriously. Walking this road has been easier because they were beside me.

PAGE 6

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........9 ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................10 CHAP TER 1 STUDENT RESISTANCE: FROM THEORY TO PRACTI CE............................................ 12 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........12 Purpose of Study.....................................................................................................................14 Significance of the Study.................................................................................................15 Definition of Terms.........................................................................................................15 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE.................................................................................................19 Critical Resistance..................................................................................................................19 Cultural Resistance............................................................................................................ ....26 Counter Resistance.................................................................................................................35 Student Resistance: From Theory to Practice......................................................................... 37 3 METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................. 39 Theoretical Perspective........................................................................................................ ...39 Methodology...........................................................................................................................41 Study Design................................................................................................................... ........42 Context of the Study........................................................................................................42 Study Participants and Selection..................................................................................... 45 Acts of Resistance in the Classroom...............................................................................46 Data Collection.......................................................................................................................47 Observations....................................................................................................................47 Interviews........................................................................................................................47 Data Analysis..........................................................................................................................48 Thematic Analysis ........................................................................................................... 48 Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA).................................................................................48 Trustworthiness of the Study...........................................................................................51 Triangulation of data................................................................................................51 Multiple methodological perspectives.....................................................................52 Limitations of the Study.................................................................................................. 53 Subjectivity Statement..................................................................................................... 53 Sociohistorical context............................................................................................. 53 Monitoring subjectivity............................................................................................ 56

PAGE 7

7 4 CONTEXTS OF RESISTANCE............................................................................................ 58 Preface....................................................................................................................................58 The Context of the Classroom................................................................................................58 The Context of the Instructor..................................................................................................61 The Context of the Researcher...............................................................................................64 The Context of Participants....................................................................................................67 William........................................................................................................................ ....67 Kenneth............................................................................................................................70 Henry...............................................................................................................................72 George.............................................................................................................................74 5 FINDINGS....................................................................................................................... .......77 Preface....................................................................................................................................77 Counter Resistance and the Role of the Teacher.................................................................... 79 Teacher as Source of Important Knowledge................................................................... 79 Important Knowledge is Pr actical and Relevant. ............................................................ 86 Teachers Control Decisions about Instruction and Management.................................... 96 Teachers Encourage Students Ideas and Opinions....................................................... 108 Teachers Should Teach Assimilation to the Dominant Group...................................... 120 Teacher Responsible for Success of all Students But............................................... 124 Good Female Teachers are Caring and Bu ild Relationship s with Students..................127 Cultural Resistance and the Role of the Teacher.................................................................. 132 Teachers should not Micromanage Classrooms.......................................................... 132 Teachers should Maintain Trust in S tudentTeacher Relationships............................. 134 Finale......................................................................................................................... ...........139 6 CONCLUSION AND I MPLICATIONS.............................................................................. 140 Explaining Resistance through Ideology.............................................................................. 142 Teacher is Source of Important Knowledge.................................................................. 145 Important Knowledge is Practical and Relevant ........................................................... 146 Teachers Control Decisions About Instruction and Management................................. 147 Teachers Encourage Students Ideas and Opinions....................................................... 149 Teachers Should Teach Assimilation to the Dominant Group...................................... 150 Teacher is Responsible for Success of all Students But............................................ 150 Good Female Teachers are Caring and Bu ild Relationship s with Students..................151 Teachers should not Micromanage Classrooms.......................................................... 152 Teachers should Maintain Trust in S tudentTeacher Relationships............................. 153 Escalating and Dimini shing Resistance ................................................................................154 Extending the Literature.......................................................................................................155 Redefining Resistance...................................................................................................155 Student Resistance in College Cla ssroom s and Teacher Education.............................. 156 Sociohistorical Context a nd Beliefs about Teach ing..................................................... 158

PAGE 8

8 Implications................................................................................................................... .......159 Implications for Teacher Educators............................................................................... 159 Implications for the Research Community.................................................................... 162 APPENDIX A INTERVIEW PROTOCOL.................................................................................................. 165 B SOCIAL STUDIES INTERNSHIP SEMINAR ASSIGNED READINGS ......................... 167 C HENRYS CASE STUDY................................................................................................... 169 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................196 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................201

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4 Internship seminar class schedule, January 17, 2007........................................................60 5 Categories of resistance: The role of the teacher............................................................... 78 6 Counter resistant beliefs about the role of the teacher ..................................................... 145 6 Cultural resistance beliefs a bout the role of the teacher .................................................. 152

PAGE 10

10 Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy RESISTANCE AMONG PROSPECTIVE TEACHERS IN A GRADUAT E SOCIAL STUDIES COURSE By Sheryl Marie Howie August 2008 Chair: Elizabeth Bondy Major: Foundations of Education Teacher educators who use methods and content that support equity cultural diversity, and an inclusive teaching philosophy are often met with resistance from prospective teachers. Prospective teachers may resist these unfamiliar methods and philosophies b ecause their experiences in schools and beliefs about teacher s support the White, Eurocentric, middleupper class culture of the privileged group, a culture that is historically established in our schools. Due to the increased diversity of school populations an d the fact that most teachers are White females who are members of the middleupper class, it is imperative that teacher educators address the resistance engaged in by prospective teachers to inclusive teaching methods, which are pr oven highly effective in diverse school settings. The purpose of this study was to better unders tand student resistan ce by White students in a secondary social studie s internship seminar for prospective teachers. When content or teaching methods contradict the knowledge or beliefs of prospective teacher s, they often choose to quietly dismiss or vociferously object. In order to understa nd the factors that shape resistance, this study seeks to address the following research questions:

PAGE 11

11 What explains resistant behavior among prospe ctive teachers in an internship seminar? What factors shape resistance? o How is resistance escalated? o How is resistance diminished? Resistance is grounded in critical theory so cr itical theory was used to frame the study of four prospective teachers in an internship semi nar. The participants were selected based on observations of the internship seminar in whic h they engaged in what was perceived to be resistant behavior. Resistant be havior was determined by passi ve and/or active actions of students that disrupted the balanc e of power in the classroom and/ or challenged the authority of the instructor. Data sources consisted of five obser vations, three prior to se lection of participants, and three interviews with each par ticipant. Interviews helped crea te a sociohistorical context for each participant and identify their beliefs abou t teaching. From the data, four cases were prepared to describe the participants beliefs a bout the role of teachers. The case studies were then examined for shared and unique beliefs, which became the basis of the ideology for each participant. Participants ideology supported the White, Eu rocentric, middleupper class ideology of schools and the privileged group. This was evident in their sociohistorical contexts and their beliefs about teachers. The four participants resi sted content taught in the internship seminar and teacher education program about culturally responsive teaching, democratic classrooms practices, and a noexcuses teaching philosophy. They also defined practical and relevant knowledge in ways that excluded effective teac hing practices, such as culturally responsive pedagogy and democratic classroom practices. Pa rticipants ideology s upported the dominant White, Eurocentric, middleupper class culture of schools in which teachers maintain and reproduce hegemony.

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 STUDENT RESISTANCE: FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE Introduction For over twentyfive years, educat ors have been using the term resistance to describe the behavior of students in cl assroom s (Anyon, 1981; Devine, 1996; Giroux, 2001; McLaren, 1986; Shor, 1992; Willis, 1988). In these descriptions, st udent resistance can range from silence to physical violence, and culminate in a variety of outcomes. Most studies of student resistance in schools focus on the disconnect betw een the traditional culture of schools, which reflects the White, Eurocentric, middleupper cla ss ideals of the privileged class, and the cultures of oppressed groupsworkingclass or high poverty students and/or students of color (Anyon, 1981; CochranSmith, 2004; Dance, 2004; Devine, 1996; hooks 2002; McCadden, 1998; McLaren, 1986, 2003; Miron & Lauria, 1995; Willis, 1988). These studies of student resistance are relevant to teacher educators since pr ospective teachers are predominantly White, Eurocentric, middleupper class females while the school population of culturally diverse students is increasing (CochranSmith, Davis & Fries, 2004; Gay, 1997). The reality of student resistance emphasizes the importance of prepar ing teachers to be more responsive to and inclusive of students whose iden tities and norms may be different from their own. A dilemma arises, however, when teacher educators shift th e focus to equity and an inclusive teaching philosophy. When this happens, prospective teachers may resist these unfamiliar methods and philosophies in favor of the White, Eurocentric middle/upper class ideals of the privileged group. Acts of resistance are evident thr oughout human history but the term resistance became part of a theoretical perspective in the early 1900s. The original theory behi nd resistance is based on Marxist ideology and critical theory. Critical theory, as a discipline, had its beginnings in the

PAGE 13

13 Institute for Social Research at the Universi ty of Frankfurt in Germany in the early 20th century. Under the leadership of Felix Weil, Friedrich Pollock, Max Horkheimer and other scholars who built on the ideas of Karl Marx, what is known as the Frankfurt School was established (Jay, 1973). Marx and scholars of the Frankfurt School viewed resist ance as actions by the powerless to overcome hegemony and address economic and social injustices (Adorno, 1984; Althusser, 1971; Habermas, 1991; Horkheimer, 1972; Leclau & Mouffe, 2001; Lukcs, 1972; Marcuse, 1991; Marx, 2005). Resistance was the result of th e masses, or proletariat, becoming aware of how the privileged, the bourgeoisie, manipulated and exploited them to serve the desires of the wealthy privileged group. For many scholars at the Frankfurt School, ed ucation became the avenue to enlightenment and emancipation for th e powerless masses and the beginning of a more socially just society. Critical pedagogy continued the theory of education for emancipation, applying ideas of resistance to student beha vior in the classroo m (Anyon, 1981; Delpit, 1996; Giroux, 2001; hooks, 1994; McLaren, 1986; Shor, 1992). As noted earlier, studies of student resistance have centere d on the cultural disconnect between the culturally diverse lives of student s and the White, Eurocentr ic, middleupper class ideals of classrooms and curriculu m. More recently, however, studi es on student resistance have focused on resistant acts by students who are members of the privileged group (Davis, 1992; Grant & Gillette, 2006; Haddad & Lieberman, 2002; Hunter & Nettles, 1999; MacFarland, 2001; McIntyre, 1997; Middleton, 2002) A study by Valerie Middlet on (2002) found that many White prospective teachers agreed that multicultural teaching, or recognizing va rious cultures in the classroom, is necessary, but they did not unders tand multicultural education, diversity, and the attitudes and skills needed for successful cross cultural teaching (p. 348). The fact that many White prospective teachers do not see themselv es as having an ethnic or cultural identity

PAGE 14

14 complicates matters when attempting to address the importance of crosscultural teaching (CochranSmith, 1995; Gay, 2002; Irvi ne, 2003; Vallegas & Lucas, 2002). According to Carl Grant and Maureen Gille tte (2006), some prospective teachers are reluctant to change practices th at they perceive were effec tive in their own schooling, have difficulty accepting criticism of their practices, or hold attitudes and beliefs about certain students, parents, families, and communities that indicate an inability to work effectively with diverse constituencies (p. 294). Often, the result is resistance by prospective teachers from the privileged class to an inclusive teaching philo sophy. Prospective teacher s who resist teaching methods based on equity and an inclusive teaching philosophy risk excluding students in their classrooms from the learning process. Purpose of Study The purpose of this study was to better unders tand student resistan ce by White students in a secondary social studie s internship sem inar for prospectiv e teachers. Students bring knowledge and beliefs that impact how they view the conten t and teaching styles of instructors. When the content or teaching methods contradict their knowl edge or beliefs they often choose to quietly dismiss or vociferously object. In order to understa nd the factors that shape resistance, this study seeks to address the following research questions: What explains resistant behavior among prospe ctive teachers in an internship seminar? What factors shape resistance? o How is resistance escalated? o How is resistance diminished? Through observations and interviews, this study cr itically examined and analyzed resistance by White prospective teachers in an internship seminar.

PAGE 15

15 Significance of the Study There are few studies that have focused on th e resistan ce of White students to inclusive teaching philosophies and methods taught in a so cial studies teacher ed ucation course. Although student resistance traditionally has been viewed as a phenomenon experienced by students whose lives originate outside the White, Eurocentric, middleupper class norm of schools, studies of White middle class students enga ging in ethnic studies or diversity courses conclude that resistance is not limited to students of co lor (Davis, 1992; Haddad & Lieberman, 2002; Hunter & Nettles, 1999; McFarl and, 2001; Middleton, 2002). In addition, the teaching methods used in many of these courses appear to fuel student resistance, creating a contentious environment that is not conducive to a free and healthy exchange of dialogue that would result in students cha llenging their preconceived biases about cultural differences. When an instructor advocates methods and cont ent that reveal and work to eliminate White privilege, White students (from the privileged group) often engage in resistance to what is being taught because it does not reflec t their beliefs (as the dominan t group). This study will help teacher educators better understand what explains resistance, why it escalates, and ways it might be diminished, suggesting opportunities for positive change. Definition of Terms Many words are used in this study that could have multiple meanings, such as resistance, oppression, and White privilege. These terms are used throughout the study in specific ways outlined below. Resistance. Resistance is defined differently by va rious schools of thought. In this study, resistance will be defined as passive and/or aggressive behavior in response to the content and/or methods used by the instructor with the purpos e of changing the balance of power in the classroom and/or challenging the authority of th e teacher as the professional educator. This

PAGE 16

16 might include vocal protests to course assignmen ts, actions that disrupt the class and challenge the teachers authority, or disenga gement during class activities. Ideology. Ideology is defined in this study as a be lief that works to maintain or disrupt hegemony in education or society. Ideology is fo rmed by the interaction between individuals and society, what Marx calls the h istorical lifeprocess (2005, p. 180). Marx (2005) considered ideology to be an inverted view of reality, but this is true when the ideology is based on beliefs that maintain hegemony. Ideology that main tains hegemony might be perceived as common sense (Fairclough, 1995) so the average person wi ll accept it without ques tion, but it is often a view of reality that hides the power st ructures that suppor t the dominate group. Culturally responsive pedagogy Culturally responsive pedagogy is a framework or philosophical viewpoint for making decisions that better serve the educational needs of culturally diverse student populations (Ga y, 2002, p. 32). Culturally responsive teachers recognize and value ethnic and cu ltural diversity in their cla ssrooms and make educational choices based on student diversity (Ir vine, 2003; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). Democratic classroom practices. Democratic classrooms cr eate an atmosphere that recognizes the presence of numerous distinct ethnic, religious, or cultural groups within schools and society (Barton & Levstik, 2004). John Deweys (1916) vi ew of democracy as a way of living together is a simple yet wi dely shared definitio n of democracy among educators. He emphasized the need for a shared common interest and a chan ge in social habits that resulted in freer inte raction between social groups (Dewey, 1916, pp. 86). A democratic classroom creates a space where students from diffe rent cultural backgrounds can share their common interests and critically examine their di fferences with the purpose of

PAGE 17

17 finding consensus. In democra tic classrooms, students have a role in decisions about curriculum, instructio n, and management. A noexcuses teaching philosophy. A noexcuses teaching philosophy assumes that all students can succeed and it is the teachers re sponsibility to create le ssons and a classroom environment that support the learning of each student (Corbett, Wilson, & Williams, 2002). Teachers who do not adhere to a noexcuses teaching philosoph y say that all students can learn, but make excuses when learning does not ta ke place. They will say that all students can succeed but and blame the stud ent, the school environment, the family, or the community for the failure of studen ts in their classr ooms. All of these factors influence education, but teachers who cite them as pos sible reasons for failure are often relinquishing their own responsibility to help all students learn. White privilege White privilege is define d as the invisible benef its White people receive because they are Wh ite (Jensen, 2005; McIn tosh, 1988). Mo st White people are unaware of these privileges they receive or how Whiteness is the center of U.S. society (Jensen, 2005; Lucal, 1996; McIntosh, 19 88). For example, most schools in the United States teach national history from the perspective of White people, mainly men, and students will be given curricular materials that testify to the existence of [the White] race (McIntosh, 1988, p. 8). Curriculum on American Indian African American, or Latino hi story in the United States is often viewed as ancillary to the main White cu rriculum. Most schools in the United States base curriculum, methods and standards on a White, Eurocentric, middleupper cl ass culture (Delpit, 1996; hooks, 2002; Loewen, 1995). This dominant White privilege, reinforced in most K classrooms, prevents people from other ethni c and cultural groups from fully engaging in American culture. Lisa Delpit (1996) believes th e tension between the po wer of White privilege

PAGE 18

18 and the powerlessness of members of other ethni c groups is why schools are unable to educate children of color at the same level as White children. White, Eurocentric, middleupper class culture This phrase is used to denote the historical positioning of schools and education in the United States. Historically, education was available to those with the financial means and time to pursue it, which meant the wealthy. Some early settlers in America believed education should be available to everyone, but this view was not shared by all colonists. In the early 19th century, the need for public education became an issue and public schools were established in some st ates but education beyond reading, writing and arithmetic was often limited to the wealthy. Scho ols in the United States were established by wealthy citizens in positions of power, who were mainly White and descended from Eastern European countries. Because of this, the Wh ite, Eurocentric, middle upper class culture of schools was established early in our history, in both the content taught and methods used, and remains the dominant culture of schools. This term is in no way derogatory, but simply a part of our history that must be recogni zed when discussing the increased diversity in our schools today. Prospective teachers Prospective teachers are students in a teacher education program. I use this term in place of pres ervice teachers to help eliminate any confusion by readers outside the field of teacher education. In this chapter, an overview of the study was provided. In chapter two, literature important to the study will be cited and reviewed. Chap ter three explains the methodology for the study, including issues of trustwor thiness and limitations of the study. The context of the study, including the classroom, instructor, researcher, a nd participants, is described in chapter four. Findings of the study are detailed in chapter fi ve, and chapter five offers conclusions and implications.

PAGE 19

19 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE When educators discuss student resistance in the classroom they are usually referring to disruptive student behavior. Teacher response to th is behavior may include ignoring it, analyzing it, or terminating it through discip linary action. The definition of student resistance also varies and is dependent upon the perspective of the pe rson or group doing the defining. An examination of the literature, from Marxist and critical theorist ideology to current qualitative studies of student resistance, reveal s differences in conceptualizations of resistance among critical theorists, critical pedagogues, and educators. Most critical theorists view acts of resistance as organized by groups or individuals with the goal of changing political, economic and so cial power structures through critical examination of hegemony and emancipatory change. Critical pedagogues reflect the beliefs of critical theorists but focus on acts of resistance by stude nts, either as individuals or groups. Critical pedagogues view resistance as challenging social, economic, and political structures that maintain hege mony. Through critical inquiry and selfreflection, educators and students take action to change the power stru cture within and outside of schools and the education system. Some educators label as resi stance the acts of stude nts from the dominant group (White, Eurocentric, middleupper class) who oppose content and curriculum based on cultural diversity. While all are based on critical theory and involve a stru ggle against established hegemony, the variations in the literature sugges t a threepart conceptual framework: critical resistance, cultural resistance, and counter resistance. Critical Resistance Of the three categories of resi stance found in the lite rature, critical resistance aligns m ost closely with critical theory. Most critical theorists vi ew resistance as organized group action with the goal of changing political, economic and social power structures. A critical examination of

PAGE 20

20 hegemonyhow it is created and maintaineda nd reflection on how to overcome it and bring about collective action for social change are ne cessary elements of resistance for critical theorists. Their goal is nothing less than longterm, farreaching political change that will bring about emancipation of oppressed populations. This is critical resistance : it is motivated by social injustice, can be actions of i ndividuals or groups, includes critical inquir y and selfreflection about hegemony, and focuses on the need for broa d political change that would protect and benefit oppressed groups. As introduced in Chapter 1, resistance theory originated with Marxis t ideology and critical theory. Marx (2005) believed resistance, or revolution, would arise na turally. Marxs (2005) theory of historical materialism determined th at a succession of economic systems are created to satisfy human needs, but at the same time th ese systems create class an tagonism that results in societal divisions. The bourgeoisie (oppressors) owns the means of production and benefits from the profits, while the proletariat (oppressed) consists of wageearners dependent on the bourgeoisie for employment. Marx believed that rising conflict between these two classes of people would result in resist ance and revolution, which he co nsidered a naturally occurring phenomenon carried out by the proletariat that would conclude with the introduction of a socialist government and the founda tion for an equitable society. Critical theorists from the Fr ankfurt School challenged and/or extended this idea of resistance. Max Horkheimers early ideas reflect ed the thoughts of the Marxist revolution, but he later parted ways with Marx ist theory and believed educatio n, not class antagonism, would be the initiator of resistance and the revolution. Ac cording to Horkheimer (1972), the current education system is controlled by the ideology of traditional theory, wh ich depends on empirical facts to determine outcomes. Empi rical theory is prevalent in society through the promotion of

PAGE 21

21 production and technology, which Horkheimer ca lled an allpowerful unitary system of science (1972, p. 198). He asserted that educatio n can emancipate and transform only if it examines the unitary system of science and ex pands knowledge using a critical theory lens and identifying hegemonic controls. The teaching of content that represents the reality of a socially unjust society and knowledge about how to make changes are n ecessary for social responsibility and emancipatory political activism (resistance to hegemonic forces from the ruling class) (Horkheimer & A dorno, 1972). Ho rkheimers resistance was an intellectual endeavor that led to emanci pation from hegemony and resulted in a critically educated population rising up against a socially unjust government an d economic system. Jrgen Habermas (1991), considered one of th e most influential members of the Frankfurt School, viewed the media as creatin g culture and selling it to the masses, molding their ideas to help maintain the status quo of the ruling class. To overcome this hegemony, Habermas argued that we need to bring small public spheres togeth er to critically examine and reflect on social, economic, and political ideologies. Habermas (1998) favored a form of critical communication in which individuals come together and critically ex amine the perspective of each person in order to reach an understanding in which all participate. This form of resistance appears to have two expressions: the first when individuals come togeth er to resist the hegemonic forces of the ruling class through critical dialogue, and the second when the collectiv e understanding is established, which leads to resistant action in the political realm. For Habermas, resistance was a collective act. Like Horkheimer, resistance as defined by Habermas required selfreflection and critique, involved groups of pe ople, and had as its goal changi ng government action to address injustices.

PAGE 22

22 Theodor Adornos (1984) view of oppression departed from other critical theorists in that he viewed it as an individual experience and wa s unable to formulate an idea or theory for collective struggle and re sistance. Adorno (1984), a German philosopher and graduate of Johann Wolfgang Goethe University in Frankfurt, argue d that people are socially constructed by the culture industry (media), which reinforces hegemonic patterns in society. This led him to assert that oppression is experienced individually, no t collectively, and resulted in the necessity inherent in the system not to leave the cust omer alone, not for a moment to allow him any suspicion that resistance is possible (Horkheimer & Adorno, 1972, p. 12). For Adorno, resistance was an individual act that led to the emancipation of the individual from hegemony. This idea fits well in the classroom since resist ant behavior is often committed by individuals. The traditional structure of classrooms in the United States, in which students are trained to succeed as individuals and not as part of a gr oup, might prevent students who are experiencing similar oppressive acts from teachers and administrators from uniting in their resistance (McLaren, 1986). What placed Adornos resistance as critical was the need for selfreflection and critique that can lead to emancipation of the individual. Georg Lukcs (1989), a Marxist philosopher, stated that the ultimate objective for resistance is to create a soci ety in which oppressor and oppresse d no longer exist. According to Lukcs (1972), the only valid yardstick is whether the manner of the action in a given case serves to realize this goal (p. 4). Acts of resistance would have to be for the purpose of creating a more just society: The class struggle of the proletariat is not merely a class struggle but a means whereby humanity liberates itself a means to the true beginning of human history (Lukcs, 1972, p. 5). Lukcs did not view resistance as an in dividual act but, like Habermas, defined it as a collective act with political change and social ju stice as the goal.

PAGE 23

23 Herbert Marcuse taught at the Frankfurt School for one year and left when Hitler came into power, traveling to the United States to teach at Columbia University and then at the University of California in San Diego. Marcuse (1991) argued that language is used to control the masses. He referred to Orwellian languagethe new speak George Orwell used in his book 1984as a one dimensional language used by government, capitalists, and media to misrepresent and suppress social contradictions and problems. In doing this, public t hought and discourse are restricted to the terminology and discourse put forth by the ruling class (Marcuse, 1991). This creates a onedimensional mode of thinking and acting in which critical thought and resistance to the status quo are unimportant. Marcuse ( 1991) believed radical thinking and oppositional behavior (resistance) coul d resurface among populati ons outside of the ruli ng class, like minority groups and radical academics, but there was a level of education that needed to take place. For Marcuse, resistance did not occur until the oppre ssed were educated regarding the hegemonic controls placed on them by those in power. Resi stance was a deliberate and conscious act with the intention of emancipation and a change in the political, economic, and social power structures. Italian political philosopher Antonio Gramsci (1971) believed a war of position needed to take place before a war of movement would be successful (pp. 23839). A war of position entailed providing a moral and intellectual dir ection for the working class that would undermine the false consciousness created through hegemony (Gramsci, 1971). Gramscis (1971) philosophy of praxis would expose and reject the deceptions that maintain the hegemonic controls of the ruling class thr ough a critique of the contradicti ons in history. For Gramsci, the goal of resistance was to gain political power fo r the purpose of political change, which is done

PAGE 24

24 not by individuals but through organized groups of marginalized peopl e and requires critical inquiry and selfreflection. Paulo Freire was an interna tionally known critical theorist and educator who believed education should be a liberating force for overc oming hegemony (Freire, 1998). Like Habermas, Freire (1993) believed selfreflection and dialogue are necessary to examine power structures in society and uncover assumptions taught by the do minate culture for the purpose of maintaining hegemony. Freires (1993) conscientizao (conscientization) is the act of discovering why power structures are the way they are and taking transforming action to change them. Through conscientization, we not only question our assumpti ons but we liberate ourselves from hegemonic influences. Critical dialogue was the first step to enlightenment, liberation and resistance to the hegemonic structure (Freire, 1993). Freire (1998) believed resistance was indispensable to the process of humanization. His pedagogy of indignation is defined as when educators and the oppressed become indignant due to historical circumstances and resist the power structure that the dominant class has imposed (Freire, 2004). For Fr eire, resistance combined a critical examination of hegemony through dialogue with action that empowers the oppressed. This is not accomplished by individuals, as Adorno believed, but by groups coming together to work for social justice. Freires goal was to teach poverty stricken adults in Brazil how to read so they could become politically active and resist the powerful wealthy elite who co ntrolled government. Henry Giroux is considered one of the founding theorists of critical pedagogy, which is based on critical theory. Like Horkheimer, cr itical pedagogues view critical education as necessary for the emancipation of the oppressed and to bring about social justice. Giroux (2001) defined resistance as moral and political indignation that occurred wh en a students lived experience conflicts with the stru ctures of domination and constrai nt found in the classroom (p.

PAGE 25

25 107). A students lived experien ce would include cultural elemen ts, such as race/ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, religion, and ag e. Girouxs definition rejected traditional explanations of school failuredeviant behavior, individual inadequacy, learned helplessness, and genetic causesand instead examined the power issues in education. According to Giroux (2001), emancipation became a guiding interest in acts of resistance. Like the critical theorists, he stated that oppositional behavior must include a critique of power struct ures and an element of selfreflection; actions that appear to challenge authority may not be acts of resist ance due to the lack of an analysis of the power structure or purpose of emancipation. Gi roux (2001) said true acts of resistance create an interest in radica l consciousnessraising and collective critical action (p. 110). For Giroux, resistance was more than an act ag ainst hegemonic power structures; it was also an act toward selfref lection and freedom from hegemony. Resistance for Giroux required collective acti on directed at the power stru cture of traditional education, including both the social and pol itical structures. His goal was to disrupt the hegemony prevalent in education and society. Studies of critical resistance in schools and classrooms are scarce, but examples can be found. In March, 2006, students across the U.S. walked out of classrooms to protest an immigration bill that was under debate in Congress. The walkouts and protest marches were organized quickly through the use of cell phone s and the Internet and some middle and high school students risked punishment from school administrators. The majority of the student protestors were students whose families were re cent immigrants and wanted their voices to be heard. Christian Dorn, 16, a Salvadoran and a junior at Potomac Hi gh School in Dumfries, said the demonstrations had proved something. It go t the word out that were not going to be quiet, she said. Its similar to what the African Americans did in the 1960s. We shouldnt be treated like crim inals. (Bahrampour & Glod, 2006)

PAGE 26

26 Oddly enough, on the same day students took to the st reets in the U.S., students in France were participating in their sixth day of protest against the contrat de premire embauche (CPE), a labor law that allowed employers to fire employees age 26 and younge r in their first two years of employment without giving a reason. Due to the tradition of protest in France, this was a more organized act of resistance. Labor unions, civil workers, and the Socialist party supported the student protests and said the new law discriminated against youth. Vincent Camroux, a young student leader he lping to organize the demonstrations bewails what he calls the immobilism of French society, where business, politics, and the unions are full of people over 50, unwilli ng to make way for younger generations. I am ambitious, he says. I want jobs from wh ich I will learn, that will be fulfilling. Most of the people he knows who will graduate this summer, though, face an endless series of unpaid internships or shortterm contra cts that don't lead anywhere. (Ford, 2006) These protests, and others like them, are examples of critical resistance due to the focus on social justice, the knowledge ex pressed (by some students) that indi cates the use of cr itical inquiry and selfreflection, and the goal of emancipating oppressed groups. Cultural Resistance The White, Eurocentric, middleupp er class culture reflected in most U.S. schools often conflicts with the cultural lives of studen ts who are not members of this group. Critical pedagogues view student actions th at work against the culture of schools as resistant behavior. Kindergartners who act out due to their discomfort with an environment unlike their home environment and high school students who inflict acts of violence against teachers for the same reason are both labeled resistant by researchers. These students are members of oppressed groups, usually specific ethnic groups, but they do not always practice th e critical inquiry or selfreflection necessary to understand the hegemony that maintain s an unjust power structure and prevents social justice and emancipation. The lack of critique by students does not lessen the importance of their actions but might indicate their sense of unfairn ess or injustice in the current

PAGE 27

27 education system. This is cultural resistance : it is motivated by cultural hegemony, can be actions of individuals or groups, may or may not include critical inquiry and selfreflection, and focuses on the need for social change in a specif ic environment, but not broad political changes. Peter McLarens (1986) definition of resistance in the classroom was consistent with cultural resistance: oppositional student behavi or that has symbolic, historical and lived meaning and which contests the legitimacy, power a nd significance of school culture in general, and instruction in particular (p. 142). The purpose of resistance, according to McLaren (1986), was to erode the authority of the teacherbr eaking rules was a logical response to oppression and usually occurred when the authoritarianism of the teacher became too much to bear (p. 144). McLaren studied both Ital ian and Portuguese workingclass students in Canada and African American students in the U.S. These st udents resisted the hegemonic controls of the school because the formal dominant culture of the classroom did not reflect the lived informal culture of the streets (McLaren, 1986, p. 143). Due to the overwhelming evidence that most African Americans do not succeed economically through the traditi onal White, Eurocentric, middleupper class education system, African American youth must find other ways to succeed (Delpit, 1996; hooks, 2002; Loewen, 1995). Their cultural identity system is not only different from but in opposition to the social identity of their White dominators (McLare n, 2003, p. 228). For McLaren, this resistance can have a negative effect by re inforcing the reproduction of the dominant social group because students who choose to resist main tain their cultura l identity but forfeit the educational options that could change the power structure. When oppositional students decided to conform, however, McLaren found they became less politically aware, less assertive, and assimilated to White middle class expectations. McLaren does not appear to dis tinguish between resistance as

PAGE 28

28 an individual act versus a group act; however, it is evid ent that he viewed social justice and emancipation from hegemony as goals for student resistance. The critical inquiry and self reflection necessary for critical resistance were apparently lacking in McLarens oppositional youth and in those who conformed. Jean Anyons (1981) definition of resistance reflected the cultural attitudes prevalent among workingclass students, but like McLaren, did not appear to include critical inquiry or selfreflection as necessary for resistant acts to take place. She found resi stance to be a dominant theme in workingclass schools a nd observed resistance as both passive and active behaviors, from children not responding to questions or no t completing homework to children falling out of chairs or stealing from each other. Accord ing to Anyon (1981), working class students were given a basic education and taught to follow di rections, which are prerequisites for the low paying jobs most of the students would fill after graduation, an ex ample of how hegemony prevents certain groups from moving out of poor economic circumstances. The goal of students who resisted, according to Anyon, was to challeng e a school environment that was culturally uncomfortable, not to deliberately and consciously come together in a collective force to gain emancipation or social justice. The resistance Anyon witnessed had similar negative results as that observed by McLaren. In a similar study, Paul Willis (1988) observed male students in a workingclass school in England and found they harbored a strong resistance to the school environment. According to Willis (1988), resistan ce was evident in their pension for flagrantly breaking the rules or behaving in ways that reflected their home culture where practical knowledge, not theoretical knowledge, was valued. Like McLaren, Willis believed these acts of resistance engaged in by students did not include critical inquiry or self reflection, but instead helped maintain the power of the dominant social group.

