Citation
Teacher preparation for diverse classrooms

Material Information

Title:
Teacher preparation for diverse classrooms performance-based assessment of beginning teachers
Creator:
Daunic, Ann Parker
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
ix, 175 leaves : ; 29 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Beginning teachers ( jstor )
Classrooms ( jstor )
Cultural education ( jstor )
Learning ( jstor )
Multicultural education ( jstor )
Special education ( jstor )
Student diversity ( jstor )
Students ( jstor )
Teacher education ( jstor )
Teachers ( jstor )
Dissertations, Academic -- Special Education -- UF
Special Education thesis, Ph. D
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1996.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 166-173).
Additional Physical Form:
Also available online.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Ann Parker Daunic.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Ann Parker Daunic. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
35751968 ( OCLC )
0023798187 ( ALEPH )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text









TEACHER PREPARATION FOR DIVERSE CLASSROOMS:
PERFORMANCE-BASED ASSESSMENT OF BEGINNING TEACHERS













BY

ANN PARKER DAUNIC










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 1996





UMZBEST' Y F.,R LiFBRRIES













ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would first like to thank the members of my doctoral committee for their valuable assistance in the completion of this dissertation: Dr. Cynthia Griffin and Dr. Simon Johnson for their constructive suggestions, Dr. Cecil Mercer for thoughtful insights and invaluable instruction in writing, and Dr. David Miller for patiently and generously providing expertise in measurement issues and statistical design and analysis. I would especially like to thank my chair, Dr. Vivian Correa. Her enthusiasm, professionalism, and dedication have been an inspiration, and her expertise helped me turn incomplete ideas into researchable questions. She, along with the other committee members, has made sometimes tedious tasks also pleasurable ones.

I would like to thank the special education faculty for their support, particularly Drs. Paul Sindelar and Mary Sue Rennells, with whom I have worked on Project SEART-C. Dr. Rennells has been a mentor who furnished encouragement and expertise throughout my tenure at the university and was particularly instrumental in my successful pursuit of a federal grant to fund this research. Thanks are due as well to Dr. Lynn Klem with the Educational Testing Service, who has been a consultant on the grant, and to




ii








my colleagues Maria Blanes and Mary Eisele, who have provided both professional and personal support for the past three years.

Last and most important, I would like to thank my family for their support, and particularly my husband Joel for his unwavering belief in my ability to succeed. He has always championed my interests, applauded my efforts, encouraged me to reach for higher goals, and patiently served as my sounding board and partner along the way.

































iii














TABLE OF CONTENTS

apage

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................................... ii

LIST OF TABLES ........................................... vii

ABSTRACT ................................................. viii

CHAPTERS

1 INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM ....................... 1

Introduction ................................................ 1
Purpose of the Study ....................................... 4
Scope and Limitations of the Study .......................... 9
Definition of Terms .......................................... 10

2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ....................... 14

Introduction ............................................. 14
Criteria for Selection of Relevant Literature .................... 15
Need for Culturally Responsive Teaching (CRT) ................ 16
Knowledge Base for Culturally Responsive Teaching ............. 33
Teacher Preparation and Assessment in CRT .................. 44
Summary and Implications ................................. 56

3 METHODS AND PROCEDURES ........................... 58

Introduction ............... .......................... 58
Description of the Null Hypotheses ........................... 58
Participants and Sampling Procedures ........................ 59
Instrumentation .......................................... 61
Sources of Evidence ....................................... 63
Description of Assessor Training ........... ................ 64
Determination of a Subset of Criteria for CRT .................. 68
Levels of Preservice Preparation in CRT ...................... 69



iv








4 RESULTS ............................................ 75

Introduction ............................................ 75
Determination of Levels of Preparation in CRT ................. 77
Description of Participants ................................ 78
Additional Descriptive Information ........................... 81
Selection of Praxis III Criteria to Measure CRT ................. 86
Tests of Hypotheses ....................................... 88
Summary ............................................... 96

5 DISCUSSION ............................................ 99

Overview of Findings .................................... 99
Implications of Findings ........................................ 101
Limitations of the Study .............................................. 113
Suggestions for Future Research ............................ 115
Summary .......................................................... 117

APPENDICES

A PARTICIPANT INFORMED CONSENT ..................... 120

B LETTER TO BEGINNING TEACHERS ........................ 122

C SAMPLE FEEDBACK LETTER ............................ 124

D PRAXIS III DOMAINS AND CRITERIA ..................... 125

E SAMPLE LETTER TO EXPERTS ....................... 127

F CANDIDATE PROFILE ............................ ....... 132

G CLASS PROFILE ........................................ 135

H INSTRUCTIONAL PROFILE .............................. 138

I PREOBSERVATION INTERVIEW .......................... 140

J POSTOBSERVATION INTERVIEW ......................... 141

K QUESTIONS ADDED TO POSTOBSERVATION INTERVIEW ... 143 L RECORD OF EVIDENCE ................................. 144



V








M QUESTIONS FOR ASSESSOR REFLECTION ................ 145

N PRAXIS III SCORING RULES AND MATRICES .............. 151

REFERENCES ........................................ 166

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .................................... 174












































vi














LIST OF TABLES

page

2-1. Components of Culturally Responsive Teaching ................ 41

3-1. Domain and Focus Areas Addressed by Praxis III--Classroom
Performance Assessments Developed by the Educational Testing
Service (1992) ........................................... 62

3-2. Preservice Preparation in Culturally Responsive Teaching ....... 71 3-3. Overview of Research Questions, Instrumentation, and Analyses .. 74 4-1. Demographic Characteristics of Participants by Low Versus
High CRT Preparation .................................... 79

4-2. Demographic Characteristics of Participants by SE Versus GE .... 80 4-3. Frequency of Score Denoting Level of Coursework in
Multicultural Content .................................... 81

4-4. Frequency of Score Denoting Internship Experience in Settings
with Varying Levels of Diversity ............................ 83

4-5. Frequency of Level of Preparation Components for High Group .... 84 4-6 Frequency of Level of Preparation Components for Medium
Group ................................................. 84

4-7. Frequency of Level of Preparation Components for Low Group .... 85 4-8. Frequency of Ranks Assigned to Each Praxis III Criterion ........ 87 4-9 Mean Scores on Selected Praxis III Criteria by Preparation
Group ................................................. 89

4-10. Mean Scores on Selected Praxis III Criteria by SE Versus GE ..... 91 4-11. Summary of Univariate ANOVAs for Nine Praxis III Criteria ..... 92



vii













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

TEACHER PREPARATION FOR DIVERSE CLASSROOMS:
PERFORMANCE-BASED ASSESSMENT OF BEGINNING TEACHERS By

Ann Daunic

August 1996

Chairman: Dr. Vivian Correa
Major Department: Special Education

To respond effectively to an increasingly culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) student population and the shortage of diverse teachers in today's schools, researchers in teacher education have addressed the need to prepare all teachers adequately for diverse classrooms. To date, most of the data in this area has consisted of ethnographic studies and teacher self-report inventories. In this study, a performance-based assessment was used to examine the effects of preservice preparation factors on culturally responsive teaching (CRT).

Praxis III, a performance-based assessment for beginning teachers developed by the Educational Testing Service, is infused with sensitivity to culture as an integral part of effective teaching. In order to focus on teacher competencies most critical to CLD students, a subset of the Praxis III criteria was identified through a survey of experts and served as the measure of CRT viii








for this study. The following questions were addressed: (a) Do selected CRT skills of beginning teachers with high levels of preparation in CRT differ from the skills of those with low preparation in CRT and (b) do selected CRT skills of SE beginning teachers differ from those of GE beginning teachers?

Assessors trained in Praxis III gathered records of evidence for 68 beginning teacher graduates of general or special education teacher education programs at four major state universities in Florida. Participants were designated as high or low in preservice preparation in CRT on the basis of their responses to questions concerning their coursework and internship experiences. Scores on nine Praxis III criteria were analyzed using a 2 x 2 multivariate analysis of variance. No differences in scores were found to result from different amounts of preparation in CRT, but special and general education teachers differed on three measurement criteria: Knowledge of students' backgrounds, fairness, and extending students' thinking. Implications of the findings for teacher education, measurement considerations, and future research needs were addressed.

















ix













CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM Introduction

The nation's public schools are undergoing changes that present

significant challenges to educators and policymakers, now and for the 21st century. Students from racially, culturally, and ethnically diverse backgrounds are entering the school system in increasing numbers (Williams, 1992), bringing with them a variety of languages, perspectives, and learning styles that challenge teachers to provide appropriate instruction (Hilliard, 1992; Ortiz & Garcia, 1995). Most recently, political turmoil in Haiti, Cuba, and eastern Europe has sent literally thousands of refugees to seek asylum in the United States. Many of those granted asylum will gain access to public services, including public education.

Over half of the students in California, Florida, and Texas schools are projected to come from culturally diverse families by 2010; 80% of teachers, however, will be white (Hodgkinson, 1992). The resulting differences between teachers from the majority, or dominant, culture and students from culturally and/or linguistically diverse (CLD) backgrounds (minority cultures) can pose problems for both teachers and students. The interrelationships between Anglo teachers and CLD students-termed



1






2

cultural mismatch-have led to difficulties in student assessment (Harry, 1992b), academic performance (Obiakor, Algozzine, & Ford, 1993), and the participation of CLD parents in educational matters (Correa, 1989).

CLD students thus suffer from disproportionately low rates of

achievement and overidentification for special education (SE) programs (Obiakor et al., 1993). Concurrently, budget crunches have forced states to reduce expenditures. Cuts in funding often have resulted in an increase in the number of students with special needs placed in general education (GE) classrooms (National Association of State Directors of Special Education, 1994). The challenges of an increasingly diverse student population are, therefore, as significant for teachers in GE as they are for those in SE.

Clearly, whether beginning teachers are adequately prepared to teach CLD students is an important question. Hilliard (1992) proposed that equity issues in special education have more to do with pedagogical validity than with bias and fairness, stating that "appropriate services are those that are pedagogically valid (which also assumes that they are culturally sensitive and salient)" (p. 171).

However, researchers have questioned the appropriateness (i.e., pedagogical validity) of the assessment and instruction of CLD students. Methods developed primarily without serious attention to the pervasive influences of culture and language on both teaching and learning processes continue to predominate (Cummins, 1986; Gersten & Woodward, 1994; Villegas, 1991).






3

Moreover, cultural issues often are outside the conscious awareness of well-intentioned teachers. Those issues encompass beliefs, attitudes, and values-the substance of subjective culture-that influence both students and teachers but are routinely taken for granted (Banks, 1993; Ovando; 1993). The mismatch between teacher and student that results from practices insensitive to critical cultural differences has contributed to the failure of CLD students to make adequate progress in the educational system (Gay, 1993).