PAGE 29

29 As noted earlier, the absence of critical inquiry an d selfreflection does not diminish the actions of the students in any of the studies cite d in this chapter. One must question if children and youth engaging in what are defined as resistant acts, but who are unfamiliar with the concepts of selfreflection a nd critical inquiry into hegemo ny, might not be acting upon a subconscious need for fairness, which might also be interpreted as social justice. In a study of kindergarten students, Brian McCadden (1998) ob served that those whos e cultures were most different from the teachers resisted the clas sroom structure more than other students. The oppositional children had difficulty in an environment that was unlike their home environment, creating discomfort that led to acts of resistance. Like Mc Laren, McCadden found these students struggling with identity in an unfamiliar social and cultural structure. Similarly, Louis Miron and Mickey Lauria (1995) defined student resistance as a struggle for identity (self identification) (p. 30). In thei r study of urban youth, they conclude that students were resisting school culture in an attempt to retain their ethnic id entity and not conform to the uniformity imposed on them by schools. Again, this type of resistance did not produce selfreflection or freedom from hegemonic social structures for the resisters, but instead aligns with McLarens idea that students in the oppressed or mi nority groups often resist the unfamiliar and uncomfortable culture of the classroom. Janelle Dance (2004) provided another exam ination of student resistance in her ethnographic study of innercity African Ameri can males. Dance (2004) observed that the cultural norms of life outside of schools often conf lict with the cultural norms inside of schools, which dictate a unique set of cultural norms and expectations upon students (p. 39). Dance (2004) found that most urban youth are not involved in the hardcore criminal activ ities of the inner city, but will take on the dress, mannerisms, language, and dispositions of the gangster

PAGE 30

30 (p. 6). This tough front is used partly as a way to protect themselves within their street culture environment, but can also become an act of rebellion and resistance (Dance, 2004, p. 6). She found that some teachers do not understand the environment the students come from and the survival skills necessary for that environment a nd instead label African American students as incompetent, unintelligent, or learning disable d. She observed that student opposition was more frequent when it involved teachers and/or admini strators who did not understand the situation outside of school. Dance (2004) found students became oppositional due to ethnic/cultural devaluation, low educational expectations, r ace and classbased discrimination, residential segregation, urban poverty and dete rioration, and pessimistic forecasts about [future] legal means of employment (p. 56). According to Dance (20 04), Black youths from low income urban areas start out with the same dreams as mainstream yo uth, but they are often re jected and labeled as problems by police, schools, welfare agencies, and other institutions (including the media). Dance (2004) concluded that this constant mainst ream rejection begins to weaken their resolve to hold onto mainstream dreams and goals and def lates and levels aspirations for most black urban youth in their late teens and early twenties (p. 5). This becomes the point of oppositionwhat they dream of is opposed by the mainstream culture creating a situation in wh ich they have to choose to ov ercome mainstream culture or create an identity that will give them some se nse of selfrespect, even if that identity is oppositional to mainstream culture. By creating an oppositional identity, resistance becomes part of that identity. Dances (2004) definition of re sistance aligns with cultural resistanceacts against a hegemonic education system that ignor es cultural differences but without critical inquiry or selfreflection by students.

PAGE 31

31 Dances (2004) study is important to consid er when examining the tenyear study by John Devine. Devine (1996) found that many students in innercity schools view violent acts, disruptions, crude comments, and violent behavior as the norm. According to Devine, students did not expect orderly classrooms with teachers who are engaging because that was not the pattern of education they experi enced in the past. What students expected were metal detectors and body scans at the school entrance that woul d alert authorities to concealed weapons. According to Devine (1996), This powerpolice intrusion is happening within school space, which was previously conceived as a sanctuary (p. 27). What is most evident to Devine, and possibly to students, is that their bodies were no longer their own. These unrecognized rites of passage, buried in the everyday routines of sc hool life, are the means by which students are socialized into a world in which violence is c onsidered part of the normal order of things (Devine, 1996, p. 37). Devine noted that Willis (1988) studied an organized, traditional school that gave students something concrete to resist. The inner city schoo ls Devine worked in were not traditional or organized and bore little resemblance to the esta blished structure of Williss school. According to Devine (1996), the schools were an intimidating space beyond the control of teachers, secured by guards, and reinforced by arme d police who routinely handcuff students, giving students no structure to resi st (pp. 136). The school was fragmented by the violent environment outside and the perceived need by ad ministrators to create a security system patterned after maximum security prisonsa fr amework that expected violent behavior by students. Devine believed students needed a nd sought a traditionally structured framework within the school to help deve lop their identities. Finding only a framework of violence, they were compelled to find their ident ity in some way within a broken, shattered system controlled as

PAGE 32

32 a police state. Devines claim that these schools did not have a struct ure to resist against might be misleading. The schools he studied did not have th e traditional structure of schools but they did have a structureone based on the hegemonic st ructure of prisons. Students may have been resisting this structure and further research might reveal a new aspect of student resistance. Like McLaren, Devine (1996) was quick to em phasize the role of students in producing the resistance or violence themselves. Devine c oncluded that the traditional moral and virtuous teachings Giroux (2001) dismisses as hegemonic ar e what is necessary in the schools he studied. Devine pointed out that the topic of real violence in schools is not mentioned in Girouxs work, as if it did not exist, and more specifically the fact that students often commit these violent acts. The premises of social reproduction theory lead to a logical conclusi on its authors fail to appreciate: street culture in the school, rooted in the injustices of hegemony, possesses its own (de)formative power that is capable of tr ansforming the student into an instrument of its own making, an instrument of violence. (Devine, 1996, p. 135) It appeared that Devine viewed resistance as a conscious act by student s in reaction to their environmentthey were trained to engage in acts of violence through cons tant exposure to street violence and the police state that inhabited the school. He identified multiple social, economic, and political reasons for these conditions, but like McLaren, refused to view students as innocent partakers in acts of resistance. As established previously, for oppositional acts to be considered resistance they must be based on the tension between an oppressed group and a dominant group exerting its pow er. In Devines study, the stud ents were still the oppressed group. The use of police tactics in the school sent a message to students: poor people of color are violent and unable to discipline their own behavior so they must be controlled by the state. The state becomes the dominant group that students resist, but they sti ll find no support in schools that are not equipped to addre ss larger economic (i.e., joblessn ess, homelessness) and social issues of the community. Students resisted the cult ure of the police state th at invaded the school.

PAGE 33

33 Another study that requires examination come s from Daniel McFarland. McFarland (2001) studied 36 classrooms in two schools and conclu ded that social netw orks and status among students was a strong factor in the level of resistance engaged in by students. McFarland (2001) defined resistance as when the pupil initiates a vocalization or gesture that is meant as a negative expression of discontent, ch allenge, or refusal, and it is aimed at undermining either the task or the teacher (pp. 632). Teachers an d students recognize the acts as profane communication and there is either a verbal or nonverbal response by te achers and/or students (McFarland, 2001, p. 633). McFarland called these ac tive forms of everyday resistance that are transformative: Thus, acts of resistance are observed as inten tional, publicly displayed forms of student initiated profanations of classroom academic affairswhether in the form of refusal, challenge, insult, personal ridicule, or loud co mplaintall are recognized by the class as a breach, and most are redressed by the teacher or some other academically oriented participant of the class. (2001, pp. 633) McFarland (2001) claimed that pr evious studies of student resi stance neglected the social and academic structure of the classroom that might help explain resistant behavior that was not a result of cultural background. He concluded that social networks within classrooms gave students the support for acts of resistance and en couraged them to continue. While he admitted that students bring a wide array of cultural tool s and dispositions defined by their backgrounds, he observed acts of resistance in itiated more by the tasks and social arrangements of the classroom then by a students cultura l background (McFarland, 2001, p. 616). McFarlands (2001) statement that youth are a d isaffected class or subculture in relation to adults appears to explain th e hegemony in the classroom that initiated resistance, and peer support helped escalate these resi stant acts (p. 616). The powerlessne ss of students is part of the hegemony of schools, where teachers and administrato rs control the lives of students, from what they learn to when they visit the bathrooms. In one high school classroom, McFarland observed

PAGE 34

34 both Black and White students resi sting the teachers academic structure of the classroom due to their frustration with the inability of the teacher to teach the subject matter in a way that students could understand. The resistance was first observed as individual acts, but as the year continued students were more supportive of their fellowst udents acts of resistance, and some of the students became more openly defiant. There appear ed to be a sense of injustice among students in that they were not being ta ught the content as they believed they should bethey were not receiving the knowledge they believed they we re entitled toand they united, although loosely, in their resistance to the classroom teacher McFarlands (2001) study reflected cultural resistance because he concluded that student s were responding to their powerlessness as members of an oppressed group in schoolsas students they were viewed as immature and unable to make intelligent decisions about classroom instruction. It could be argued that the classification of students as resisting when they are unaware of the critical inquiry and selfrefl ection that is so much a part of resistant ideology contradicts resistance theory. What is important to cons ider is the location of power. Students from oppressed groups who engage in acts of resistan ce, even without the experience of critical inquiry or selfreflection, are trying to disrupt hegemony and ga in power in the classroom for their own group. They may sense the unfairness created in the classroom toward members of their oppressed group but are unfamiliar with the practices of critic al inquiry and selfreflection. The students lack of critical inquiry and selfreflection is a direct result of hegemony in the education system. The students are engaging in re sistant behavior in an attempt to bring the other (i.e., themselves) into the center of the curriculum and classroom while the teacher or school is trying to maintain the hegemony of the education system. The power rests with the teacher or school.

PAGE 35

35 Counter Resistance Recent stud ies examine the resistance of st udents from the White, Eurocentric, middle upper class. In classrooms where teachers remove Whiteness from the center of the curriculum and teach a culturally diverse content, student s who are members of the dominant group can become uncomfortable and engage in acts of resistance. The difference between cultural resistance and this form of resistance is the goal. As noted ea rlier, most classrooms and schools in the U.S. reflect the White, Eurocentric, middleupper class culture. Teachers who decenter cultural norms and teach a culturally diverse cu rriculum are countering hegemony by resisting the traditional school environment and curriculum. Students who resist th e critical examination and reflection used by teachers to uncover hegemony and introdu ce social justice are working against the resistant actions of the teacher. They are countering th e teachers resistance with an attempt to maintain hegemony. This is counter resistance: it is motivated by a desire to maintain hegemony, can be actions of individuals or group s, and works against cr itical inquiry and self reflection. Studies indicate that counter resistance is exhibited by students in college classrooms. Angela Haddad and Leonard Lieberman (2002) ta ught an introductory honors sociology course for undergraduates in which all of the students se lfidentified as White, rural, middle class. Haddad and Lieberman (2002) concluded that due to the students lack of experience with domination (because they are member of the dominating group), teaching about oppression and domination of other groups resu lted in student resistance to scientific and theoretical information. According to Haddad and Lieber man (2002), Discussions about the flaws of standardized tests, the social advantages of do minant groups, and the social myth of meritocracy and individualism most likely created discomfo rt and cognitive dissonance (p. 332). They

PAGE 36

36 found that students reduced social issues to moral choices, believing their norm was the legitimate and natural interpretation of the issues. Nancy Davis (1992) observed acts of resist ance among her White middle class college students when they denied the existence of race, class, and gender inequalities. She found that students believed individual c hoices were responsible for pov erty and unemployment, not hegemonic societal structures. She noted that he r students lives at home, which often reflected stereotypical gender and social cl ass roles, were at odds with wh at they were learning in the classroom, and they resisted any interpretations of gender, race or ethnicity that required self reflection (Davis, 1992). Margar et Hunter and Kimberly Ne ttles (1999) taught a womens studies course from the perspe ctive of women of color and fo und that the majority of their students, nearly all female, maintained white ness as the center of th eir analysis (p. 386). Hunter and Nettles (1999) concluded that the displacement of whiteness from the center of the course obviously made many students uncomfortab le (p. 388). Student s claimed they were being victimized due to the fact that they were White and conservative. They also observed women of color resisting the course content and taking a st andpoint of Whiteness, viewing themselves through a White lens. Teacher educators also witnessed resistance among prospective teachers from the dominant group. Middleton (2002) found that White prosp ective teachers agreed that multicultural education was important but could not comprehend what attitudes and skills were necessary for effective teaching in culturally diverse clas srooms. Grant and Gille tte (2006) found some prospective teachers were resistant to changing their teaching practices because they were ones that worked well for them as students. Pros pective teachers also had difficulty accepting criticism and held biased and stereotypical beliefs about students from oppressed groups.

PAGE 37

37 The student resistance in these college classrooms is similar to McLarens (1983) definition due to the contradicti on between the students lived cu ltural experiences of domination both inside and outside the classr oom, and the more critical natu re of these particular college classrooms. It does not, however, include the elements of emancipation or social justice on the part of students. Those who are resisting are not resisting for the purpos e of disrupting hegemony and changing the balance of power to empower the oppressed. As part of the dominant group, the students in these college classroom s resisted ideas and content th at challenged the hegemony that maintained their position as th e dominant group. Applying the term resistance to the actions of students who are members of the dominant group a nd who are not engaged in critical inquiry and selfreflection seems to contradict the theore tical foundations of resi stance. Once again, the location of power must be examined. Students from the dominant group who engage in acts of resistance to curriculum or teaching methods th at challenge hegemony are trying to regain the power they once had as the center of the curr iculum and the dominant group. The power is situated with students in the dominant group and the instructor, regardless of his or her group membership, is challenging that hegemonic power structure. In th is case, the person engaging in resistant behavior is the instruct or and the students are working to counter that resistance and maintain hegemony. Student Resistance: From Theory to Practice This study will exam ine the various factors that explain student resistance in an internship seminar at a large state university and how these factors may escalate and/or diminish resistance. The purpose of examining resistance in cl assrooms is to better understand the power relationships that initiate resi stant acts and the implic ations this has for teacher education. The review of literature is important to this st udy in that it provides a threepart conceptual framework that may improve our understanding of resistance. For educators who work for social

PAGE 38

38 justice, studies of resistance may reveal how to assist students in acquiri ng the critical inquiry and selfreflection necessary for emancipation and the dismantling of hegemony in schools and society, which is often lacking in current studies of students engaging in resistant behavior. Studies of counter resistance may provide educ ators with a better understanding of why students resist curriculum and methods th at oppose hegemony, and how this type of resistance might be addressed.

PAGE 39

39 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Theoretical Perspective The purpose of this study was to better unders tand student resistan ce by White students in a secondary social studie s internship sem inar for prospectiv e teachers by examining what might explain resistant behavior and what causes it to escalate and/or diminish in the classroom. Student resistance is a concept defined by criti cal pedagogues based on the writings of critical theorists; therefore, this study will be conducted using a critical theory lens. The concept of critical theory was first introduced by scholars at the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, Germany, also known as the Frankfurt Sc hool (Giroux, 2001; Jay, 1973) Critical theory contends that all relationships are based on a power structure between dominant and oppressed groups, and these power structures are influenced or created by economic, political and social forces in society (Habermas, 1998; Horkhe imer & Adorno, 1972; Laclau & Mouffe, 2001; Marcuse, 1991). Gramscis (1971) ideas about hegemony are based on these complex power structures. Hegemony describes the relationship between a hi storically dominant class, based on its position and function in the world of production, and the great masses of the population, the oppressed, who consent to the authority of the dominant class (p. 12). According to Gramsci (1971), the dominant class main tains control over the masses through the exploitation of education, religion, and popular cult ure. For critical theorists, the exploitation of the masses begins in the education system where students are taught the ideology of the dominant class, resulting in an education based on class status an d not according to abilities of students or on an equitable system of educati on (Althusser, 1971; Habermas, 1 998; Horkheimer & Adorno, 1972).

PAGE 40

40 Critical theory provided education with a met hod for critically examining accepted knowledge and considering contradictory knowledge (Giroux, 2001). Freire (1993) was one of the fi rst educators to move critic al theory into educational practice, creating critical peda gogy. Freire and others borrowed ideas from the Frankfurt School to develop emancipatory education, which challe nges hegemony in the education system and in society while moving toward action for social justice (DarlingHammond, French & Garcia Lopez, 2002; CochranSmith, Davis, & Frie s, 2004; Giroux, 2001; hooks, 1994; Howard, 2003; McLaren, 2003; Shor, 1992). Frei re (1993) defined the term conscientizao (conscientization) to mean learning to perceive social, political, and economic contradictions, and to take action against the oppressive elements of reality ( p. 35). He advocated the use of reflection and dialogue to explore, identify, a nd overcome oppressive ideology. Ac cording to Freire (1998), we are constructed, deconstructe d, and reconstructed through dialoguethrough what happens when people meet to exchange ideas and alter the oppressive effects of those ideas. Dialogue should not exclude conflict but embrace it and work to overcome it, resulting in an open form of education that critically ex amines all ideas and beliefs. Giroux (2001), influenced by the writings of Freire, advocated an education system for social justice and political in tervention (p. xxvii). Accordin g to Giroux, schools use the hidden curriculum to teach ideas that perpetuate the power of the dominant class and maintain hegemonic relationships. Giroux (2 001) and other critical theo rists believe educators should critique the hegemony within schools (Fre ire, 1993; Horkheimer & Adorno, 1972; McLaren, 2003; Shor, 1992). Giroux maintained that schools are responsible fo r preparing students to not only develop a critical selfref lective stance, but also to t each students how to live in a democracy. Giroux called this a rad ical pedagogy that engages st udents in a critical discourse

PAGE 41

41 of social class structure, exam ining who benefits and who is ha rmed by current power structures (2001, p. 115). Research based on critical theo ry questions the power structur es that exist in society and initiates action that will bring about social ju stice (Crotty, 1998). The issues of power and oppression guide the researcher in her quest to uncover injustice and he gemonic relationships. According to Michael Crotty (1998) critical inquiry is a type of praxis that searches for knowledge that emancipates the learner from pa rticipating in hegemony. The use of reflective thinking, dialogue, and action for change gui de the methods of critical inquiry. Methodology In the first stage of this study, data were collected through classroom observations to identify acts of resistance by students within the in ternship seminar. Students often resist in ways that defy teacher and administrative authority because they are assigned positions of powerlessness in the classroom (CochranSmith, 2004; Freire, 1993; McCotter, 1999; Shor and Freire, 2003). However, other acts of resistance can be due to social class, ethnic, gender or other biases students bring with them to the classroom (Haddad & Lieberman, 2002; Michalove, 1999; Shor, 1992). For the purpose of this study, resistan t behavior is define d as passive and/or aggressive behavior in response to the content and/or methods us ed by the instructor with the purpose of changing the balance of power in the classroom and/or challenging the authority of the teacher as the professional ed ucator. Resistant behaviors coul d include, but are not limited to, vocal protests to course assignments, actions th at disrupt the class and challenge the teachers authority, or disengagement duri ng class activities. Through the obs ervations, four students were identified as engaging in resistant behavior and agreed to participate in the study. In the second stage of the study, data were collected through observ ations of and interviews with student participants and the course instructor. Observations of the participants interactions with

PAGE 42

42 the instructor and with each other offered data regarding what might explain resistance in this internship seminar. Interviews provided data for analysis and an opportunity to engage participants in reflective dialogue about their behavior in the soci al studies internship seminar. Through critical analysis, self reflection, problemposing, and dialogue educators can better understand what motivates resistance among prosp ective teachers and can address these issues with prospective teachers (CochranSmith, 2004; Freire, 1993; McLaren, 2003; Shor, 1992). Study Design The purpose of this study is to explai n the phenomenon of prospective teachers resistance in a secondary social studies intern ship seminar. W ith this in mind, the study was designed so the social context of the study and th e participants beliefs an d perceptions could be considered together. The types of data collect ed and the analysis methods used allowed the researcher to consider how the classroom environment and the expectations of the teacher education program combined with the perceptions of participants as described in interviews. Context of the Study The study to ok place at a college of educati on in a large southeastern university. The university is located in a city with a population of about 95,000 people (United States Census Bureau, 2000). Of the 98% of the total city populati on that classified them selves as being from one race, about 68% were White, 23% were Black, 5% were Asian, 2% were Other, and less than 1% were American Indian/Alaskan Native. About 6% of the total population classified themselves as Hispanic/Latino or mixed ethni city with Hispanic/Latino. In 2000, the median household income was about $28,000 and the median family income was about $44,000. The school populations are a more revealing aspect of the community. When the public elementary schools that serve the citys stude nts are located on a map, the pe rcentage of White students in the schools decreases the further east the school is located and the percentage of Black students

PAGE 43

43 increases.1 A similar pattern occurs with the percen tage of students qualifying for free and reduced lunchthe further east the school is locate d the higher the percentage of students who qualify for free and reduced lunch, which means schools on the east side of the city serve families in the lower economic groups. The city where the university is located is divided between east and west, with a higher population of White, economica lly wealthier students living in the west and a higher population of Black, ec onomically poorer student s living in the east. This racially and economically divided environm ent is where students in the social studies internship seminar lived and comple ted their internships in schools. The university and College of Education populat ions do not reflect that of the city. In 2000, the same year as the census and school da ta, the university had a population of about 46,000.2 Of those students, 69% were White, 7% were Black, 10 % Hispanic/Latino, 6% were Asian, less than 1% were American Indian, and 5% were nonres ident aliens, probably foreign born students. About 1% of all st udents entering the university did not report their ethnicity. In the college of education, 81% of the 1,885 st udents enrolled in 2000 were White, 7% were Black, 7% were Hispanic/Latino, and 6% classified themselves as other. The population of the city was more diverse than the university and college population. The secondary social studies internship se minar, where observations took place, was designed to help support prospective teachers wh o are completing their in ternships in the area schools. The course is required for graduation from a masters program in the College of Educations secondary social studies teaching program. The social studies teacher education program is a one year masters program in which students complete four semesters of 1 All school information on ethnic populations and free/re duced lunch percentages was obtained from the Public School Accountability Reports, 200001, through the county school board. 2 All university and college information on ethnic populatio ns was obtained from the Office of Institutional Planning and Research at the university.

PAGE 44

44 coursework (36 credits) in fifteen months. Stude nts entering the program have already earned a degree in a social studies field and have completed a required nu mber of credits in specific courses, including history, political science, economics, geography, so ciology, psychology and anthropology. Prior to teacher ce rtification, students ar e required to successfully complete two threecredit undergraduate course sThe Adolescent and one ES OL course, ESOL Strategies for Content Areas or Secondary ESOL Teaching Strategies. Graduate coursework in the program included courses on classroom mana gement, teaching methods, technology in the classroom, reading in the content area, and two e xperiences in public school classroomsa part time practicum and a fulltime teaching internshi p. The internship was completed while taking the social studies internship semi nar that was observed in the spring. The instructor of the internship semina r was a doctoral student who had taught undergraduate and graduate level methods courses for three years. She di vided the course into three units: (1) The Importance of Classroom Teachers, (2) Fostering Success in the Student Teacher Experience, and (3) Preparing to Become a Professional Educator. Throughout the first two units, prospective teachers we re expected to reflect on thei r experiences as interns, in particular possible reasons for successes and fail ures in their teaching. The first unit of the course, The Importance of Classroom Teachers, focused on stories of successful teachers, most in diverse schools located in highpoverty co mmunities, and supported teaching for social justice. Multicultural classrooms, culturally responsive teaching, critical friends, equity and excellence, a noexcuses teaching philosophy, a nd democratic classrooms were topics for readings and discussion (see Appendix B for r eading list). The second unit of the course, Fostering Success in the Student Teacher Experience, focused on state requirements for teachers and the internship experience. Th e third unit of the course, Prep aring to Become a Professional

PAGE 45

45 Educator, provided instruction on preparing resumes and portfo lios, interviewing skills, and balancing ones professional and personal life. Study Participants and Selection The class w as a cohort of 29 students, 20 male and 9 female. As stated earlier, 26 students were selfclassified as White/Cau casian, two as Hispanic, and one as Persian. They were in the second semester of a 15month masters program for secondary social studies education. This particular cohort of prospectiv e teachers was chosen for the study based on observations by two instructors who taught the students in the first se mester of the program. The instructors expressed concern because they perceived that some of the students exhibited resistance to course content and the instructors aut hority. As mentioned earlier, the process of participant selection began with classroom observations; four students were observed by the researcher as engaging in passive and/or active actions th at disrupted the balance of po wer in the classroom and/or challenged the authority of the instructor. Th ese oppositional acts included, but were not limited to, refusing to complete assignments, making co mments that disrupted the class or assigned group task, appearing frustrated or bored, challenging the programs curriculum or objectives, challenging the authority of the instructor, and disengagement with cla ssroom instruction or activities. Resistance was also determined not by the intensity of the oppositional behavior, but by repetition of the behavior over time. The four students were inv ited to participate in the study and told that their participation was completely voluntary and that they could withdraw from the study at any time. The four participants were White males rangi ng in age from 24 to 38 and originally from the midwestern United States. One had just co mpleted his undergraduate degree when he was accepted in the teacher education program, one worked as a substitute teacher for a year before

PAGE 46

46 applying to the teacher education program, and tw o were returning to college after working in other fields. Acts of Resistance in the Classroom Each of the four participants displayed sim ilar acts of resistance in the internship seminar, including facial expressions that showed disgus t, discontent, frustration and boredom. Williams acts of resistance in the classroom also consisted of vocal disagreements w ith the content taught, sarcastic comments that disrupted the class, and body language that appeared to disconnect him from the class (his back turned to the instruct or while she was talking or slumping in his chair and attending to something other than the inst ructor). Kenneths resistance also included vocalized opposition. He consiste ntly helped pull his small group off task and voiced his opposition to methods used by the instructor and to the readings about a noexcuses teaching philosophy and democratic classroo m practices. Henrys acts of re sistance were made apparent through facial expressionshe rolled his eyes or used an expression that appeared to imply that the work was not worth his time. Like Kenneth, he expressed vocal displeas ure with some of the activities and when entering the classroom on on e occasion and finding the desks in rows said, Thank you! Desks in rowsa real classroom. Georges acts of resistance in the methods course were made apparent through his body langua gehe often shook his head as if in disbelief when engaging in some of the work, he put his head down on the desk or held his head in his hands and looked down at the desk, appeared to ch eck out mentally from the class, and he often sat with his desk facing away from the overhead when the instructor was giving information to the class. When the instructor asked students to open their notebooks, he would consistently delay in doing this. In small groups, all four stud ents expressed discontent and disagreement with the methods and content used in the class and in the teacher education program. Their resistance

PAGE 47

47 in the internship seminar was apparent, however, in both their vociferous complaints and in the deafening silence of body language and facial expressions. Data Collection Two kinds of data were collect ed to address the research que stions. Interviews, the prim ary source of data, were conducted w ith the four participants. Obse rvations of students during the internship seminar were also conducted. Observations Observations of the secondary social studies internship sem inar took place during the first five weeks of the semester for three hours each week. These observations were detailed field notes recorded in a notebook and included bracketed thoughts and que stions from the researcher. Observations were used to identify prospectiv e teachers who would make suitable participants for the study. Participants were selected in the third week of observations and then observations focused specifically on interactions between the pa rticipants and the instructor. Observation data were helpful when determining the triggers for resistance and what escalated or diminished it. Observations also provided a context for much of the interview data and helped with interpretation. Interviews Each participant was in terviewed three times. The first interview provided a brief history of each student, specifically their cultural background and experiences in schools. Student resistance is often grounded in a students culture and history ((H addad & Lieberman, 2002; McLaren, 2003; Michalove, 1999; Shor, 1992) so it was important to understand each participants sociohistorical context. The second and third interviews provided insight into the acts of resistance observed in the classroom and in to the beliefs that participants expressed in previous interviews. All student interviews were semistructu red and openended in order to

PAGE 48

48 enable the researcher to (1) unde rstand the nature and dynamics of student resistance and (2) stimulate participants reflec tion on their resistance (Please see Appendix A for interview protocol). Data Analysis Thematic Analysis Observations were first analyzed them atica lly using J. Amos Ha tchs (2002) inductive analysis method, allowing the data to shape em erging themes. Similar to a puzzle, inductive analysis identifies particular pi eces and connects them with othe r pieces until a picture (theme) emerges. Observation data were examined for pa ssive and/or aggressive oppositional behavior of students, such as refusing to complete assi gnments or voicing dissatisfaction with course curriculum, which helped the researcher identif y students who engaged in resistant acts. The emerging themes also provided additional suppo rt for Discourses found in interviews since Discourse includes not only language but also action, interaction, valu es, beliefs (Gee, 1999, p. 18). Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) Discourse, according to Jam es Gee (1999), is both spoken and written language and the other stuff that creates who we are with a certain group of people or within a certain community (p.7). Language creates rules that are followed for the purpose of communication within certain social locations, like families a nd classrooms, but language is also political in natureit is used to reinforce the power and status of one group of people over another (Gee, 1999). This is the difference between what Gee calls discourse, conversa tions and stories, and Discourse, clothes, gestures, actions, intera ctions, ways with things, symbols, tools, technologies, and values, attitudes, beliefs, and emotions, and places and time (1999, p. 7). Discourse, with a capital D, helps people id entify with a social group or social network.

PAGE 49

49 Discourse analysis (capit al D) examines a way of living an d the words spoken are only part of the data. For this reason, careful notes on elements such as location of interviews, participant dress and mannerisms, gestures, and emotions were recorded in this study and included in the analysis. Discourse analysis considers five aspects of social interactions: Semiotic (language, gestures, images, or other symbolic systems) Activity (specific social activity in which participants are engaging) Material (place, time, bodies and objects) Political (distributio n of social goods) Sociocultural (personal, soci al, and cultural know ledge, feelings, valu es, identities, and relationships) (Gee, 1999, pp. 82) Gee found these five aspects to be intertwined; however, discourse analysis from a critical theory perspective uses a lens of power and naturally star ts with the political as pect and the distribution of power in the discourse. According to Teun Van Dijk (2001), Critical Di scourse Analysis (CDA) studies the way social power abuse, dominance, and inequality ar e enacted, reproduced, and resisted by text and talk in the social and political context (p. 352). CDA attempts to explain the structure of discourse in terms of social interactions and how discourse can enact, confirm, legitimate, reproduce, or challenge relations of power a nd dominance in society (Van Dijk, 2001, p. 353). For the purpose of this study, Faircloughs (1995) method of identifying ideology in language is used. According to Fairclough, CDA focuses on the effects of ideologies rather than questions of truth (1995, p. 25). The structure of ideo logy places it within social conventions, norms, histories (Fairclough, 1995, p. 71). For example, the be lief that students need to be controlled is based on the ideology that humans of a certain age are naturally immature, impulsive, and disobedient. This ideology helps sustain the pow er relations in schools in which administrators

PAGE 50

50 and teachers have power over students, who are then rendered powerless. Ideology is found in Discourse about past events but also in current events and in the event itself (Fairclough, 1995, p. 72). Ideologies try to disgui se themselves as common sense but are identified when they sustain or undermine power re lations (Fairclough, 1995, p. 82). Faircloughs (1995) method of CDA was used to analyze interview and observation data, identifying the codes of Discourse that might explain the ideology of st udent resisters in the internship seminar. Codes of Discourse are the rules people follow that identify them as belonging to a certain social group or network. In this study, the rules of language, values, beliefs, mannerisms, interactions, gestures, symbol s, tools, dress, and location were evident in the observations and interviews. In the analysis process, intervie w data were divided into lines, each line representing a separate thought. Within each line, or thought, the word that had the strongest intonation was italicized indicating the emphasis the speak er made in this thought. For example, one participant said, I did something extremely stupid a month or so ago where I was so tired and I did something disrespectful (W3) The emphasis was placed three times on the word I indicating the participant took responsibility for his actions. If the emphasis had been placed on month, tired, and did, it would require a different interpretation. The m onth might emphasize a past time that maybe should be forgotten along with the disrespectful ac t. His condition (tired ) might be an excuse and an avoidance of responsibility. The act itself (did) focuses on what was done and not the person who did it, also a possible avoidance of blame. The word with the strongest intonation, therefore, helps explain the meaning behind the discourse. Throughout this study, words in italics indicate the strongest intonation and the emphasis of the participant. In addition, excerpts from interviews that are in block quotes used punctuation as follows:

PAGE 51

51 comma (,): a short pause, two seconds or less ellipses (): a long pause, three seconds or more long (em) dash ( ): an abrupt interrupti on of the flow of words The only other punctuation used are capitalizations of proper nouns and question marks to indicate a question, usuall y posed by the researcher. The first student interviews were used to gain knowledge of the participants cultural and educational history. The second and third interviews focused on the resistant behavior engaged in by participants and were analyzed using CDA. The interviews were listened to and read using a critical lens, allowing the analysis to focus only on t hose parts reflecting hegemony. According to Gee: Besides seeing that methods change with theories it is also important to see that research, whether in physics, literary criticism, or in discourse analysis, is not an algorithmic procedure, a set of rules that can be followed stepbylinearstep to get guaranteed results. Rather, research adopts and adapts specific tools of inquiry and strategies for implementing them. These tools and strategies ultimately reside in a community of practice formed by those engaged in such research. Such tools and strategies are continually and flexibly adapted to specific issues, problems, and contexts of study. They are continually transformed as they are applied in practice. (Gee, 1999, p.6) This study was true to the princi ples of CDA as discussed by Fairclough (1995) but the process of data collection and analysis we re transformed as they applied to this study. This is explained more fully in the next section and the us e of multiple methodologies during analysis. Trustworthiness of the Study Various techniques were used to insure the trustw orthiness of this study. Triangulation of data sources occurred through the use of observa tions, interviews, and peer review. The use of multiple methodological perspectives provided different lenses for interpreting data. Triangulation of data As noted earlier, there were five observations of the social stu dies internship seminar. Observations are important in understanding th e context of the Disc ourse on resistance

PAGE 52

52 (Fairclough, 1995; Gee, 1999). Observations were fi rst analyzed using Hatc hs thematic analysis in which the data revealed themes of resistance behavior. Once participants were identified, new observation data were analyzed us ing critical discourse analysis. Interviews provided opportunities for participants to e xplain the behavior observed in the internship seminar. These clarifications were importan t for understanding their beliefs about teaching, which helped identify their ideologies. The use of peer reviewers can help prevent resear cher bias. Data from this study were presented multiple times to a sm all group of qualitative research methodologists who met regularly to share res earch and discuss analysis methods and findings. The members of the peer review group were docto ral students and professors from different departments across the university. The dissertation co mmittee chair was another peer re viewer, and we met regularly throughout the data collecti on and analysis process. Multiple methodological perspectives Fairclough (1995) stated that his m ethod of disc ourse analysis can be used in conjunction with other qualitative methods, thereby increasi ng the trustworthiness of a study. The use of multiple methods for analyzing data can increase trustworthiness when findings are similar when using various methods of analysis. This increases the credibility of the da ta and the analysis. As noted earlier, thematic analysis was used to analyze observation data prior to participant selection. Findings from this analysis were ba sed on critical theory and the definition of resistance used in this study. Case study analys is was also used and cases were written for each participant. This provided a rich examination of the data since each case was analyzed thoroughly prior to identifying common and unique Discourses (see Appendix C for a sample case study). Critical discourse an alysis was the predominant method used to analyze data and provided a third methodological approach. Trus tworthiness was enhanced by using multiple

PAGE 53

53 methodological perspectives and methods, includ ing thematic analysis, critical discourse analysis, and a rich analysis of indi vidual participant data (case studies). Limitations of the Study There were m any possible limitations to this study. First, all four participants were White males from middle and middleupper class familie s, which could limit transferability of the findings. Second, the study was in one internship seminar at a college of education in a university in the southeastern Un ited States. Readers will need to determine if this study is transferable to other disciplines and geographic areas. Finally, studi es based on critical theory are intended to look for power structures, which are defined by the researcher. Other researchers, including critical theorists, may view the data differently and fi nd valid interpretations different from the ones presented here. Subjectivity Statement Subjectivity, or lack of objectivity, is apparent in all research, but especially qualitative studies (Glesne, 1999). According to Corrine Gles ne (1999), subjectivity s hould be monitored to understand how it influences the st udy and to assure trustworthin ess. By recognizing the various lenses used to view the world, researchers can recognize and avoid bias In this study, my own personal lenses contributed strongly to m y chos en research topic and theoretical perspective. Sociohistorical context My m ost vivid childhood memories involve events of social justice. As a child, I listened to my workingclass father argue against government and corporate actions that harmed those of his own socioeconomic class. My father spent most dinners behind a newspaper, responding to the articles that infuriated his vi ews of social justice. I never participated in these monologues, neither did my mother or three sisters, but his passion and logic somehow penetrated my childlike thinking. At the ag e of six, I was already responding vocif erously to acts of injustice. In

PAGE 54

54 Sunday school, a fellow student clai med a molded plaster picture I had done the Sunday before was hers. Her picture had been poorly molded and she wanted mine because it had fewer imperfections. When I claimed the picture was mi ne, the teacher hushed me and gave it to the girl. This girl was the ministers daughter and her word was taken over mine. Her initials were on her plaster picture, but the t eacher would not challenge the wo rds of the ministers daughter even with evidence. At the age of six, I expressed my outrage in knowing this girl was able to get away with lying because her father was the minister. In the first grade, I had a classmate who had what I believe now to be hydrocephalus. Hydrocephalus is an accumulation of fluid in the brain and in an infant can result in an enlargement of the head. The boy in my class who had this disease was teased incessantly by some of our classmates because his head was abnormally large and oddly shaped. I remember one day becoming angry and yelli ng at two boys who were teasing this student, and the teacher had to intervene to calm me down. I doubt if I understood at the time why I did this. I only knew it was unfair to treat another human being in this way. The boy and I soon became good friends, and I have never forgotten him, although we lost touch when my family moved. In the sixth grade, another more appalling example of injustice was made evident. My sixth grade teacher was racist to an extent I did not realize at the time. Thinking back, I now see how he placed all the blueeyed blonde children in the center of the classroom, towards the front, and the rest of us took places outside this ex clusive circle. I attended a rural highpoverty school, mostly White, and this class had only two stude nts who were not Whitean African American boy and a Hispanic boy. The African American boy ha d learned to be silent to avoid punishment but the Hispanic boy, new to the area, was often defiant and challenged the teacher.