Cultural mismatch has affected the participation of parents of CLD students in the educational system, as well. Overinclusion of their children in special education, bureaucratic structures, and poor communication with education professionals have hindered the involvement of CLD parents (Correa, 1989; Fradd & Correa, 1989; Harry, 1992b). These factors are exacerbated by the dearth of minority culture and bilingual personnel. With the growth in numbers of CLD students, education professionals must work to strengthen relationships with parents and communities. Relationships will strengthen when the cultural values and experiences of the children are validated through culturally responsive teaching.

Through studies over the last two decades, educators have identified

competencies critical to the effective teaching of CLD students (Hollins, 1993; Villegas, 1991). Many educators argue persuasively for culturally responsive pedagogy, but cries for reform have not been accompanied by significant change in teacher education (Grant, 1994). Grant recently has argued that






4
"Schools of education, although clearly aware of the changing demographics in urban schools and the failure of their graduates to successfully teach students of color, have done little to meet these challenges" (1994, p. 1). Moreover, research on teacher preparation programs that specifically address cultural issues is very limited (Grant, 1994). Professionals have recognized

(a) the infusion of multicultural content throughout teacher education curricula and (b) experiences in culturally diverse communities as positive additions to the preparation of teachers (Burstein, Cabello, & Hamann, 1993; Grant, 1994). Indeed, the membership of The Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) has endorsed multicultural perspectives (Teaching from a multicultural perspective, August, 1995), and members of its Division for Diverse Exceptional Learners (DDEL) have proposed revisions to the "CEC Common Core of Knowledge and Skills" preamble to include statements specific to multicultural issues (CEC common core of knowledge and skills essential for all beginning special education teachers, June, 1995). The melting pot metaphor for United States society is eroding; so must the "color blind" metaphor in teacher education (Grant, 1994).

Purpose of the Study

Despite calls for teacher educators to address challenges posed by increasingly diverse students, the assessment of teacher competencies in culturally responsive pedagogy has been based primarily on data from self-report measures and ethnographic information (Grant, 1994; Villegas, 1991). Although much can be learned from effective practice in particular






5

environments, and from listening to the reflections of recent teacher education graduates, there is a compelling need for additional research.

Cultural responsiveness in teaching practice-built on the premise that the way students go about learning may differ across cultures (Villegas, 1991)-is difficult to measure directly and quantitatively. However, researchers have identified underlying principles critical to effective teaching in classrooms that include students from diverse backgrounds (Grant & Sleeter, 1993; Hollins, 1993). The present study was designed, therefore, to supplement research that has documented effective practice in particular environments. Praxis III, a performance-based assessment system newly developed through extensive research by the Educational Testing Service (ETS), has provided a means for examining how well beginning teachers exhibit competencies critical to culturally responsive teaching (CRT) in a variety of teaching contexts.

The Praxis III assessment criteria are infused with sensitivity to

culture as a major component of effective teaching (Dwyer, 1993). For the purpose of this study, a subset of criteria particularly critical to effective teaching of CLD students was selected through a survey of experts in multicultural education. I (a) compared the assessment profiles on the specified criteria of beginning teacher graduates of four traditional universities in Florida who had received different levels of preservice training in cultural issues and (b) compared the degree of CRT (assessment profiles) evidenced by those teachers prepared in SE versus GE teacher education






6

programs. Levels of training in CRT were determined by categorizing responses to two interview questions added to the Praxis III assessment that addressed coursework in multicultural issues and internship experience in diverse settings.

Research Questions

Specifically, the following questions were addressed:

1. What is the relationship between scores on measures of CRT

obtained by beginning teachers and level of preservice training

in CRT?

2. What is the relationship between scores on measures of CRT

obtained by beginning teachers and preservice preparation in

SE versus GE?

The records of evidence obtained through Praxis III yield criterion

scores for each beginning teacher; they also provide qualitative descriptions of how individual beginning teachers adapt instruction for students in particular contexts. These descriptions add depth of understanding to findings based on criterion scores. Praxis III assessments also include demographic data for both the beginning teacher participants and the classrooms observed. This information can be examined for potential confounding relationships among teacher variables, teacher preparation, and student characteristics.

Data were collected using Praxis III assessments for 68 beginning

teacher graduates in Florida, records of evidence were prepared, and scores






7

were analyzed using a MANOVA design. Implementation procedures are described fully in Chapter III.

Importance to Teacher Education

An investigation of the first research question added knowledge about the effect of cultural components in teacher preparation on the development of CRT in program graduates. Both academic preparation and life experience affect how teachers construct learning for their students (Johnston & Ochoa, 1993). Moreover, researchers have indicated that the infusion of cultural competencies into teacher education courses can produce positive change in teacher beliefs, knowledge, and skills related to CRT (Burstein & Cabello, 1989; Burstein et al., 1993; Grant, 1994). The present study provided further information about the possible relationship between characteristics of preservice preparation and specific teacher behaviors.

I asked the second research question to address how different program orientations (i.e., SE vs. GE) affect the CRT profiles of program graduates. Only with knowledge gained from systematic observations in a variety of classrooms and contexts can such profiles begin to emerge. Teacher educators in GE traditionally have emphasized group processes, the scope and sequence of curriculum, and more recently, holistic approaches to teaching and learning. Conversely, SE professionals traditionally have prepared teachers to focus on student competencies within categories of disability. Although advocates of constructivism have constituted a recent






8

force for change, special education has a firm foundation in positivistic, behavioral approaches (Sindelar, Pugach, Griffin, & Seidl, 1995).

Increased insight into how teachers with GE or SE preparation exhibit competencies critical to CRT is important, given the changing demographics of the students all beginning teachers ultimately serve. Further, given current trends toward the inclusion of students with disabilities in general classrooms, a large portion of whom are from diverse backgrounds, it is critical that teacher educators from SE and GE collaborate in efforts to provide optimal educational strategies for all students (Pugach, 1992; Simpson, Whelan, & Zabel, 1993). Knowledge of variables in preservice training important to CRT, and of potential differences due to preparation orientation, can enhance that collaboration. Importance to Research Methodology

The Praxis III assessment represents a means for the systematic

examination of teacher behaviors, and teacher planning and reflection, in diverse classroom settings. It has been developed as an instrument for licensing beginning teachers and to date has not been incorporated in theoretical research. The potential that such a comprehensive and well-conceptualized system holds for the study of complex student-teacher interactions in a variety of classroom contexts is encouraging. Moreover, Praxis is grounded in a commitment to the critical importance of culture to the teaching and learning process; therefore, it was particularly relevant to a






9

study of teacher behaviors related to CRT. Its use was an initial step toward examining its effectiveness for such purposes.

Scope and Limitations of the Study

The participants in this study were graduates of four university

teacher education programs, in either SE or GE, who were in their first year of teaching in their areas of certification in the state of Florida. Attempts were made to obtain relatively even numbers of volunteer participants from each of the four universities, and of those in GE versus SE. School locations for participant observations were not restricted to particular counties; however, if a county contained very few of the program graduates under consideration and was in a location that would pose logistic difficulties, it was eliminated. Participants were restricted to those teaching at the elementary level to provide as much parity between SE and GE teachers' classes as possible. (The GE graduates of colleges of education in Florida state universities are prepared to teach primarily at the elementary level.) With these delimitations, a random sample was selected, stratified by GE versus SE and university, from which volunteers were obtained. No consideration was given to the demographic characteristics of participants or schools. However, the counties in which most of the graduates teach contain substantial numbers of culturally and/or linguistically diverse students.

Some of the above considerations also constitute limitations to the

generalizability of this research. Generalizing findings to secondary teachers should be done with caution. It is also possible that the four Florida state






10

universities have teacher education programs that are atypical in some way. If unidentified factors unique to these programs significantly affected the way in which their graduates interact with CLD students, preservice preparation variables would be confounded with these influences.

A more likely and more important limitation is the use of only one

assessment per participant. The Praxis III assessment system was designed to use in licensing beginning teachers. When used for that purpose, it entails at least three observations of a candidate under consideration, made during different periods of the initial year of teaching. Restricted by available time and limited resources, participants in this study were observed only once. The desire to include as large a sample as possible outweighed the limitation of observing each teacher on one occasion only.

Definition of Terms

Culturally or Linguistically Diverse (CLD). Although technically the word diverse is not appropriate to describe an individual, this term is used to define those individuals who are from minority backgrounds. It is used interchangeably with the term minority. (Individuals also can be disenfranchised or disadvantaged by virtue of gender, religious affiliation, geographic location, disability, sexual preference, or age; the focus of this study, however, is on students who have minority status by virtue of race, culture, ethnicity, or language.) The term also is applied to classrooms, schools, and communities that comprise individuals from a diversity of cultures and language backgrounds.








Although I have chosen these terms (CLD and minority) to make the writing of this dissertation more succinct, I want to emphasize the importance of recognizing the diversity that exists within and among particular cultures. By using the term "CLD" as opposed to "White" or "Anglo" when describing a population, I in no way mean to imply that CLD individuals constitute a homogeneous group or to juxtapose all minorities with all individuals from white (non-Hispanic), "majority" culture backgrounds. I fully recognize the heterogeneity of individuals within any particular culture and the diversity of cultural backgrounds represented by today's students. Indeed, the proposed research ultimately addresses the pervasive consequences of a failure to respond appropriately to that diversity.

Majority Culture. The term majority culture is used to define traditional, Western, (Euro-centric), mainstream thought, patterns of behavior, or accepted institutional structures that are inherent in United States society. Although this country is undergoing constant and significant change, its institutions, dominant language, and cultural metaphors are grounded in Western hegemony.

Culturally Responsive Teaching (CRT). This term is defined as teaching-including planning, creating the classroom environment, and relating to students and parents-that incorporates sensitivity to language and cultural background in ways that help make connections between students' background knowledge and experiences and learning (see Villegas, 1991). It has been used by other researchers to include sensitivity to a






12

broader spectrum of differences; for this study, I have focused primarily on linguistic, cultural, or racial differences. In identifying levels of preservice preparation in CRT, I am referring to coursework in multicultural content or practicum experiences that have helped to sensitize participants to the importance of cultural background in the teaching and learning process.

Beginning Teacher. A beginning teacher is one who currently is

completing his or her first full year as the teacher of record (having primary responsibility) for a classroom of students. Summary and Overview of Remaining Chapters

In this study I addressed (a) the effects of preservice preparation in CRT and (b) GE versus SE teacher preparation on beginning teacher competencies critical to teaching students from diverse cultural backgrounds. Despite the recognition of professionals that they must attend to cultural issues in education, little research has been devoted to examining the influence of teacher preparation factors on actual teaching. The newly developed Praxis III beginning teacher assessment system facilitates progress toward that end and was used to measure culturally responsive teaching in this study. The research is a step toward enhancing the knowledge base of teacher educators. Such efforts can have a positive impact on all students and help advance methodology in this critical but complex area.

In Chapter 2, I provide a review and analysis of relevant literature

from the following areas: minority issues in education, culturally responsive






13

teaching, and teacher preparation and assessment. Selected expository articles as well as empirical studies are included. The chapter ends with implications for further research. Chapter 3 contains a description of the sample, methodology, and procedures used in this study. Results are described in Chapter 4. In the final chapter (Chapter 5), I discuss the results in light of previous research and the scope and limitations of this study and the findings' implications for teacher education and future research.













CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Introduction

In Chapter 1, I presented a rationale for a study of the relationship between factors in teacher preparation and the basic skills of beginning teachers in culturally responsive teaching (CRT). A particular contribution of this study is the use of a performance-based assessment to address this issue. The research questions, the scope and limitations of the study, and an overview of the methodology were also included in Chapter 1.

Chapter 2 contains a summary and analysis of selected professional literature relevant to teacher preparation and assessment in CRT. The chapter is divided into six major sections as follows: (a) criteria for selection of literature; (b) need for CRT, including a discussion of changing demographics, assessment and instruction issues, and minority parent involvement in education; (c) conceptual and theoretical foundations; (d) empirical knowledge base for CRT; (e) current status of teacher preparation and assessment, including a discussion of the recently developed Praxis III assessment system; and (f) summary and implications for the present study.







14






15

Criteria for Selection of Relevant Literature

In this study, the effects of teacher preparation factors on the practice of CRT were examined using a performance-based assessment of beginning teachers. A review of studies in several areas of professional literature was necessary to provide background for the perspective that led to the study's conception. Therefore, the literature discussed in this chapter includes (a) recent reviews of the professional literature related to the areas outlined in the second paragraph of this chapter, (b) empirical work related to CRT, including several ethnographic studies, (c) empirical studies related to the effects of teacher preparation on CRT, and (d) selected expository literature that is particularly germane to an understanding of relevant issues and future directions for research.

The majority of studies in this review were completed since 1985. I included exceptions if they were seminal studies cited frequently in more recent publications or contained information particularly pertinent to this study. Literature was accessed through the Information Clearinghouse (ERIC), a search of recent journals available at the Universities of Florida and Central Florida, and through discussions with professionals in the field. Descriptors used in an initial literature search included multicultural education, teacher education, assessment, and family needs. Demographic data from a variety of sources provided descriptions of the changing character of the United States population. Finally, recent unpublished material relevant to the study was provided by the Educational Testing Service.






16

Need for Culturally Responsive Teaching (CRT) Demographics

At present, 30% of students are designated at-risk for failure, and that number is expected to rise dramatically (Williams, 1992). Included in the at-risk population are disproportionate and rapidly growing numbers of CLD students. The following demographic data illustrate current trends:

Ethnically diverse groups are growing at 2 to 3 times the rate of

Caucasians; Hispanics are the fastest growing (Williams, 1992).

African Americans will constitute 25% of the student population by

the year 2000 (Obiakor, Algozzine, & Ford, 1993).

In 1992, 33 states had K-12 populations of 20% or more CLD

students, and all 25 of the nation's largest city school systems have

"majority minorities" (Williams, 1992, p. 158).

Students from low-status backgrounds (e.g., African Americans,

American Indians, Mexican Americans, Puerto Rican Americans, and students whose family income is at poverty level) constitute a

disproportionately high percentage (60% to 80%) of those

designated retarded (Amos & Landers, 1984).

Recent studies have indicated that the category of learning disabilities

(LD) is most prevalent for Hispanic students placed in special education (Ortiz & Garcia, 1995). LD has replaced mental retardation as the most prevalent placement for African American students in urban areas, as well (Gottlieb, Alter, Gottlieb, & Wishner, 1994). In a 1992 study of special






17
education in urban schools (Gottlieb et al., 1994), 93% of the school population examined were from minority backgrounds. In special education, over 95% of students were minorities, over 80% were poor, and those in self-contained LD classes generally had low IQ scores and were prone to academic failure.

Diversity (including characteristics of race, culture, ethnicity,

language, and exceptionality) is becoming the norm in our nation's schools. The fact that today's students come from a variety of cultural and/or linguistic backgrounds essentially has rendered the term minority obsolete (Cloud, 1993). Highly correlated with so-called minority (i.e., CLD) status is poverty. To add to the previous examples, the percentage of Black children living below poverty levels is three times that of white children (Obiakor et al., 1993). Williams (1992) reported that 90% of the increase in children born into poverty a few years ago was in households headed by a female African American or Hispanic and that African American children were nine times more likely than Caucasians to be neurologically impaired.

In an introduction to a series of articles on Hispanics and urban

education, Ruiz (1995) addressed what he termed a demographic paradox. The Hispanic population grew by approximately 53% between 1980 and 1990 and now constitutes more than 8% of the total U. S. population; it is projected to be the country's largest ethnic group by the end of this century. However, only a small percentage (21%) reported voting in the 1990 election. Reyes and McCollum (1992) indicated that current language policy, educational






18

reform (e.g., America 2000), and literacy programs that treat all learners the same regardless of linguistic or cultural background contribute to Hispanics' undereducation and poor literacy skills. It follows that low literacy levels affect voter turnout. They also affect minority groups' ability to move up the education ladder and become productive members of the work force.

If students from all backgrounds (particularly the increasing numbers whose cultures and languages are different from those of most teachers) are not educated appropriately, society as a whole stands to suffer from a reduced work force and less effective citizenry. Adherence to an educational system that optimally educates only white, middle-class, traditionally majority culture students is no longer viable. Indeed, the under education or inappropriate education of CLD students threatens the well-being of our country.

Assessment Issues

Appropriate education depends to a considerable degree on appropriate assessment. Difficulties in assessing CLD students are pervasive and well documented (Harry, 1992b). Educators have referred CLD students to special education in disproportionate numbers, frequently misinterpreting cultural or linguistic differences as disabilities.

Conversely, diversity also can contribute to failure to identify those students who need services. Disabilities may be masked by what educators consider normal second language learning difficulties. Although implementation of the Civil Rights Act and the Individuals with Disabilities






19

Education Act requires assessment in the native language, whether assessment leads to appropriate placement is still an issue. In Florida, for example, which has the fourth largest population with non-English speaking backgrounds in the country, only 3.4% of that population (as opposed to 12-15% of the total population) received special education services in addition to special English language instruction in 1985 (Fradd, Weismantel, Correa, & Algozzine, 1988).

Figueroa, Fradd, and Correa (1989) summarized the work of two

research institutes funded by the federal government to study the special education offered to Hispanic children. They reported findings specifically regarding assessment and instructional services. Among them were that (a) language proficiency was not seriously considered in special education assessment; (b) English-language problems that are typically characteristic of second language learners were misinterpreted as handicaps; (c) having parents born outside the United States increased the likelihood of eligibility for special education; (d) prereferral modifications of regular programs were rare and showed little indication of primary language support; and (e) special education produced little academic development for this group.

Through research in bilingual and special education, Gersten and Woodward (1994) found the paradoxical coexistence of overrepresentation and underrepresentation of language minority students in special education discussed previously. Moreover, they reported evidence from empirical studies that referrals can be more a reflection of teacher stress than of






20

carefully diagnosed student learning deficits. A major determinant of referral rates was often a given teacher's belief that he or she was unable to provide adequate instruction.

Although special education placements now may be approaching proportionate numbers for Hispanic students (i.e., consistent with their representation in the general student population), questions persist as to whether these students are appropriately identified and served. Recently Ortiz and Garcia (1995) reported that "there is little research on this population and virtually none which examines the influence of language proficiency on special education placement" (p. 472). Thus, even when assessments produce needed achievement-ability discrepancy scores for eligibility in LD placements, the question remains as to the reason(s) for the poor academic performance of language-minority students.

Another contributing factor to misidentification of students for special services is lack of sensitivity to cultural values. For example, Lynch and Hanson (1992) noted that members of Native American cultures tend to consider individual achievement relatively undesirable. Native American children frequently are taught to maintain a respectful silence in the face of authority. This tendency complicates the assessment process for these students.

Findings from Jacobs' (1991) ethnographic studies of four Hmong third grade students provide a second example. Jacobs identified imbedded Anglo cultural tendencies that unintentionally led to misidentification of these






21
students as LD. The studies documented the Hmong students' daily interactions in a southern California educational setting through use of participant and nonparticipant observations, structured and unstructured interviews, and analysis of school files. The children, who were recent refugees, were found to have problems "tuning in" to academic activities. Jacobs' analysis focused on the relationship between sociocultural and psychological factors related to cognitive development and academic achievement. The trauma resulting from the Hmong students' inability to perform led to withdrawal from tasks and to further trauma from declining skill levels. Jacobs concluded that teacher educators need to sensitize potential teachers to the adjustment process for such children and provide a conceptual framework for understanding the interrelatedness of cultural expectations and student-teacher interactions. Performance Issues

Teacher expectations play a significant role in student assessment and in student performance, as well (Ford, 1992; Villegas, 1991). Minority children often reinforce teacher perceptions by performing the way teachers expect them to perform (i.e., poorly). Terms such as different, disadvantaged, and limited further marginalize students already deemed at risk for learning difficulties by virtue of minority status. In addition, teachers who have not examined their own attitudes and expectancies may tend unconsciously to reproduce existing inequities (Cummins, 1986).






22

Once CLD students have been placed in special education programs, they continue to suffer from disproportionately high drop-out rates. Gersten and Woodward (1994) synthesized the work of several prominent researchers and conducted their own observations over two years in an attempt to merge bodies of professional knowledge and research from bilingual and special education. Their work focused on students considered at risk for school failure or in need of special education. They (a) supplemented observations with interviews of teachers, students, parents, and administrators, (b) compared models of English instruction for bilingual students, and (c) examined pedagogical practices in special education. Gersten and Woodward concluded that a balance of meaning-based, holistic approaches with task-analytic instructional strategies may provide the most effective practice for teachers of bilingual students, including those with mild disabilities. The model of second language instruction used tended to be less important than providing students with a variety of tasks specific to both skill acquisition and complex cognitive functioning.

Recent emphasis on educational reform efforts such as America 2000 may pose particular problems for minority students. Obiakor et al. (1993) discussed some of the potential effects on African American students, particularly those in urban settings. Although scores for these students have risen since 1971, the reading and writing performance of Blacks is still below that of Whites in the same grades, and 13-year-old Black males have the highest percentage of students below grade level for their age. These






23

problems are compounded by those inherent in urban settings, such as higher student and teacher attrition. Obiakor et al. cited studies documenting effects of teacher attitudes and expectancies on student performance. They identified teacher behaviors that contribute to both overrepresentation of African American students in special education and the students' failure to make significant progress once in special classes. Teachers who hold lower expectations tend to (a) interact less frequently, (b) use more criticism and less praise, (c) use less feedback and more nonspecific feedback, and (d) demonstrate less patience when working with African American students as opposed to White students.

Similarly, Ruiz (1995) described the poor response of Hispanic

students within the educational system as currently structured. In 1991, Hispanics had a high school drop-out rate of 49%; of that number, Mexican Americans dropped out at a rate of more than 56%. He described schools as often alienating places for Hispanics whose understanding of expected routines and procedures is generally poor. Ruiz suggested that schools as institutions often have not responded to the changing composition of their communities by embracing an attitude of cultural pluralism. Until their teachers and administrators are sensitized to the value of the Hispanic experience in this society, these students will continue to be underserved.