PAGE 55

55 Unfortunately, like Peter McLarens (1986) oppositiona l students, this brought him more trouble and he was often sent to the principals office for punishment. One day, as the class walked back to our classroom from the library, we passed the principals office. His door to the hallway was open, which was unusual, and I looked in. Sitting in a chair in front of his desk was the principa l with an expression of agitated disgust. Standing to one side was my sixth grade teacher, a smile on his face and a paddle in his hand. Standing at the desk with his back to the door, head bowed, and both hands holding the edge of the desk, was the Hispanic student. The door was quickly cl osed by the principal, but the shock that reverberated through me at that moment I still ex perience today when I visualize that scene. I do not remember the walk back to the classroom or what happened for the remainder of the day, but I told no one about what I saw. Later that year this same teacher punished the entire class by taking away recess for some trivial act, which wa s one of his consistent forms of discipline. Having been reared by my father and the nightly news casts on Civil Rights and Vietnam War protests, I whispered to the girls in front of me that we should have a sitin. I had no idea that those words would spark a movement, but nearly the entire class agreed and a time was set. When the time came, almost the entire class m oved out of their chairs and sat on the floor. The teacher was shocked and proceeded to scream at us until his face was red. Some students succumbed to his threats and returned to their chairs, but some of us remained on the floor, resistant. He stormed out of the room and our appointed classroom lookout crept quietly to the door to watch. When it was reported that he was returning with the prin cipal, the entire class returned quickly to their chairs an appeared to be completely immersed in the assigned work. The teacher and principal entered the room. Th e principal looked around, looked at the teacher,

PAGE 56

56 looked once more at the students, and left saying not hing. At the end of the school year, that sixth grade teacher was transferred to another school. Events like this one continued to shape my perspectives as I grew and now strongly influence my research. The lens of gender and the lens of the workingclass are also important to how I perceive the world and this study, but they are both closely intertwi ned with the lens of social justice. I consid er my gender and my workingclass root s significant because of my social justice stancethey simply present hegemony of another kind. These perceptions will greatly influence my research, so monitoring them is essential. Monitoring subjectivity Critical theory requires constant reflection, or what Freire (2004) calls conscientization. The critical theorist m ust examine her own beliefs for possible oppressive elements and take action to change oppressive beli efs (Freire, 2004). Journal writing is one strategy for monitoring subjectivity (Glesne, 1999) and exposing beli efs that support hegemony. Through selfcritique and selfreflection, researchers ar e better able to define the areas of research that may reflect their own biases. Glesne (1999) s uggests paying close attention to emotions since they are an indicator as to when we e ngage in our subjectivity. Throughout this study, I maintained a journal to document possible subj ective attitudes and perceptions, the most dominant being my selfproclaim ed title of a critical resister. It was during data analysis that my social justice nature wa s stirred, and I became emotionally upset with the statements of some of the participants. Their obvious bias against minority groups and the attitude that students were less than human and not capable of participating in the workings of classrooms and schools violated my own deeply held beliefs. I was both angry and discouraged by these insistent claims from participants. In an other instance, however, I was encouraged to see some reflection and possible change in beliefs when one participant was faced with a difficult

PAGE 57

57 internship experience. My desire was to highlight his experien ces because he was being self reflective and engaging in critical inquiry. Howe ver, the changes were not taking place in the internship seminar and his resistance was not disrupted, so I wondered if I placed too much emphasis on these events because they appeared to be one small light in the darkness of hegemony. To counter my emotions and desire to find some positive change among participants, I focused even more closely on my research ques tions and repeated to myself, What does this have to do with resistance in th is classroom? By keeping that thought foremost in my mind, I was able to move past my emotions and prejudic es and focus on the data in a way that helped answer my research question. The real struggle for a critical theorist and se lfproclaimed resister is to maintain some objectivity in the midst of offensive subjectivity and open bias. The desire to intercede for the students I knew these future teach ers would be responsible for, a nd the desire to help a fellow struggler toward an emancipatory stance, was very strong. However, to collect data that are as objective as humanly possible is also necessary and my desires and objectives were, at times, incompatible. I did ask questions that forced participants to reflect on their hegemonic beliefs about the roles of teachers. Most of these quest ions were necessary to better understand their beliefs, but some were intended to nudge participants toward cri tical inquiry and selfreflection that might lead to a disruption of hegemony. I do not regret, however, having pushed the edges of research and data co llection toward an emancipatory stance even if data were sacrificed for this purpose.

PAGE 58

58 CHAPTER 4 CONTEXTS OF RESISTANCE Preface Resistance does not happen in a vacuum and th e context in which it occurs can influence escalating and diminishing factors (Fairclough, 1 995; Gee, 1999). In this study, resistance acts took place in an internship seminar at a large univ ersity. The context of the classroom, actions by the teacher and researcher, and th e sociohistorical context of the participants all influenced the resistance engaged in by students. The Context of the Classroom The classroom used for the internship sem i nar was one of those nondescript classrooms that are found in many schools and colleges. The carpet was brown and worn, the walls were dreary beige, and the fluorescent lighting too dim to reach the front of the room, making it difficult to read what was on the chalkboard. The room had six rows of desks and was meant to seat about 50 students, which left little space in between desks for student movement. The desks were the type in which the desk top is connect ed to the chair by a metal arm on one side, with enough space between the desk top and chair for bodies of a certai n size. When facing the front of the room, there were large windows along the le ft wall with brown Venetian blinds that were rarely open, and brown wooden cabinets below. Th e same inevitable brown cabinets were along the right wall of the room with bulletin board s permanently mounted above the cabinets. The doors from the outer hallway were on the wall to the right, one in the front and one in the back of the room. The back wall was bare and the front wall had a bulletin board and chalkboard permanently affixed. There was a long table centere d in the front of the room and a podium to the left that opened to reveal a computer. A digital projector hung from the ceiling and projected onto a screen on the front wall that could be lo wered electronically. For the first class meeting,

PAGE 59

59 there was a small table in the front of the room covered in a decorative cloth and holding a plate of cookies. Contemporary Hawaiian music played on a CD player. The cookies and music were provided by Rachel, the instructor. Before class, Rachel arranged 29 of the desks into a large circle. This created a dilemma since the remaining desks had to be shoved in to any space available and hindered access to the circle. Students were required to maneuver their way to a desk by squeezing into the circle or around the desks outside the circle. As student s entered, Rachel gree ted them and offered cookies, which they took with gratitude. The class convened from 5:00 pm to 8:00 pm. On the first day of class, Rachel began instruction at 5:06 pm by distribu ting a sheet of colored paper to each student in the circle and asking them to write their name on the paper. She then instructed them to pass the paper to the person on their righ t and each student will write one positive thing the student named on the paper brings to the cl assroom. The papers were then passed around the circle, with each student writing a positive comme nt on every other students paper, until the papers arrived to their owners. Some students sn ickered mockingly at the activity, but they were cooperative, and as the papers were passed laughte r was heard as students r ead what other wrote. Rachel moved around the classroom, monitoring th e movement of the paper and reading what students wrote. She told student s to look forward when youre fi nished reading, but not all students complied. When it appeared students we re done reading, she asked them how this activity made them feel and told them to answer that question inside your head. She then asked if this activity would be helpful to teachers a nd if they felt they could do this in their own classrooms. Responses ranged from never using it to using it in certain cl assrooms to viewing it as a powerful tool for positive feedback to students. Rachel then introduced interactive notebooks and told students this would be the cover page for th eir notebooks. This was the first

PAGE 60

60 meeting of the internship seminar and the activity took exactly 15 minutes, a testimony to Rachels highly organized and timed activities that would become a familiar pattern. Rachel organized the internship seminar in three units: (1) The Importance of Classroom Teachers, (2) Fostering Success in the Student T eacher Experience, and (3) Preparing to Become a Professional Educator. The cl asses I observed during the first unit were a combination of group activities and direct instruction, or lecture. Rach el timed each activity so there would be adequate time to cover everything on her agenda for that da y. Table 4 displays a schedule for one of the classes I observed. Table 4. Internship seminar cl ass schedule, January 17, 2007 Time Activity 5:07 pm Class began: daily assignment and signin sheet on table at front of room; interactive notebook table of contents on ove rhead; students were to glue page 10 in their notebook; desks were grouped for small group discussion 5:09 pm Review: Rachel reviewed assignment and notebook pages; questionanswer time about the notebook assignment 5:19 pm Announcements: Rachel explained changes to the syllabus and course expectations 5:22 pm Introduction of lesson: Rachel discussed how different teaching methods and effective teaching was hard work and would be learned over time 5:25 pm Writing assignment 1: in notebooks d escribe briefly your K and college social studies learning experience 5:30 pm Writing assignment 2: in notebooks answer the question What is a good social studies teacher? and hi ghlight important words 5:35 pm Writing assignment 3: in notebooks answer the questions How should social studies be taught? 5:40 pm Small groups: share responses to the three writing assignments 5:46 pm Whole class: discuss responses to the three writing assignments 5:54 pm Jigsaw: expert groups meet (stude nts who have read the same assignment) 6:15 pm Jigsaw: jigsaw groups meet to share their readings and what they learned from expert groups; Rachel directed them to draw a diagram in their notebooks and organize the information from the jig saw using this diagram (four circles intersecting) 6:38 pm Break 6:58 pm Speakers: a teacher and administrator from local schools; speakers talked about their work and what they believed about teaching; students asked questions; Rachel had students write the speaker s beliefs about teaching 8:00 pm Class ended

PAGE 61

61 Table 4 is representative of R achels classroom structure duri ng the first unit of the course when observations were completed. She was highl y organized and this was reflected in her classroom. She followed a schedule that allowed he r to cover all the material planned for that day. The Context of the Instructor In interviews, Rachel said she deliberately planned the internship sem inar based on events from the fall semester. She said students in her technology class were not interested in the theory underlying effective teaching; they wanted only the practices necessary for teaching, so she taught the practices and then connected the theory through written reflections on why the practice was effective. She also said her observa tions of the prospective teachers in a graduate teacher education course taught by another instructor convinced her that they did better in a class that was more businesslike (R4). Rachel delibe rately structured the class so the dominant voices she witnessed in the fall would not have o pportunities to dominate, but said this resulted in her being perceived as more aut horitarian, which was not intended (R4). Rachel said the goal of the internship semina r was to prepare students as social studies educators, which means understanding democrac y, understanding equity versus equality. This is a class with content, not a suppor t of [their] nine week internsh ip (R3). She said many students resisted the course content and methods because they did not view it as relevant to their internship. She chose the content based on disc ussions with instructor s in the program who indicated students had not yet grasped important themes and concepts of effective teaching and needed more time with them. Rachel said she chose the methods so st udents could experience them and learn how to use them in their ow n classrooms. She also hoped the methods would model giving all students a voice.

PAGE 62

62 Rachel grouped students so all the ones she id entified as resisters, about eight students, were in the same small groups. She then divide d the remaining students based on personality, the ability to understand difficult concepts, and th eir effective implementa tion of best teaching practices based on their lesson pl ans from the technology course. Sh e said a veteran professor in the college suggested this type of grouping to avoid having the most vocal students dominate discussions with students who were less vocal. I did not want to spread those resisters out I wanted their voice to be encapsulated amongst their group to give the other people a chance to have their voices heard and to have their ideas talked about. I hate to say this, but I almost wanted to silence their voice. They dominated too long and I would love to see them change. Im not sure its the best approach. (R1) Rachel said the methods used in the internship seminar were m eant to give voice to students who were not as assertive in the classroom. Jigsaws were used in two other classes in the education program but Rachel said prospective teachers did not made the connection between doing the jigsaw and how they might employ the same meth od in their own classroom. Chalk talks were used to help give more of an even voice and orally silence some voices (R3). Later, Rachel said putting the resisters in the same groups ga ve them more power and was not beneficial. A small group of students continued to dominate classroom discussi on and, after complaints from other students, she chose to become more proactive (R3). She restructured the groups, putting the four participants in this study in one group so I could work with them and distributing the remaining dominant voices among students she knew would not allow them to be the dominant voice. She also started calling on students and de liberately directed the discussion to give all students an opportunity to partic ipate. She said she was accused of micromanaging students and telling them when to talk and how to talk (R2).

PAGE 63

63 In essence, it was the methods that were te lling them this and th e ones who didnt like the methods were the ones who were criticizing. A minority of students objected to anything that decentered the mainstream. It comes down to a respect issue. Some of the students dont have respect for themselves, fo r their peers, or for me. (R3) Rachel found the interac tive notebook method was another majo r source of resistance. She used the interactive notebook in her methods courses to help prospective teachers understand how to teach organizational skills. The method is normally taught in the social studies methods course but the instructor of that course taught in the fall, asked Rachel to teach the method in the spring due to the amount of material she had to cover. Rachel believed most students in the internship seminar benefited from the notebook but thos e who resisted the method created such a disturbance that she said in retrospect, she should not have used the method with these students. In my observations, Rachel did not take cla ss time to discuss with prospective teachers why she chose to use certain methods and how students might implement them in their own classrooms. She said this discussion would take place in a methods course, but this was not a methods course. In a later interview, however, she said her focus on the steps used in the methods and not the reasons behind them was a mist ake. Rachel said when she realized students did not understand the methods she should have stopped and discussed the theory behind the methods. Previous experience, however, led her to closely follow her agenda. There might have been some fear in deviating from the plan because of the dynamics of the class. My natural reaction was to pull in the reigns versus letting the reigns go. When I let the reigns go, it often got messy, and I cant say it was productive messy. (R4) Rachels decision to consciously direct voices in the classroom was an attempt to limit the dominate voices, which were mainly students identified as resisters. Teachers who take advantage of their position of power in the classr oom to control the behavior of students often create a classroom environment in which resistance does not stop, but moves under the radar.

PAGE 64

64 Resisters will comply with teacher expectations but their reasons for resisting, the underlying ideology that supports the oppositio nal behavior, remains unchanged. The Context of the Researcher In m y observations, I was puzzled by Rachel s practice of closely following her agenda and abruptly ending discussions in which studen ts were fully engaged. She was a colleague and friend who shared my ideals of social justice, so her need to time classroom activities and limit what I considered engaging discussions among stude nts appeared to conflic t with her belief in democratic classroom practices. When observing the internship seminar, my own desire to resist what I considered micromanagement of student s and instruction was very strong. I consciously chose to accept her management of the internship seminar until there was evidence as to why she conducted class in a way that I t hought resulted in an escalation of resistance. After all, I was a guest in her classroom. My observation notes, however, are filled with bracketed comments about the instruction and what I considered hidden curriculum: Possible disconnect between this classroom or ganization method that would work in K but not necessary in colle ge [interactive notebooks] Rachel does not explain why she uses this method Students brought their own lens to their interpretations, needs to be questioned Explaining the methods is an important element missing in this class None of the speakers [current secondary level teachers] di scussed why they were not successful with a student; do they really know why and had they reflected on this Near the end of the activity Rachel makes her way around the classroom to listen to discussions; the noise level drops; is this due to her presence? Her behavior reminds me of an elementary or middle school classroom; its condescending This was a surprise notebook check, which is que stionable since it places the teacher in the position of power; students are at the teachers mercy By the fourth observation, I had chosen the four participants and jo ined their small group, which is when my acts of resistance surf aced. During small groups, when students were participating in chalk talks, there was supposed to be complete silence. When my group was finished writing their comments, however, we be gan a whispered discussion of what they had

PAGE 65

65 written. Rachel gave our group a look of reprima nd and shushed us. Later, she asked if it would be better if I worked with the participants in another room. Since the study focused on resistance in the internship seminar, I thought it best to remain in the cla ssroom but asked if we could bend the rules a little re garding discussion. Rachel hesitated and then suggested we move to another area of the classroom where we w ould be less of a distraction. Prior to the study, Rachel and I agreed that I would join a small group to gather data and hopefully provide participants opportunities for cr itical inquiry and selfreflection. This was not possible due to the priority Rachel placed on following her agenda, which often meant ending discussions when students were struggling with their beliefs a bout teaching. My own resistance to the classroom schedule was immediately apparent to me, but I chose to continue the resistant behavior when I believed it was necessary for th e study. I passed notes to participants asking for responses to comments they made in class and engaging them in a brief discussion on paper. This was done when Rachel was lecturing or during whole class discussion. In conversations with participants I was sympat hetic to their complaints about Rachels micromanagement of instruction but told them it was unusual for her to teach in this manner. Interviews with Rachel helped explain her decision to closely follo w her agenda, but her micromanagement of instruction appeared to escalate resi stance in the internship seminar. It was evident during observations and interviews that I needed to win the trust of the four participants before they would elaborate on thei r oppositional behavior in the classroom. In the first interviews, all four participants gave ve ry brief responses to questions. Henry and William would not elaborate on their answers without in sistent prompting. George and Kenneth were more detailed in their responses to questions, but appeared to be suspicious of my motives. They appeared to not trust me so I ha d to work to gain that trust.

PAGE 66

66 The first interviews focused on the participants sociohistorical context, which gave them opportunities to share thei r childhood and school e xperiences. I asked ques tions and responded in ways that I hoped would indicate I was interest ed in their experience s and perceptions of teachers and schools. By the end of the first in terviews, I felt I had established enough mutual trust with each participant that I could explore more controversial topics. This was not always easy, as my field notes indicated. These students have been empowered by thei r place in society. They are part of the privileged class so they have never, or rarel y, been silenced. When they resist they do so with a loud voice, unlike the oppressed groups who are used to being silenced and will resist in other ways. How do I work with a group taught to be the dominant group, but in a classroom where their ideas are not finding center stage? They try to make their ideas center stage by finding the negative in every method taught, but theres always a credible response from instructors to their objections. Th eyre out to win and be proven right, not to become excellent teachers. (F ield notes, February, 7, 2007) My own frustrations with the ideo logies held by the par ticipants were evident, and in the second interviews I started asking questions that woul d challenge their beliefs about teaching. By the third interview, the participants appeared mo re relaxed and found the interview a place where they could talk freely about their objections to the internship seminar and how they were being taught to be teachers. I listened, asked questions that would further clarif y their ideas, but also asked questions that challenged th eir thinking. My role as interv iewer became both data collector and critical questioner. I reali zed there would be some data I would have to ignore because my social justice stance was obvious in the questions, but I also found the participants were open to the challenges I posed. It was during data analysis when the ideology of the participants ha d the greatest impact on me. Their obvious bias against minority groups a nd the attitude that st udents were less than human and not capable of partic ipating in the workings of classrooms and schools violated my own deeply held beliefs. I was both angry and discouraged by these insistent claims from

PAGE 67

67 participants. By focusing on the research question, What explains resistance, I was able to set me own emotions aside and approach the data analysis with a more objective stance. The ideologies of the participants were not surprising, but the extent to which they resisted any opposing view was discouraging. Participants in this study were selected sp ecifically for their acts of resistance, so opposition to beliefs different from their own should not come as a surprise. When I described how I viewed the participants to Rachel, who ha d the students for two semesters, she said I portrayed their behavior exactly. We were in agreement that these four students resisted both content and methods. The Context of Participants The f our participants were White males rangi ng in age from 24 to 38 and originally from the midwestern United States. One had just co mpleted his undergraduate degree when he was accepted in the teacher education program, one worked as a substitute teacher for a year before applying to the teacher education program, and tw o were returning to college after working in other fields. In the following pages, the four participants are introduced with special attention to their family structure, socioeconomic stat us, home communities, and the K schools they attended. Citations of participant interviews use the first letter of the participants pseudonym and the number of the interview. For example, W1 cites Williams first interview, W2 his second interview, and W3 his third interview. William W illiam spent the first twelve years of his life in a rural midwestern, working class, blue collar town (W1). His father did not graduate from high school but earned a GED. He was a foreman in the construction industry and a uni on member, which William believed was partly responsible for his father being paid pretty we ll and maintaining a middle class income (W1).

PAGE 68

68 He explained, We never had any problems as far as money issues and a house with enough rooms for all of us to have our own room and that sort of thing (W1). Williams mother had one year of college and worked at home until the you nger of his two sisters started school. Then she found a job as an accountant and later a secretary. When asked to provide information about his childhood and school experience, William described the socioeconomic and ethnic make up of the schools he attended and communities where he lived, indicating the importance of this element of his life. He said the area where he grew up was night and day from down here. It s almost entirely White for one thing, so it wasnt really racially mixed at all (W1). Williams elementary school years were spent in a working class neighborhood school, which William said was old but well cared for. He said they had a library, where he was free to read as mu ch as he wanted, and a very large playground. According to William, the teachers were approach ing retirement and most had grown children. In the sixth grade, his family moved to a mi ddleupper class suburban town that was an hour from a large, midwestern city. The move was due to his fathers job and resulted in a higher standard of living. The schools in the suburban area they moved to were newer and better equipped than his elementary school. The high school, which housed grades seven through twelve when he was first enrolled, had a theater, Olympicsized pool, large resource center for students, and a modern gym that students could use at any time. This school was located in a middleupper class community. William described the teachers as younger, one fresh out of college, which he said made a big difference from the older teachers in his elementary school (W1). According to William, the young teachers were more enthusiastic about learning and made the content more interesting. He remembered only a few AfricanA merican students in his high school graduation

PAGE 69

69 class and a larger, although s till proportionately small, population of Hmong students whose families were originally from Vietnam and Laos (W1). He also said his teachers were all White and said he did not have a nonWhite teacher until college. Williams high school used a modular schedule, which meant there were blocks of time when students were left to themselves and William, a selfproclaimed procrastinator, said he did not always use that time wisely. Having all that free time to hang out with my friends was great, and I wasnt really causing problems for anybody, not that I remember, but I could have used that time for school work and I know I didnt. And my grades reflecte d that (W1). He took responsibility for his lack of commitment to hi s academic work but admitted that his parents did not motivate him as much as he now wishes they had, and they were unable to help him with his advanced studies courses. He gave his mother credit for making sure he took the ACT college exam so he could attend college, and when he was accepted at a local community college she was proud of this achievement. Ultimately, however, he said his Caverage grades in middle and high school and failing out of college after one ye ar were due to his lack of selfdiscipline. William joined the military and when his tour of duty was over he left the Army and worked in construction with his father while he finished an Associates degree in co mputer science. He had difficulty finding a job in his hometown so he moved to the southeastern United States, married, and eventually returned to college, successfully completing a Bachelors degree in history and entering a Masters of Education prog ram in social studies education. William did not have the advantage of college educated parents but did complete advanced placement classes in high school. He believed hi s success in college, however, was due to his time spent in the military, which helped him overcome his lack of selfdiscipline in high school.

PAGE 70

70 Kenneth When describing the community where he grew up, Kenneth said, there are som e very wealthy areas but theres not rea lly like any low income areas (K 1). He also said the schools he came from had few discipline problems because where I come from is like working class America, which meant there was a high work et hic that he felt contri buted to his academic success (K1). According to Kenneth, he grew up in a middleupper class midwestern town that was part of a small city complex of about 300,000 residents. His reported family income of over $100,000 annually placed his parents in the upper inco me bracket for the 1990s, when he was in public school. His mother had a bachelors degree and two masters degrees, and she worked as a special education teacher and late r a school counselor. His father earned a business degree from a business college and was cofounder of a comp uter company that wrote programs for IBM computers. According to Kenneth, his father had a chance to make a lot of money but he was working like 70 hours a week and he never saw me and so he quit the profession (K1). He said his father was later employed as a real estate agent, owned a carpet cleaning business, and worked as a medical technician setting up medica l equipment. Kenneth said, I had a somewhat easy upbringing, I had two good parents. We didnt really have to worry about money. I didnt live in a bad place or anything like that (K1). The schools Kenneth attended catered to near ly all middle and upper class families and were majority White. He considered his elementa ry school progressive because it had art and music regularly and used a team teaching appro ach that followed a thematic curriculum (K1). The school had a decent library and a computer lab with Apple IIGA computers where his class went weekly (K1). He was in the gifted and talented leadership program because they identified leadership qualitie s in me but said he was average academically (K1). Kenneths middle school was older but well kept and catere d to the same demographic of students. He

PAGE 71

71 could not remember any good teachers in his middl e school and said, A lot of them seemed bitter and didnt want to be there, it was just a job (K1). He said he did not feel safe in middle school and blamed the teachers for not creating a se nse of community or a comfortable climate in the school. Unlike middle school, Kenneth en joyed high school where his ta lent for soccer gained him respect and stature. As a freshman, he was chos en for the varsity team, made the allconference team in grades nine through twel ve, and the allstate team in grades eleven and twelve. The inclusion of a large population of Hmong students, mainly from Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia, introduced him to a culture very different from his own. As a high school counselor, his mother worked with Hmong students and their families. The stories she brought home, combined with his observations, led Kenneth to believe most Hmongs were very isolationist and were determined to maintain their cultural beliefs (K1). He cited the Hmong traditions of arranged marriages for females as young as 13 and 14, multiple families living in a onefamily house, and keeping chickens in their backya rd for food as cultural identifie rs of the Hmong people. He also said the gangs in the area were mainly fr om the Hmong community. Kenneth never developed any friendships with Hmong students and appeared to view them as living outside the norm of his community. Kenneths mother put a lot of pressure on hi m to go to college, but his father thought other career paths, like the military, were just as valuable (K1). Kenneth said it was an athletic scholarship to play soccer at a large midwestern university that helped him make his decision for higher education. Kenneth graduated with a Bachelors degree in li beral arts with a double major in history and political science. He applied to law school but after working with prospective college athletes and coaching a high school soccer team, he decided his commitment to

PAGE 72

72 education was more important than his commitment to law. Kenneth found a job as a longterm substitute teacher and applied to the educati on program at a large southeastern university. Kenneth had the advantages of socioeconom ic status and parents who were college graduates but believed his success in school was due to a workingclass work ethic. The schools he attended prepared him for a privileged educ ation through the gifted program in elementary school and advanced placement courses in high school, and his talent for soccer provided him with funding for college. He did not view these as advantages but simp ly a series of events in his life. His experiences in college classrooms furt her solidified his beli efs about teaching and contributed to his resistance in the social studies internship seminar. Henry Henry spent the f irst ten years of his life in the suburbs of a large midwestern urban area. His father had a masters degree and was an ed itor for a building magazine. His mother was a high school graduate and worked as a realtor. Henry considered hi s family middle class and said the neighborhood where he lived was one hundred percent White (H1). His limited memories of his elementary school were that the school and teachers were nice, the music teacher was very boisterous, the predominant teaching method was di rect instruction, and he had art, music and physical education. His most memo rable events at his elementary school were the fights on the playground. He said, Our play ar ea was huge and we basically ran around there fighting. I got in a few fights, but it was what you did on the playground back [there] (H1). Henrys family moved to a smaller city in the southeastern United States that was predominantly White with a small percentage of Black and Hispanic residents, and more upper class than middle class. Henr y was disappointed by the respon se to student fights at his elementary school: I remember seeing fights and students were immediately suspended so they had much less freedom (H1). His middle school was team oriented and used cooperative

PAGE 73

73 learning and Henry said he wasnt a huge fan [because] they werent really well organized but I had a pretty good middle school education (H1). The high school Henry attended was not the one he was zoned for; he was enrolled in a health sciences magnet program in a large hi gh school outside his district. He planned on becoming a doctor but said the magnet program co mpletely altered my perspective due to the intensity of the program and his concern about b urn out in the highly stressful medical intern programs (H1). In addition to the academic demands of the advanced placement classes in the magnet program, Henry was on the football and weightlifting teams, in the band, and active in drama. His decision to go to college was based on his belief that education is important and because he was very selfmotivated academics always came pretty easy to me (H1). His parents did put some pressure on him to atte nd college but allowed him to make the final decision. Henry graduated in the t op ten percent of his class, wh ich earned him a state sponsored fouryear college scholarship. He was accepted at a large southeastern university and earned a Bachelors degree in history. He then applied to and was accepted in the so cial studies secondary education masters program at the same university. Henry had the advantages of socioeconomic status and one parent who graduated from college and both parents who encouraged him to go to college. He believed his success in school, however, was due more to selfmotivation than th e influence of his parents or his teachers. His elementary years appeared to reflect the educa tion of the middle class but his secondary years prepared him for a more privileged education, sp ecifically his enrollment in the magnet program and advanced placement courses and his extracurric ular activities. He did not appear to view these as advantages but simply a series of events in his life. He nry attended schools that reflected the White, Eurocentric, middleupper cl ass culture of the privileged.

PAGE 74

74 George George grew up in a large m idwestern ur ban city. His father had a Ph.D. and was employed by the school district, first as a teach er and athletic direct or, then as a school administrator, and later as superintendent. Hi s father was a strong proponent of public schools and when George was offered an athletic scholarship to a private school his father turned it down. His mother had a Bachelors degree and worked as a homemaker. George said his parents were always very active in his educ ation and teachers knew that they had their support (G1). His parents placed a high priority on e ducation and regulated the time allowed for watching television and playing video games. George said his family would be classified as middle cla ss economically, which reflected the area where he grew up. He described his elem entary school as all White middle class and his middle and high schools as an all White mix of working class and upper middle class (G1). According to George, the school buildings were old but wellmaintained and teachers had all the resources they needed. He classified his elementary school teachers in two categories: disciplinarians and creative (G1). He said th e disciplinarians were mainly concerned with classroom management and reducing negative behavior but not encouraging positive behavior, while the creative teachers encouraged learning through positive reinforcement. George said he enjoyed middle school because I was the top clique group I was the top of the heap (G1). His middle school used tracki ng and placed students in learning groups based on their academic abilities, which provided him w ith a good academic program since he was in the highest academic level. Acco rding to George, the state ended tracking when he entered the eighth grade and students were mixed academically. He said students from the highest academic level were made group leaders in peerled instruction and this was harmful to his education because it was very boring and we didnt learn anything the w hole year (G1).