In sum, teachers ill-equipped to adequately understand the influence of culture on student characteristics and behavior frequently misjudge the abilities of students from different cultures-be they African American,






24

Hispanic, Native American, or Hmong-and consequently, their potential for success in school. Moreover, lack of cultural awareness has contributed to student failure.

The miseducation of many bilingual and minority children may

continue until Congress and educators make appropriate assessment and instruction for CLD students a national priority (Figueroa et al., 1989). The next section of this chapter concerns the interrelationship between the current educational status of these students and the participation of their parents.

Parental Involvement

Lack of parental involvement contributes to the low achievement levels of minority students. Lynch and Stein (1987) noted that linguistic differences play a major role in determining communication patterns between home and school. Particularly in special education, language differences can make the translation of concepts concerning disability, instructional strategies, and parent involvement difficult, at best. Moreover, school personnel are hampered by the limited numbers of minority and bilingual professionals available, especially for speakers of Asian and Native American languages that have no written forms.

Lynch and Stein (1987) examined how Mexican American families participated in their children's special education programs and compared their participation with that of Black and Anglo families studied previously. Trained, bilingual (fluent in Spanish and English) interviewers who were






25

also parents of students with disabilities interviewed 63 parents of children in special education. The interviews were done in Spanish in the parents' homes. Results revealed that although parents generally were satisfied with their children's programs, they often were unaware of the services given and did not tend to be active participants in the assessment or IEP processes. Work schedules, lack of bilingual communication, and general communication problems were identified as barriers to active participation. Although Hispanics were significantly more likely than Blacks (previously studied) to rate professionals as effective, both groups tended to offer fewer suggestions at IEP meetings than did Anglos, and both knew significantly less about what services their children were to receive.

Special educators have exacerbated the difficulties faced by minority parents in gaining access to educational processes when they treat disabilities as deficits belonging to individuals, within the context of a medical model. The deficit view of disability is frequently combined with a deficit view of the culturally diverse family. Harry (1992a; 1992b) has described how these views dictate discourse between parents and special educators in relationships controlled (intentionally or unintentionally) by professionals with higher status and more formal education. Some professionals have even withheld information from low SES or minority parents under the assumption that parents are too unsophisticated to benefit from professional information (Marion, 1980).






26

Problems perpetuated by a deficit view of disability are further

complicated by socially constructed definitions of deviance (Harry, 1992a; Kauffman, 1989). Parents may view their children's disabilities differently than professionals. Disagreement over a particular label may not mean a denial of difficulties but simply a different name and interpretation for them. Harry (1992a) conducted an ethnographic study of the views of 12 low-income Puerto Rican parents (only one of whom was a native speaker of English) whose children were classified as having learning disabilities or mild mental retardation. Findings from unstructured interviews and participant observations were triangulated with those from school documents and interviews of professionals. Parents were found to profess concerns similar to those of professionals regarding the confounding of variables related to language, culture, and disability.

The over inclusion of CLD children in special education programs historically has contributed to low parental participation (Harry, 1992b). Culturally diverse families may view the educational system as "complex, intimidating, and bureaucratic" (Correa, 1989, p. 133). Minimal parental involvement in educational processes has significant implications for CLD children in both regular and special education, as parental advocacy traditionally has been a powerful force in educational reform (Fradd & Correa, 1989). Special educators have advocated change in the way professionals relate to CLD children and families (Correa, 1989; Figueroa, Fradd, & Correa, 1989; Nelson, Smith, & Dodd, 1992; Rueda, 1989). For






27

example, Correa (1989) emphasized the responsibility of school professionals to assist families through the transition from their native culture to the school culture. Professionals who act as "culture brokers" assume the role of ally, providing a link between the majority and minority cultures.

Given demographic projections, difficulties in the assessment and academic performance of CLD students, and the less than optimal involvement of minority parents in educational processes, there is a clear and pressing need to examine what we know about culturally responsive teaching (CRT). In the next section of this chapter, I address theoretical issues from anthropology and education that contribute to a conceptual framework for CRT. The theory included should provide a context for the current knowledge base and its critical importance. Theoretical and Conceptual Foundations

As reviewed, recent studies have addressed the disparities in school performance between CLD and majority-culture students. A current explanation for the lower achievement of minority students is the discrepancy between their backgrounds and the cultural norms of predominately Anglo, middle-class teachers. Variations of this "cultural difference" approach have emphasized the importance of differences in dialect (Gay, 1993; Whitaker & Prieto, 1989), cognitive style (Irujo, 1989) and the way language is used at home and in the classroom (Cloud, 1993; Hilliard, 1980; Villegas, 1991). On the surface, the debate often seems to be about bias and fairness issues. Many fear that society is becoming increasingly insular






28
as special interest groups battle to get their pieces of the economic and social pie.

In actuality, a conceptual discussion of the impact of culture on

education involves subtle issues. Subconscious cultural meanings affect both students and teachers in schools structured to match majority culture norms. In the sections that follow, I address (a) the pervasiveness of cultural influence, particularly its interrelationship with language; (b) the functionalist perspective of schools and its impact on education; and (c) implications for culturally responsive pedagogy. Culture and Language

Culture is defined as not only the surface artifacts, holidays, and traditions shared by its members, but comprises the beliefs, values, and world view that evolve and are transmitted through generations (Bullivant, 1993). Lakoff and Johnson (as cited in Bonvillain, 1993) spoke of a (primarily subconscious) cultural lens through which individuals view the world. Linguistic anthropologists have studied the impact of that lens and specifically, its interrelationship with language. Advocates of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (Bonvillain, 1993), which evolved through extensive work with diverse cultures, have proposed to varying degrees that language and thought are interdependent. That is, the way one views the world is at least partially determined by both the structure and the lexical categories inherent in his or her language and consequently, in his or her primary culture. One's conceptual world is metaphorical; the metaphors pervade






29
thinking and the formation of ideas without conscious awareness. For instance, linearity is a valued metaphor of Western culture. Individuals who are socialized in an Anglo culture are apt to think in terms of goals, speak of needing direction, and be familiar with what it means to "follow the straight and narrow."

Linguistic anthropologists have studied the way in which cultural metaphors affect the lexical categories of a language and vice versa (Bonvillain, 1993). What is salient and valued in a cultural group will affect the way its members organize experience through linguistic metaphors and patterns of interaction. Moreover, Vygotsky (1962) suggested that words, or units of "word meaning" are generalizations that include both thought and speech-verbal acts of thought. According to Vygotsky's theory, conceptual thought evolves from the internalization of external dialogue and is a combination of the products of speech development and thought development. Whereas Piaget (Vygotsky, 1962) saw socialized thought as evolving from egocentric thought as a child moves towards the capacity for logical thinking, Vygotsky saw social thought (and speech) as leading to the development of egocentric thought. Thus, ideas are formed through language experiences. One does not "have" an idea and then learn how to say it; rather one constructs ideas as he or she internalizes language and thereby imposes structure on the world.

Freire (1970) has written extensively about the interrelationship between language and power. Not only do individuals construct ideas






30

through language experience, they use that experience to define themselves in relation to the world. Literacy and literacy experiences hold the power to shape the development of thought and language, to conceptualize experience, and to transform one's relationship to the world. Those whose language is not that of the majority (or dominant) culture may struggle to see themselves as active participants in social, economic, and political processes. Literacy development thus must serve to enhance conceptual thinking and to define and negotiate the relationship between the minority and majority cultures (Cummins, 1986; Ovando, 1993; Willis, 1995). The Functionalist Perspective

The pervasive influence of culture on educational processes must be examined through a critical look at schools and traditional pedagogy. (Although a thorough review of critical theory in education is beyond the scope of this discussion, a brief overview of the functionalist paradigm augments the conceptual framework for culturally responsive teaching.) Historically, the predominant view of schools in this country has encompassed the assumption that they are functional institutions that help promote the ideals of a democratic society (Apple, 1990; Skrtic, 1991). Presumably, the most able students attain the most esteemed positions, the economic and social systems are thereby advanced; i.e., the system "works." In other words, the educational system functions as a meritocracy.

Critical theorists (such as Apple and Skrtic) have questioned this

assumption. They have proposed that groups (determined by culture, race,






31

ethnicity, SES, gender, religion, sexual preference, or any interaction among these factors) in society have conflicting interests and values and that educational institutions have advanced the views and position of dominant cultural groups. This institutional function need not be the result of conscious discrimination or racism; hegemony is a powerful but subtle force (Apple, 1990). Schools thus have been functional in the positive sense mainly for those who match the dominant culture. They have "selected" on the basis of cultural norms, language, and the match between students and accepted classroom practices (Adams, 1995; Willis, 1995).

Price (1992) suggested that changes in demographics and recent

economic trends have turned the United States into a mosaic, rather than a melting pot, of cultures. Two current trends-growing insularity and for increasing numbers a diminishing American dream-are not coincidental but related, according to Price. Moreover, educators must address issues of cultural inclusion and student self-esteem in order to reverse these trends. As Adams (1995) observed, there is an urgent need to examine whether the discourse of schooling matches the discourse of democracy. The development of culturally responsive teaching is an attempt to meet that need. Implications for CRT

If children define themselves and their relationship to the world through language and experience, schools must find ways to validate the experience of all students. Much of what professionals term culturally responsive pedagogy is closely aligned with best practices that have emerged






32

from the effective teaching research (Grant & Sleeter, 1993; Hollins, 1993; Porter & Brophy, 1988; Thomas, Correa, & Morsink, 1995; Villegas, 1991). The critical task for educators is to "translate" these practices to achieve equity for CLD students. Kauffman (Kauffman & Hallahan, 1993) has suggested that teaching all students the same way often is ineffective for those who have specific learning or behavioral disabilities. The same principle applies to students from minority cultural and linguistic backgrounds. The task in both situations is to find strategies that help link the experience of the child and the goals for education (Lee, 1992).

Cummins (1986) and Ovando (1993) have espoused bridging the gap between the home cultures of CLD students and classrooms by working in partnership with parents. Parent-school communication validates students' cultural identity. Moreover, parents can provide the opportunity to learn and practice complex linguistic skills in order to enhance concept development. Higher-order thinking skills cannot be developed through "watered-down" English to accomplish academic tasks or through dialogue constrained by second language development. Teachers and parents together can encourage use of the primary language and English, both at home and in school. Frequent alienation of CLD families from school processes makes partnership difficult to achieve; nevertheless, experiences that validate and legitimize cultural identity are critical (Asante, 1993; Price, 1992; Willis, 1995).






33
Lee (1992) has used the term culturally responsive scaffolding to

describe effective pedagogical practices that validate cultural experience and build on conceptual development. Methods or content chosen for its relevance to student experience helps the teacher "scaffold" the learning process and make use of the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1962). In such instances, students grasp the relationships between their knowledge and particular academic goals. Through this process, they are encouraged to see knowledge as constructed through cultural perspectives (Adams, 1995; Skrtic, 1991; Willis, 1995).

Hilliard (1992) noted that effective education has more to do with pedagogical validity than with bias and fairness. This is true whether students are from minority cultures or whether they have disabilities. The challenge for educators is to find ways to make the pedagogy valid for an increasingly diverse student population. This cannot be done without an attempt to understand (a) how culture affects the way students construct their worlds and (b) how culture pervasively affects the way teachers construct learning for their students (Villegas, 1991). Both types of knowledge contribute to current views of best practice in CRT.

Knowledge Base for Culturally Responsive Teaching Ethnographic Studies

Culturally responsive pedagogy is based on the assumption that learning opportunities are optimized only when teachers know about the cultural backgrounds of their students and translate this knowledge into






34

instruction (Villegas, 1991). Much of what is known about effective practice for CLD students comes from the efforts of ethnographic researchers. What follows is a review of studies that have contributed to the knowledge base for CRT.

In an extensive review of literature on minority education from the perspective of a variety of academic disciplines, Villegas (1991) described three innovative programs that have resulted in gains for CLD students. The Kamehameha Early Education Project (KEEP), started in the 1970s to improve reading scores for Polynesian children in Hawaii, evolved over several years. Using ethnographic data, instructional strategies were carefully designed to bridge the gap between home and school. One example was to incorporate the collaborative orientation observed in Hawaiian homes into methods for teaching reading. Peer learning centers were established to encourage children to help each other on academic tasks. A second example involved use of joint turn-taking resembling rules for a recurrent speech event in Hawaiian culture called the "talk story." Within three years, students in the KEEP laboratory school improved their reading scores dramatically.

The second program Villegas (1991) described was designed to find

ways to motivate secondary-level bilingual students to write. Participants in the San Diego Project engaged students in activities relevant to the needs and interests of community members. One example was a module developed around the topic of bilingualism; specifically, students were asked to develop






35

a questionnaire to survey community members about bilingualism and write a report of their findings. Moll and Diaz (as cited in Villegas, 1991) attributed student success to the opportunity to engage in purposeful activities designed around a relevant (both to students and community) topic.

The third program concerns the work of Marva Collins, a highly publicized teacher who has drawn on her own cultural background to successfully engage African American students (Villegas, 1991). Collins successfully incorporated socially congruent patterns of communication (while teaching standard English as well) and a cooperative classroom atmosphere compatible with students' cultural values and resources. Students improved academically; they also strengthened their sense of identity and self worth.

The recent work of Adams (1995) provides an instructive counter example of CRT. She critically examined why a literature-based multicultural curriculum failed to engage students in meaningful dialogue. Her conclusions were based on an ethnographic study of one middle school classroom in a predominantly white working-class neighborhood in the South. (Six of 23 students were African American.)

Adams (1995) found that even a well-intentioned, sensitive teacher failed to engage students actively when discussing a book she selected for them by a Black, female author. Adams hypothesized several reasons for the lack of student involvement: (a) the teacher did not attempt to elicit students' personal experiences, (b) she followed traditional classroom






36

procedures including teacher-directed discussions, and (c) she distanced herself from potentially volatile issues by maintaining a detached, depersonalized approach. In other words, the discourse of schooling in this case did not match the discourse of multiculturalism. Adams concluded that texts that reflect diversity can be effective if teachers use them to explore the construction of differences in society and to challenge oppression-i.e., to develop reflective and critical citizens.

The students in the middle school classroom in Adams' study lacked the motivation to become involved. The theoretical position of Wlodkowski and Ginsberg (1995) is that motivation and culture are inseparable. They observed high school classrooms and identified successful CRT. Teachers who asked social science students to identify their own topics for research, and those who encouraged their students to examine cultural pluralism and power relations in the United States, provided positive illustrations of CRT.

To supplement the knowledge base provided by ethnographers, the following section includes selected studies relevant to the efficacy of CRT. Well-documented studies that incorporate empirical findings are scarce; those that follow represent seminal or recent work in the field. Additional Research

In providing a framework for the empowerment of minority students, Cummins (1986) examined a Spanish-only preschool program in the Carpenteria School District near Santa Barbara, California. It constituted one of the few programs in the United States that explicitly sought to teach






37

students in their native language, involve the community, and promote conceptual development through meaningful linguistic interaction. The program proved to be highly successful in closing the gap between English-background and Spanish-background children as measured by readiness for kindergarten scores. Spanish-background children for whom English was the focus of preschool instruction remained behind their English-background counterparts. Cummins noted that students who were truly proficient in their primary language transferred their skills more successfully to a second language. Achievement differences may have resulted from the transfer of linguistic processes to English; the enhanced self-esteem resulting from the knowledge that others value one's cultural group, language, and family also may have contributed to the results. Indeed, these phenomena may be inseparable.

Lee (1992) provided another example of the effective use of minority

students' language and social knowledge. She investigated use of a figurative skill called signifying, or ritual insult, common among African American students. The skill of signifying was used as a scaffold (see Palincsar & Brown [1987] for a discussion of cognitive scaffolding) for teaching novice readers to infer implied relationships in fiction. Participants in the study were African American high school students from a large urban district in the Midwest, many (41%) of whom had reading scores at the 25th percentile or below. An experimental design with four experimental and two control groups was used; prior to instruction, students were measured on signifying






38

skills and social knowledge relevant to the novels under study. A pre/posttest design including both literal and inferential types of test questions was used to determine the relationship between relevant cultural knowledge and pre- and posttest scores. The study demonstrated that students' prior understanding (through their culture) served as a foundation for learning how to recognize layers of meaning in fiction.

Ladson-Billings (1992) investigated culturally relevant teaching

through observations, videotapes, and analyses of successful (as identified by parents) teachers of African American students. She noted the convergence of critical pedagogy and CRT. These teachers made deliberate attempts to prepare students to effect social change by capitalizing on their students' home and community cultures and by incorporating student experience as "official" content.

Franklin (1992) reviewed studies to identify characteristics of African American learners relevant to their performance in the classroom. She characterized these students as often ambivalent learners: They were found to seek actively teacher attention and acceptance but if not successful, to become frustrated and even disruptive. African American students' motivation seemed to degenerate from eagerness in the early grades to apathy in the higher grades. Franklin proposed that the relatively monolithic environments of many traditional schools are incompatible with typically fast-paced home environments where these students are stimulated through a variety of sources simultaneously (e.g., television, music, and






39
people). Findings from two studies indicated that this characteristic was reflected in differential responsiveness to variability in task presentation format. African American students' performance was markedly better in more varied task condition formats, whereas White learners' performance was unaffected by task variability.

Summary

Examples of successful CRT illustrate the value of designing

instruction that incorporates students' background experiences. Teachers may be able to alter the negative trends for minority students if they build on students' interests, cultural and community resources, and linguistic experience. Although the examples cited are encouraging, the results of any single study are not necessarily applicable to all contexts. Each learning community requires teaching that reflects local cultural differences (Villegas, 1991). An essential first step is the realization that all students bring cultural resources to the classroom that can provide a positive context for learning.

Components of CRT

The diversity of students and school environments precludes the possibility of providing neat prescriptions for teaching in all diverse classrooms. A culturally responsive pedagogy, therefore, is based on teacher attitudes and skills that require knowledge of the fundamental importance of culture to the learning process. Although the research base for CRT consists of studies done in particular environments with particular students,






40

professionals agree that certain general competencies are important. A brief description of these competencies follows. For purposes of this study, the competencies cited have been gleaned from the literature reviewed and from additional sources, most notably the work of Amos and Landers (1984), Baca and Amato (1989), and Burstein et al., (1993). References cited in this section are meant to be representative, not exhaustive.

The components of CRT can be grouped into the following major

categories: (a) knowledge and sensitivity about cultural influences, (b) ability to provide a supportive learning context for CLD students, (c) appropriate instruction and assessment of CLD students, and (d) facilitation of parental involvement. The four major areas and their components are included in Table 2-1.

The first category, knowledge and sensitivity about cultural influences, includes awareness of the effects of culture on student learning (Burstein et al., 1993), respect for cultural differences (Villegas, 1991), viewing student differences as sources of strength rather than difficulty (Franklin, 1992), and self-awareness of culture-based values and beliefs (Amos & Landers, 1984; Baca & Amato, 1989; Burstein & Cabello, 1989). The second category, providing a supportive environment for learning (Hollins, 1993; Hollins & Spencer, 1990), includes knowledge of the processes of language acquisition and development (Baca & Amato; Burstein et al.; Cloud, 1993), adequate classroom management skills (Burstein et al.), and high expectations for all students (Villegas, 1991).






41

Table 2-1.
Components of Culturally Responsive Teaching

Domain Teacher Competencies Knowledge & Demonstrates knowledge about culture & how to sensitivity seek information about diverse cultures
Demonstrates respect for differences and the value of diversity
Demonstrates self-efficacy and self-awareness Supportive context for Demonstrates knowledge of language acquisition students & development
Manages the classroom in culturally sensitive ways
Demonstrates high expectations for students Appropriate instruction Selects appropriate methods & materials
Uses a variety of instructional methods
Connects instruction with student experiences
Uses culturally appropriate assessment techniques
Communication with Demonstrates knowledge of appropriate parents & community communication patterns & practices
Demonstrates knowledge of community resources


The third category of CRT components concerns appropriate planning and delivery of instruction (Amos & Landers, 1984; Baca & Amato, 1989; Hollins & Spencer, 1990). Included are (a) adaptation of curriculum for diverse students (Burstein et al., 1993); (b) selection of a variety of appropriate materials and methods, e.g., reciprocal teaching and direct instruction (Burstein & Cabello, 1989); (c) a balance between holistic methods and direct instruction (Gersten & Woodward, 1994); (d) formation of relationships between instruction and students' background experience (Hollins, 1993; Villegas, 1991); and (e) use of culturally appropriate and






42
unbiased assessment (Baca & Amato; Burstein et al.; Villegas, 1991). The final category concerns both awareness of the importance of involving parents of CLD students in educational processes and skill in facilitating such involvement (Amos & Landers; Baca & Amato; Burstein et al.; Correa, 1992; Harry, 1992a; Hollins).

Convergence with Best Practice

Pedagogy that is responsive to a diversity of student backgrounds and needs does not consist of prescriptions; it depends, rather, on the incorporation of attitudes, beliefs, and knowledge about culture and its effects on teachers and students. The four broad-based competency areas described imply that teachers can make informed decisions based on information relevant to the teaching context as long as they have sufficient knowledge of effective teaching and a commitment to learning about their students' backgrounds.