PAGE 75

75 As a high school freshman, George had to overcome poor study habits from his eighth grade academic experience, which affected his performance in ninth grade, but his sophomore year was better. He also had to contend with the academic and political reputation of an older brother who he said was a genius and very conservative politically (G1). According to George, teachers expected him to perform academically on the same level as his brother and to have his brothers political perceptions, which he said could be detrimental when he had teachers with liberal leanings. Regardless of the pre ssures he experienced, he did well enough in high school to complete advanced plac ement courses and earn athletic scholarships to a midwestern university. In high school, he was on the wrest ling, football and baseball teams and was named allstate in baseball. College was Georges first experience sharing classes with nonWhite students. His K experience was in all White schools and he re membered only two nonWhite teachers in high school. He said families in his school district could choose which school their children attended: Black teachers didnt want to teach the White kids they wanted to be in the Black high school. Thats just the way it is there (G1). He attended a large midwestern university but finished his education in a s outheastern university, earning a Bachelors degree in history. George worked in business management for 15 y ears before entering the Masters of Education program in social studies education. George had the advantages of two well educated parents who expected him to go to college and a father in the education system. His elemen tary and secondary years reflected the education of the White, middle class but also prepared him for a more privil eged education, specifically his enrollment in advanced placement courses and his talent for athletics in high school, which led to college scholarships. He believe d his success in school, however, wa s intrinsic and due more to

PAGE 76

76 selfmotivation than the influence of his parents or his older brother. His and the other participants acts of resistance in the classroom were due in part to their cultural beliefs and beliefs about good teaching and the purpose of schools. The four participants grew up in predomin antly White communities and schools. They all had the advantages of a middle or middle upper class school environment and advanced placement courses. Three of them had at least one parent with a college degree and one had a parent who encouraged him to attend college. The sociohistorical context of their lives combined with the classroom environment and the actions of the teacher and researcher influenced their acts of resistance in the internship seminar.

PAGE 77

77 CHAPTER 5 FINDINGS Preface Resistan ce often occurs because a students liv ed experience is not represented in schools or classrooms (Giroux, 2001; McLa ren, 1986). Students sociohistori cal contexts, the combined social and historical factors in their lives, infl uence the beliefs they ha ve about teachers, schools and education. The study of student resistance using critical discour se analysis must consider the context of family, community and school because discourse does not happen in a vacuum. It is influenced by individual and gr oup history and by the context of the event where the discourse takes place (Fairclough, 1995; Gee, 1999). To bette r understand the resistance engaged in by the four participants, it is necessary to consider the sociohistorical context of their lives, specifically their lives in schools. For this reason, interviews focuse d on participants school experiences, what they liked and disliked, and how this infl uenced their beliefs about teaching and education and their acts of resistance in the internship seminar. Some of the beliefs about teaching held by partic ipants in this study were shared and others were unique. The shared beliefs were held by two or more participants and defined the role of the teacher: who had the important knowledge in cl assrooms, how participants defined important knowledge, who made decisions in classrooms re garding instruction and management, and the strict micromanagement of cla ssrooms. The unique beliefs also defined the role of the teacher: teach to assimilate to the dominant group, who is responsible for the success of students, female teachers are nurturing and build relationships w ith students, and the importance of trust in studentteacher relationships. The sh ared and unique beliefs appeared to lead to either counter resistance or cultural resistance. Counter resi stance is when students resist the methods and content of an instructor teaches from a cultu rally conscious or social justice stance. The

PAGE 78

78 instructor is resisting the traditional White, Eurocentric, middleupper class culture of schools and attempting to disrupt hegemonic ideology, an d students are countering her resistance through behavior that is meant to maintain hegemony. Cu ltural resistance occurs wh en students engage in behavior that resists the he gemony of schools and classrooms. Classrooms in which the instructor uses methods and content that maintain the perspe ctive of the dominant White, Eurocentric, middleupper class cu lture of schools can marginaliz e students who are members of other cultures and belief systems. These students might act in ways to disrupt the hegemony of the classroom. Participants engaged in both counter and cultural resistance The table below summarizes the categories of resistance for shared and uni que beliefs about the role of the teacher. Table 5. Categories of resistan ce: The role of the teacher Counter Resistance Shared Beliefs Teacher is the source of important knowledge Important knowledge is practical and relevant Teachers control decisions about instruction and management Teachers encourage students ideas and opinions Unique Beliefs Teachers should teach assimilation to the dominant group Teacher responsible for su ccess of all students but Good female teachers are caring and build relationships with students Cultural Resistance Shared Belief Teachers should not micromanage classrooms Unique Belief Teachers should maintain trust in studentteacher relationships The resistant behavior engaged in by participan ts was due to the dissonance created when their beliefs about the role of teachers and schools conflicted with the content and pedagogy in the internship seminar. These future teachers were no t always willing to be disturbed and resisted methods and content that disrupted their ow n beliefs about good teaching (Wheatley, 2002). The

PAGE 79

79 methods instructor also acted in ways that reinforced hegemo ny, specifically the power held by teachers, and some participants resisted this culture of power. Counter Resistance and the Role of the Teacher If teachers who decenter cultural no rms a nd teach a culturally diverse curriculum are countering hegemony and resisting the dominan t school environment and curriculum, then students who object to this decentering are worki ng against the resistant actions of the teacher. They are countering the teachers resistance a nd attempting to maintain hegemony. Students who engage in counter resistance are motivated by a desiretypically unconsciousto maintain hegemony and they usually object to the cultur al consciousness raisi ng and selfreflection engaged in by those who teach for social justice. In this study, all four participants engaged in counter resistance and their resistance is best explained through their beliefs about the role of the teacher in schools. The participants in this study had very defin ite beliefs about the roles of teachers. Some believed the teacher made all important decisi ons about knowledge, instruction and management, while others believed student knowledge should also be welcomed in the classroom. All believed teachers should teach content that is practical and relevant, but they had slightly different definitions of these terms. Through their discussi on about classes they lik ed and disliked, their beliefs about teachers, schools and resistance were made evident. Two of the participants thought the teacher was the source of knowledge. Teacher as Source of Important Knowledge The two participants who viewed teachers as the source of the im portant knowledge in classroom s believed good teachers knew their cont ent well and imparted that knowledge to students. An instructor William admired taught political science and was knowledgeable of her subject but used both lecture and di scussion, which he found problematic.

PAGE 80

80 she just had her own style of teaching, again, it was a lot of lecture but, um, she had so much fun teaching and she, she would get off topic occasionally which was kind of a, kind of a downer she would bring up a topic and it would be a lot of discussion and she would ask questions and um she would always open it up to the floor and it tended to I think stop the flow of the class a little bit because some people would just ramble on and on and thats where wed get off topic (W2) William noted the lecture focus of this class and emphasized the fun this instructor had teaching, but he complained about how class discussion would get off topic (emphasized twice) when she opened discussion to the floor. The instructor would bring knowledge that led to a lot of discussion, and then the instructor would ask questions and always bring students ideas into the discussion. William said this tended to stop the flow of the class and this was a downer In this class, the teacher used a lecture format that she controlled but also included a class discussion format where knowledge and power were shared. For William, allowing students to contribute th eir knowledge to discussion was detrim ental to the flow of the class, indicating his belief that the teachers knowledge was most important and was best given to students through lecture. In one of the classes William did not like, the instructor used methods that conflicted with his beliefs about who should be in possession of important information and how that information should be imparted to students. The Reading in th e Content Area class was a required course in the teacher education program and, according to William, the instructor was not qualified to teach the course. shed say stuff like, well Dr. Quinns really the expert on this and stuff and, etcetera etcetera and I guess that kind of keys you to what to expect

PAGE 81

81 um, it essentially it seemed like she was teaching Dr. Quinns class, in fact I think thats probably what she was supposed to be doing we were using his readings and um and then you know trying to get, to get through em (W2) William emphasized the instructors comment, Dr. Quinns really the expert, and said she was using his readings, which indicated to him the la ck of knowledge the instructor had of the content she was required to teach. According to William, the instructor was expected (supposed ) to teach another instructors syllabus, but this conflicted with Williams definition of good teachers as those whose performance in the classroom demonstrated knowledge of their content area. William also discussed the structure of the class. we could have just done mo remore activities other than stuff along the lines of theres a sheet of paper on the wall back here go and write five ideas or something like that thats just I guess not my pref erred way of learning and I know a lot of people in th e class didnt really take that seriously necessarily theyd just take it as time to, talk it always felt like you know just making sure you read the paper or article (I: When she used a particular method people didnt take seriously was there any connection made between the method and how you could use that in your own classroom?) well, I guess that was the purpose of it um I mean what it turns usually what it would be wed take something from the reading and write out the main idea of it which, you dont automatically correlate it, I mean, you have to put some effort into thinking how you do that so, um, maybe in an indirect way that was the reasoning behind it (W2) William admitted that the structure of the class wa s not his preferred way of learning. He said she could have taught the class different ly instead of having students write ideas from the readings on a sheet of paper. For William, this always felt like the instructor wanted to know if you read the pape r or articlea form of busy wo rk since, according to William, there was no explanation as to why they were doing the activities. He said learning the methods was probably

PAGE 82

82 the purpose of the activity but what they usually did would not automatically correlate with the reasoning behind it since no effort was made to connect the method with what teachers did in classrooms. For William, the structure of the class included a lot of busy work that he felt was not connected with what he would do as a te acher. While he was open to more activities, the method of writing comments on a sheet of paper is a form of chalk talk in which all students are given a voice and student knowledge is valued. This technique provided space for the knowledge of students; however, William believed that the teacher owned the important knowledge, which conflicted with this instructors belief that students bring knowledge to th e classroom that should be shared and discussed. Henry also believed teachers owned the importa nt knowledge, and this was reflected in a history class that he liked. He mimicked a classroom scenario in which the questions asked by the professor did not appear to be for the purpose of hearing different pers pectives but to dismiss the ones that did not agree w ith his line of thinking. all right so lets give an example it would be like why do you think that, why do you think that, well what do you think caused the SpanishAmerican war of 1898? what do you think caused this? and hed be like what are the possible causes? and wed like possibly give causes and hed be like no well thats not correct and then like wed like have a discu ssion on what possible causes like well here they are, heres the four causes you need to know and hed give em to us, thats like an audible and like youd better write this down cause its gonna be on the test (I: was there any discussion as to why they were wrong?) yeah hed tell you like thats not really relevant to the situation because then hed give you a situation

PAGE 83

83 and then when wed finished the discussion heres the four main causes (I: the basic idea in his teaching was that he had all the knowledge) yep (I: and he was going to give it to students) yep, yep (I: and students didnt have any knowledge so yo u needed to make sure that they had it) its college thats what its supposed to be in college its a university 4000 level course theres no uh student input theres research and theres, understanding (H2) In this excerpt, Henry portrays the professor as being in control of important knowledge. Henry emphasized how the professor would ask what and why and student responses ( wed ) were met with the professor ( hed ) correcting their thinking. Then the professor would give students the answers he want ed them to remember ( four causes you need to know) and students would write them down in preparation for the test. The discussion did not appear to be a sharing of ideas but more an oppor tunity for the professor to tell and give his ideas and knowledge. If there were other possi bly correct responses to his questions that he did not feel were relevant, he would dismiss them. Henry affirmed that the professors objective was to establish himself as the one who had all the kno wledge and Henry thought that was appropriate in a college classroom. He said that was what college was supposed to bestudents doing research and gaining understanding but not having any input in their own education. In a later interview, Henry described in more detail his belief that the teacher has the important knowledge.

PAGE 84

84 the professors the chief and has the basic knowledge discussion is, takes place in class but ultimately it comes back to the professors responsible for whats bei ng taught in that course if any incorrect information is, is learned by my students, the buck stops with me (I: yeah) thats why the professor is ultimately in charge and responsible for all learning that takes place so in the discussion he is the moderator he is the director he is the one whos leading it in the direction he needs to go if students have prior knowledge if students have questions you use that discussion to adva nce your own lecture thats the way youre advancing the point directing this point delivered to the student because you know what youre delivering, if you allow random ad hoc comments well, and uh you dont know where that trains going if you dont know where the trains going it could lead right off the cliff into the ocean (H3) Henry described the professor as a chief, mode rator, director, leader, and conductor, which are all terms that hold contro l and power. The professor has (or owns) the basic knowledge and is ultimately responsible for what is taught. Henry appl ied this description of the professor to his own classroom when he said, the buck stops with me. He based his own teaching on how he believed college professors teach and on how his two favorite professors taught. According to Henry, the professor is in charge of all learning and he (emphasized three times) use [s] the knowledge and questions from students to advance the teachers knowledge. For Henry, discussion was important for directing the learning toward the prof essors point. Henry said there is no p lace in the classroom for random ad hoc comments since they might lead to a destination, or to knowledge, that the professor is not familiar with or that does not support his own knowledge (destination). He emphasized that random ad hoc comments could be

PAGE 85

85 disastrous since you (the teacher) would not know where th e learning (train) is headed, which clearly revealed his belief that the teacher is in cont rol of all knowledge taught in the classroom. Henrys belief in the teacher owning the impor tant knowledge was explained further in the social studies internship seminar when de mocratic classrooms were under discussion. having classes set up as purely discussion and around circle conversation, I question whether they actually retain anything or whether youll have a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury but signifying nothing like nothing really going on lots of talk and lots of good sounding like stuff taking place but nothing really concrete being formed (H1) He said classes that were purely discussion or that used circle conversation could result in the appearance of learning (sound and fury, lots of talk lots of stuff taking place) but nothing concrete being learned. His comment th at this would result in a tale told by an idiot implied that students were not capa ble of having or creating concrete knowledge, which supported his belief that teachers have the impor tant knowledge in the classroom. William and Henry believed the teacher owne d the important knowledge in the classroom and imparted that knowledge to students, but the teacher should not include student knowledge in the classroom. When discussi on did take place, as in Henrys classes, it was for the purpose of guiding students to what the pr ofessor considered the importa nt knowledge and all discussion was controlled by the teacher. William, however, believed discussion took the class away from the important knowledge, which belonged to the teacher. Henry and William believed good teachers owned the important knowledge, but the dilemma arises as to how they define important knowledge. All four participants were clear as to how they defined this concept.

PAGE 86

86 Important Knowledge is Practical and Relevant. Participants believed that im por tant knowledge was practical a nd relevant. In the case of education courses, they defined practical and relevant as the tools and skills necessary for teachers and teaching. They resisted the social studies internship seminar, and other college courses, because they believed much of the meth ods and content were not practical or relevant. Henry said his least favorite classes were thos e that were irrelevant to him and described one of them. I didnt really like Age of the Dinosaurs too much, and, I didnt really want to be there lots of long scientific names lots of memorization of topics that I wasnt interested in at all those history classes were all about critical thinking and comprehending very, major and very large historical concepts but this is like rote memorization of annoying long genus and species and all that stuff its like, it wasnt relevant to me at all especially a history major (I: Right) I dont care what the, what this bone of this dinosaur is it was all memorization of, stupid facts (H2) Henry emphasized that the course wasnt relevant to him as a history major. While he did not enjoy the memorization (mentioned three times), it was the cont ent of the class that appeared to be the problem. In addition to being irrelevant, Henry said I wasnt interested in it and I dont care, which could imply that if he was memori zing facts from human history it might mean more to him. He emphasized that history studied major events while this class studied boring fossils with long scientific names. Henry believed good teaching included teaching relevant, important content and he defined this to mean content that was interesting and useful to him as a social studies teacher. Another class Henry perceived as irrelevant was an undergra duate education course in educational technology.

PAGE 87

87 the undergraduate education classes were just not relevant at all, and the teachers seemed, unqualified educational technology, it was ridiculously stupid (I: mhmm) she was unprepared for class we didnt learn anything important, she taught us things that didnt really matter, it was like completely irrelevant (I: what kind of teaching style did she have?) it was like stupid group work that was completely irrelevant we just sat around and talked about how stupid the class was we had a separate lab class on Wednesday and that class was pretty, annoying too because, we would learn something wed turn in the assignment and then we would immediately forget how to use what we just did, shes like try to use like constructivist to like write education forms I didnt learn anything in there there was no there was no rigor there was no relevance (H2) Similar to the dinosaur class, Henry said the c ontent taught in the educational technology class was not relevant (not relevant, completely irrelevant, completely irrelevant, no relevance ). He said the instructor was unprepared for class and taught things that didnt matter. According to Henry, the stupid group work was irrelevant and the assignment completed for the separate lab class was immediately forgotten. He did not learn anything in this class that he considered re levant to him as a future soci al studies teacher which differed from another undergraduate educati onal technology class that he took. it was better in another class that was strictly technical stuff but at least it was practical at least I learned how to scan st uff and like had the basic formation of making a web page using Netscape and that was strictly a technical portion of the lab we turned in projects and that kind of stuff that was all right youre just learning how to use the technology (H2)

PAGE 88

88 Henry said the practical use of technology ( scan stuff and basic formation of a web page) was technical knowledge that was useful. Instead of applying constructivist theory to education forms, he was learning how to use the technology, which Henry may have found more relevant to his future career as a teacher. In a graduate level educationa l technology class, Henry said he gained practical knowledge that was especially useful to him as a teacher, even though it was not one of his favorite classes. The class was taught by the same instructor (Rache l) who taught the social studies internship seminar. we learned how to write a lesson plan if we had to jump through hoops we learned how to jump through em it was we hated it at the time but (I: are you saying while you didnt like doing th e lesson plans you felt they were helpful later?) no I find Im glad we did all that work now because now when Im talking about it I can talk like Rachel I can talk the language she taught me how to speak uh, educational technology buzz words and those and now Im fluent in it (I: and how does that help you?) in interviews I can talk about educational technology and its relevance and like how you use technology effectively in a classroom, its nice to be able to do that (I: so it was practical in a sense in th at it prepared you for your teaching?) for interviews and I guess using technology too, like we did a we did a imovie project its nice to learn how you use imovie it all like seemed so stupid at the time but administrators love to hear that stuff (H2)

PAGE 89

89 Henry emphasized how he hated to jump through hoops but said he was learning For him, the technology class made him fluent in the language and educational technology buzz words so he could talk about using technology in th e classroom when on job interviews Twice he emphasized how the course prepared him for interviews but he could only guess that the course prepared him for using technology in the classroom. He said it was nice to learn how to use the technology (imovie), but hi s emphasis was on how school administrators like to hear the correct words used in an interview. Henry appeared to appreciate how he could put to practical use what he learned in the e ducational technology course by using the language in interviews, but he did not vi ew the technology as relevant. she made us do like all these activities of like using the technology which was not as relevant those hoops were helpful in this field Im in (I: okay) (H2) Henry said she made us use the technology but the activities were not as relevant. The graduate level technology class supported Henrys belief that good teachers teach content that is practical or helpful In this case, the content was useful in his job interviews even if it was not relevant in the classroom. Henry also found some of the content from the social studies internship seminar practical, in the same way that he found the educational technology class practical. she taught us how to speak some of the language about professional development and uh continuous education continuous improvement reflection she really stressed reflection and the factwhen she was teaching us how to make the resume portfolio and interviewing strategies those were those were good (I: okay) like the finding a job aspect is what I got the most out of it (I: okay) but a lot of stuff was just seem ed to be a waste of time (H2)

PAGE 90

90 In the internship semina r, Henry thought being taught the language of the profession (professional development continuous education and reflection ) was practical since it would be used in job interviews, in the sa me way the language from educational technology would be used. Other aspects of the class Henry thought were good were the resume portfolio interviewing strategies, and any instruction on finding a job. This practical knowledge was not a waste of time since it was relevant to his future career goals, but he did not find the methods or content practical or relevant in any other way. He said, it wasnt relevant the readings werent relevant so I didnt read em (I: okay) and I didnt have to read em cause you could get by and make something up and not read em (I: yeah) it seemed like stressing the same points over and over again that we had already heard a million times plus its pretty much common sense like you know what treat your kids equitably be culturally conscious you know dont like dont marginalize your kids make a safe classroom environment this is very uh, the fact that she was acting like we di dnt already know this stuff was a reason so many of us felt patronized (H2) Henry emphasized in this excerpt that the materials used in the social studies internship seminar did not make sense since he could not apply them in the classroom. He said the readings were not relevant so he did not bother reading them. According to Henry, the readings seemed to stress the same content they heard before and it w as really common sensetreating students equitably culturally conscious classrooms, and a safe classroom environment He said students felt patronized because the instructor believed ( fact ) that they did not know the material. The instructor was familiar with the content and readings used by other instructors in the teacher education program but chose to focus on similar content. Her

PAGE 91

91 decision to teach content that had already been covered gave Henry the perception that the instructor believed students had not mastered the content, whic h he thought was condescending (felt patronized). He be lieved the readings were not relevant because they had already covered the same material in previous classes and he resisted by not reading the assignments, however, he found the class practical and relevant because he learned the language he needed to find a teaching job. Like Henry, George also belie ved the content taught in so me of the teacher education courses was not practical or relevant. He was critical of the Read ing in the Content Area class, which was one of his least favorite college classes. (I: what about the content in the reading class?) it wasnt relevant it wasnt practical she didnt even attempt to make it practical (I: now when you say practical, practical for what?) practical for use you know synthesizing and using in a classroom (I: okay) most of the readings were completed by Dr. Quinn and they were extremely dry and boring and had nothing really to do with social studies (I: okay) (G2) George emphasized that the class was not relative or practical for use by teachers in a classroom and the instructor did not attempt to make it so. He said the readings were dry and boring and had nothing to do with social studies. The course was not helpful to him as a social studies teacher so it was not practical or relevant. George said the social studies internship semina r was also one of his college classes that he disliked. When asked what he liked about the cl ass his response mirrored t hose of the other three participants.

PAGE 92

92 (I: was there anything about the class that you liked?) I liked the people she brought in the speakers because I mean thats when I got the most I got out of the program was in my internships and my practicums and that was talking to people in the field it just seems like, people that are inin here for whatever reason dont get it you know, theyre idealistic they have these visions of the way they want things to be but somehow it morphs in their mind and thats the way it really is and thats not the way things really are you know uh, whereas, its a very hammer on the head type of philosophy that you get out in the field because youre dealing with those kids everyday and youre dealing with those everyday problems (I: so then the speakers gave you practical information?) yeah realistic a realist perspective (G2) George created a dichotomy between the philosophy of the field and that of the teacher education program ( here). He said he gained the most from the teacher education program through the practicum and internsh ip experiences, where he c ould talk to people in the field This is also why he enjoyed the speakers (people she brought in)they were realistic and gave him the hammer on the head type of philosophy from the field According to George, instructors in the program ( here) were idealistic and did not understand (dont get it) what schools were really like. He said the instructors in the program want schools to be a certain way so badly that they believed it to be soit morphs in their m ind and thats the way it really is For George, the practical and relevant informa tion came not from program instructors but from people in the public schools because their ideas we re realistic.

PAGE 93

93 As a future teacher, George did not want idea listic goals but methods that would work in the classroom, where teachers are dealing with students and everyday problems He wanted the tools to be a good teacher. I want your help, to uh mold me into a better teacher to make it more comprehensible, I mean this is the knowledge I have and my knowledge is up here, (indicates abov e head) you know part of what I wanted to ge t out of this program is to be able to make that knowledge, comprehensible, down here I wouldnt have entered I mean I could have done alternat ive certification I wouldnt have entered the masters degree program if I didnt want to become a better teacher and be able to communicate those ideas better I felt like I needed to find strategies and ways to be able to communicate those ideas and you know its highly intellectual stuff, Im asking you okay show me ways to make this more comprehensible (G2) What George (I ) wanted out of a teacher education pr ogram were strategies that would make his knowledge more comprehensible to students. He considered his knowledge more advanced (up here, highly intellectual stuff) than that of his students (down here), and he had difficulty communicating that knowle dge. He thought he would be a better teacher if he could communicate his ideas better in the classroom. He used the word communicate twice, emphasizing it once, and the word comprehensi ble three times, emphasizing it once, which indicated the necessity of getting his ideas across to his students. George thought it was important that the teachers knowledge be give n clearly to students and the masters degree program should give him the skills to do that. He resisted much of the methods and content of the teacher education courses in part because they did not provide him with what he considered practical and relevant content for social studies teachers.

PAGE 94

94 Kenneth also believed that social studies t eachers should be taught practical content but through a goaloriented classroom. He described one class that he liked as project based in which the instructor used the first few weeks of the course to explain th e projects, but students were responsible for completing them. The professor who was the head instructor, um, he you know was just like the macro management you now, like he had, all the doc students were working under him and then we were working under the doc students It was like a big pyramid so, and, uh, so I mean and that was it was an awesome experience To be quite honest I probably learned thats one of the classes in undergrad that had nothing to do with my major that I learned the most practical, useful stuff from ( I: You were actually doing it instead of hearing about it.) And Im sure youre making the connection right now what I talked about before is that, Im all relevance like you know I dont feel comfortable teaching my kids in class about stuff that theyre not gonna use (K2) In the excerpt above, the emphasis Kenneth placed on certain words indicated that he found the structure of the class important. He identif ied the structure of the classroom as a pyramid and emphasized the role of the professor (head he he ) as manager and the descending roles of doctoral students and students. For Kenneth, the content was useful which he said reflected his belief ( Im all relevance) that content taught in schools should be what students can use Kenneth believed it was important to structure a class so the goal would include useful content. Like Henry and George, Kenneth also found some of the cont ent in the social studies internship seminar practical. okay, things that she did well, uh a lot of practical stuff in there, uh you know

PAGE 95

95 about getting the jobs and stuff, the resume and cover letter, and talking about people who have been through the process, having other people come in, the guest speakers come in that was awesome (K2) Kenneth emphasized talking to different people and speakers who gave them different perspectives on teaching as a profession. He also empha sized the practical implications of the classthe resume and information for jobs which lean toward a goal oriented structure, the goal being employment. Kenneth be lieved practical and relevant content was useful to him in understanding what it was like in the field of teaching and the job process. William also found something practical and re levant in one of the teacher education courses. Like George, William did not like the social studies methods class but thought writing lesson plans was helpful to him as a teacher. everybody knew that the unit plans werent the sort of thing that we were gonna write when we got to our teaching because theyre so much more in detail um, but I think the general consensus and something that we actually talked about was that if you just made the class um lesson plans 101 then a lot of us would have been happy knowing how to do it what to expect um it was really time consuming to do but it was, it made you analyze how youre going to approach it which I mean Im not the most um organized person in the world so it did help me (W2) According to William, students talked about the lesson plans a nd there was a general consensus that the class should focus on writi ng lesson plans even though they werent going to need so much detail when they became teachers. The lesson plans were really time consuming but they helped William analyze his approach to teaching a lesson and helped keep him organized The lesson plans were also an opportunity for him to focus on the

PAGE 96

96 knowledge he, as the teacher, would give to stud ents when he had his own classroom. Creating lesson plans placed him in the role of teacher and he found that prac tical and relevant. The four participants believed practical and relevant content important. William, Kenneth and George defined practical c ontent as the tools, skills and knowledge they would need as teachers. Henry defined it as content useful to h im as a social studies te acher and the language he needed to get a job. Their resistance in the social studies internship semi nar was due in part to their belief that most of the methods and content used in the class were not practical or relevant to them as teachers. The conn ection between the methods and c ontent from the social studies internship seminar and the decisions they would make as teachers was not apparent to them. Teachers Control Decisions abou t Instruction and Management All four participants believed that decisions about inst ruction and m anagement should be controlled by the teacher. The so cial studies internship semina r was organized around the themes of culturally responsive pedagogy and democratic classroom pr actices. All four participants experienced dissonance in the internship seminar related to democratic classroom practices and the importance of valuing student knowledge in the structuring of classrooms and schools. George believed that democratic classrooms were not possible because schools were not situated in a society in which everyone was equal. He thought the th eory of democratic classroom practices was in real ity egalitarianism, which he de fined as everybody being equal, but he did not define democracy in the same way. Rachels never been one to be a de mocratic classroom manager she has this vision of egalitarianism that isnt, part of the human condition (I: you said something about that during her democracy lesson and I wanted to know what you meant by egalitarianism) egalitarianism is egalitarianism its where everybodys equal

PAGE 97

97 (I: okay and how is egalitariani sm different from democracy?) well everybodys not equal in democracy everybody gets a vote everybodys politically equal supposedly but there are haves and have nots in society where in egalitarianism there isnt everybodys on the same level thats what communisms based on its the classless society which isnt you cant have it its actually, almost the antithesis of democracy (I: okay) well I cant say that its the antithesis to capitalism which our democracy is tied to (G3) When asked to define what he meant by egalitarianism, George said it meant everybodys equal which is not how he defined democracy. Hi s definition of democracy was a capitalist democracy, where everyone appeared to be politically equal because everyone could vote but people were not economically equal. He emphasized that egalitarianism was a classless society, similar to communism and democracy was not classless because that was not possible (you cant have it). According to George, egalitarianism was the antithesis to capitalism and he defined democracy in the United States as being tied to capitalism and inequalityof which the existence of the haves and have nots was proof. The human condition he referred to was the existence of socioeconomic classes, and he a ccepted this as a natural part of democracy. To establish a democratic classroom, where all stude nts were equal, was not possible for George because the human condition naturally created a classbased society where some students would have more than others. Georges belief that education was influenced by a society with an unequal distribution of goods was clarified in his support of academic tracking in schools. I keep hearing relevance and rigor relevance and rigor

PAGE 98

98 well theyre just words whats rigor and relevance to one kid is not gonna be rigor and relevance to another kid or it could be, to a point where its too rigorous and you know, to where theyre disconnecting whereas it could be too rigorous for some body who disconnects and not rigorous enough for somebody else who disconnects thats the problem I have with you know heterogeneous classrooms you know it puts it all you know too much on the teacher to me its cheating the kids to put them in heterogeneous classrooms cause you know its not tracking you can call it tracking or what not, its just that I mean its hard enough you know, in a regular US history class because you have such a varying degree of knowledge and interest and this and that (I: yeah) and then when you throw everybody in then all of a sudden now youre here (indicates with hand a low level) and I just think youre gonna be a much more eff ective teacher here (indicates with hand a high level) and scaffold em up because youre gonna lose the fringes and youre gonnathats why everybody teaches to the middle and you lose the top and you lose the bottom when you teach you know to the middle (G3) George emphasized the need to view relevance and rigor based on the abilities of individual students (compare one kid to another kid). Content that is too rigorous or not rigorous enough could cause students to disconnect, wh ich he considered the students problem (theyre disconnecting) and not the teachers (p uts it all too much on the teacher ). According to George, heterogeneous classrooms where students are mixed academically, are cheating kids since teachers are fo rced to teach to the middle Interestingly, he re fused to use the term tracking to identify the separation of students by academic ability even though that is an accepted term. He said students varying degree of knowledge and interest should guide student grouping, however, the knowledge and intere st students have for a subject is greatly influenced by the teacher. His reference to other reasons for grouping (this and that ) might

PAGE 99

99 refer to the academic ability of students sinc e he later indicated, through placing his hand in a low position or in a high position, the level that teachers would teach for different groupings of students. According to Ge orge, when schools throw everybody in the same classroom regardless of knowledge, interest or ability, the teaching will teach at a lower academic level (here ). He ( I ) believed teachers were more effective when their teaching was at a higher academic level and they would scaffold up students to that level. He did not believe, however, that this could happen in heterogeneous classrooms George believed that schools and teachers should control instruction so students were grou ped based on academic ability or intellectual capability (the top bottom and middle ). He resisted democratic classroom practices because he thought it would mean treating all students as academically equa l and he did not believe this was possible or practical. Kenneth also resisted democra tic classroom practices. His re sistance was due to his belief that students should not be a part of th e important decisions made in schools. (I: You said you werent sure if active demo cracy could be taught in schools, and I was wondering if you would ex pand a little bit on that.) I think my, that comment comes from the fact that youre still gonna have the fi nal say, in your classroom, (I: Oh, okay) so I guess, you can teach it like a United States Republic and be like Im George W. Bush and I can veto what you guys want at any point, but you know, youre still gonna have the final say and youre still in control you know, um so, total ownership is not with the students and so when I say active democracy thats what I mean, whereas, like if you have something that is totally student run, and you just kind of like layoff, you know that would be like teaching about active democracy and stuff like that so I think, like I think the fact that schools are set up in this structure where theres where theres rules that students werent part of the making, you know, and I mean, the students are so far removed from that, and theyre never gonna view it as you know oh my people had ownership in the creation of this institution, you know (K3)

PAGE 100

100 For Kenneth, there were two facts that he claimed prevented active democracy in schools: youre (the teacher) still gonna have the final sa y, in your classroom and the structure of schools is such that there are rules that students werent part of making. He then said if students had something that is totally student run, and you just kind of like layoff that would be teaching about active democracy. His emphasis on the phrases total ownership and totally student run to desc ribe what active democracy should look like excludes the context of democracy. He defined democracy as rule by the people (K3) so act ive democracy would mean shared ownership and shared governance with everyone in a cl assroom and/or school. Kenneth, however, believed students needed a se parate space to experience active democracy, which limited their voice to a pl ace outside the power of schools. He did not recognize students as part of the education system but as a group that was controlled by the system ( rules that students werent part of the making and students are so far removed from that). The phrase my people in his final statemen t emphasized his view of student s as a separate people or group outside the governance of schools. For Kenn eth, schools and the education system were not created to include students in the structure and governance of the institution. He believed in the status quo, whether it was the United States Republic where the teacher has the final authority or the schools where st udents are excluded from govern ance, which is why he vocally resisted the readings on democracy and democratic classroom practices. He believed students should be controlled by schools and not have any role in school administration and rulemaking. Henry also believed teachers controlled decisions about instruction and management in the classroom. His resistance to the methods used in the social studies internship seminar was notable when discussing democratic classrooms. (I: when I observed you in the classroom you did resist a lot of the stuf f that was being said like culturally responsive teachi ng and democratic classrooms)