The practices described, particularly those in the second and third categories (outlined in Table 2-1), converge with the practices considered most salient in the literature on effective teaching (Dwyer, 1994; Porter & Brophy, 1988; Reynolds, 1992). Researchers in the areas of CRT and effective teaching indicate that a model of best teaching practice for all students should include: (a) the process as well as the content of teaching; (b) the classroom context, reflective of students' backgrounds and experiences; (c) the development of teachers as reflective decision-makers who adapt instructional methods, materials, and strategies for their students; (d) the






43
development of teacher attitudes and beliefs that result in high expectations for all students and a problem-solving approach to reaching them. In addition, Amos and Landers (1984) addressed the marriage between multicultural education and special education. They cited four overlapping competency areas: (a) awareness of the pervasive influence of culture, (b) knowledge and skills for individualizing instruction, (c) knowledge about diverse cultural groups (including students with disabilities), and (d) knowledge about conferencing with parents.

The overlap between CRT and best practice in both general and special education provides considerable support for including common components in teacher preparation programs. Particularly important for CLD students is emphasis on teachers' deliberate incorporation of student background (i.e., cultural) experiences into meaningful classroom activities, including activities that encourage critical examination of power and equity issues (Villegas, 1991). Although teacher education program administrators have supported the inclusion of multicultural education training (Ford, 1992), researchers (e.g., Burstein et al., 1993; Figueroa, Fradd, & Correa, 1989; Franklin, 1992) have suggested that special education teachers continue to design instruction primarily according to disability label rather than culture-based student characteristics. General education teachers also may be ill-prepared to consider cultural differences when planning instruction (Banks, 1994).






44

Teacher Preparation and Assessment in CRT

Fradd and Correa (1989) cited the lack of personnel training in

cross-cultural communication and lack of awareness of the critical need for this training as the chief obstacles to optimal practice in special education for CLD students (emphasis added). Further, Gay (1993) noted that the lack of minority teachers heightens the demand for cultural sensitivity on the part of White, middle-class personnel. Overwhelming numbers of prospective teachers from culturally diverse backgrounds currently fail competency tests, and the best and brightest frequently choose other professions (Gifford, 1986). Although acknowledging that the content of teacher competency tests is sometimes of questionable validity, Gifford did not advocate faulting the testing system. Rather, public policy should demand that school improvement efforts directly address minority students' failure to be competitive on teacher exams. Thus, professionals must address the failure of schools to provide adequate education for these students.

Equity within the education profession will not come through lower standards but through ensuring that more minority candidates are highly qualified. This can be accomplished only when teachers are prepared to use culturally sensitive instruction. In the section that follows, I review several studies that provide information about teacher preparation in CRT. Relevant Research

Culturally sensitive teaching can result from both culture-general and culture-specific teacher education (Fox, Kuhlman, & Sales, 1988). In a






45

general sense, teachers need to develop sensitivity to and respect for student differences. Teachers also need to develop an awareness of culture-specific influences. Culture may influence student learning preferences and cognitive styles. Further, culture-based cognition affects the way teachers construct learning for their students, as well. Shulman (as cited in Johnston & Ochoa, 1993) noted that both the academic training and life experience of teachers influence their construction of the learning process. These experiences include both obvious and subtle cultural influences. Johnston and Ochoa have called for further research to explore specific effects of teachers' understanding of culture on the teaching and learning process.

To date, teacher assessments in CRT primarily have utilized

self-report measures, such as questionnaires, journal entries, and teacher belief inventories. The only exception found was Grant and Koskela's (1986) study of the relationship between multicultural education in a teacher education program and multicultural education implemented in the classroom by the program's practicum students. Subjects in the study were 23 white students (20 women and 3 men) in an elementary teacher education program at a large midwestern university. Students were followed through their preservice education program-including their field placements, many of which were in racially diverse metropolitan schools. An introductory course included multicultural content related to (a) societal attitudes and how they are reinforced or ameliorated by schools, (b) sensitivity to bias in






46

instructional materials, and (c) relevant topics in litigation. Students and faculty were interviewed about both coursework and field experiences.

Observations of a subsample during student teaching confirmed data from the interviews. The data indicated that student teachers (a) attempted and accomplished little multicultural education, even when opportunities readily presented themselves; (b) did demonstrate concern about children's self-esteem by making sure they understood assignments and how to do them; and (c) paid attention to students' learning rates and skills. In sum, they were concerned with lesson mechanics, especially discipline and students' skill acquisition. Grant and Koskela suggested that the fragmented nature of the instruction participants had received in multicultural education (frequently referred to as a particular instructor's "bandwagon") and its emphasis on individual, not specifically cultural, differences contributed to the scarcity of observed multicultural practices. Some researchers theorize that preservice training effects pale in comparison to the influence of past role models and individual personalities. Moreover, inexperienced student teachers understandably must be concerned with simply getting the students through the lesson. These teachers thus may set low expectations for student learning and concentrate primarily on classroom management. Grant and Koskela concluded that education students must be helped to practice what they learn in coursework if they are to establish patterns of CRT.

Grant and Secada (1990) reviewed studies with a focus on the

precertification education of student teachers for diversity, citing the paucity






47

of research in this area. Following are some of their findings: (a) 13 of 16 studies found were conducted prior to 1980, (b) program effectiveness was determined mainly by use of an attitude survey (many of which had not been used prior to a particular study), (c) all studies except one reported mixed results concerning teacher effectiveness in multicultural teaching. In general, the more intense the exposure to teaching in diverse settings and the more time spent learning related content, the more chance for successful learning.

Grant and Secada (1990) made several recommendations regarding the need for further research. Those most pertinent here are: (a) programs should be assessed with measures that capture what preservice students actually do when in the classroom and (b) studies of the same variables across multiple programs should be undertaken to increase generalizability of findings.

Grant (1994) followed up with a review of 44 studies [27 of which were "new" since Grant and Secada (1990)] of teacher education in CRT. He noted that little change in teacher education has occurred despite the call for reform due to unmet needs of urban students and students of color. He identified some best practices to inform teacher educators about better preparing their students. These practices included (a) the infusion of multicultural content throughout the curriculum, (b) the provision of experiences in culturally diverse communities, and (c) placement with cooperating teachers who both know and advocate CRT. Again, Grant cited






48

the need for further research, noting that his review found information about only 3.6% of institutions of higher education.

Two other studies deserve mention. Burstein et al. (1993) described a model that infused important competencies throughout an existing teacher education program. The competencies were viewed as important in serving CLD students with learning disabilities. Overall program data indicated that competencies were indeed infused and that teachers perceived themselves (and were perceived by employers) as competent in serving CLD/LD students. However, all evaluation data were based on report instruments such as questionnaires and interviews. In the words of Burstein et al., "Despite the extensiveness of these data, they cannot substitute for systematic observation" (p. 11).

Villegas (1993) described three teacher education programs that were restructured effectively for diversity. A cross-site analysis revealed factors that enhanced their success. All three programs were based in institutions that were, themselves, committed to diversity in mission, goals, policies, and practices. Practices included the recruitment and retention of students, faculty, and administrators of color. Second, program curricula emphasized skills in using knowledge of students' language and culture in teaching. Issues of multiculturalism were infused throughout program courses, extensive field experiences were used to reinforce classroom learning, and faculty modeled multicultural strategies in their own teaching.






49

Preparation in General versus Special Education

The philosophy of teacher education that drives a particular

preparation program may influence the beginning teacher graduate's response to cultural differences in the classroom. Specifically, teacher education for general education classrooms has focused on construction of student learning through an ecological, or contextual, approach to the interaction of students, teachers, and environment (Liston & Zeichner, 1990). General education teachers are prepared to utilize knowledge in the scope and sequence of curriculum and appropriate assessment of group processes and progress.

In contrast, teacher education for students with special needs

traditionally has emphasized the direct instruction of skills and strategies for individual student learning. Professionals (e.g., Heshusius, 1991; Welch, 1994) recently have advocated the infusion into special education of ecological considerations and attention to contextual variables. Nevertheless, special education professionals traditionally have prepared teachers to focus on specific student competencies within categories of disability. Although recently constructivists have advocated change, special education has a firm foundation in positivistic, behavioral approaches (Sindelar et al., 1995). Presumably, therefore, special education graduates have had more preservice training in individualizing instruction for a diversity of learners than have their general education counterparts.






50

Although literature in this area is sparse, two studies were found to be relevant to clarification of differences between general and special educators and how these differences might affect their practice of CRT. Goodlad and Field (1993) studied the "Education of Educators" and demonstrated a schism between the priorities of both students and faculty in general versus special education. Students in general education felt unprepared to individualize instruction for students with disabilities in their classes, yet they did not consider improvement of skills in this area a priority. Both the general education students and their faculty rated courses in special education as low interest. Although special education faculty expressed some desire for increased integration, special education itself seemed to be viewed by educators as a separate system.

Using qualitative methods, Gersten, Morvant, and Brengelman (1995) also found "subtle but profound differences between special and general educators in their conceptions of teaching. (p. 60). They approached instructional issues differently because of the way they thought about the teaching and learning process. It became clear that asking general education teachers to use practices accepted in special education, such as cumulative review and frequent checks for understanding, often required dramatic shifts in the GE teachers' views of teaching. The researchers advocated taking these considerations into account when designing educational innovations that may involve collaborative efforts.






51

Summary

Conceptualizations of teaching and learning affect the way all teachers construct learning for their students in classrooms that are becoming increasingly diverse. Thus, teacher preparation specifically focused on cultural sensitivity, the conceptual framework that drives a teacher education program-e.g., the behaviorist tradition of SE versus the holistic orientation of GE, personal experience, and role models all may influence teaching. An area in need of further study is how elements of teacher preparation specifically influence the observable competencies of beginning teachers in effective practice for CLD students. Praxis III--Classroom Performance Assessments

Researchers have called for the incorporation of cultural considerations into the assessment of effective teaching practice, not only for the benefit of culturally diverse students but also to provide equitable assessments of teachers from diverse backgrounds (Dwyer, 1993; Dwyer, 1994; Dwyer & Villegas, 1993; Nelson-Barber, 1991; Villegas, 1991). A recently developed assessment system represents a response to that call. Praxis III: Classroom Performance Assessments of The Praxis Series: Professional Assessments for Beginning TeachersT is part of a comprehensive assessment system for beginning teachers developed by the Educational Testing Service (Dwyer, 1994). The first two components of the Praxis series are designed to assess basic skills and knowledge of subject matter and pedagogy, respectively; the






52

third component, Praxis III, is designed to assess application of this knowledge in the classroom.

The Praxis III assessment is designed to be administered toward the end of an internship experience or during the first year of teaching for those states requiring a performance-based assessment as part of licensing procedures. While Praxis III is predominately performance-based, a paper-and-pencil task is included to provide information about the classroom and instructional arrangements.