PAGE 101

101 I dont agree with having stude nts make their rules, chaos will ensue, youthere has to be some sense of order, the teachers in charge (H1) Henry believed good teachers are in control of th e classroom and make the rules. He emphasized the teachers role as the sole authority for the purpose of avoiding chaos which supported his belief that teachers must control the instruction in the classroom. Henry resisted the idea that st udents could be involved in the decisions teachers made about instruction and the management of cl assrooms. Twice during a classroom observation Henry referred to the teacher as king (Observation, February 28, 2007). When questioned about this idea of the teacher/king, he said it was his classroom management style. in order to have an effective classroom management you have to have student participation they have to buy into what youre doing they have to uh, they have to have a say in what youre doing at the same time though the teacher is in control so thats why I have my image which coincides with Dr. Josephs and uh, which is that of a benevolent king or benevolent dictatorship in the fact that students have a voice in their affairs (I: okay) but ultimately the teachers in charge it goes back to the basi c philosophy of a teacher education program you gotta help teachers grow and find their strengths and then use those use those strengths if a teacher is, thats their if that is effective with that par ticular teacher than fine I am most effective doing what I do best and thats more on the lines of Dr. Joseph or, the benevolent dictator (H3) Henry emphasized that his classroom management style was that of the benevolent king or benevolent dictator. As the benevolent dictator he would have to have student participation and give students a say in his teach ing, but for the purpose of having students buy into what he was doing in the classroom. According to Henry, the students have a voice but the

PAGE 102

102 teachers in charge (teacher is in control). He believed this classroom management style was one of his strengths, and he validated it twice by citing a resp ected instructor in the social studies education program whom he believed used this method (Dr. Joseph). Henry explained what methods he used as the benevolent dict ator or king. the image of a benevolent king is still the king no matter what but also gets feedback from the students as, thats just my classroom management and classroom philosophy I did uh weekly surveys (I: okay) it wasI had an index card system and they uh, every Friday I had question time meaning students bring their index cards they could write anonymous comments put em in a box they could write a question and put their name on it and Id answer back on the card to ensure that it just stays between us or they can ask a question and put no name on it and Ill answer that question in class I was getting feedback and the students were writing they are very aware of their own education and thats why I uh getting feedback from them is very important its like the king sitting under the oak tree having the students come to him directly with their individual complaints (H3) Henry emphasized that his classroom management style maintained his role as king but also solicited feedback from students. He explained that he provided weekly opportunities for students to write a question or comment, signed or anonymous on an index card and put it in a box. It should be noted that students had to bring their own index cards and these were not supplied by the ki ng Henry would read the cards and answer either on the back of the card (for signed cards) or in class (for unsi gned cards). He emphasized twice that he was getting feedback from students because they were very aware of their educational needs. This

PAGE 103

103 classroom management method was modeled after a story he heard about a French king from the Middle Ages who, every Sunday, sat by an oak tree and citizens brought concerns to him (Observation, February 28, 2007). Henr y visualized himself as the king whose students came directly to him with concerns. The dilemma that arises with this model is that the king or benevolent dictator is, as Henry said, still the king no matter what. A king or dictator, no matter ho w benevolent, still has the power to ignore questions a nd comments that contradict his philosophy and goals, just as a teacher who models classroom management after a benevolent dictator has the power to ignore student questions and comments th at conflict with his teaching philosophy and classroom goals. Henry resisted democratic classroom practices be cause they did not support his belief that good teachers maintained all control in the classroom. Henry believed good teachers were dynamic l ecturers and used lect ure as the preferred instructional method. His favorite co llege classes were in his majo r program, history, and he said he liked the courses for their ri gor and the instructional style of the professors. According to Henry, both professors were Britis h and used lecture exclusively and his description of the two courses often overlapped. they made the, the lectures were fun to go to for one they were interesting (I: mhmm) because theyre dynamic lecturers [the Caribbean history course] was a very intense course all lecture based and, he was a very dynamic professor he was extremely academic and extremely elite (H2) Henry enjoyed both professors for the same reasons and emphasized their dynamic and interesting lectures He described the Caribb ean history course as intense and the professor as extremely academic and extremely elite. Henry believed good teachers were dynamic

PAGE 104

104 lecturers and used lecture almost exclusively as an instructional method. When asked later to elaborate on teachers as dynamic lecturers, he said, I see teaching as an art its a you are on stage its a performance its aits a glorious art (H3) Henry emphasized his ( I ) belief that the teacher ( you ) engages in a performance that is glorious The classroom becomes the stage where teachers perform, which would mean students are the audience, they view the performance but do not actively partake in their own learningtheir role is to receiv e the teachers performance. This type of instructor could be described as a passionate performer. Henry extend ed the idea of performance to the interview by using a British accent with dramatic flair when quoting the British professors. The interview took place in a moderately crowded coffee shop, which di d not appear to affect his behavior and he was either unaware of inquisitive looks from neighboring customers or did not mind them. This Discourse (i.e., language, gestures, dialect) is important to understanding how Henry perceived the role of the teacher. His Discourse indicated th at he believed teachers control the decisions about management through the role of the be nevolent dictator, a nd the decisions about instruction through the role of the passionate pe rformer, where directed lecture is the only method used. William also admired instructors whose instructional style was passionate and was exclusively lecturebased. He de scribed a college professor of American history whom he greatly admired as a teacher. the one thing I remember the most about it is the the passion that the teacher had, and he, uh, he was so animated and it was, all he did was lecture, thats it, and we had some, some books that we read um, but, all he did was lecture

PAGE 105

105 and youd take notes but IdId find myself listening to him so much that I wouldnt even take notes because I would get so e ngrossed in what he was saying (I: mhmm) it was storytelling but it was, it was so much more analytical I think it was maybe the first time I really connected the past with the present, and it fascinated me (I: Hmmm. Okay) and yes he was a great storyteller again, that animated, he always, pounded on the desk for emphasis (W2) William emphasized the lecture format of the class where students were passively listening and taking notes as the professor was actively animated and pounded on the desk for emphasis. The lecture was analytical but delivered with passion, making the instructor a passionate performer. It was the combinat ion of this instructors passionate storytelling and how he connected the past with the present that fascinated William. Passionate performers must rely heavily on lecture as the instructional method for delivering knowledge to students. Lecture provi des them with both the stage where they can perform what Henry calls their glorious art, and the audience (students) who passively watch their performance. This method of instruction gives the teache r control in the classroom and William believed that good teachers control d ecisions about instruction and management. I lean a lot toward traditional methods with lecture, um and stuff like that but um, I mean as far as like having just rows straight rows and columns across um I cant its hard for me to fathom doing it in a different way you know and, I hear my classmates talk about it all the time and it just doesnt seem right um I guess Im more comfortable in a traditional setting (W 3) William is aware of his preference for traditional teaching methods ( lean a lot toward and Im more comfortable ), including lecture. According to William, the arrangement of the room, desks in rows and columns was so ingrained that he could not fathom doing it a different

PAGE 106

106 way because it doesnt seem right His belief in traditional methods for teaching and structuring his classroom were reflections of how he was taught and the kind of teaching he believed to be best. His favorite teachers were passionate perfor mers and used lecture almost exclusively, which required the traditional classr oom arrangement that placed the teacher as the center. This results in the teacher being in cont rol of decisions about instruction and management and this was reflected in his own teaching. Williams belief that teachers control methods of classroom instruction and management was made more apparent in an in cident he shared from his internship experience in a sixth grade classroom. The Black girls in his classroom accuse d him of being racist because of his higher discipline rate for Black students. I talked to Mr. Smith [cooperating teacher ] about this all the time that, um, one of the biggest problems that I had was, not misbehavior in class but that, the people who acted out happened just to be Black the ones that acted out the most I should say and um, I flat out told him, Im like, you know, sometimes I feel almost relieved when I have to give lunch detention to a White kid so that it appears to be equal um and that was I think the basis of them thinking I was racist (I: so then the behavior of the Black student s in your class, was that disrupting the learning of other students?) yeah thats when it became a problem definitely I and yeah and thats not limited to Black students at all um, it just seemed that the kids that were, problem kids tended more often than not to be Black and thats unfortunate (W3) According to William, the basis for the racist ac cusation was his disciplinary policy (decisions about management). He said, the people who acted out happened just to be Black and it just seemed that the problem kids tended more often than not to be Black and thats unfortunate. He said he was almost relieved when he had to punish a White kid because it appears to be equal. In this excerpt, William did not reflect on his reaction to the behavior of students in his

PAGE 107

107 class based on their cultural belie fs and practices; he blamed the high rate of punishments for Black students on their behavior, saying it was an unfortunate coincide nce (happened just to be Black). Williams decision to use traditi onal methods of instruction and classroom management, which are based on the White, Euro centric, middleclass culture, resulted in expectations of students that were not culturally responsive. His be lief that the teacher controls instruction and management prevented him from reflecting on how his sociohistorical context (the White, Eurocentric, middle class culture of schools and community he identified with) might influence his actions in the classroom such that he might marginalize students of color and reinforce the hegemony of schools. George, Kenneth, Henry and William believed go od teachers controlled the instruction and management of classrooms. George applied societys unequal distri bution of goods to the classroom and thought academic tracking, where teachers and schools controlled the decisions about instruction and management (means of pr oduction), was effective since he believed it served the unequal distribution of knowledge, in terest, and intellectual ability of students. Kenneth wanted to create a place for students outside of schools and classrooms where they could practice democracy because they should not be permitted to particip ate in the important decisions that directly or indir ectly influenced their lives in sc hools. Henrys selfimage of the benevolent dictator gave the appearance of stud ent involvement, but the teacher was still the dictator and the one who made the ultimate decisions about instruction and classroom management. William felt more comfortable in a tr aditionally structured classroom, with desks in rows, and said he used this type of classroom in his internship since it was most effective for lecturebased instruction. All four participants believed in traditional classroom instruction and

PAGE 108

108 management and resisted the c ontent of the social studies in ternship seminar that taught otherwise. Teachers Encourage Students Ideas and Opinions Kenneth and George believed there was a place in the classroom for the ideas and opinions of students, which appeared to co ntradict their belief that teache rs should control decisions about instruction and m anagement. Their definition of whose ideas and opinions should be given greater consideration helped clarif y this contradiction. They descri bed instructors of courses they liked who made discussion an important part of the classroom; however, they both believed the most important ideas and opinions expre ssed in the classroom were their own. One of the classes Kenneth enjoyed most wa s an honors history seminar that examined modern Middle Eastern history. we had, you know, class was fourteen weeks, we had fourteen books to read and you know you went in there and you talked about the book what did you think it was bullshit or do you think it was for real you know, it was just very interesting and the discussion component was awesome because, the way the professor worked is like, you it wasnt him talking at you, it wasnt five hundred people in a lecture hall and him talking and you writing down, it was like, man, you just read a book what did you think (K2) For Kenneth, this class was interesting because it was not the professor talking and students writing what the professor thought was important it was a small group of students (wasnt five hundred people) discussing what they think about a book (was it bullshit or real ) and

PAGE 109

109 that was how the professor worked He appeared to find the sh aring of students ideas and opinions an important element of this class. Kenneths ideas about valuing student voice were made clearer when describing a Scandinavian literature class. He was th e only nonEnglish major in the class. [the instructor] was so cool cause she welcomed me in and said, You know what, I love a fresh perspective, I love what you have to say I think its really valuable because everybody here has their heads buried in plays and stuff like that, and I want to hear what somebody w hos not in that has to say. so you know were talking well well what do you think you know and apart from the saga, what do you think that he meant when you know, he you know murdered you know, his son or something like that I just think he was pissed at his son you know you dont think theres any unde rlying thing there?... no, I think honor was a big deal and he wasnt honorable so his dad offed him, you know thats interesting you know some other people are raising their hands, well I think you know I think it had to do with maybe his dad was insecure about you know, his masculinity or something like that and Im like no you know and I was always like the frank like I think I think they meant what they wrote kind of thing she really valued what I had to say because I was from a different perspective and that was one of the things that really enlightened me to, you know, valuing other perspectives I had a great tim e she thought I had a lot of good things to say and I like, participated like crazy cause thats what I do and so um, she said she really liked having me in class (K2)

PAGE 110

110 In the above excerpt, Kenneth used a derivative of the word value thre e times to emphasize the value his teacher placed on his contributions to class discussion. According to Kenneth, it was the teacher who valued his partic ipation and ideas but there is no indication that other students found his insights valuable. In the first and thir d excerpts, Kenneth focu sed on his relationship with the instructor and how she welcomed him, thought what he had to say was valuable, valued his different perspective, she thought his contributions were important and really liked having him in the class. In his mind, the teacher validated Kenneths knowledge, making it valuable. In the third excerpt, Kenneth said the class enlightened him to valuing other perspectives, but the second excer pt contradicts this assertion. He mimicked what might be considered a class discussion in which Kenneth s perspective was challenged and twice his response was no, meaning he would not consider ideas th at differed from his. He appeared to enjoy this class because his ideas were solicited and valued by the instructor, not because there was a culture of valuing all students, although this might have been the case. Kenneths description of the class indicat es the importance he placed on being valued as a student, but perhaps not necessarily on the valu e of all students. He said he liked this class because students were able to share th eir knowledge and ideas. Based on the excerpt, however, he appeared to believe that his knowledge and ideas were the correct ones, which challenged th e value he placed on student voices that were in opposition to hi s ideas and opinions. He may not value other student input as much as the opportunity to voice his views. Kenneth described two classes he did not like where he belie ved students were not allowed to participate, one a course on medieval histor y and the other the soci al studies internship seminar where observations took place for this st udy. Regarding the instructor of the medieval history course, he said,

PAGE 111

111 he was talking at you, for one, he was disrespectful you were nothing, you know there was no value, you were of no value to him he didnt take attendance and it was just, You shut up and it better be quiet now Im talking and youre listening. (I: all lecture?) yep, all lecture, no questions (K2) Kenneth described this instructor as talking at you, which implied the instructor had the active role and students were passive. He emphasized that the instructor was disrespectful and students were nothing ( no value emphasized twice), making th em nearly invisible. According to Kenneth, the instructors role was to talk (Im talking ) and the students role to listen (youre listening ), so students were to shut up and be quiet In this classroom, knowledge was the sole possession of the teacher and it wa s the students responsibility to acquire that knowledge. This contradicted Kenneths belief that good teachers make room for ideas and opinions from students. Much of what he did not like about the social studies internship seminar appeared to be how the structure of the class created an envi ronment in which students could not share their ideas and opinions out loud. the way Rachel ran class, nobody wanted to mess with her so, itd feel like, okay, its not appropriate for me to talk to somebody else right here, because if you notice its like, before cl ass, everybodys talking, hey, hows it going, whats going on you know we were in our internship so we didnt see each other we missed each other and everything like that it was cool and all of a sudden No talking, tim e for chalk tal k, you know and it was like and so nobody wanted,

PAGE 112

112 everybody just kind of wanted to go through the motions and get through class and not ruffle feathers there were so many components where it was, where she seemed like she was so focused on, it going the way she wanted in terms of the structure of the class rather then what we were getting out of it and thats like, chalk talks, nobody talking right now, you know, (I: Right) and that, and Ill be honest those turned into a joke nobody cared, you know they wrote them in there because they needed to get the grade and that was it if we had, if we had talked to do that would have been totally different and very, very, very beneficial, I think (K2) Based on Kenneths description and his emphasized words, he perceived that student voice was not valued in the internship seminar. As the excerpt indicates, students did not feel like they could talk or socialize, and it (the class) had to follow the instructors plan rather then meet the needs of students. Kenneth de scribed two altercations with th e instructor which he perceived as silencing students (No talking, time for chalk talk, and nobody talking right now). He asserted that if students had talked instead of using chalk ta lks it would have been totally different and very beneficial. Chalk talks are a teaching strategy that us es no verbal interactionall comments are written. One purpose for chalk talks is to provide an opportunity to participate for students who would not normally participate in an oral class discussion. In a chalk ta lk, all students have a voice and are equally recognized through what they have writte n. When Kenneth discussed his Scandinavian literature class, he empha sized the value the instructor placed on his contributions to discussion but did not emphasize how all contribut ions were valued. In fact, he considered his ideas the correct ones over all others. His dislike for chalk talks might be based on their

PAGE 113

113 equalizing powerall ideas are treated equally and given equal voice. His resistance to this method might have been due to his desire to ha ve his ideas considered the most valuable and correct and not equal to all other ideas, which is contrary to the goal of chalk talks. Kenneth resisted the methods used in the social studies internship seminar because he could not assert his views through a tr aditional method of discussion. George also believed good teachers used disc ussion and, like Kenneth, felt the important knowledge he brought with him to the internship seminar was sile nced. Georges favorite college classes allowed students to share their opinions and ideas. One was a political science class that was discussion based and George said used a Socratic method of questioning to study political philosophers. [the instructor] has very uh, radical social ideas but he had this course in political philosophy that he allowed everyone to be able to voice their opinions you know so it was a true democratic classroom (I: mhmm) and he was not judgmental and uh considering he was the most directly pola r opposite ideologically from me he uh he was a talker you know so he lectured a lot but he was also Socratic and he would lecture for twenty minute spurts and then go into these deep discussions and he would really try to get passions involved passions of the students involved his ideas were that people understand the basic political philosophies you know all ranges from everywhere if people understood what that perspective was yet could formulate critically in their own minds uh, how to process all that so thats why I enjoyed that so much (G2) What appeared to interest George in this class was first, the instructors radical social ideas that were polar opposite ideologica lly to his, and second, the discussions that were not

PAGE 114

114 judgmental, which he perceived as a true democratic classroom. According to George, the instructor ( he ) was a talker but he also gave students the opportunity to voice their opinions. The instructor lectured in spurts and then used Socratic questioning in discussions with students. Socratic questioning is a teaching method that uses a series of questions to determine if a partic ular line of thinking or belief is supported. The method may be used in different ways, depending on the pers on doing the questioning, but it usually includes six types of questions that: (1) clarify ideas; (2) probe assump tions; (3) analyze reasons and evidence; (4) explore alternative views and perspectives; (5) explore implications and consequences and; (6) consider why certain questions were asked. It is not meant to be debate but an opportunity to reflect on beliefs and know ledge and to consider other perspectives. Depending on who is leading the questioning, Socratic method can be used to help students analyze their own assumptions and ideas, or it can be used to lead students to certain conclusions that agree with the questioner s assumptions and ideas. Accordi ng to George, the goal of the political science instructor was to initiate passions about the beliefs of many different philosophers (all ranges, from everywhere). Ultimately, however, the professor wanted students to understand the basic political philosophies so they could formulate and process each perspective. Based on Georges description, the professor wanted students to know the different philosophical perspectiv es and think critically about the philosophers beliefs, but it appeared students could leave the classroom w ith their own perceptions unchanged. This might indicate that probing assumptions and exploring implications and consequences (two steps in Socratic method) were not a major focus in this classroom, but these can lead to the critical inquiry and selfreflection n ecessary to disrupt hegemony.

PAGE 115

115 Another class George enjoyed was a history cl ass entitled Cultural Wars, which he said was similar to the political science class. he was a very conservative professor far more conservative than I am it was a lot of talk I mean that particular class it was just the subject material and as well as just a wonderful teacher that was also a three hour class so its impossible to lecture for three hours (I: yeah) so hehe would usually lecture the first half and then hed use Socratic method or questioning um discussion off of peoples comments the second half (G2) It was the subject and teacher that made this class one of Ge orges favorites. To indicate the political positioning of the class, he emphasized that he ( I ) was conservative but this professor was far more conservative He also emphasized the focus on talk Socratic method, questioning and discussion during the second half of class, which appeared to be a method he enjoyed. George described another of his favorite classes that gave students the opportunity to voice their ideas and opinions without judging those ideas or opinions. a young idealistic professor with very concrete views of the literature that we read opinions you know and yet still he allowed you to be able to express your own it was all reflection and critical thinking (I: okay) he would profess his ideas and then hed ask what you thought of that then he would defend his ideas and you would try to strengthen your argument or your i deas through excerpts from the text (G2) In this literature class, the professor had concrete views and opinions of the literature but still allowed students to express their ideas. According to George once the instructor explained

PAGE 116

116 his idea he would ask students what they thought of that which would result in everyone taking and defending positions. It was he against your and the support for all views and opinions came from the text. George emphasized the reflection and critical thinking that was a major part of the class but also the deba te between what the instructor believed was a correct view and what the student believed was a correct view Whether the reflection and critical thinking led to any cons tructive changes in views and opinions on either side is unknown. George said it was not a coincidence that tw o of the classes he really enjoyed were philosophically based. The instructor of the po litical philosophy class wanted to inspire the passions of students with lectur e and Socratic questioning on different philosophers throughout history. His goal was to help stud ents understand and think critical ly about the perspectives and ideas of the philosophers. George liked this class because it al lowed him to voice his opinions and was not judgmental, which could mean it did not challenge students to critically evaluate their own beliefs. The literature class was a favorite for similar reasonsthe instructor allowed students to express their own opini ons. This class leaned more toward debate, with the instructor and students defending their positions. He enjoye d the history class due to the subject matter (culture wars) and the conservati ve teacher. George described inst ructors for the political science and literature classes as libera l in their thinking, and it was thei r willingness to allow student ideas and opinions that made the classes two of his favorites. Whether he enjoyed Socratic questioning that included the fift h step (explore implications and consequences of ideas and beliefs), which could lead to change, or simp ly enjoyed the debate that occurred during the questioning is difficult to assess. He did enjoy classes that allo wed him to state and defend his position on what was being taught. The classes he disliked provi ded further insight into his beliefs about the role of the teacher in the classroom.

PAGE 117

117 As noted earlier, the class that George said he disliked the most was Reading in the Content Area, a graduate level course in his teacher education program. (I: what kind of teaching methods did she use?) some very unstructured group work nobody wanted to do the group work nobody took it seriously so even if you wanted to do it seriously the other three pe ople in your group didnt want to do it seriously so, um, and then she just let it go, and she had other things going on in her life (I: did she do class discussions?) yeah they were just, they were not productive there was just no opinions being brought by anybody so and I did bring out opinions and I wrote long we had this Google group and I wrote long opinions on it and nobody cared so I just said hell with it (G2) George emphasized that the unstructured group work was not taken seriously and students did not want to do the work. Class discussions, which was a method George enjoyed, were not productive because there were no opinions expressed by anybody (except George) because nobody cared While he wrote long opinions in the online discussion, no one wrote back. Unlike his favorite classes, this class did not provide him with opportunities for debate since students did not share th eir ideas and opinions. Georges resistance in the soci al studies methods course wa s due in part to what he perceived as the lack of deep discussion in the course. Rachels not the type of teacher that goes deep in anything I mean, she talks like she wants to but never does (I: right) I think sh e understands it

PAGE 118

118 and wants to talk about it but then, uh for whatever reason she has all these things planned for that day and shes gotta get to em, you know discussion is uh sometimes youve just gotta write the rest of your class off if youre having a good discussion but shell cut it off and end it just as its beginning to blossom because something else was on her agenda (G2) George emphasized twice that Rachel wants to have meaningful discussions and understands the importance of them, but never does engage in discussions. According to George, the reason she did not attempt them in the social st udies methods course was because she had to get to what she planned and a good discussion might require her to change her plan (write the rest of your class off ). He said she would end (cut it off ) a discussion because it was not on her agenda Observations of the social studies internship seminar confirmed Georges reasoningRachel appeared to end discussions when students were fully engaged in them because she needed to move to the next item on her agenda. Discussions, including chalk talks and jigsaws, were often timed and students were required to stop when the time expired. This was frustrating for George because it prevented him from engaging in debate and sharing his ideas and opinions. What appeared to be the underlying problem for George, however, was that his ideas and opinions were not respected in any of the course s in the teacher education program, and when he did respond with viewpoints that opposed the instructors he said he felt marginalized. the thing that really bugged me about everything was that my knowledge base was never, my experiential base was never tapped into (I: okay) you know um the things that Ive done and the jobs that Ive had I dont like to talk about em and, Im not the type of guy thats go ing to take people aside and be some sort of mentor you know,

PAGE 119

119 but there were certain things that I could have certainly added to, you know definitely the global studies class (I: was it in the global studies class that you said you felt the most marginalized?) definitely she would comment on something Id say and then not let me rebut (I: okay) (G1) George emphasized that what bothered him ( me ) was that his knowledge and experiential base was not taken advantage of through class di scussion. He was an older student returning to complete a masters program after working fiftee n years in the business world and felt what he had done prior to entering the program, the jobs he held, provided him with certain knowledge and experience that would have definitely added an additional dimension to the global studies class. George did not like to talk about his experiences, and said he was not a mentor to others less knowledgeable, but was willing to share his knowledge and experience as it pertained to coursework. He felt his knowledge was marginalized in the global studies class when the instructor ( she ) would not let him rebut her response to his comments. George believed good teachers allowed students to voice their ideas and opinions without judgment. This could present problems in a clas sroom where critical inqu iry and selfreflection were important and challenging ideas and opinions is part of the learning process. George had a preference for discussion and what he referred to as Socratic questioning but what also resembled debate in which establishing ones own ideas and opinions was more important than critical examination or understanding the ideas and opinions of others. The classes he enjoyed had some structure in which the instructor l ectured and then led discussion but George considered them all discussion based classes. In the classes he did not enjoy, discussions were unproductive because he was the only one sharing any opinions, there was no debate, the discussions were ended too quick ly, or his ideas and opinions we re not given prominence (they

PAGE 120

120 were marginalized). Kenneth also believed good teachers allow students to voice their ideas and opinions, but he found the discussion method (chalk talks) used by the social studies methods instructor too restrictive because he believed hi s ideas needed to be heard above the ideas of others. As a student who valued voicing his idea s and perceptions and viewing them as correct, Kenneth resisted the idea that all student voices are equal. George and Kenneth believed good teachers allow room for the ideas and opinions of students, but in the internship seminar, they wanted to assert their own ideas and opinions as the correct ones or ones that deserved a place of prominence. Democratic classroom practices, howe ver, does not allow one voice to dominate the class, which helps explains the contradiction between their belief that teachers should control decisions about instruction and management and th eir belief that students ideas and opinions should be shared. Teachers Should Teach Assimilation to the Dominant Group One of the unique Discourses about the role of teachers was that teachers should teach assim ilation to the dominant group. George resist ed the teachings and content in the social studies internship seminar that supported cultu rally responsive pedagogy due to his belief that teaching should help students assimilate to the dominant culture. He thought teachings on diversity and multicultural education divided people instead of bringing them together. there is no melting pot, you know people always wanna accentuate differences in fact, Ive always contested that diversity and multicultural training has always accentuated differences rather than making connections (I: okay so how do we teach the fact that we do have so many cultures) I would teach through geography where do these people come from, where do we come from nobodys from here (I: right)

PAGE 121

121 not even Native Americans are from here, you know and you start there but then accentuate similarities not the differences because you know uh theres no melting pot but theres something to be said for, something of a melting pot there are essential parts of Italian and African American and Irish and, different parts of culture that are now part of the American culture (I: right) that happened naturally you know and it has nothing to do with assimilation but it has to do with being an American and there is an American culture and for a culture for a country for a nation to go forward there has to be a feeling of oneness you know and weve gotten away from that and I think thats the weakness of multicultural education (G3) George believed the weakness of multicultural education was due to the emphasis on differences instead of connections and this hindered the formation of a unified ( oneness ) American culture that could move forward. He said he would teach multicultural education from the perspective of many differen t cultures coming together (through geography where do these people come from, where do we come from nobodys from here). He would then accentuate similarities not differences The only differences he would teach would be the geographical homelands of the vari ous cultures; all other teaching would be about things various cultures had in common. He believed the blending of different parts of culture to create the American culture happened naturally, and is not assimilation but has to do with being an American. However, the culture of any na tion is dominated by the most powerful and, historically, the most powerful in the United St ates have been White, Eurocentric male, middle upper class citizens. The elements of nondominant cultures that have been absorbed into what

PAGE 122

122 George calls American culture were accepted because the dominant group, those in power, thought it beneficial to accept them. According to George, his opinions about dive rsity and multiculturalism were not always well received in the teac her education program. I came in here wanting to talk about all kinds of things and uh just would either A not get to the aspects that I want to talk about or B when I was caught up in the and a lot of this program is caught up in multiculturalism and diversity and uh, equity and all that uh that when I gave a, uh, differing opinion it was, ignored (G2) George felt the kinds of things he wanted to di scuss were not addressed (not get to) or when they were addressed and he gave a differing opinion, he was ignored. He also felt the program was caught up in multiculturalism diversity equity and all that meaning issues that supported ideals that he did not agree with. Statements George made during the interview were often biased against lower so cioeconomic groups, women, certain ethnic groups, and certain religions. When these statements where challe nged he would respond by di recting the interview away from the topic. For example, George fe lt it was important that schools represent the majority population within the community where th ey are located but refused to consider how the minority population might be affected. schools are meant to be a reflection of their communities, and weve made them a reflection of the national um multicultural values rather than if you live in a town where church is the center of the town it only makes sense to have that as part of the curriculum you know andI cant say part of the curriculum but as part of discourse you know cause its something thats very real in peoples eyes (I: whats the difference be tween having it part of a discou rse and having it part of the curriculum?)

PAGE 123

123 I understand what youre saying is protecting minority rights I think were intelligent enough as a society to be able to tell the difference between, um, putting a Christmas tree in a classroom and somebody uh teaching that youre gonna go to hell if you dont believe in god now people are afraid to even say the word god in school I think that hurts society (I: you have maybe Jewish child ren along with children who come from homes who dont believe and possibly even coming fr om Muslim homes and how do you come together in a classroom with all these kids w ith the idea of a Christmas tree ? as a teacher youre setting up this piece which is connected more closely with a specific religion. is that okay when you have students who might not necessari ly be offended but almost left out) exclusion (I: because its not part of th eir beliefs in the same way that you as a conservative in the classroom often felt left out and pushed aside because your ideas didnt coincide with the teachers and the main thinking?) I think its a travesty that religions not taught and if you have Muslim people and you have Jewish people living in the society they should know where the majoritys coming from but again I want to get back to indoctrination (G3) The two main points of this discourse are firs t, the emphasis George placed on the role of Christianity in schools, which he considered the majority re ligion, and second, his refusal to address the issue of ignoring the beliefs of student s when they do not coinci de with the beliefs of teachers or the community. He argue d that if the church is the center of a community, it should be included in the discourse of the school (makes sense). He does not identify which religion the church represented bu t his later reference to a Christmas tree made it clear that he was referring to a church that followed the Christian religion. When questioned as to the difference between curriculum and discourse, George responded with the difference between a Christmas tree (an inanimate object) and somebody teaching that youre gonna go to hell if you dont believe in god. He did not appear to make a connecti on between a teachers actions and the message those actions send to students. In his mind, a Christmas tree was not offensive

PAGE 124

124 because it was not teaching anyt hing in the way a teacher ( somebody ) would. When questioned what a Christmas tree represented and the effect s that might have on students whose beliefs did not support that particular reli gion, George used the word exc lusion but then changed the subject. He said it was a travesty that religion was not taught in schools but again wanted to return to a discussion on indoctrination. Ir onically, the discussion on indoctrination, which occurred much earlier in the interview, involved hi s belief that teacher ed ucation programs were liberal and indoctrinated students to believe the same way, which offended him as a student with conservative beliefs. George believed fear prevented people from including god in school and that hurts society, but the god he referred to was the Christian god. He said he understood ( understand) the issue of protecting minority rights, but also said minorities ( Muslims and Jewish people) should know the beliefs of the majority. He never sugge sted or implied that the majority should know the beliefs of minorities. This reflected Georges ideology, or pol itical beliefs, about education. He did not believe culturally responsive teaching (multiculturalism) was advantageous because it was divisive and not unifying. He also believed schools should reflect the dominant culture within the community regard less of how that might affect minority groups. His unique something of a melting pot, or assimilation, theory about multicultural education appeared to give precedence to the domina nt group and marginalize nondominant groups. Teacher Responsible for Success of all Students But Another of the unique teacher beliefs was Kenne ths resistance to course content based on a noexcuses teach ing philosophy. He wa s required to read a chapter in Leadership for Equity and Excellence by James Joseph Scheurich and Linda Sk rla and responded to the reading in a small group by stating that society is capitalist so some students will fail, or be at the bottom, and it is not the teachers fault. He was asked duri ng an interview to elaborate on this response.

PAGE 125

125 (I: What do you see, or can you explain the relationship between capitalism and what goes on in classrooms?) schools never end up being funded equally and then you give grades and grades, theres a top and a bottom just like capitalism theres rich and poor and a lot of people in the middle and yeah I mean thats kind of the way it the way it ends up and you know the student doesnt have to necessarily get the F you know or the failing grade, but if they get the D or a C because of their ability level, I mean, what do you, you know, theres nothing that you can do about that you can help em and help em and help em and try your best, you know, but, if they dont produce those kind of, you know if they dont produce any results, if theyre not moving, getting any better quality wise then they were, you know, theres not a ton you can do about that and then there are certain I think there are certain things that are outsi de of your control that you cant help if they have a bad home life, you can certainly do your best to try to, control th e damage that is done by that but theres nothing that you, are going to be able to do thats gonna be, you know, probably not, theres probably not much that you can do thats gonna be more powerful than what mom or dad says at home, you know (K3) Kenneth does not believe in a noexcuses teachi ng philosophy, which takes into consideration the factors that contribute to st ud ent failure but does not place blame. In this excerpt, Kenneth first placed blame for failure on a students ability level, saying if they dont produce, if theyre not moving, theres not a ton a teacher can do to help the student. He also blamed a students home lifeif they have a bad home life there is nothing a teacher can do, or there is probably not much that you can do, that will be more powerful than the parents. The emphasis on they and theyre places the responsibility for learning and the blame for failure

PAGE 126

126 on the student. What is most telling about this excerpt, however, is Kenneths application of capitalism to the classroom, teaching, and the edu cation system. He views capitalism as a natural sorting system in which some succeed and some do not depending on their own abilities or other factors, and the teacher is pow erless to change this sorting system. Kenneths belief that capitalism creates schools as na tural sorting machines, where some are going to be on the bottom prevented him from accepting a noexcuses teaching philosophy and believing it was his responsibility to help students overcome some of th e obstacles to their own education. Kenneth established a belief about teaching that allowed him to blame students or circumstances for failure in the classroom, which was evid ent in his resistance to a noexcuses teaching philosophy. I know that specifically with kind of an idealistic fervor in the class where there was a whole lot of talk and a whole lot of readings about, youve gotta reach every kid you know and that I perceived as a big problem it was never explained to anybody that, you know what, as long as you try hard its gonna be cool, you know that was never made explicit it was, oh, youre not reaching a kid, theres something wrong, you know and it needs to be explained more then that okay, theres something wrong and how can we rework this and put our efforts to try get that kid back on track, it was just like youre doing something wrong its your fault its always the teachers responsibility you probably noticed this but, Im sure the reason that I was identified [as resisting] is because from the fall on I was the one who always objec ted to that [idea] (K2) In his discussion of what caused him to resi st in class, Kenneth cited the ideological fervor of the class and the noexcuses teaching philosophy supported through a whole lot of talk and a

PAGE 127

127 whole lot of readings. He believed he was identifi ed as being resistant because of his objections to a noexcuses teaching philosophy. He unde rstood this philosophy to mean youve gotta reach every kid and if not then youre doing something wrong. He ag reed that teachers must try hard, rework the lesson, and focus their efforts to try to get that kid ba ck on track, but he also wanted someone or something to blame (other than the teacher) when a student did not succeed. The readings for the social studies internsh ip seminar (see Appendix B) were based on research from well known educators and expl ained a noexcuses teaching philosophy. The instructor of the social studies methods course was never observed saying teachers were to be blamed for student failure. During an observation Kenneth said the readin gs were too idealistic and reflected the curriculum of the teacher edu cation course, which he said was inappropriate since it taught teachers to th ink everything was their fault and it expected schools to fix everything. Kenneths oppositional statements and re sistance to the readings were due to his belief that classrooms are natural sorting machines, just as capitalism is a natural sorting machine, and there will always be students who fail or do not do well in the classroom regardless of the quality or efforts of the teacher. Kenneth was the only participant who explicitly resisted the content on a noexcuses teaching philosophy, and William was the only participant to give strong evidence of biased beliefs about gender and teachers. Good Female Teachers are Caring a nd Build Relationships w ith Students William believed good teachers had a deep knowledge of content and were good storytellers, however, he also described the female teachers he lik ed as nurturing. None of the male teachers he liked were described as car ing or nurturing. A memory from his fifth grade class helps clarify his beliefs about good female teachers. (I: is there anything in particular that y ou can remember about your elementary years? especially something that might influence you now when you think about teaching?)