In describing Praxis III, Dwyer and Villegas (1993) emphasized

assessment of both teacher actions and judgments within the context of the classroom (emphasis added). Teachers have the opportunity to explain their decisions in pre and postobservation interviews, in light of their grasp of the subject matter, the principles of learning and teaching, and the individual backgrounds of their pupils. Dwyer and Villegas stated:

To assess knowledge and skills of such diversity, a variety of
assessment methods should be used, some of which require a high
degree of judgment by trained assessors; simple checklists of isolated skills are inadequate for assessing teaching skill and unlikely to have
a positive effect on teaching and learning. [Praxis Assessments]
combine interviews with the teacher, direct classroom observation, and
review of documents completed by the teacher to collect data about 19 key aspects of teaching. Each of these aspects must then be judged by
trained assessors in the context of the subject matter and students
being taught. (p. 9)

In addition to the adaptability of Praxis III teacher assessments to a variety of classroom contexts (e.g., grade levels and content areas), the 19 criteria are used not only to assess teacher behaviors but to look at teacher






53

cognition as well. Most important to this study, the criteria are infused with sensitivity to culture as a major component of effective teaching (Dwyer, 1993). In fact, the conception of teaching and learning that provides the theoretical basis for the Praxis III assessment is, itself, culturally responsive. That conception is based on the premise that there is no such thing as good teaching that is not culturally responsive (Villegas, personal communication, July 22, 1994). Many of the criteria specified for the Praxis III assessment correspond closely to the components of CRT outlined in Table 2-1.

In relating Praxis III criteria to the conception of teaching and

learning espoused by its developers, Villegas (1992) outlined the 19 criteria within four domains: A-organizing content knowledge for student learning, B--creating an environment for student learning, C-teaching for student learning, and D-teacher professionalism. A complete discussion of the relationship between each domain (and corresponding criteria) and essential aspects of a culturally responsive pedagogy is contained in Villegas (1992). An overview of this relationship follows.

Each domain is infused with two important themes. First, effective teachers must treat students from different cultural backgrounds equitably. In the context of the Praxis III assessment, this fundamental consideration is embedded in Domain B criteria concerned with establishing rapport with all students (B2), and communicating high expectations to each student (B3). Teachers are expected to see cultural differences as strengths and draw upon their students' cultural resources in establishing open and meaningful






54

relationships with minority students. Further, a recurrent theme in education literature is that teachers who believe their students are capable of learning tend to have more successful students (Villegas, 1992).

In the C domain, equity issues underlie criteria consisting of

encouraging all students to extend their thinking (C3), providing feedback to all students (C4), and using instructional time equitably (C5). All students, but particularly those who are performing below expectations, should have opportunities to engage in stimulating tasks that develop higher-order knowledge and skills. To provide appropriate feedback, teachers must be sensitive to verbal and nonverbal signals from CLD students that may indicate either confusion or understanding. Even beginning teachers should be able to identify when students are experiencing difficulty or when an opportunity exists to extend their understanding (Villegas, 1992).

The second theme infused in Praxis III criteria is that successful teachers build on students' individual and cultural resources. This consideration is clearly embedded in criteria in Domain A: becoming familiar with relevant aspects of students' background knowledge and experience

(Al), selecting appropriate methods and materials (A4), and devising appropriate evaluation strategies (A5). To accommodate cultural differences in learning, teaching style must be flexible and varied and teachers must understand how the methods they use correspond to students' preferred participation styles. To evaluate students effectively, teachers also need some awareness of cultural differences in appropriate means of displaying






55

knowledge. Teachers who are insensitive to such cultural variations may misjudge pupils' competence (Villegas, 1992).

Background experience, including cultural resources, also must be

considered when making content comprehensible to students (criterion C2). This is when knowledge and skill in criterion Al-becoming familiar with students' background knowledge and experience-is put into practice in the teaching process. Effective teachers are able to build bridges between students' cultural resources and learning goals and tasks to make content meaningful and understandable. In addition, teachers need to draw on knowledge of cultural differences to communicate effectively with students' parents or guardians (criterion D4). This communication both helps to provide a supportive context for student learning and enhances teachers' understanding of the cultural and community resources of their students (Villegas, 1992).

Praxis III thus provides a means by which researchers can begin to look at how beginning teachers respond to CLD students in a variety of teaching contexts. Through the methods to be outlined in Chapter 3, investigators can provide quantitative measures on skills critical to culturally sensitive teaching through an examination of teacher performance on specified criteria. The record of evidence collected for each teacher assessed is scored through a rigorously developed procedure; it also provides qualitative information about each teacher's response patterns as he or she interacts with students. Data from pre- and postobservation interviews






56
enhance available information about teacher decision-making and self-evaluation processes.

Summary and Implications

Demographic changes, the failure of educational institutions to

respond adequately to cultural diversity, and the mismatch between minority students and majority-culture teachers have resulted in professional attention to the need for CRT. Moreover, best practices in CRT have been identified that correspond closely to effective practices for all students. The additional ingredient necessary to make teaching culturally sensitive is a critical awareness of the pervasive influence of language and culture-both on the way teachers teach, and on the way students learn. To date, the assessment of teachers, and of their preparation in this area, has depended primarily on what teachers themselves say about how well they are prepared and how effectively they teach.

Researchers have provided some evidence that infusing cultural competencies into the teacher education curriculum can produce positive changes in teacher beliefs, knowledge, and skills related to teaching CLD students. Pre- and posttraining questionnaires and ethnographic studies have provided information about teacher awareness and behaviors in particular environments. They have not adequately addressed the need to know more about how teacher preparation affects the response to cultural diversity across a variety of classroom situations and contexts.






57

The Praxis III assessment system-a performance-based assessment

infused with cultural considerations and developed with the assumption that good teaching is CRT-has provided a means by which research can begin to link components in teacher preparation with observable teacher behaviors. Systematic observations of teachers in multiple classroom settings thus can add needed data-based information to inform teacher educators. Through use of Praxis III, this study was designed to address systematically the relationships among specified teacher preparation program factors and CRT skills. Findings provided information relevant to teaching an increasingly diverse student population and thus potentially are of value to professionals interested in improving the quality of education for all students.














CHAPTER 3
METHODS AND PROCEDURES

Introduction

This study was designed to examine the influence of factors in the

preservice preparation of beginning teachers on how competent they are in skills identified as important for the effective teaching of students with culturally and/or linguistically diverse (CLD) backgrounds. Specifically, it was designed to determine the effects of (a) level of preservice training in cultural responsiveness and (b) preparation in GE versus SE, on beginning teacher competencies identified as critical for culturally responsive teaching (CRT). It incorporated a performanced-based assessment that combines data from teachers' written documents, interviews, and observations to provide comprehensive descriptions of teacher behaviors. A description of the study's null hypotheses, participants, instrumentation, procedures, and treatment of data follows.

Description of the Null Hypotheses

The following null hypotheses were tested in the study.

H1: There are no statistically significant differences on measures of CRT competencies between beginning teachers who have a high versus low




58






59
level of preservice preparation in issues related to culturally responsive teaching.

H2: There are no statistically significant differences on measures of CRT competencies between beginning teacher graduates of GE teacher preparation programs and beginning teacher graduates of SE teacher preparation programs.

Participants and Sampling Procedures Participants

The sample for the study consisted of beginning teacher graduates of four major Florida universities currently teaching in Florida public schools. The sample was limited to beginning teachers at the elementary level teaching in their areas of certification. Since the general education programs in question are designed for preparation to teach elementary school students, the grade level limitation was imposed in order to match the general and special education training as closely as possible. Demographic data-gender, age, race, and university-were obtained from a Candidate Profile that each participant completed (see Appendix F).

Each Praxis assessment requires approximately 8-10 hours of assessor time to complete; adherence to the study's timeframe thus restricted total sample size to one that was both methodologically sufficient (see Shavelson, 1988) and practically feasible. The total sample size was 68 beginning teachers, 35 graduates in SE, and 33 graduates in GE.






60

Sampling Procedures

All beginning public school teachers in either general or special

education who graduated from the four state universities and were teaching in the state of Florida were identified. The pool was then limited to those teaching at the elementary level in their areas of certification. Further, geographic areas were restricted to those in which relatively balanced numbers of general and special education teachers from each of the four universities were located. Districts that presented problems due to excessive travel requirements for a relatively small number of potential participants were also eliminated.

From the resulting pool of teachers, a stratified random sampling

procedure was used to select equal numbers of teachers from each of the four universities, and from general and special education. Random selection of participants minimized the effects of potentially contaminating variables, given the constraints of the need to select beginning teachers with specified types of preservice training.

Randomly selected beginning teachers were sent a letter (included in Appendix B) informing them that they had been selected to participate in an important research study and asked to volunteer. The letter included general information about the activities their participation would require and the approximate time commitment involved. It also explained that the assessor would provide them with general feedback following the observations (if they desired it) and that all information obtained from the






61

study would be strictly confidential. Letters were followed with phone calls to selected participants until the required number of volunteers was obtained.

Instrumentation

This study contributes information relevant to the effective teaching of students from culturally diverse backgrounds. It also was designed to help further research methodology in this area. A newly developed performance-based assessment of beginning teachers-an assessment that is infused with cultural content-was used to investigate the research questions posed. This study's findings added information about the assessment's utility for further research in CRT.

The instrument that was used to measure CRT in this study is the

Praxis III assessment system developed by the Educational Testing Service (ETS). The 19 measurement criteria that constitute the assessment were developed from extensive research, the results of three job analyses, and a multi-state validity study (Dwyer, 1993, 1994). They were piloted extensively in the field and refined in collaboration with practicing educators. The criteria comprise four domains of teacher competence. These domains, with the corresponding focus areas defined by ETS, are displayed in Table 3-1. Praxis III domains and criteria are contained in Appendix D.

The Praxis III assessment system uses three data-collection

methods-direct observation of classroom practice, written descriptions of the students and what they are to learn (these are recorded by the participant on






62


Table 3-1.
Domain and Focus Areas Addressed by Praxis III-Classroom Performance Assessments Developed by the Educational Testing Service (1992)

Domain Focus
Organizing content knowledge for Teacher understanding of
student learning students and subject matter
Creating an environment for Human interactions in the
student learning classroom
Teaching for student learning Overall goal of teaching--helping students connect with the content Teacher professionalism Facility to evaluate and enhance one's own instructional
effectiveness
SOURCE: Praxis III: Classroom Performance Assessments Fact Sheet, no date, ETS



Praxis III profile forms), and interviews that are structured around the classroom observation. Following completion of the assessment cycle (preobservation interview, observation, and postobservation interview), the assessor reviews all notes taken during the three phases as well as the teacher-prepared written documents. Evidence for each assessment criterion may be drawn from any of these sources. A record of evidence is compiled for each criterion; a written summary statement relates that evidence to the criterion's specified scoring rules, and a score is assigned accordingly. Criterion scores range from 1.0 to 3.5 at intervals of .5. Scoring rules and matrices are included in Appendix N. Assessors in this study used a laptop computer during the interviews and observations to record evidence for the assessments.






63

The time required for each assessment cycle varies somewhat for each participant. The preobservation interview takes approximately 20-30 minutes. Following the interview, the assessor observes a class "period" that may last from 20 minutes to an hour, depending on such factors as subject content, grade level, and exceptionalities involved. Following the classroom observation as soon as possible, the assessor interviews the beginning teacher again. The postobservation interview requires from 30-40 minutes.