PAGE 128

128 well, yeah, I mean, I had some teachers that I really enjoyed being with my fifth grade teacher she took us on a field trip, um just our fifth grade there were, I think, three fifth grade classes and, ours was the one that went on the 3day field trip where we got to like stay overnight it was like at a ski resort crosscountry skiing and, I just remember her classroom for doing stuff like that all the time we put on a play once and some stuff that the other classes never did and, I mean it really stood out in my mind because, she liked doing it and you could really tell she cared about us I remember being in 4th grade and seeing her yelling at a student once out in the hallway and thinking I never want to have that lady as a teacher and then when I got her I absolutely loved her I was so glad that I ended up with her (W1) William remembered this teacher because she was doing stuff that showed she cared His emphasis that she took us, just our ours was the one, and we got to indicated the importance he placed on the caring relationship between the teacher ( she) and the students (we ). William said this teacher really stood out because she liked doing it and it was obvious to him that she cared about us. According to Willia m, a good teacher is caring and incorporates activities and events to show students they are special. Another female instructor William admired taught political science and was passionate about her subject but also built relationships with students. she just had her own style of teaching, again, it was a lot of lecture but, um she had so much fun teaching and you could tell just from her interaction with students I really like that and, uh shes the first college professor Ive ever had that I, Ive had a relationship with like that that I would go talk to (I: Mhmm)

PAGE 129

129 she, she would just voice her opinion no matter what she loved talking to people th at were conservative and stuff like that and would never belittle their view or anything like that but um would let them voice their opinion, and um lay out her side and then let everyone else choose what they, what they felt they should do and thats why I had her for one class, like state politics and then I took her again for a broader political class, um but um she would cultivate pers onal relationships with the swith the people in her class, she always knew us by she called us by our last name, she same thing she just loved what she was doing, she loved talking about it and um encouraged people to get acti ve in politics (W2) William noted the lecture focus of this class but emphasized the fun this instructor had teaching and how this was evident through her interaction with students. He said she loved hearing differing opinions and would never belittle another point of view. This respect for students was also evident in the way she would cultivate personal relationships and she always knew us by out last name. As with his fifth grade teacher, William emphasized the actions of the teacher ( she ) that indicated a nurtur ing attitude. He said this instructor was not only passionate about her subject area (same thing she just loved what she was doing and she loved talking about it) but she also made an effort to show students she cared by making herself available outside the classroom (I would go talk to her). William said this was the first college professor he had a relationship with and in a later interview called her a mentor. Williams fifth grade teacher and his political science teacher, both females, made learning fun and acted in ways that built caring relationshi ps with students. However, he did not perceive the social studies methods instructor, also a female in this way. Interestingly, he said Rachel was not like this in the fall when she ta ught an educational technology class. when we had her in the fall um it started out, she was um, that she was dynamic

PAGE 130

130 I mean shed come in and some things would make you feel a little uncomfortable shed you know come in dressed in a wig and stuff like that its a little weird but you know, itit switched things up but um somewhere along the line um I dont know it went from being, um shes the fun teacher to being she um, its her way or the highway and I dont know for whatever reason a lot of people rebelled against that (W2) William emphasized that Rachel was fun and dynamic in the fall, like the female teachers he enjoyed. He said she made him feel a little uncomfortable but she switched things up, making class more interestingbuilding a relationship with students through what she did in the classroom. That changed, however, and it became her way or the highway. He described his confusion over this by twice stating I dont know and then said students, for whatever reason, rebelled against her. The change in the instructors classroom management style did not support Williams belief that good female teachers are caring and build relationships with students. This was further illustrated in an incident in the spring internship seminar. Wednesday I was taking notes on my laptop and she stopped class William, um can you put that away I cant think of any reason why you might be using it, and then just kept going before I could even respond well, I just kept typing away and eventually when we came to a short break she came up behind me and looked at what I was typing she like, You could have just said you were taking notes Well you didnt give me the chance to, Rachel so, um, her classroom management seems to me to change to evolve to a point where its assumed that people are doing something wrong and disruptive and deal with it, sometimes um confrontationally (W2) According to William, the instructor assumed he was taking class time to do something other than class work. When Rachel did not give him the chance to respond to her request, he

PAGE 131

131 continued the behavior but took responsibility for his actions ( I just kept typi ng). His response to continue the behavior can be considered an act of resistance since he deliberately challenged the authority of the teacher and admitted that was what he was doing. During the break, the instructor came up behind William, possibly to see what he was doing on the laptop, and found he was taking notes According to William, the instructor did not apologize but instead blamed him for not telling her that he was taking notes He said her classroom management style seemed to evolve from a more constructive and positive style to a more authoritative style (assumed that people are doing something wrong), and William found this strict disciplinarian classroom management style sometimes confrontational. In the descriptions of the two female teach ers William admired, he emphasized their caring natures and how they worked to bu ild relationships with students. He did not do this with any of the male teachers whom he appeared to admire almost exclusively for their lecture performance and passion for the subject they taught. His fi fth grade teacher, a female, was admired and remembered for the special activities she created for students outside of the classroom. And the political science professor, also female, was ad mired not only for her passion for her subject area but also for building personal relationships with students by remembering their names and making herself available to them outside the classroom. Williams emphasis on the caring aspect of the two female teachers he admired might indicate he believes good female teachers are nurturing in addition to knowing th eir content area and loving what they do. He did not view the instructor of the social studies internship seminar as nurturing or fun, although she was when he had her in the fall technology class. The change in her way of teaching, from the fun teacher to the strict teacher, and his belief that good female teachers are nurturing and build student relationships, may have helped escalate the resist ance to the methods and content of the class.

PAGE 132

132 His acts of resistance during the laptop incident might be considered cu ltural resistance, not counter resistance, because he wa s resisting a power structure es tablished by the instructor. His reasons for resistance, however, appeared to be for the purpose of mainta ining his belief that female teachers are nurturing and build relationshi ps with students. This contradiction will be discussed further in the next section. Cultural Resistance and the Role of the Teacher The participants engaged in what is called in this study counterr esistance when they resisted m ethods or content meant to create dissonance and disrupt hegemony in teaching and schools. Participants also, however, engaged in wh at can be called cultura l resistance due to the instructor of the social studies internship semi nar using rigid classroom management and due to the handling of the studentteacher relationshi p throughout the program. Cultural resistance is when oppositional behavior by students works to disrupt the White, Eurocentric, middleupper class culture reflected in most U.S. schools. The students cultural beliefs conflict with the cultural beliefs of schools and classrooms, and students might express their discontent through resistant behavior, as appeared to be true of William and Kenneth. Teachers should not Micromanage Classrooms When W illiam complained of the change in the way Rachel taught class between the fall and spring semesters, he indicated the strictness th at was used in the spri ng class that was not evident in the fall. (I: what was it about that cl ass that you did not like?) I dont know I guess the strictness of it there was, it seemed like there was an expectation to be um, creatively thinking a lot of the time but at the same time we were expected to doto toe the line on everything up to and including the way we presented ourselves in class

PAGE 133

133 um it was and I think I said this to you last time a lot of the class was kind of a rebellion against Rachel more than the content of the class According to William, the expectation of the class, to be creatively thinking, conflicted with the demand that students toe the line on everything He perceived that the demand on students to adhere strictly to classroom expectations prev ented the critical thinki ng expected of students. He believed this strictness resulted in resistance (rebellion ) to the instructor more than the content Kenneth also complained about the strictness of the class. the other thing I disliked about the [methods] class obviously the structure was so rigid at times that you just, you know it was like you didnt feel like you could, ask questions or do anythingI mean I got snapped at several times you were you saw me get snapped at and Im like, Im not an unruly type of person or anything um you know, like when I was outside the circle and I was, oh, cool, I can see. nope in the circle. whoa! whoa, you know there were so many components where it was, where she seemed like she was so focused on, it going the way she wanted in terms of the structure of the class rather than what we were getting out of it Kenneth emphasized the rigid structure of the internsh ip seminar and how he felt uncomfortable asking questions. He said he was snapped at for sitting outside the circle during a class activity and the observation that day confirmed his description. The circle of 29 students was large and Kenneth chose to sit behind another student but the in structor did not like that arrangement and demanded the desks be moved so he could sit in the circle. Kenneth felt the instructor was more concerned that the many components of the class follow her structure (focused on it going the way she wanted) rather than what would be best for student learning. Both William and Kenneth believed good teacher s control th e instruction and management of classrooms, but resisted when the instructor of the internship seminar did this in her

PAGE 134

134 classroom. For William, this may have been due partly to his belief that good female teachers are nurturing and build good relationships with students, and he did not define the methods instructor as a good female teacher. Kenneth ma y have felt the control excluded any student input, even in the smallest ways like where a stud ent sat, and he believed his ideas and opinions should be asserted in the classr oom. The strictness of the class ma y have escalated their acts of resistance. Based on the methods and content of the class, it appeared the in structor was intent on disrupting hegemony; however, observations indicat e that her reliance on rigidly timed activities created an environment that was so strict part icipants felt uncomfortable asking questions or feared retribution for the way they behaved in class. An instructor who reinforces her agenda through rigidly timed activities is maintaining the current culture of schools in which the teacher holds power over student learning and movement. Williams and Kenneths resistance to the strictness of the class appeared to be cultural re sistance because it worked against the traditional culture of classrooms. William also believed the re sistance in the class was due to a classroom culture that lacked trust betw een students and teacher. Teachers should Maintain Trust in StudentTeacher Relationships Trust in s tudentteacher relationships was important to William and he expressed deep disappointment in how that trust was violated by the instructor of the social studies internship seminar. According to William, the instructor consistently referred what she perceived as misbehaving students to college administrators without investigating th e incidents or speaking with the students. This element of classroom ma nagement can reinforce the hegemonic hierarchy of schools and the powerlessness of students. Willi am said his resistance in the internship seminar was due mainly to the lack of trust be tween students and teacher and that resulted from events during the fall semester.

PAGE 135

135 in the fall she overheard a conversation between me and another student we were in class and um getting ready to leave I dont remember exactly what had happened with him that prompted the whole thing but he was pretty upset about it I mean, it was about another instructor actually, the um the other student I was talking to had a particular complaint and um, he was just venting to me and I was listening and I was, yeah, you know I agree, you might be right and just along those lines and, I was just there and the next thing I knew I was called into Dr. Boysons office and that to me was just unacceptable you had to be careful because it wasnt worth the it wasnt worth the pain in the butt to uh to um say something that might thats just gonna cause you problems later on (I: was there any time during the conversation, or after it, or prior to getting the email, when you might have thought this conversation was inappropriate?) um I looked over and I saw Rachel there and I thought, maybe this isnt the best pl ace to talk about this, (I: okay) um but, she seemed absorbed in what she was doing and I really didnt pay much attention to her inappropriate? at the place ? yeah probably, I mean its the sort of thing that you should ta lk about outside of class class was over, by the way (W2) The conversation between William and the other student took place in class when they were getting read y to leave. Th e other student was talking and venting but William perceived his role as more passivehe was just there listening and verbally agreei ng with the students statements (I agree, you might be right). During the conve rsation with the other student, he questioned the appropriateness of the place for this discussion (he deliberately looked at Rachel but she seemed absorbed ) and said maybe it was not the best pl ace. His indecision was not

PAGE 136

136 with the topic of the conversation (another instructor) but with the place (the classroom) where the conversation was being held and the possibility of being overheard. The thought that they would be reported to the associat e director of the department (Dr. Boyson) probably did not enter his mind since he viewed it ( that ) as unacceptable to do so. Ultimately, William believed this incident, and others like it, disr upted the trust between students and teacher, and students in the internship seminar had to be careful they did not say anything that might cause problems later. He recalled other incidents reported to administrators that he felt undermined the student teacher relationship but also admitted that his own behavior often disrupted class. I did something extremely stupid a month or so ago where I was so tired and, and I did something disrespectful and because I did it the way I did it I called Karens cell phone and to get it to ring and anyway (I: you did it during class?) I did it during class but the thing was I know this sounds dumb but Rachel wasnt in my thoughts when I did it at all I was tired I was trying to make Karen laugh and the fact that I didnt think about Rachel is disrespectful in itself but um and I just pushed it a little too far not to mention I mean I make sarcastic comments and Im trying to keep things light fo r people in there the best I can and I go overboard sometimes I know it um Ive on occasion Ive apologized for it and Ive stopped doing that all together but (I: did you apologize fo r the cell phone thing?)

PAGE 137

137 um no she sent me an email saying it wasnt appropriate and uh but I mean I knew that so the fact that it was copied to Dr. Hunter kind of irked me a little bit so no I didnt apologize although uh, maybe in retrospect I mean that was probably the worst thing I did in any of the classes so maybe I should have but Dr. Hunter didnt say anything to me about that but with other people, yeah I hear that theyll get called in you know you did this and like well Rachel didnt say anything to me about it I just I didnt realize anything was wrong until I get called by the higher ups and thats just, a method of instruction that I dont agree with at all (W3) When describing an incident where he was at fault, William emphasized I three times, which placed responsibility for the action on himself. Later, he emphasized I four times when discussing some of his behavior that went too far. His willing ness to take responsibility for behavior that might he considered disrespectful or that could have pushed it a little too far indicated his ability to see the role he play ed in the development of the studentteacher relationship. When explaining why he behaved in this way, he admitted to the dumb nature of his actions and the reasons behind them ( Rachel wasnt in my thoughts, I was tired trying to make Karen laugh). He considered the cell phone incident his most disrespectful act toward a teacher but he admitted he did not apologize for disrupting class, although in retrospect maybe I should have. Looking back on the incident, he said the fact that he did not think about the instructor before the incide nt was disrespectful, but the fact that the program chair was copied on the disciplinary email irked him. It appears that William believed teachers should be respected, but they are also responsible for building a studentteacher relationship that includes trust. The consistent reporting of st udent behavior problems to the higher ups was a method of

PAGE 138

138 instruction that William strongly disagreed with and eroded the trust William believed teachers should have with students. According to William, the lack of trust betw een students and instructor also inhibited classroom learning. it got uncomfortable when wed sit in our small groups and, you always felt like you could be open and honest with the people that youre with because youre friends with them but then when Rachel would come over and sit next to you to find out you know whats going on then you had to, go back to all right, by the book and everything along those lines so, and that was tangible I mean you could you could see it (W2) In observations, changes in group dynamics we re noted during small group discussions when Rachel was present. Even when discussions we re on task, students often became silent or the discussion faltered when the instructor joined the group. William felt the instructors presence during small group discussions was uncomfortable and prevented an open and honest discussion. He emphasized that students were comfortable with each other because they were friends but when the instructor joined them they felt compelled to go by the book. According to William, his acts of resistance in the social studies internship seminar were due mainly to the erosion of trust between the students and teach er, something he valued in the studentteacher relationship. He believed Rachel created an au thoritarian culture in the classroom and used management techniques that disrupted the trust with students. By doing th is, she reinforced the hegemonic hierarchy of schools a nd the powerlessness of students which appeared to be why William engaged in acts of resistance in the social studies internship seminar.

PAGE 139

139 Finale Participants engaged in two t ypes of resistance, counter a nd cultural. They engaged in counter resistance when they resisted content and m ethods that c onflicted with their beliefs about the role of the teacherteacher is the source of important knowledge, important knowledge is practical and relevant, teachers control decision s about instruction and management, teachers encourage students ideas and opinions, teacher should teach assimilation to the dominant group, teacher is responsible for the success of a ll students but, and good female teachers are caring and build relationships with students. These beliefs about the role of teachers maintain hegemony. They engaged in cultural resistance when they opposed actions by the teacher that appeared to maintain hegemonyteachers shou ld not micromanage classrooms and teachers should maintain trust in stude ntteacher relationships. Resist ance can be better understood by insights into participan ts ideology about education, which is explained through the connection between sociohistorical contexts and beliefs about the role of teachers. Pa rticipant ideologies are examined in chapter five.

PAGE 140

140 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS The purpose of this study was to better unders tand student resistan ce by White students in a secondary social studies inte rnship sem inar for prospective teachers. Student resistance has been described as oppositional behavior by stud ents whose cultures are not represented in classrooms and schools (Anyon, 1981; CochranSmit h, 2004; Dance, 2004; Devine, 1996; hooks 2002; McCadden, 1998; McLaren, 1986, 2003; Mi ron & Lauria, 1995; Willis, 1988). More recently, however, instructors who teach classes on diversity and ethnic studies witnessed White students from the privileged group resisting the content presented in the classroom (Davis, 1992; Haddad & Lieberman, 2002; Hunter & Nettles, 1999; McFarland, 2001; Middleton, 2002). This presents a unique problem for teacher e ducators since the student population in many schools is becoming more diverse but the pool of prospective teachers is still predominantly from the privileged groupWhite, Eu rocentric, female, and middleupper class (CochranSmith, Davis & Fries, 2004; Gay, 1997). Resistance by pr ospective teachers to methods and content many teacher educators believe to be essentia l for effective teaching in schools, and more specifically culturally diverse schoo ls, could result in poor teaching of culturally diverse learners and the reinforcement of hegemony in schools. There is little research on resistance by White prospective teachers in teacher education programs, but what does exist indicates reluctance by White pr ospective teachers from the privileged group to change practices that they be lieve were effective in their own schooling (Grant & Gillette, 2006). They al so have difficulty accep ting criticism of their practices and hold certain biases and stereotype s about students who are me mbers of minority groups (Grant & Gille tte, 2006). Even among prospective teachers who agree that multicultural teach ing is necessary, there is little understanding as to what that means or how to go about doi ng it (Middlet on, 2002). When

PAGE 141

141 classrooms teachers attempted to decenter cultural norms and teach a culturally diverse curriculum, they found this created discomfo rt and cognitive dissona nce among students (D avis, 1992; Haddad & Lieberman, 2002 ; Hunter & Nettles, 19 99). Their findings are confir med in this study of student resistance engaged in by White prospective teachers. Critical theory was used to un derstand what explains resistance among prospective teachers. A critical theory framework was ch osen because student re sistance is a concept grounded in that theory. Four participants were selected based on observations of what ap peared to be resistant behavior in the social studies internship seminar. There were three observations of the class prior to selecting participants and two ob servations following the selection. The first thre e observations focused on identifyin g acts of resistance by students; the re maining observations focused on the four participants interactions with the instructor, with each other, and with their peers. There were also three interviews with each participant. Interviews focused on participants sociohistorical context, their beliefs about teachers, and explanations of th eir reactions to and behavior in the internship seminar. The data were presented on multiple occa sions to a small group of qualitative methodology researchers (professor s and doctoral students) for peer review. Analysis began with th e observation data, and Hatchs (2002) inductive analysis method was used to identify patterns of resistant behavior for the purpose of sele cting participants. Once participants were selected, Faircloughs (1995) critical discourse analysis method was used to analyze interviews and observations, in order to id entify the codes of Discourse that might explain the ideology of student resisters and their reasons for resisting. Codes of Discourse are the rules people follow that help them to identify with ce rtain social groups or networks (i.e., rules of language, values, beliefs, mannerisms, interactions, gestures, symbols, tools, dress, and location). Participant interviews were analyz ed individually and then compar ed for similar an d unique codes

PAGE 142

142 of Discourse, (i.e., teachers have the important knowledge, teachers control decisions about instruction and management, teache rs are responsible for the success of students but). From these codes of Discourse and the sociohistorical context of participants, the ideology of the participants emerged. The codes of Discourse were first identifi ed as either counter or cultural resistance, and then identified as shared or uni que. Of those identified as counter resistance, four were shared beliefs and three unique beliefs All seven beliefs served to maintain and/or reproduce the hegemony of schools and classrooms. Of those identified as cu ltural resistance, one was a shared belief and one a unique belief, an d both attempted to disrupt the hegemony of the classroom. Explaining resistant behavior us ing Faircloughs (1995) method of analysis requires considering the social context and histories of particip ants and where the re sistance took place. Explaining Resistance through Ideology This study was designed to answ er the following questions: What explains resistan t behavior among prospe ctive teachers in an internship seminar? What factors shape resistance? o How is resistance escalated? o How is resistance diminished? Explanations for resistant behavior can be understood through partic ipants ideology about education. Ideology is defined in this study as political, economic, or cultural beliefs that maintain or disrupt hegemony in education or so ciety. Examining the sociohistorical context of the participants, as presented in chapter four, and the participants beli efs about the role of the teacher helped explain their ideologies and reasons for resistance. Based on their sociohistorical contexts, the four participants have some similarities. They all attended predominantly White schools and had predominantly White teachers until they reached college. The communities they lived in were also predominantly White and they all

PAGE 143

143 enjoyed membership in the dominant group in th eir communities and schools. Their secondary schools were located in middle or middleuppe r class communities and offered advanced placement courses, of which all f our of them took advantage. They were also all involved in extracurricular activities, specifica lly athletics. The differences in their sociohistor ical contexts are most evident in their family lives. Both Ke nneth and George had two parents with college degrees, Georges father having a Ph.D. and bei ng employed in the education system. Henry had one parent with a college degree, and Williams mo ther had one year of college. Studies indicate that students with parents who have a college de gree are more likely to graduate from college (American Council on Education, 2002; Sewell & Shah, 1968). With this in mind, Kenneth and George had the greatest educational advantage. William had the least advantage and this may have contributed to why he did not do as well in school (Caverage gr ades) and why he later dropped out of college. William was also the onl y participant whose elementary school was located in a rural area and working class comm unity, which may have given him less advantage academically (Anyon, 1981). The other three participants attended elementary schools similar to their secondary schools. George and Kenneth desc ribed bias in their communities against people of color (African Americans and Hmong respectively), and they both appe ared to accept these biases. None of the participants were aware of the advantages they had that led to a more privileged education. William thought his success in college was due to the military, where he gained self discipline, but he never viewed his secondary school, with its th eater, Olympicsized pool, large resource center for students, modern gym that students could use at any time, and advanced placement courses, as an advantage. Kenneth did not recognize the role his mother played in his educationshe had two masters degrees and work ed in the school system. He was unaware of

PAGE 144

144 the advantage he had in an elementary school th at had a computer lab and gifted and talented programs. He had the advantage of advanced pl acement programs and an athletic scholarship, but said his success in college was due to his workingclass work ethic. Henry believed his success in college was due to self motivation, not the he alth sciences magnet school he attended where he took advanced placement courses or the numerous extracurricular activities he had to choose from. His father had a masters degree an d his parents encouraged him to attend college, but a statesponsored scholarship paid for his tuition. Both of Georges parents had college degrees. His father had a Ph.D. and worked as superintendent of schools, but George did not view this as an advantage. He believed his success in college was intrinsic and due more to self motivation than the advanced plac ement courses he took in high sc hool or the constant attention his parents and older siblings gave to his education. None of the participants considered the fact that money was not an issue for their families as an advantage that students in other socioeconomic groups may not have, or that the education level or knowledge of their parents helped them gain entrance into higher educatio n. They were blind to the advantages their middleupper class school environm ents gave them that are ofte n missing in schools located in high poverty and working class communities. These advantages were invisible to them, possibly accepted as the norm, and contributed to their idea s about people and schools different from what they experienced. The sociohistorical context of each participant, and especially their experiences in schools, helped construct their ideology. According to Fa irclough (1995), ideology is often disguised as common sense and can only be uncovered by identifying the power re lations the ideology attempts to maintain or disrupt Faircloughs (1995) method of critical discour se analysis helped identify the codes of Discourse for the purpose of explaining the educational ideology of student

PAGE 145

145 resisters in the internship seminar. Ideologically, all four participants believed in maintaining the hegemony of the White, Eurocentric, middleupper cl ass culture of schools. This should not be surprising since they were all strongly grounde d in that same school and community culture. Their ideology was best explained when they define d what they perceived to be the role of the teacher. Table 6 represents their beliefs about the role of the teacher that helps explain their counter resistance in the classroom. Table 6. Counter resistant beliefs about the role of the teacher William Kenneth Henry George Teacher is source of important knowledge Teacher is source of important knowledge Important knowledge practical and relevant Important knowledge practical and relevant Important knowledge practical and relevant Important knowledge practical and relevant Teacher controls decisions about instruction and management Teacher controls decisions about instruction and management Teacher controls decisions about instruction and management Teacher controls decisions about instruction and management Shared Beliefs Teacher encourages students ideas and opinions Teacher encourages students ideas and opinions Teachers should teach assimilation to the dominant group Teacher is responsible for success of all students but Unique Beliefs Good female teachers are caring and build relationships with students Table 6 organizes the counter re sistant beliefs of participants by each participant and whether it is a shared or unique belief. This representation is helpfu l in understanding the codes of Discourse that might explain the ideology of each participant and the reasons for resistance. Teacher is Source of Important Knowledge W illiam and Henry believed that teachers were the source of important knowledge, which reinforces Freires (1993) ba nking method of teaching where the instructor has possession of the

PAGE 146

146 knowledge and deposits it through lecture into the minds of students. At some point, the instructor withdraws the knowledge through various assessments and determines if the student has the knowledge valued by the instructor. This ideology maintains the hegemony of schools as places where knowledge from those in power, the do minant class, is passed on to students who then accept it as fact, thereby reproducing th e hegemonic ideology in their own lives. Henry believed the professors the chief and should control all aspects of the classroom, and William thought student participa tion in the classroom interrupted instruction, or the delivery of important knowledge. The social studies methods in structor used instruct ional activities, like chalk talks, small group discussions, and jigsaws which resulted in important knowledge being shared between the students and teacher. Demo cratic classroom practices also support giving students a voice in the classroom, which William and Henry resisted since that would allow student knowledge a place of importance. Henrys and Williams resistance to the content and methods of the social studies inte rnship seminar might be due to th eir belief that the teacher has the important knowledge and students should not be involved in the creation of knowledge. Their ideology maintained the hegemony of the dominant group and the White, Eurocentric, middle upper class culture of schools. Important Knowledge is Practical and Relevant All four participants believed the teacher education pr ogram should teach practical and relevant content, which they defined as the know ledge and skills they would need as social studies teachers. William found the lesson plans help ful because they prepared him to think like a teacher and to determine the important knowle dge he would teach in the classroom. Henry thought practical and relevant co ntent should give him knowledge to teach social studies and the language to navigate job interv iews. George defined practical and relevant knowledge as the tools he needed to communicate his knowledge a nd ideas to students so they could comprehend

PAGE 147

147 them. Kenneth believed practical and relevant knowledge was goaloriented, and that goal was employment. The definition of important knowledge as practical and relevantthe knowledge and tools needed to gain employment as a teacher and to teach social studiesrelegated content that did not meet that definition as unimportant to teaching. In the internship seminar this included content related to cultur ally responsive classr ooms, democratic classroom practices, and a noexcuses teaching philosophy. The only participant who found this content relevant was Henry and that was because it equi pped him with the educational buzz words he needed for job interviews. Participants resisted much of the content taught in the social studies internship seminar because they perceived it as impractic al, irrelevant and in opposition to their own ideology about education. Teachers Control Decisions About Instruction and Management The four participants also believed that te achers control decisions about instruction and m anagement, but for different reasons. George believed teachers needed to control instruction because students have different levels of knowle dge, interest, and academic ability. Because of this belief, he supported tracking in which students are placed with those of their own ability level. This not only maintains but reproduces a class culture in which those with less usually receive less. Students whose families can afford reading materials, computers, and regular vacations usually perform better academically than those who do not. George may have resisted teachings on democratic classroom practices be cause they opposed his fundamental belief that students are not equal. He defined democracy as a way of governance that was controlled by capitalism, in which there would naturally be an unequal distribution of wealth. George viewed knowledge and intellectual ability as naturally unequal among students but never identified what factors might contribute to this inequality. His access to schools that provided him with certain privileges, like advanced placement courses, and the fact that his father was school

PAGE 148

148 superintendent did not appear to him as an advantage or priv ilege that influenced his own education. Kenneth believed students should not be a pa rt of the important decision making that occurs in classrooms and schools. He recommen ded a space outside of the governance of schools for students to practice active democracy. These spaces are rare, however, since even student run newspapers and studentorganized events are monitored by school administrators or teachers. Kenneth said schools were not created to include students in the decisionmaking, so finding a separate space within this exclusionary structure w ould be difficult. Like George, Kenneth may have resisted democratic classroom practices because they would give students a voice and power in the decisions about instruc tion and management of classrooms and schools, and he believed that violated the role of the teacher. Henry said chaos would result if students we re included in decisions about instruction or management. His believed the teachers in charge and viewed himself as a benevolent dictator, which he thought an appropriate approach to cla ssroom management. Any dictator, benevolent or tyrannical, is st ill a dictator and works to maintain his own power and the hegemony that reproduces that power. Henry admitte d that he did not read the material for the social studies internship seminar, but his belief in the teacher as the benevolent dictator would contradict democratic classroom practices and may have resulted in resistant behavior. Henry equated democracy with chaos, or anarchy, whic h is why he believed classrooms needed to be dictatorships, where teachers ruled as dictat ors. He did not view students as having the compassion or intelligence to engage in the governance of classrooms. Based on his view of democratic classroom practices, he defined students as lawless, unruly creatures who would take any opportunity to participate in the governance of classrooms as an opportunity for inflicting

PAGE 149

149 damage and creating chaos. His belief that democr acy was equivalent to chaos defined his belief about the role of teachers as dictators. William was uncomfortable in any classroom se tting that was not the traditional lecture format with rows of desks where students absorbed the important knowledge of the teacher. His belief in teaching as a passionate performance reinforced his need for in structional methods and classroom management that controlled the inst ruction and the movement of students. William resisted democratic classroom practices and me thods used in the social studies internship seminar because they opposed his belief that te achers control decisions about instruction and management. The belief that teachers control d ecisions about instruction and management in classrooms maintains the hegemony of schools as places where the movement and activities of students are controlled because st udents are considered too immatu re and irrational to understand how schools function or to participate in the administration of classrooms. Teachers Encourage Students Ideas and Opinions George and Kenneth believed teachers should en courage students ideas and opinions in the classroom, which appears to contradict thei r belief that teachers control decisions about instruction and management. Th e value they placed on student s ideas and opinions, however, was directly connected with the belief that their ideas and opinions shoul d be asserted in the classroom. Kenneth valued his own voice in the classroom as the most important but did not value the perspectives of others even though he believed they shoul d be shared. His resistance in the internship seminar might be explained by the methods used fo r discussion (like chalk talks) that prevented any one voice from being asserted as dominant. George valued his own ideas and opinions and thought they should be welcomed in the classroom, but did not want them challenged. He enjoyed debate bu t was not open to critical refl ection. His resistance might be due to his perception that productive discussion (debate) did not take place in the classroom and

PAGE 150

150 when it did, his ideas were marginalized. This belief that teachers should encourage students ideas and opinions in the classroom maintained hegemony because Kenneth and George believed some ideas were more valuable than others and should be asserted more prominently. The absence of critical reflection and valuing of ot her perspectives also helps maintain hegemony. This Discourse reflected an ideology that ga ve power to some voices and not to others. Teachers Should Teach Assimilation to the Dominant Group The three unique Discourses se rved to m aintain the hegemony of the privileged class in very specific ways. George believed teacher s should teach assimilation to the dominant group and not follow the teachings of culturally res ponsive classrooms or multicultural education, which may have explained his resistance in the social studies internship seminar where these ideas were taught. He believed teachers should teach similarities between different cultures and not focus on differences; however, he also belie ved schools should reflect the culture of the community. If the dominant religion in a community was Christian, George believed Christianity should be reflected in the school whether or not there were students and families whose religious beliefs differed from the dominant religion. He claimed he wanted teacher s to teach similarities between cultures but supported teaching assimila tion to the dominant culture. This ideology reinforces the hegemony of the White, Eurocen tric, middleupper class culture of schools and could be detrimental to students whose cultures differ. Teacher is Responsible for Success of all Students But Kenneth res isted the content in the social st udies internship seminar that focused on a no excuses teaching philosophy. He believed teachers could not expect all students to succeed because there were circumstances outside of their control, like an unsupportive home life or a lack of academic ability on the part of the student While he said teachers should always make an effort, he also believed others co uld be blamed for the failure of students and expected some of

PAGE 151

151 his students to perform poorly. This belief was based on his defi nition of schools as capitalist societies where some students will naturally have more advantages and intellectual ability than others. He did not take into consideration the political, economic and social factors in place that produce an unequal and inequitable education system, like the level of unemployment or underemployment in a community and how that directly affects the funding of schools. His ideology maintains a power structure in which students from a higher socioeconomic group are likely to excel because they have the supports in place to help ensure their success, whereas less economically advantaged students may not have those supports, but the socioeconomic factors are invisible to him. Furthermore, his ideol ogy encourages teachers to reproduce that power structure by providing them with excuses for students who fail. Good Female Teachers are Caring a nd Build Relationships w ith Students What appeared to be the only obvious Discour se on gender bias was Williams belief that good female teachers are caring and bu ild relationships with students. He applied these attributes to two female teachers that he liked but not to the instructor of the social studies internship seminar. He also did not apply this to any of the male teachers who taught the classes he liked. His resistance in the social studies internship semi nar may have been due in part to the instructor not fulfilling his belief that good female teachers ar e caring and build relationships with students. The counter resistance codes of Discourse indicate that all four participants followed an ideology based on the culture of the White, Eurocentric, middleupper class, which is also their own culture. William added the element of male to that ideology based on his belief that female teachers are caring and build relationships with st udents. Their resistance in the social studies internship seminar might be explained by the in structors content (i.e., culturally responsive pedagogy, democratic classroom practices, a noex cuses teaching philosophy) and methods (i.e., small group discussions, chalk talks, and jigsa ws) that decentered the White, Eurocentric,

PAGE 152

152 middleupper classroom culture, with which they identified. Their resistance might also be explained by their belief that knowledge should be practical and relevant, and by that they meant a teachereducation program should teach the knowl edge and tools necessary for teaching social studies and finding employment. The codes of Discourse related to cultural resi stance were not as numerous, yet they were important for explaining why resistance escalated. Cultural resistance in the classroom occurs when the instructor attempts to maintain hegem ony in the classroom and participants resist her actions. The cultural resistant codes of Discourse are shown in Table 6. Table 6. Cultural resistance beliefs about the role of the teacher William Kenneth Shared Beliefs Teachers should not micromanage classrooms Teachers should not micromanage classrooms Unique Beliefs Teachers should mainta in trust in student teacher relationships Table 6 organizes the cultural re sistance beliefs of two particip ants and whether they were shared or unique beliefs. This representation is helpful in understanding the ideology of each participant and possible e xplanations for their resistance. Th ese beliefs are considered cultural resistance because the teacher is maintain ing hegemony through her position of power and students are acting in ways to disrupt hegemony. Teachers should not Micromanage Classrooms W illiam and Kenneth believed the social studies internship seminar was too strict and rigid in its structure. They both agreed that the in structor micromanaged the class and was more intent on following her agenda than taking time to consider the needs of her students. Observations confirmed that the instructor di d follow a strict time schedule for classroom activities and often ende d them when students were fully en gaged. Rachel also recognized her role in directing discussion so the less dominan t students would have an opportunity to share

PAGE 153

153 their ideas and knowledge. Participants did not object to the way she led discussions, but more to the way she restricted discussion by putting a time limit on it. They also said she taught the class as if they were middle school students, and Kenne th cited the notebooks as a way of organization that might be used in middle school but was inappropriate for graduate students. Rachel said she had been accused of micromanaging students a nd changed her expectations for the notebook to help alleviate that problem. Participants beliefs about the role of the teach er may have influenced their belief that they were being micromanaged. Williams belief that good female teachers are caring and build relationships with students may have contributed to his resistance sinc e he would probably not define a female teacher who micromanaged instru ction as caring. Kenneths belief that students should be encouraged to share id eas and opinions may also have contributed to the resistance since the instructors focus on completing her ag enda often ended activities involving student discussion. The instructors use of instructional management that strictly followed her agenda and did not consider the immediat e needs of students in the cla ssroom created an imbalance of power. This did not appear to be her intention, but it emphasizes the contradictions teachers might experience between what they believe is ef fective teaching and what they actually do in the classroom. Although Rachel voiced a commitme nt to democratic classroom practices, she sometimes acted in ways that violated them, which helped to maintain hegemony in the classroom. The instructors actions may have served to escalate resistance in the social studies internship seminar. Teachers should Maintain Trust in StudentTeacher Relationships W illiam also believed the instructor acted in ways to erode the trust that he believed teachers should maintain in the studentteacher relationship. William had a class in the fall with the social studies methods instructor, and he said she would report to college administrators what

PAGE 154

154 she perceived as misbehavior by students. This was usually done through a disciplinary email in which she would copy the program chair or the asso ciate director of the department. The use of emails for this purpose was confirmed by all four participants and thr ough conversations with instructors in the program. William may have re sisted this disciplinary method because he believed female teachers are caring and build rela tionships with students, and this method of discipline would hinder building goo d relationships. The instructor s actions, however, attempted to maintain her authority as teacher and the hegemony of the classroom. William believed trust between teachers and students should be part of th e culture of the classroom, but the instructor acted in ways that violated his cultural belief. He said this was the main reason he engaged in oppositional behavior in the social studies internship seminar. Escalating and Diminishing Resistance There is so me evidence that resistance was esca lated due to the actions of the instructor. Whether different actions by the instructor would have diminished resistance is not evident from this study mainly because there was no evidence that resistance had diminished. Throughout the observations and the interviews, th e resistance by participants to th e content and methods used in the internship seminar was consis tent and ongoing. It appeared th at challenges to participants ideologies led to their resistance. Louis Althusser said, the school teaches knowhow, but in forms which ensure subjection to the ruling ideology or the mastery of its practice. (1971, p. 133). Schools teach academic and social knowledge that reinfor ce the ideology of the dominant group. This is evident in Williams and Henrys belief in Freire s (1993) banking system of education in which teachers decide what knowledge is important and students passively accept that knowledge. It is also evident in the participants belief that teachers control decisions about instruction and management, which reinforces the ideology th at children are immature and undisciplined and,

PAGE 155

155 therefore, unable to be part of important deci sionmaking. Participants so ciohistorical context, especially their experi ences in schools, contributed to th eir mastering the ideology of the dominant group. As classroom teachers, they are equipped to ensure the subjection of their own students to the ruling ideology (Althusse r, 1971, p. 133). Disrupting the reproduction of hegemonic ideology might require teacher educators to reconcep tualize student resistance and reconsider how they address resistance in the classroom. Extending the Literature Findings in this study extend the literature base regarding how resistance is defined, student resistance in college classrooms and teacher education, and the connection between sociohistorical context and beliefs about teac hing. These ideas will be discussed and then implications for teacher educators and the research community presented. Redefining Resistance Critical theorists fram e resist ance as actions intended to bring about longterm, far reaching political change resul ting in the emancipation of oppressed populations (Adorno, 1984; Gramsci, 1971; Habermas, 1991; Horkheimer, 1972; Lukcs, 1989; Marcuse, 1991; Marx, 2005). Critical resistance is motivated by social inju stice and requires what Freire (1993) calls conscientization. Conscientization requires critical inquiry and selfreflection to determine the reasons for hegemony and then transformative acti on to liberate the oppressed from hegemony. Cultural resistance is also motivated by social injustice but occurs in schools and classrooms where the White, Eurocentric, middleupper class culture of schools confli cts with the cultural lives of students who are not members of this group (Anyon, 1981; Dance, 2004; Delpit, 1996; hooks, 2002; McCadden, 1998; McLaren, 1986; Willis 1988). Cultural resisters do not always practice the critical inquiry or selfreflection necessary for cons cientization, but that does not lessen the importance of their actions. Students w ho engage in cultural resistance are expressing

PAGE 156

156 their sense of inequity or inju stice in the classroom or school The overall purpose of cultural resistance may not be broad, longterm change but liberation from hegem ony in classrooms and schools. Counter resistance is a term I created based on studies of resistance engaged in by students in the dominant group, including participants in this study. Counter resistance is motivated by a desire to maintain hegemony and works against critical examination a nd reflection. Researchers concluded that students from the dominant gr oup experienced cognitive dissonance when their beliefs were contradicted by culturally responsive content (Grant & Gillette, 2006; Haddad & Lieberman, 2002). When Whiteness was decentere d by the instructor, White students often worked to recenter it in the classroom, and th ereby reinforce their ow n beliefs and maintain hegemony (Davis, 1992; Hunter & Nettles, 1999; Middleton, 2002). Critical theorists define hegemony as control by the dominant group ove r oppressed groups through the control of politics, economics, culture a nd education (Gramsci, 1971). White students who act in ways to maintain hegemony cannot be engaging in resistance since resistance has the goal of disrupting hegemony. There are, admittedly, contradictions and overlaps in the three categories of resistance described in this study. However, the use of counter resistance to describe students from the dominant group who oppose teachers who attempt to disrupt hegemony extends the literature base by presenting a new way of view ing resistance by members of the privileged group. Student Resistance in College Cl assrooms an d Teacher Education As noted previously, teachers who decenter cu ltural norms and teach a culturally diverse curriculum found that students from the dominan t group resisted the c ontent taught and the critical examination and selfreflection us ed to uncover hegemony (Davis, 1992; Grant & Gillette, 2006; Haddad & Lieberman, 2002; Hunt er & Nettles, 1999; Middleton, 2002). Davis

PAGE 157

157 (1992) found that her students engaged in counter resistance because their lives at home contradicted what was being taught in her cla ssroom. This study confirmed her findings but increased the importance of school experiences as factors that influence the cultural beliefs of college students. This study also confirms Hunt ers and Nettles (1999) finding that students thought they were being victimized because they were White and conservative. George claimed he was being marginalized because his conservativ e beliefs conflicted with the beliefs taught in the education program. Middleton (2002) found stude nts in her study agreed that multicultural education was important but were unable to comp rehend what attitudes and skills were necessary for effective teaching in culturally diverse classroo ms. Interviews with participants in this study revealed they were also unable to understand th e attitudes and skills needed. Henry said it was common sense not to marginalize students but was unable to see how his own beliefs about teaching (the teacher has the important knowledge and controls decisions about instruction and management) could prevent culturally respons ive teaching. Students from nondominant groups might feel uncomfortable and marginalized in a classroom where they can not share their knowledge or are restricted to teachercentere d instruction and management. William held the same beliefs as Henry and said he established his sixthgrade classroom to support lecturebased instruction and management, wh ich would exclude students from cultures that value social learning. He did not appear to understand the connection between his beliefs about teaching and the need for culturally diverse classrooms. Most studies of counter resistance are selfs tudies in which the researchers were also instructors of the courses they studied. Selfst udies provide valuable in formation but might be hindered by the fact that the inst ructor/researcher is also in the position of assigning students grades. In my study, I was not an instructor in the course or the program, and only one of the

PAGE 158

158 students in the course took a class I taught two years earlier. He was not one of the participants in this study. None of the studies on counter resistan ce cited here included interviews with students. Interviews can provide rich data that would be difficult to collect through classroom observations, group discussions, and assignments. This study contributes to the literature a richer, deeper analysis of the phenomenon of resistance in an internship seminar. Sociohistorical Context and Beliefs about Teaching Sociohistorical context has always been im portant to how resistance is defined (Anyon, 1981; Dance, 2004; Delpit, 1996; hooks, 2002; McLaren, 2003; Miron & Lauria, 1995). However, this definition is nearly always a pplied to students from cu ltures that are not the privileged culture. Davis (1992) included students home lives as influencing their resistant acts in the classroom, but there are no other studies of student resistance among prospective teachers that take sociohistorical contex t into account. There are no studies of prospective teachers in social studies teacher education programs that consider the link between sociohistorical context and teacher beliefs. All four participants beliefs about teaching were influenced by their families, the schools they attended, and their communities. However, the schools they attended probably influenced their beliefs about teaching more than family or community since their beliefs about the role of teachers is based on their experiences in schools. This insight highlights the role of K schools and unde rgraduate college courses in training future teachers. The participants in this study esta blished their beliefs about teachers and teaching throughout their experiences as students in schools. The teach ers in their K and undergraduate college experience that were most influential provided th em with role models for teaching that were internalized. Henrys and Williams belief that le cture was the best instruction method was based on their experience in classrooms with lecturers they admired as teachers. This study extends Lorties (1975) con cept of the apprentices hip of observation.

PAGE 159

159 This study extends the literature through rede fining resistance when oppositional behavior is engaged in by members of the dominant group, and through a deeper, richer analysis of why resistance occurs in teacher education classroom s. It also creates new avenues for research through the connections between sociohistor ical context and teacher beliefs. Implications The findings of this study can not be used to generalize to the population of W hite, Eurocentric, middleupper class pr ospective teachers. Participants in this study were selected specifically because of the oppositio nal behavior they engaged in during an internship seminar. Despite these limitations, the findings do have implications for teacher educators and the research community. Implications for Teacher Educators Understanding the explanations for participan ts counter resistance in an internship sem inar is helpful to teacher educators as they plan teacher education programs and courses that incorporate methods and content that decenter the ideology of the dominant group. As indicated in the conclusions, participants had similar soci ohistorical contexts, which helped explain the beliefs they had about the role of teachers. Know ing the sociohistorical co ntexts of prospective teachers might better prepare teach er educators for challenges to methods and content that could conflict with prospective teacher beliefs. Giving prospective teachers the opportunity to explore their beliefs by examining controversial issues in educa tion (i.e., ethnicity/race, multicu ltural education, socioeconomic status, poverty, gender, sexual identity, age, and religion) in a nont hreatening environment could help them learn the importance of critical consciousness and selfreflection in their future work as teachers. Teacher educators can acco mplish this by using democratic classroom practices to create a safe, refl ective environment in which studen ts can safely voice their beliefs.

PAGE 160

160 These conditions foster a dialogue in which teac her educators help students reflect on their beliefs through the use of content that presents differing perspectives thr ough personal stories of dominance and the use of relevant data. Pers onal stories of dominan ce are the stories of oppressed people that help those from the privileged group better understand hegemony in society (e.g., Hear Us Out: Commentary by Youth on School and Society from What Kids Can Do or Finding Words to Talk About Race by Maria Luisa Tucker posted at http://www.alternet.org/story/30755/). Combined w ith data that support th e experiences of the storyteller, the teacher educator has a very powerful tool in help ing students from the privileged group understand their own privileged positions, which might lead to disrupting hegemony. Disturbing beliefs is not an easy task but is es sential before some prospective teachers will accept and master the methods and content that re sult in highly effective instruction. Teacher educators need to pay closer at tention to the vociferous complain ts and deafening silences in which prospective teachers engage when their beliefs conflict with the beliefs necessary for effective teaching. Their unwillingness to be distur bed must be addressed in ways that will promote dialogue and collegiality and reduce resistance. Before this can happen, however, teacher educators need to have their own beliefs disturbed. They need to enter into dialogue with colleagues for the purpose of reflecting on their ow n biases and hegemonic beliefs. They need to experience Freires (1993) consci entization to be fully prepared to help their students do the same. The move toward full emancipation from he gemonic influences requi res constant critical inquiry and selfreflectionit is a process that happens over time and we must expect the same of ourselves and our students. Teacher educators need to make better conne ctions between effec tive teaching practices and what they might look like in the classroom. Part icipants in this study co nsidered as irrelevant

PAGE 161

161 those courses in the soci al studies program that included effec tive teaching practices. Participants thought courses were practical a nd relevant when they taught knowledge and tools they would need as social studies teachers. They apparen tly did not make the connection between what was taught in the education courses and the decisions they would ma ke as teachers. According to Middleton (2002), prospective teachers who agreed that multicultural ed ucation was important still had difficulty understanding what attitudes and skills were necessary for effective teaching in culturally diverse classrooms. It is imperative that teacher ed ucators examine this discrepancy so they can structure courses th at will clarify the connection betw een effective teaching practices and what those practices might look like in th e classroom. Engaging prospective teachers in methods like interactive notebooks or chalk talk s is important but needs to be followed by questions about why and when the methods woul d be used. For example, which students would benefit most from chalk talks? How might the workload of grading assignments be reduced by using interactive notebooks? What are other ways to help students organize their work and think critically about what they are learning? Which students would benefit most from the interactive notebook? These types of questions might help prospective teachers better understand the method as an effective teaching practice for diverse learners. The obvious, yet impossible, solution to counter resistance is to recruit students into teacher education programs who al ready have the dispositions necessary to implement effective teaching in diverse classrooms. Teacher e ducators, however, are often pressured by administrators and state and local education ag encies to provide teachers regardless of their dispositions on teaching (Grant & Gillette, 2006). Regardless, it would be advantageous to teacher educators and colleges of education to create networks with instructors who teach to disrupt hegemony for the purpose of recruiting prospective teachers. Educational foundations

PAGE 162

162 courses might be a place where potential teac her candidates could be identified. In my experience teaching a social f oundations of education course in which the ideology of the dominant group was decentered, I had a number of students who chose a career in teaching. Two of them had test scores and GPAs that might have prevented them from entering the masters program in teacher education. Their dialogue and written work in my course, however, convinced me they had the dispositions to teach in diverse communities and only needed further teacher education to prepare them for a car eer in teaching. I wrote strong letters of recommendation, and they were both accepted and completed the program successfully. Implications for the Research Community This study also has im plications for the rese arch community in term s of identifying what aspects of the study might warrant further i nvestigation. Participants perspectives are represented in this study; however, the role of the instructor in resistance is also important and warrants further research. William conveyed how the social studies methods instructor acted in ways that violated the trust he believed necessary in studentteacher relationships. This resulted in his engagement in acts of resistance. He a nd Kenneth also said the micromanagement of the class by the instructor created an environment in which learning was interrupted. It would be helpful for teachers who teach to disrupt hegem ony to better understand how their actions might escalate or diminish resistance in the classroom Observations of and interviews with the instructor in addition to the students might provide important data for furthering the study of counter resistance. A study of pe dagogy that is more sensitive to the points of resistance might help teacher educators refine th eir instruction so as to prom ote critical inquiry and self reflection. This study used critical theory as the fram ework and thematic and critical discourse analyses as the methods for analyzing data. Using a different methodol ogy might result in a

PAGE 163

163 better understanding of counter re sistance. Cynthia Tysons ( 2006) emancipatory research methodology would allow researcher s to not only collect data to better understand counter resistance but also engage prospective teachers in dialogue to promote cr itical inquiry and self reflection about hegemony in classrooms a nd schools. Emancipatory research methodology echoes the medical directive of do no harm in that patients (parti cipants) are not left to their (social) illnesses (i.e., biases based on race, gender social class, age, sexu al identity) when relief (a solution) is possible. Tyson (2006) applies th is methodology specifically to critical race theory and studies of race, but identif ies two actions necessary for emancipatory research work. First, we must systematically and consciously resist the injustices of racism. Second, we must work constructively to improve the ways in which racism surfaces in the vocalized assumptions of those in power. In essence, we simultaneously attack the causes and heal the effects. (Tyson, 2006, p. 44) Critical theory not only require s that we understand the impact of hegemonywho benefits and who is harmedbut also that we take action to help change those structures (Crotty, 1998; Freire, 1993; Tyson, 2006). Further research usin g emancipatory research methodology would allow researchers engaged in critical theory to ta ke steps with their participants that might result in the disruption of hegemony. A st udy of this type would allow the researcher and participants take actions that might protect and benefit oppressed groups in their classrooms and schools. According to Tyson (2006), if we are to engage in emancipatory research, we must stop trying to benefit ourselves and engage in the process of research ing for the greater good of our communities (p. 46). Further research on count er resistance using emancipatory research methodology might help educators to not only better understand the explanations for resistance, but might also help explain what diminishes resistance. Student resistance in college of education cl assrooms is becoming an important issue in education as more studies are being done to examine this phe nomenon. The dominant culture of

PAGE 164

164 schools, based on the White, Eurocentric, middl eclass culture, is re produced in schools by teachers whose actions in the classroom maintain hegemony. Teacher educators need to find ways to promote critical inqui ry and selfreflection among pros pective teachers for the purpose of helping them teach for social justice. T eachers whose actions disrupt hegemony work to promote social justice in their classrooms and schools. While this study can not be generalized to other students, classrooms, or schools, it can be considered a begi nning in countering the reproductive mechanism that currently preven ts schools and society from disrupting the hegemony that guides their practices. As teacher educators, our willingness to be disturbed is necessary before we can guide students down the same road.

PAGE 165

165 APPENDIX A INTERVIEW PROTOCOL Student Interview One For the f irst interview, participants were aske d to describe their experiences in elementary, middle and high school. They were also asked to describe their families and communities where they grew up. Questions about schools: Did you attend a private or public school? If private, who paid for your school? Were you in any special program s at the elementary school? What was the building like? What kinds of resources were available to you? (library, materials available in the classroom, music, art, athletics, AP courses, magnet program, etc.) What were the teachers like? How did they influence you as a student? What were the students like? How did they influence your education? Who were some of your best friends? What were the demographics of th e teacher and student population? Questions about family: How would you classify your family/guardians working class, middle class, upper class? Why do you classify them in this way? Did your parents/guardians attend college? Did they graduate? What career fields are they in? How did they influence you as a student? Questions about community: What were the demographics of the community where you grew up? What was the approximate population? What ethnic groups comprised your community? Was it urban, suburban or rural?

PAGE 166

166 Student Interviews Two and Three The second and third interviews were based on responses from the first interviews and observations in the classroom Tell me about teachers and/or classes you esp ecially liked and dis liked. What did you like about these classes? What content was ta ught? What teaching methods were used? What has the social studies in ternship seminar been studying? Tell me about something youve read recently for the class. What do you think of it? What does the class seem to be about? What are the themes you notice? What is it like for you to attend this class? Is this class important for people who intend to become teachers? If so, why? If not, why not? There were also a series of I noticed... questions in which I stated something I noticed that happened in the classroom or that they said in the previous interview. I presented the event or statement and asked for the participant's assessm ent of and reaction to it. Examples of these questions are below. In class, you said you werent sure if active democracy coul d be taught in schools. Can you expand on that? You walked into class and the desks were in rows instead of grouped. You said, Thank you! Desks in rowsa real classroom! Can you explain what you meant by that statement? In class, you often appeared frustrated a nd bored. You would often put your head down on your desk or hold your head in your hands a nd look down at the desk. You appeared to mentally check out of the class and, at one poi nt, had your back to the instructor while she was lecturing. Can you tell me what you might have been thinking during these times?

PAGE 167

167 APPENDIX B SOCIAL STUDIES INTERNSHIP S EMINAR ASSIGNED READINGS The following is a list of reading materials a ssigned in the social studies methods course. The readings were assigned so students did not read every reading but shared what they read with their group. Clark, R. (2004). Excellent 11. New York: Hyperion. Corwin, M. (2001). And still we rise: The trials and triu mphs of twelve gi fted innercity students. New York: HarperCollins. Cushman, K. (2003). Fires in the bathroom: Advice for te achers from high school students. New York: The New Press. Johnston, M. (2003). In the deep hearts core. New York: Grove Atlantic. LadsonBillings, G.L. (1997). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. San Francisco: JosseyBass. Mitchie, G. (2004). See you when we get there: Te aching for change in urban schools. New York: Teachers College Press. Corbett, H.D. (2003). Effort and excellence in urban classrooms New York: Teachers College Press. (Chapter 2, The Different Meanings of All Children Can Succeed) Villegas, A.M. & Lucas, T. (2002). Educating culturally respons ive teachers: A coherent approach New York: SUNY Press. (Chapter 4, Modeling the Practice of Culturally Responsive Teaching) Scheruich, J.J. & Skrla, L. (2003). Leadership for equity and excellence Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press. (Chapter 2, Learning to Belie ve the Dream is Possible, and chapter 4, Instruction and Classroom Climate) Parker, W. (2003). Teaching democracy New York: Teachers College Press. (Chapter 2, Democracy and Difference) What Kids Can Do, Inc. (2004, October). Students as allies in improving their schools: A report on work in progress New York: What Kids Can Do, Inc. What Kids Can Do, Inc. (2002, May). Taking democracy in hand: Youth action for educational change in the San Francisco Bay area. New York: What Kids Can Do, Inc.

PAGE 168

168 Marri, A.R. (2005). Building a framework for classroombased multicultural democratic education: Learning from three skilled teachers. Teachers College Record, 107 (5), 1036 1059.

PAGE 169

169 APPENDIX C HENRYS CASE STUDY Resistan ce often occurs because a students liv ed experience is not represented in schools or classrooms (Giroux, 2001; McLaren, 1986). A students beliefs about schools and education are based on the sociohistorical context of schools. The study of st udent resistance using critical discourse analysis needs to c onsider the context of family, community and school; discourse does not happen in a vacuum, it is influenced by individual and group hist ory and by the context of the event where the discour se takes place (Fairclough, 1995; Gee, 1999). To better understand the resistance engaged in by the four participants it is necessary to consider the sociohistorical context of their lives, specifical ly their lives in schools. For this reason, interviews focused on participants school experiences, what they liked and disliked, and how this influenced their beliefs about teaching and education and th eir acts of resistance in the classroom. Sociohistorical Context of a Resister Henry spent the f irst ten years of his life in the suburbs of a large Midwestern urban area. His father had a masters degree and was an ed itor for a building magazine. His mother was a high school graduate and worked as a realtor. Henry considered hi s family middle class and said the neighborhood where he lived was one hundred percent White (H1). His limited memories of his elementary school were that the school and teachers were nice, the music teacher was very boisterous, he had art, music and physical educ ation, and the predominant teaching method was direct instruction. Henry said he was an auditory learner and rememb ered much of the lectures so direct instruction worked well for him. His mo st memorable events at his elementary school were the fights on the playground. He said, Our play area was huge and we basically ran around there fighting. I got in a few fi ghts, but it was what you did on the playground back [there] (H1).

PAGE 170

170 When his family moved to a smaller city in the southeastern United States, Henry was disappointed by the time allowed for recess compar ed to the school he came from: We had an hour for recess, lunch recess, and that was a long r ecess, and when I got here it was only fifteen minutes, so it was pretty ridiculous (H1). He wa s also disappointed by the response to student fights: I remember seeing fights and students were immediately suspended so they had much less freedom. But I remember thinking that was interesting and how much recess sucked here compared to where I came from (H1). Henrys new neighborhood was predominantly Wh ite with a small percentage of Black and Hispanic residents, and it was more upper class than middle class. The middle school was team oriented and used cooperative learning and Henry said he wasnt a huge fan they werent really well organized, but I had a pretty good middle school education (H1). He said he remembered all his teachers but none of them were particularly mindblowing theyre all just decent teachers (H1). When asked if there we re any teachers who influenced him, Henry questioned the environment of middle school as a place where student s can be strongly influenced by teachers. He said, How can you really inspire a 12yearold or 13yearold because, me personally, I dont see it, youre t oo young, youre evolving and changing into an adult and you dont really remember a lot (H1) For Henry, middle school students were not at an age to be influenced by their teachers. The high school Henry attended was not the one he was zoned for; he was enrolled in a health sciences magnet program in a large hi gh school outside his district. He planned on becoming a doctor but said the magnet program co mpletely altered my perspective due to the intensity of the program and his concern about b urn out in the highly stressful medical intern programs (H1). In addition to the academic demands of the advanced placement classes in the

PAGE 171

171 magnet program, Henry was on the football and weightlifting teams, in the band, and active in drama. His decision to go to college was based on his belief that education is important and because he was very selfmotivated academics always came pretty easy to me (H1). His parents did put some pressure on him to atte nd college but allowed him to make the final decision. Henry graduated in the t op ten percent of his class, wh ich earned him a state sponsored fouryear college scholarship. He was accepted at a large southeastern university and earned a Bachelors degree in history. He then applie d to and was accepted in the Social Studies Secondary Education Masters Program at the same university. Henry had the advantages of socioeconomic st atus and at least one parent who graduated from college and both parents who encouraged h im to go to college. He believed his success in school, however, was due more to selfmotivatio n than the influence of his parents or his teachers. His elementary years appeared to refl ect the education of the middle class but his secondary years prepared him for a more privileged education, specifically his enrollment in the magnet program and advanced placement courses a nd his extracurricular ac tivities. He did not appear to view these as advantages but simply a series of events in his life. Henry grew up in a White, Eurocentric, middle class environment for his elementary years and a White, Eurocentric, upper class privileged environment for middle and high school. Examining more closely the college classes he liked and those he disliked might help clarify his beliefs about teaching and his acts of resistance. Foundations of Resistance: Be liefs about Good Teaching If resistant behavior occurs in classroom s where a students lived experience is not represented, then Henrys resistance might be explained by the disconne ct between what he believed was good teaching and what he experienced in the internship seminar. Henrys beliefs about teaching and education are best understood through his descriptions of the courses and

PAGE 172

172 instructors he liked best and l east. He described three aspects of good teaching that he believed were important: the teacher was a passionate perf ormer, the teacher cont rolled all knowledge in the classroom, and methods and cont ent were relevant and practical. Henrys favorite college classes were in his major programhistory. He said he liked the courses, Caribbean History and Twentieth Ce ntury German History, for their rigor and the instructional style of the professors. According to Henry, both prof essors were British and used lecture exclusively. they made the, the lectures were fun to go to for one they were interesting (I: mhmm) because theyre dynamic lecturers [the Caribbean history course] was a very intense course all lecture based and, he was a very dynamic professor he didn't take any crap so, like half the kids dropped his class he was extremely academic and extremely elite (H2) Henrys description of the two courses often overlapped. He enjoyed both professors for the same reasons and emphasized (in italics) their dynamic and interesting lectures He described the Caribbean history c ourse as intense and the professor as one who would not take any crap off students so half of the students dropped the class. He also described the professor as extremely academic and extremely elite. According to Henr y, one student who dropped the course returned to reprimand the professor for not teaching anything of value. Henry said this student would sit in the back of the class and make ridiculous comments (H1). (I: did anybody in the class make intelligent comments?) yeah there was uh intelligent questions [from students] and discussions and naturally he asked questions and like to make sure you know, you were following along with him but, there were no slides

PAGE 173

173 no PowerPoints no visuals just one hundred percent write down what he said (I: but you said that he did ask questions, right?) he would like ask us what we thought the issue might be and then hed actually tell us what it would be (H2) Henry said students asked intelligent questions and that there were discussions The professors questions, however, were a natural ( naturally ) part of the class to make sure students were following along with the professors thinking. The fact that there was no visual support for the lectures made the professors words more important (one hundred percent)the professor was the focus of learning. The questions asked by the profe ssor did not appear to be for the purpose of hearing different perspectives but to dismiss the one s that did not agree with the professors line of thinking. After asking their thought [s] he would tell them the correct answer. This was emphasized even more strongly when Henry mimicked a classroom scenario. all right so lets give an example it would be like why do you think that, why do you think that, well what do you think caused the SpanishAmerican war of 1898? what do you think caused this? and hed be like what are the possible causes? and wed like possibly give causes and hed be like no well thats not correct and then like wed like have a discu ssion on what possible causes like well here they are, heres the four causes you need to know and hed give em to us, thats like an audible and like youd better write this down cause its gonna be on the test (I: was there any discussion as to why they were wrong?) yeah hed tell you like thats not really relevant to the situation because then hed give you a situation

PAGE 174

174 and then when wed finished the discussion heres the four main causes (I: the basic idea in his teaching was that he had all the knowledge) yep (I: and he was going to give it to students) yep, yep (I: and students didnt have any knowledge so yo u needed to make sure that they had it) its college thats what its supposed to be in college its a university 4000 level course theres no uh student input theres research and theres, understanding (H2) In this excerpt, the professo r is in control of important knowledge. Henry emphasized how the professor would ask what and why and student ( wed ) responses were met with the professor ( hed ) correcting their thinking. Then the professor would give students the answers he wanted them to remember ( four causes you need to know) and students would write them down in preparation for the test. The discussion did not a ppear to be a sharing of ideas but more an opportunity for the professor to tell and give his ideas and knowledge. If there were other possibly correct responses to his questions that he did no t feel were relevant, he would dismiss them. Henry affirmed that the pr ofessors objective was to establish himself as the one who had all the knowledge and Henr y thought that was appropriate in a college classroom. He emphasized (italics) that is what college was supposed to bestudents doing research and gaining understanding but not having any input in their own education. Based on his statements, Henry believed good teachers were dynamic lecturers and controlled the knowledge in the classroom. When asked late r to elaborate on teachers as dynamic lecturers, he said,

PAGE 175

175 I see teaching as an art its a you are on stage its a performance its a its a glorious art (H3) Henry emphasized his ( I ) belief that the teacher ( you ) engages in a performance that is glorious The classroom becomes the stage where teachers perform, which would mean students are the audience, they view the performance but do not actively partake in their own learningtheir role is to receiv e the teachers performance. This is similar to Williams belief that teachers are passionate performers. Henry ex tended the idea of performance to the interview by using a British accent with dramatic flair wh en quoting the British professors. The interview took place in a moderately crowded coffee shop, whic h did not appear to a ffect his behavior and he was either unaware of inquisitive looks from neighboring customers or did not mind them. He was observed to use a dramatic flair in most of his communications during interviews and in the internship seminar. Henrys belief that teachers perform and students are the audience supported the second of his beliefs about teachingthat th e teacher holds all the knowledge. the professors the chief and has the basic knowledge discussion is, takes place in class but ultimately it comes back to the professors responsible for whats bei ng taught in that course if any incorrect information is, is learned by my students, the buck stops with me (I: yeah) thats why the professor is ultimately in charge and responsible for all learning that takes place so in the discussion he is the moderator he is the director he is the one whos leading it in the direction he needs to go if students have prior knowledge if students have questions you use that discussion to adva nce your own lecture thats the way youre advancing the point directing this point delivered to the student

PAGE 176

176 because you know what youre delivering, if you allow random ad hoc comments well, and uh you dont know where that trains going if you dont know where the trains going it could lead right off the cliff into the ocean it woulwith uh discussion and input and student uh input and student uh prior knowledge that merely speeds up the train cause you know the destination (H3) Henry described the professor as a chief, mode rator, director, leader, and conductor, which are all terms that hold contro l and power. The professor has (or owns) the basic knowledge and is ultimately responsible for what is taught. Henry appl ied this description of the professor to his own classroom when he said, the buck stops with me. He based his own teaching on how he believed college professors teach and on how his two favorite professors taught. According to Henry, the professor is in charge of all learning and he (emphasized three times) use [s] the knowledge and questions from students to advance what he belie ves is the most important knowledge. He emphasized this idea a second time at the end of the excerpt when he said discussion, input and prior knowledge from a student can speed up the process of learning (train) what the professor ( you ) has decided is the most impor tant knowledge (destination). For Henry, the place in the classroom for discussion was in directing the learning toward the professors point. Henry sa id there is no place in the classroom for random ad hoc comments since they might lead to a destin ation, or to knowledge, that the professor is not familiar with or that does not support his own know ledge (destination). He empha sized twice the idea that random ad hoc comments could be disastrous since you (the teacher) would not know where the learning (train) is headed, whic h reinforces his belief that th e teacher is responsible for all knowledge taught in the classroom.

PAGE 177

177 Henrys beliefs that good teachers are pa ssionate performers, have the important knowledge, and use what goes on in classrooms to direct learning toward what they deem important was not always reflected in the cla sses he did not like. One course, Age of the Dinosaurs, fulfilled a biology credit requireme nt and the other course was one of his undergraduate educational technology courses. When asked to descri be his least favorite classes in college were, he said, thatd be ones like really uh not relevant for me I was just in because I had to be there I didnt really like Age of the Dinosaurs too much, and, I didnt really want to be there she made it a lot more serious than I thought it would be we got into dinosaurs and very technical and scientific and that aint really my thing (I: okay so it was the content more?) yeah it was it was dry it was dry and boring as the fossils that we were learning about lots of long scientific names lots of memorization of topics that I wasnt interested in at all those history classes were all about critical thinking and comprehending very, major and very large historical concepts but this is like rote memorization of annoying long genus and species and all that stuff its like, it wasnt relevant to me at all especially a history major (I: Right) I dont care what the, what this bone of this dinosaur is it was all memorization of, stupid facts (H2) According to Henry, a serious study of dinosaurs was not wh at he expected. He emphasized twice that the course was not relevant to him as a history major (not relevant for me and it wasnt relevant to me). While he did not enjoy the memorization (mentioned three times), it was the content of the class that appeared to be the problem. In additi on to being irrelevant,

PAGE 178

178 Henry said I wasnt interested in it and I dont care, which could mean if he was memorizing facts from human history it might mean more to him. He emphasized that history studied major events while this class studied boring fossils with long scientific names. Henrys beliefs about good teaching appear to include teaching relevant, important knowledge and he defined this to mean knowledge that was interesting to him. Another class he did not enjoy was an undergraduate educational technology class. the undergraduate education classes were just not relevant at all, and the teachers seemed, unqualified educational technology, it was ridiculously stupid (I: mhmm) she was unprepared for class we didnt learn anything important, she taught us things that didnt really matter, it was like completely irrelevant (I: like what?) cant think of any its like cause I didnt learn anything in that class whatsoever just blanked that completely out of my mind cause its like, completely irrelevant she said I dont know anything about technology (I: what kind of teaching style did she have?) it was like stupid group work that was completely irrelevant we just sat around and talked about how stupid the class was we had a separate lab class on Wednesday and that class was pretty, annoying too because, we would learn something wed turn in the assignment and then we would immediately forget how to use what we just did, shes like try to use like constructivist to like write education forms I didnt learn anything in there there was no there was no rigor there was no relevance (H2) Similar to the dinosaur class, Henry emphasized f ives times that the content taught in the educational technology class was not relevant. He said he didnt learn anything, the instructor

PAGE 179

179 taught things that didnt matter, a nd emphasized how the class had no rigor. This supported his belief that good teache rs taught relevant content. He also said the instructor was unprepared for class and admitted she was not knowledgeable of the subject area ( I dont know anything about technology). For Henry, the instructor was not fulfilling his be lief about good teaching that the teacher has the impor tant knowledge and directs th e class toward acquiring that knowledge. His description of the inst ructors teaching method as stupid group work might be viewed as supporting his belief that teachers are passionate perf ormers and use dynamic lecture to direct student learning. Henry said they woul d immediately forget what they learned in the lab, which differed from another undergraduate educational technology class that he took. it was better in another class that was strictly technical stuff but at least it was practical at least I learned how to scan stuff and like had the basic formation of making a web page using Netscape and that was a strictly a technical portion of the lab we turned in projects and that kind of stuff that was all right youre just learning how to use the technology (H2) Henry said the practical use of technology ( scan stuff and basic formation of a web page) was technical knowledge that was useful. Instead of applying constructivist theory to education forms, he was learning how to use the technology, which Henry may have found more relevant to his future career as a teacher. Another class he did not like while he was taking it was a graduate level educational technology class. it was jumping through hoops we had to make it precisely the way she wanted it and it wasand she wanted every single little detail like you could possibly imagine my lesson plans were nine pages long for a single lesson one day lesson nine pages and then questions afterwards

PAGE 180

180 about how it was used in technology how is it applicable here show like how technology was uh, effective use of technology in the class in this lesson like we had to like answer all these like complicated questions it was so, it was mind numbingly tedious but it taught us in a way thats like the same reason that I didnt like the subject as much as I liked Caribbean or German history but in the same way it was a lot like a lot like the rigor in that course was similar to those history courses that I liked so much (H2) Henry did not like the graduate level technology course because he had to jump through hoops and complete assignments in precisely the way the instructor wanted What the instructor wanted were detailed lesson plans (Henrys were nine pages long) that included responses to questions on how technology was applied and would show the effective use of technology, which he found mind numbingly tedious. He said the rigor in this course was similar to the history cla sses he enjoyed and, even though he did not like the subject he admitted the work taught us. Henry gained practical knowledge in the grad uate level educational technology class that he said was especially useful to him as a teacher. we learned how to write a lesson plan if we had to jump through hoops we learned how to jump through em it was we hated it at the time but (I: are you saying while you didnt like doing th e lesson plans you felt they were helpful later?) no I find Im glad we did all that work now because now when Im talking about it I can talk like Rachel I can talk the language she taught me how to speak uh, educational technology buzz words and those and now Im fluent in it (I: and how does that help you?) in interviews I can ta lk about educational technology

PAGE 181

181 and its relevance and like how you use technology effectively in a classroom, its nice to be able to do that (I: so it was practical in a sense in th at it prepared you for your teaching?) for interviews and I guess using technology too, like we did a we did a imovie project its nice to learn how you use imovie it all like seemed so stupid at the time but administrators love to hear that stuff (H2) Henry emphasized again how he hated to jump through hoops but said he was learning For him, the technology class made him fluent in the language and educational technology buzz words so he could talk about using technology in th e classroom when on job interviews Twice he emphasized how the course prepared him for interviews but he could only guess that the course prepared him for using technology in the classroom. He said it was nice to learn how to use the technology (imovie), but hi s emphasis was on how school administrators like to hear the correct words used in an interview. Henry appeared to appreciate how he could put to practical use what he learned in the e ducational technology course by using the language in interviews, but he did not vi ew the technology as relevant. she made us do all like she made us do all these activities of like using the technology which was not as relevant and then like all this stuff we had to write for it and she worked us to the bell every single day (I: intellectually there was some challenge) well, it didnt feel like it at the time it felt like just jumping through hoops but those hoops were helpful in this field Im in (I: okay) see dinosaur bones arent helpful to me now (H2) Henry said she made us use the technology but the activities were not as relevant. He emphasized all the writing they had to do and how the instructor worked us to the bell

PAGE 182

182 indicating there was no down time in the cl assroom. Again, he emphasized how jumping through hoops was helpful and dinosaur bones were not. The graduate level technology class supported Henrys belief that good teachers are rigorous and teach c ontent that is practical or helpful. In this case, the conten t was useful in his job interviews even if he did not use it in the classroom. Henry believed good teachers were passionate performers, had command of the important knowledge and controlled the direction of learning in the classroom, and taught relevant or practical content. He preferred lecture or di rect instruction, the methods of a passionate performer. In the classes he did not enjoy, one wa s rigorous but did not teach what he considered practical content, and another used group work (no passionate performance), the instructor was not knowledgeable of the content, and she did not teach what he considered practical content. Acts of Resistance: Challengin g Beliefs about Good Teaching Henry thoug ht inappropriate teaching methods and classroom structure, and content that was not relevant or practical, were problems in th e social studies methods course he took in the spring. The methods and activities used by the in structor did not support his belief that good teachers were passionate performers and controlle d the learning in classrooms. Like the other participants, Henrys acts of resistance were made apparent through facial expressionshe rolled his eyes or used an expression that appeared to imply that the work was not worth his time. He also expressed vocal displeasure with some of the activities and when entering the classroom on one occasion and finding the desks in rows said, Thank you! Desks in rowsa real classroom. For Henry, the point where hi s beliefs about good teaching were challenged by oppositional ideas (where contradictory positions ove rlap) was in the internship seminar, and this is where resistance occurred.

PAGE 183

183 Practical and Relevant Content Henry resisted m ost of the methods and conten t in the social studies internship seminar because he thought they were not practical or relevant. Like Willia m, he thought the instructor of the social studies internship seminar did a bett er job teaching the educational technology course in the fall. Rachels technology course is much stronger than her internship course cause it was practical stuff that we could use her internship class had a problem because its not practical some of the same things, she taught us how to speak some of the language about professional development and uh continuous education continuous improvement reflection she really stressed reflection and the factwhen she was teaching us how to make the resume portfolio and interviewing strategies those were those were good (I: okay) like the finding a job aspect is what I got the most out of it (I: okay) but a lot of stuff was just seemed to be a waste of time (H2) It was important for Henry to gain something practical from his education courses, which is why he perceived the educational technology class as much stronger than the internship seminar. In the internship seminar, learning the language of the pr ofession (professional development continuous education and reflection ) was practical for him since it would be used in job interviews, in the same way the language from educational technology would be used. Other aspects of the class Henr y thought were good were the resume portfolio interviewing strategies, and any instruction on finding a job. This practical knowledge was not a waste of time since it was relevant to his futu re career goals, but he did not find the methods used and the content taught in the internship seminar practical or relevant. there really wasnt like some of the material like we learned about

PAGE 184

184 you couldnt apply it to our classrooms at all and it really made no sense for us to be doing that yet she, forced it on us I dont know she lost the class in the class people lost respect for her (I: now why do you think that was so?) she the interactive notebooks and like the stuff we like had to do for the class she really didnt give reasons for it just like she said like Im doing this for you so youll do this for your classes and know like actually have experience we hated those damned things and Ill never make my kids in high school do an inte ractive notebook? are you kidding me? just glue some stuff in there its like the way like, some of her assignments its the way she conducted class she just I dont know she lost people that semester (H2) Henry emphasized (in italics) in this excerpt that the materials used in the social studies internship seminar did not make sense since he could not apply them in the classroom. Like Kenneth, the interactive notebooks were a point of conten tion for Henry and he emphasized how students were forced or had to do them along with other assignments. During class, Henry and other students were observed asking the instructor the purpose of the interactive notebooks. According to Henry, she said she was doing the notebook to give them experience so they could use it in their own classrooms, but he viewed this as insufficient (she really didnt give reasons ). He hated the notebook and said he would never use it with high school students. He stated twice that he was not sure why ( I dont know) the instructor chose the m ethods and assignments, but also emphasized twice that she lost people in the class and lost respect from students, possibly because of the way she conducted class. Henry resisted the methods used by the instructor, specifically th e interactive notebook, beca use he considered it

PAGE 185

185 not practical or useful and he w ould not apply it to his classroom. He resisted the content taught in the class for similar reasons. (I: so like the readings she gave you?) it wasnt relevant the readings werent relevant so I didnt read em (I: okay) and I didnt have to read em cause you could get by and make something up and not read em (I: yeah) it seemed like stressing the same points over and over again that we had already heard a million times plus its pretty much common sense like you know what treat your kids equitably be culturally conscious you know dont like dont marginalize your kids make a safe classroom environment this is very uh, the fact that she was acting like we di dnt already know this stuff was a reason so many of us felt patronized (H2) For Henry, the readings were not relevant so he did not bother reading them. He said the readings seemed to stress the same content they heard before and it was really common sensetreating students equitably culturally conscious classrooms, and a safe classroom environment It appeared Henry agreed with the cont ent of the readings but thought they were not relevant in this classroom si nce they had already read similar material in another class. He said students felt patronized because the instructor believed ( fact) that they did not know the material. The instructor was familiar with the co ntent and readings used by other instructors in the teacher education program but chose to fo cus on similar content. Her decision to teach content that had already been covered gave Henry the percepti on that the inst ructor believed students had not mastered the content, which he thought was condescending (felt patronized). This resulted in him resisting th e readings by not reading them.

PAGE 186

186 Henry appeared to connect the methods used by the instructor to the way she perceived students in the classroom. Rachels class she was patronizing cause it kind of felt like we were in eighth grade (I: okay) thats where I get angry she was trying to model the class as a as a eighth grade class might be taught Rachel tried to treat us like were eighth graders by doing that she failed everybody, cause she didnt match up the curriculum with the age level thats one of the first things you should learn as a teacher make sure it matches are you treating us like college kids or are you treating us like eighth graders she treated us like eighth graders were beyond that as masters students you dont have to treat us we dont have to do eigh th grade activities to know how to do eighth grade activities (H3) Henry emphasized (in italics) f our times that the structure of the classroom followed what teachers would use with eighth graders. This made him angry because it felt patronizing. He emphasized how the instructor failed students because the curriculum did not reflect (matches ) what was appropriate for college kids. Henry resisted the interactive notebook and other activities because he believed they were not the way masters students should be taught. He thought students could learn th e activities by being taught about them instead of doing them. Henry resisted the methods used and content ta ught in the social studies internship seminar because he perceived the instructor as condescending when she ignored what they had learned in earlier classes and structured th e class on a middle school level. He also perceived the methods, like the interactive noteb ook, as inappropriate for high school a nd college students, so they were not practical. The readings were similar to ones they had in previous classes so were not relevant in this class. He believed good teaching included relevant and practical content and resisted the

PAGE 187

187 social studies methods course because he perceive d it had neither. He also resisted the class due to the lack of passion displayed by the instructor. Passionate Performer In earlier ex cerpts, Henry emphasized that good teaching was a performance and a glorious art. He described the in structors he liked as dynamic lecturers. This was a point of resistance in the social studies internship seminar. Rachel saw teaching as a science its very technical like there were theyou can use these techniques and they will work you model this correctly and it will work her experiment failed, because she did not bring enough of the art she did not bring the art and the feeling and the emotion, into that (I: okay) she brought thisit says in my science book these studied scientific methods will work in this teaching environment but surprise this aint chemistry, sometimes you get unforeseen reactants involved (H3) Henry emphasized what he perceived as the instructors belief that the technical or scientific aspect of teaching was more important than the art feeling emotion of teaching. He said the instructor believed if teachers use and model certain teaching methods correctly they will work in the classroom. He emphasized (i n italics) that the instructor ( her she ) failed in the classroom because she relied too much on scie nce and not enough on art and could not handle the reactants For Henry, the art of teaching was more important than the science and he related this directly to how he taught in the classroom. lecture slash direct instruction is a very, its a performance I'm walking around the class and conducting the material as a performance using repetition theater

PAGE 188

188 visuals and such as means of instruction (I: okay) now students have to be involved in the lecture cause if youre just standing up there talking then theyre going to go to sleep you keep after em questioning, rapid fire questions to make sure everybodys keeping everybody on task and telling lecture in a na rrative structure like a story you put on a show Im an actor teaching is not a science its an art (H1) Henry emphasized his active role (walking conducting questioning keeping telling ) as teacher, which implied the role of students was mo re passive by responding to questions from the teacher and observing the pe rformance. The use of repetition theater ... visuals and story were meant to help keep students watching the actor in the show Henry appeared to view teaching social studies as an opportunity for him to perform since that is what he described as the most effective way for him to teach. He be lieved teacher education programs should help teachers find their most effective way of teaching, and for him that was lecture. teachers have to find their strengths and lectures a strength of mine if Im extremely effective doing that then why do something Im not so effective at and different subjects require different, differe nt means of teaching a lecture is a very effective means of teaching social studies for me, because Im very good at it (H3) Henry said that teachers have strengths and his ( mine ) was lecture so why should he use other m ethods that were not as effectiv e for him. He said that different subjects require different means of teaching and that lecture worked best when teaching social studies. His resistance to the social studies methods course was partly due to the emphasis the instructor placed on teaching methods other than lectur e (group work and cooperative learning).

PAGE 189

189 His resistance to the class and to the teacher education program was also due to his belief that the program did not meet the needs of future teachers. we were resisting because there are there are problems in this program that need to be addressed, and were not being uh trained and receiving the training necessary to make us effective teachers we need a proga teacher education program should be designed to help individual teachers meet their unique needs because every teacher is unique everybody has their own unique strengths so teacher education programs should meet the needs of its students and prepare those teachers to meet their niches find their niches and be the best teachers that they can be (H3) Henry included the cohort ( we ) when he explained the reason fo r his resistance. According to Henry, the teacher should be trained to be effective by preparing them to find their niches, and this was applicable to every teacher and everybody. He viewed the goal of teacher education programs as meeting th e unique needs of individual teachers and believed this would create the best teachers. He considered his niche, or his strength, the role of the passionate performer. While Henry believed good teachers used eff ective teaching methods based on the subject taught, his belief that good social studies teacher s used lecture almost exclusively and that lecture, or a passionate performa nce, was his strength contradicted what was taught in the social studies internship seminar and in the teacher ed ucation program. The use of culturally responsive pedagogy and the creation of democr atic classrooms made room fo r methods other than lecture (chalk talks, democratic dial ogue, circle conversations, jigsaw s, reading groups, etc.) and the methods modeled by the instructor of the social studies methods course were not lecture based. Henry resisted these methods. He thought a te acher education program should help future teachers develop the teaching style at which they excelled (which for him was the passionate

PAGE 190

190 performance) instead of teaching them how to use various methods of instruction to meet the learning needs of all students. Control of Knowledge and the Benevolent Dictator Henrys favorite instructors were passionate perf ormers and cont rolled the knowledge in the classroom, which he believed was the sign of a good teacher. His resistance to the methods used in the social studies internship semina r was most notable when discussing democratic classrooms. (I: when I observed you in the classroom you did resist a lot of the stuf f that was being said like culturally responsive teachi ng and democratic classrooms) I dont agree with having stude nts make their rules, chaos will ensue, youthere has to be some sense of order, the teachers in charge, like having classes set up as purely discussion and around circle conversation, I question whether they actually retain anything or whether youll have a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury but signifying nothing like nothing really going on lots of talk and lots of good sounding like stuff taking place but nothing really concrete being formed (H1) Henrys belief that good teachers ar e in control is extended to classroom management and who makes the rules in classrooms. He emphasized (in italics) the teachers role as the sole authority for the purpose of avoiding chaos He said classes that were purely discussion or that used circle conversation could result in th e appearance of learning (sound and fury, lots of talk lots of stuff taking place) but nothing concrete being learned. His comment that this would result in a tale told by an idiot implied that st udents were not capable of creating concrete knowledge, which supported his belief that teachers must control the knowledge in the classroom.

PAGE 191

191 Henry resisted the ideas that students could be involved in both crea ting knowledge and in the management of classrooms and these were co re ideas supported in th e internship seminar. Twice during a classroom observation Henry refe rred to the teacher as king (Observation, February 28, 2007). When questioned about this idea of the teacher/ki ng, he said it was his classroom management style. in order to have an effectiv e classroom communiclassroom management you have to you have to have student participation they have to buy into what youre doing they have to uh, they have to have a say in what youre doing at the same time though the teacher is in control so thats why I have my image which coincides with Dr. Josephs and uh, which is that of a benevolent king or benevolent dictatorship in the fact that students have a voice in their affairs (I: okay) but ultimately the teachers in charge it goes back to the basi c philosophy of a teacher education program you gotta help teachers grow and find their strengths and then use those use those strengths if a teacher is, thats their if that is effective with that par ticular teacher than fine I am most effective doing what I do best and thats more on the lines of Dr. Joseph or, the benevolent dictator (H3) Henry emphasized that his classroom management style was that of the benevolent king or benevolent dictator. As the benevolent dictator he would have to have student participation and give students a say in his teaching, but for the purpose of having students buy into what he was doing in the classroom. According to Henry, the students have a voice but the teachers in charge (teacher is in control). He believed this classroom management style was one of his strengths, just as he believed a passionate perf orm ance was his strength, and he validated it twice by citing a respected instructor in the social studies education program whom

PAGE 192

192 he believed used this method (Dr. Joseph). Henry explained what methods he used as the benevolent dictator or king. the image of a benevolent king is still the king no matter what but also gets feedback from the students as, thats just my classroom management and classroom philosophy I did uh weekly surveys (I: okay) it wasI had an index card system and they uh, every Friday I had question time meaning students bring their index cards they could write anonymous comments put em in a box they could write a question and put their name on it and Id answer back on the card to ensure that it just stays between us or they can ask a question and put no name on it and Ill answer that question in class I was getting feedback and the students were writing they are very aware of their own education and thats why I uh getting feedback from them is very important its like the king sitting under the oak tree having the students come to him directly with their individual complaints (H3) Henry emphasized that his classroom management style maintained his role as king but also solicited feedback from students. He explained that he provided weekly opportunities for students to write a question or comment, signed or anonymous on an index card and put it in a box. It should be noted that students had to bring their own index cards and these were not supplied by the king Henry would read the cards and ans wer either on the back of the card (for signed cards) or in class (for unsi gned cards). He emphasized twice that he was getting feedback (getting feedback) from students because they were very aware of their educational needs. This classroom management method was modeled after a story he heard about a French king from the Middle Ages who, ever y Sunday, sat by an oak tree and citizens brought

PAGE 193

193 concerns to him (Observati on, February 28, 2007). Henry visualized himself as the king whose students came directly to him with concerns. The dilemma that arises with this model is that the king or benevolent dictator is, as Henry said, still the king no matter what. A king or dictator, no matter ho w benevolent, still has the power to ignore questions a nd comments that contradict his philosophy and goals, just as a teacher who models classroom management after a benevolent dictator has the power to ignore student questions and comments th at conflict with his teaching philosophy and classroom goals. Henry resisted democratic classroom practices be cause they did not support his belief that good teachers maintained all control in the classroom His belief that good te achers are passionate performers was related to his commitment to c ontrol because as a passionate performer, the teacher controls the knowledge in the classroom. He resisted methods used and content taught in the social studies internship seminar because th ey conflicted with his be lief that good teachers control the behavior of students and the importa nt knowledge in classrooms. He also perceived much of the class as impractical or irrelevant to his future career as a teacher. His beliefs about teaching were the basis for his educational ideology. Ideology of a Resister Educational ideolog ies are political beliefs about teaching, schools and education that maintain or disrupt the hegemony of schools. In the United States, the culture of most schools is grounded in White, Eurocentric, middleupper class cultural beliefs. Henr ys sociohistorical context placed him in a White, Eurocentric, mi ddle and middleupper class environment similar to how schools are structured in the United States. He attended predominantly White schools that catered to mainly middle and upper class familie s. According to Henry, his elementary school was all White and his secondary schools were predominantly White. He attended a health sciences magnet program in high school that he said was academically rigorous.

PAGE 194

194 Henrys father had a masters degree and his mother had a high school diploma and they both encouraged him to go to college. He believed his success in high school and college was due to his selfmotivation, not to his fathers educati on level, parents socioeconomic status, a rigorous magnet program, or a fouryear scholarship. Due to his family background, he fit well in the White, Eurocentric, middleupper class cu lture that dominates schools in the United States. Henry believed good teachers ta ught practical and relevant c ontent. The two classes he enjoyed most were both in his major fieldh istoryand the instructors were demanding. For Henry, the content was relevant as well as interesti ng to him as a future social studies teacher. He did not like two graduate level courses in his social studies education program but said they taught what he considered practical content. The educational technology class and the social studies internship seminar taught him how to sp eak the language that school administrators wanted to hear. That was not the expressed purpo se of either class, although the internship seminar did help future teachers create a portfolio of their work. The social studies internship seminar explored issues in classroom teachi ng, like culturally responsive pedagogy, democratic classrooms, and a noexcuses teaching philosophy. He resisted the materi al related to these issues. Henry, however, found the class practical and useful b ecause it helped him learn the buzz words that could help him get a job. Henry also believed that good teachers are pa ssionate performers and control the most important knowledge in the classroom. As discussed in Williams chapter, a passionate performer is a lecturer with a flair for dram a and a good memory for stories. Henry confirmed this idea when he said teaching was an art and he was a performer. This approach is similar to Freires (1993) banking method of teaching where the instructor has possession of the

PAGE 195

195 knowledge and deposits it through lecture into the minds of students. At some point, the instructor withdraws the knowledge through various assessments and determines if the student has memorized what the instructor values as knowledge. Henrys ideology supports the hegemony of schools in which the teacher owns and controls all the knowledge. His belief that good teachers are benevolent dict ators reinforces the ideology that teachers must control student behavior and students are powerless. His us e of index cards as a way for students to participate in the way the classroom is run is an illusion of shared power since, as Henry said, the teacher is still the king. He resisted democratic classrooms or sharing power with students in the management of the classroom becau se he felt this would lead to chaos. In the United States, schools are expected to maintain the power of the administrators, faculty and staff over students. Henry supports this order, which maintains the hegemony of schools. Henrys resistance to the methods used and cont ent taught in the social studies internship seminar and the teacher education program was based on his ideology that schools and teachers control the behavior and knowledge of students. The instructor of the internship seminar attempted to disrupt this by us ing methods and content that ch allenged this ideology. Henrys resistance was counterresistance since he was resisting ideas that co uld potentially disrupt hegemony in schools.

PAGE 196

196 REFERENCES Adorno, T. (1984). Aesth etic theory New York, NY: Routledge. Althusser, L. (1971). Ideology and ideological state apparatus (notes toward an investigation). In B. Brewster (Trans.), Lenin and philosophy and other essays (127). New York, NY: Monthly Review Press. American Council on Education. (2002). Access and persistence: Findings from 10 years of longitudinal research on students Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Anyon, J. (1981). Social cl ass and school knowledge. Curriculum Inquiry, 11 (1): 3. Bahrampour, T. & Glod, M. (2006, Marc h 29). Students walk out in 2nd day of immigration rights protest. The Washington Post p. B03. Barton, K. and Levstik, L. (2004). Teaching history for the common good Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. CochranSmith, M. (1995). Color blindness and bask et making are not the answers: Confronting the dilemmas of race, culture, and la nguage diversity in teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 32 (3), 493. _______________ (2004). Walking the road: Race, diversity and social justice in teacher education New York, NY: Teachers College Press. CochranSmith, M., Davis, D. & Fries, K. (200 4). Multicultural teacher population: Research, practice and policy. In J.A. Banks and C.A.M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (2nd edition, pp. 931). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass Publishers. Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Me aning and perspective in the research process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Dance, L.J. (2004). Tough fronts: The impact of street culture on schooling. New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer. DarlingHammond, L., French, J. & GarciaLopez, S.P. (2002). Learning to teach for social justice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Davis, N.J. (1992). Teaching about inequality : Student resistance, paralysis, and rage. Teaching Sociology, 20 (3): 232. Delpit, L. (1996). Other peoples children: Cultur al conflict in the classroom New York, NY: The New Press. Devine, J. (1996). Maximum security: The culture of violence in innercity schools. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

PAGE 197

197 Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introducti on to the philosophy of education New York, NY: The Free Press. Ford, P. (2006, March 28). Why French youths protest an age of insecurity. Christian Science Monitor Retrieved September 15, 2006, at ht tp://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0328/p01s03 woeu.html. Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed New York, NY: Continuum Publishing Co. _______ (1998). Pedagogy of freedom Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. _______ (2004). Pedagogy of indignation Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers. Gay, G. (1997). Multicultural infusion in teac her education: Foundati ons and applications. Peabody Journal of Education, 72 (1), 150. _______ (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 106. Gee, J.P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis theory and method New York, NY: Routledge. Giroux, H.A. (2001). Theory and resistance in education: Towards a pedagogy for the opposition Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc. Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks New York, NY: International Publishers. Grant, C.A. & Gillette, M. (2006). A candid talk to teacher educators about effectively preparing teachers who can teach everyones children. Journal of Teacher Education, 57 (3), 292 299. Habermas, J. (1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. __________ (1998). Communicative ethics Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Haddad, A.T. & Lieberman, L. (2002). From student resistance to embracing the sociological imagination: Unmasking privilege, social conventions, and racism. Teaching Sociology, 30(3), 328. Hatch, J.A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. New York, NY: State University of New York Press. hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom New York, NY: Taylor & Francis, Inc.

PAGE 198

198 _______ (2000). Where we stand: Class matters New York, NY: Routledge. Horkheimer, M. (1972). Critical theory. New York, NY: Seabury Press. Horkheimer, M. & Adorno, T. (1972). Dialectic of enlightenment New York, NY: Seabury Press. Howard, T. (2003). Culturally relevant pedagogy : Ingredients for critical teacher reflection. Theory into Practice, 42 (3), 195. Hunter, M.L. & Nettles, K.D. (1999). What a bout the white women? Racial politics in a womens studies classroom. Teaching Sociology, 27 (4), 385. Irvine, J.J. (2003). Educating teachers for diversity : Seeing with a cultural eye New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Jay, M. (1973). The dialectical imagination: A history of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research, 1923 Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Jensen, R. (2005). The heart of whiteness: Confronti ng race, racism, and white privilege San Francisco, CA: City Lights Books. Laclau, E. & Mouffe, C. (2001). Hegemony and socialist strategy London, UK: Verso. Loewen, J. (1995). Lies my teacher told me New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Lukcs, G. (1972). Political Writings: 1919 (R. Livingstone, Trans.). London: NLB. (Original work published 1919). _________ (1989). History and class consciousness. In R.S. Gottlieb (Ed.), An anthology of western Marxism: From Lukcs and Gramsci to socialistfeminism New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Lucal, B. (1996). Oppression and privilege: Towa rd a relational conceptualization of race. Teaching Sociology, 24 (3), 245. Marcuse, H. (1991). Onedimensional man (2nd edition) Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Marx, K. (2005). The German ideology. In D. McLellan (Ed.), Karl Marx: Selected writings (2nd ed., 175). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. McCadden, B.M. (1998). Its hard to be good New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing. McCotter, S.S. (1999). Team meetings, integrated curriculum, and literatu re groups: Forums for democratic decisionmaking. In J. Allen (Ed.), Class actions: Teaching for social justice in elementary and middle schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

PAGE 199

199 McFarland, D.A. (2001). Student resistance: How the formal and informal organization of classrooms facilitate everyday forms of student defiance. American Journal of Sociology, 107(3), 612. McIntyre, A. (1997). Making meaning of whiteness: Explor ing racial identity with white teachers. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. McLaren, P. (1986). School as a ritual performance London, England: Routledge & Kegan Paul. __________ (2003). Critical pedagogy: A look at the major concepts. In Darder, A., Baltodano, M., and Torres, R.D. (Eds.), The critical pedagogy reader New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer. Michalove, B. (1999). Circling in: Examining prejudice in history and in ourselves. In J. Allen (Ed.), Class actions: Teaching for social ju stice in elementary and middle schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Middleton, V.A. (2002). Increasing prospective teachers divers ity beliefs and commitment. The Urban Review, 34 (4), 343. Miron, L.F. & Lauria, M. ( 1995). Identity politics and student resistance to innercity public schooling. Youth & Society, 27 (1): 30. Sewell, W.H. & Shah, V.P. (1968). Parents edu cation and childrens edu cational aspirations and achievements. American Sociological Review, 33 (2), 191. Shor, I. (1992). Empowering education: Critica l teaching for social change Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Shor, I. & Freire, P. (2003). What are the fears and risks of transformation? In A. Darder, M. Baltodano & R.D. Torres (Eds.), The critical pedagogy reader. New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer. Tyson, C. (2006). Research race and soci al education. In K. Barber (Ed.), Research methods in social studies education: Cont emporary issues and perspectives Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. United States Census Bureau. (2000). Census 2000. Retrieved online April 20, 2008 from http://www.census.gov. Van Dijk, T.A. (2001). Critical discourse anal ysis. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, and H.E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Villegas, A.M. & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: Rethinking the curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 20. Wheatley, M.J. (2002). Turning to one another: Simple con versations to restore hope to the future. San Francisco, CA: BarrettKoshler Publishers, Inc.

PAGE 200

200 Willis, P. (1988). Learning to labour: How working class kids get working class jobs Hampshire, England: Gower Publishing Company Ltd.

PAGE 201

201 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Sheryl Marie Howie was born in Washington, D .C. and raised in central Maryland among cows and corn fields. In 1988, she earned an Associate of Arts degree from Windward Community College, Kaneohe, Hawaii and in 1994, ear ned a Bachelor of Ar ts in history and a secondary social studies teach ing certification from Virginia Wesleyan College, Norfolk, Virginia. She worked as an editor for various publishing companies in Boston, Massachusetts, before applying to graduate school at the Univers ity of Florida. She earne d a masters degree in education in 2004 and a doctorate in education in 2008 from the Un iversity of Florida, both in foundations of education.