Following the assessment cycle, the assessor codes all notes recorded during the interviews and observation. For each criterion, pertinent information is transferred to the record of evidence, a summary statement is written, and a score is assigned. This process usually takes approximately 1 1/2 hours for each of the four domains. (Each domain includes 4 or 5 criteria.)

Sources of Evidence

Prior to the preobservation interview, the assessor provides each

participant with three assessment profiles: a Candidate Profile that asks for information about the participant concerning educational background and experience, a Classroom Profile that asks for information about demographic and academic characteristics of the students involved, and an Instruction Profile that asks for information about the lesson to be observed. The participating teacher is asked to reflect on the lesson-planning process in terms of goals, relationship to past and future learning, methods, materials, and means of evaluation.






64
Through the preobservation interview, the assessor provides an

opportunity for the teacher to explain the planning process and why he or she selected particular goals and methods given the students in the class. Through the postobservation interview, the teacher is provided an opportunity to reflect on what happened during the lesson and how he or she would use this information to plan future lessons. The assessor also asks about teacher communication with parents or guardians and fellow professionals.

Description of Assessor Training

The Praxis III assessment system is a high-inference instrument. Assessors are asked to consider each participant's teaching context (i.e., grade level, subject, and student characteristics) and to draw on their own professional experience to judge the evidence collected for each criterion. Therefore, each assessor must complete an intensive, week-long training by ETS personnel. The training consists of highly interactive instruction that incorporates videotapes, the examination of printed materials, and multiple simulated assessments. Throughout the first four days, trainees receive feedback from instructors and fellow participants. They then conduct a field test using the instrument and return for a fifth day of feedback, skill reinforcement, and consolidation of training. Training culminates in a performance-based assessment that covers the full range of Praxis III activities and is used to determine assessor competence.

Assessors are cautioned that there is a wide range of teaching styles that are acceptable, even though they may not match assessors' individual






65

preferences. Moreover, Praxis III trainers emphasized the importance of not penalizing beginning teachers for circumstances that may be beyond their control (e.g., class size, building facilities, or lack of resources). Thus, assessors are to use informed judgments based on their training and professional experience while adhering closely to the scoring rules for each criterion.

Both assessors in this study were trained at the same time by highly qualified ETS personnel. (Several of those involved in training the assessors were also involved in the development of the instrument.) The two assessors were doctoral students in special education at the University of Florida, and each had gained some experience with Praxis III prior to collecting data for this study.

Validity and Reliability

Praxis III was developed as a result of six years of extensive research by ETS personnel. The developers thought it essential to articulate a guiding conception of teaching and learning and a set of criteria by which beginning teaching could be assessed (Dwyer, 1994). The resulting conceptual framework was discussed in Chapter 2. This section's focus is the research and development effort guided by that framework, which culminated in the 19 Praxis III criteria.

Prior to a determination of specific criteria, the developers identified the knowledge base from which to establish an initial set of assessment criteria. This knowledge base was derived from three main sources of evidence: practicing teachers, theoretical research, and teacher licensing






66

requirements. These sources were identified in order to consider multiple perspectives rather than rely on one paradigm of effective teaching. Knowledge Base

The first major source of information for Praxis III development consisted of practicing teachers. The developers conducted large-scale studies to determine important tasks required of beginning teaching (see Rosenfeld, Freeberg, & Bukatko, 1992; Rosenfeld, Reynolds, & Bukatko, 1992; Rosenfeld, Wilder, & Bukatdo, 1992). Teachers from elementary, middle, and secondary levels were surveyed about the importance of specific tasks for their own teaching as well as beginning teaching. Further, they were asked to identify other important aspects of teaching that may not have been included in the survey.

The second information source was a series of research reviews.

Guided by a panel of experts, researchers reviewed literature on effective teaching, effective beginning teaching, and effective teaching in multicultural classrooms. Theoretical perspectives and empirical findings thus strengthened the knowledge base about good teaching provided by practicing teachers.

The third source of evidence for assessment content was an analysis of states' regulations and practices regarding beginning teacher assessments. Through a nationwide content analysis of state performance assessment requirements, information was identified and compiled. Developers focused on requirements related to the assessment of actual teaching rather than on other knowledge, skills, experience, or educational attainment.






67

Criterion Development

From the three sources described above, a knowledge base for the

assessment of beginning teachers was formed. The development team used this information to draft an initial set of assessment criteria. A National Advisory Committee reviewed the research base and the criteria. Committee members first advised the development team to bring the criteria more in line with the guiding conceptional framework. The team then developed several revised versions of the assessment criteria and conducted small-scale pilot studies to test their effectiveness in actual teaching situations. Through these studies, the criteria and the assessment process underwent extensive revisions. Large-scale field work was conducted to further refine criteria. During this phase of the development process, scoring rules were delineated and clarified by collaborating teachers and researchers.

Concurrent with the refinement of the assessment criteria, field

studies also focused on assessor training. Several modifications were made to clarify particular scoring rules and enhance skills in note taking, coding, and use of multiple sources of evidence. Additional assessors were trained using the completed version of the Praxis III assessment system. A thorough description of the development process and the knowledge base for each of the 19 assessment criteria can be found in Dwyer (1994).

A preliminary analysis of data collected during field testing indicated a moderate to high level of inter-rater agreement between paired assessors who observed the same teaching event (Dwyer, 1994). However, no inter-rater






68

reliability data have been published to date. ETS does not emphasize the importance of inter-rater reliability; rather, they stress the importance of using highly trained assessors. Ultimately, therefore, the reliability and validity of Praxis III rests in the rigor of assessor training (Klem, personal communication, 1994; Villegas, 1992).

Determination of a Subset of Criteria for CRT

The developers of Praxis III assumed that cultural considerations are vitally important to effective teaching. Moreover, in order to focus on those practices most critical to CRT in this study, a measure of teacher behaviors selected specifically for their impact on the education of CLD students was defined. That measure consisted of a subset of the 19 Praxis criteria.

A sample of 20 experts in issues concerning cultural diversity and

education was identified. Experts were selected from a review of three recent edited texts concerning issues in multicultural education and culturally responsive teaching. Twenty authors who contributed chapters about issues relevant to this study (e.g., "Ethnic Minorities and Educational Equality" in Banks & Banks, 1993) were identified. Experts selected were sent a brief description of the 19 assessment criteria (presented in random order) along with a cover letter. They were asked to designate a subset of the 19 criteria that they considered most critical to the effective teaching of students from culturally or linguistically diverse backgrounds and to rank the selected criteria in order of importance. Expert validation was considered an






69

appropriate means of identifying relevant measurement variables (Messick, 1989).

A subset of 9 of the 19 Praxis III assessment criteria were selected through use of a modified Delphi survey technique (Altschuld & Thomas, 1991). The procedure was used to determine the relative importance of selected criteria and to eliminate those criteria ranked lowest or not included by at least half of the experts responding. The resulting criteria were designated as the measure of CRT for this study.

It is understood that the delineation of this subset does not preclude the importance of other considerations to the practice of CRT. Further, this delineation is not meant to imply that the Praxis III assessment system as a whole is not culturally responsive. Indeed, the strength of the Praxis III instrument for research in CRT is the commitment of its developers to the assumption that good teaching is, by definition, culturally responsive. The use of an appropriate subset of criteria, however, narrows the assessment focus to behaviors most critical to teaching CLD students (regardless of specific classroom characteristics). Although this subset contains teacher competencies important for the effective teaching of all students, it is assumed that the progress of minority students would be particularly and differentially affected by strengths or weaknesses in these areas.

Levels of Preservice Preparation in CRT

The independent variable used to address the first research question in this study (level of preservice exposure to issues in cultural diversity) was






70

identified by two additions to the postobservation interview questions. Those additions asked participants to describe multicultural course content and internship or practicum experience in diverse settings. A third question was asked about personal experiences with individuals from diverse backgrounds but was not used to determine level of preparation in CRT (see Appendix K). Preservice preparation in CRT included one (or both) of the following components: (a) completion of a course with a focus on cultural issues and/or the infusion of multicultural issues into courses completed or (b) a field experience in a culturally diverse setting. Each of these components was quantified to derive a total score for each participant. The components, levels of each, and the corresponding point values are presented in Table 3-2. Based on total score, participants each were assigned to one of two levels of preservice CRT preparation, as follows: Level I (low) = 2-4; Level II (high) = 8-10. Participants who received a "medium" score of 6 (n=17) were eliminated for the sake of conceptual validity.

Research Procedures

Scheduling of observations

As soon as the sample of special and general education beginning

teachers was finalized in accordance with the design of the study, assessors notified participants and informed them specifically about tasks involved (i.e., the observation, the pre- and postobservation interviews that are part of the Praxis III assessment, and the Praxis III profiles describing themselves,






71

their classrooms, and their instructional planning). Subject participation met the University of Florida Institutional Review Board regulations.


Table 3-2.
Preservice Preparation in Culturally Responsive Teaching

Component Criterion Point Value
1. Coursework Mimimal or none 1 (amount of Some infusion and/or multicultural 1 course 3 content) Substantial infusion throughout program 5
2. Internship (one or Student population < more classroom 25% CLD 1 experiences) Student population 25-40% CLD 3 Student population
>40% CLD 5


All participants signed informed consent forms before participating in the study.

Assessors scheduled observations (in conjunction with pre- and

postobservation interviews) at a time convenient for participants during the second semester of the academic year. This time frame allowed the beginning teacher to become familiar with his or her classroom and students and to gain some experience before the observation took place, and it allowed assessors to complete assessments within the study's time frame. Assessors sent each of the volunteer participants a description of the 19 Praxis III assessment criteria and the Praxis III profile forms to be completed approximately one week prior to the scheduled observation.






72

Completion of Praxis III Assessments

Trained assessors-both doctoral students in special

education-completed preobservation interviews, classroom observations, and postobservation interviews for the volunteer sample of beginning teachers. Following the guidelines of Praxis III, assessors then scored each record of evidence obtained. Assessors assured all participants that information obtained from the assessment process remains confidential and is only to be used for research purposes. They provided written feedback to participants who desired it. Written communication repeated thanks for participation in the study and delineated general strengths and areas for reflection related to the four Praxis III domains. A sample feedback letter to a participating beginning teacher is included in Appendix C. Determination of Levels of Preservice Preparation in CRT

As data were collected for each participant, his or her responses to two postobservation interview questions concerning preservice preparation in CRT were used to assign the participant to one of two levels (described previously) of preparation. Each component of preservice preparation was scored independently by two researchers (either two doctoral students or one doctoral student and a trained assistant). The scores for the two questions were totaled, and each participant was designated high-a score of 8 or 10, medium-a score of 6, or low-a score of 2 or 4.






73
Treatment of the Data

The Praxis III domains and criteria were designed to be interrelated to better mirror the integrated nature of teaching and thus are not assumed to be statistically independent (Dwyer, 1994). Scores on the specified Praxis III criteria (the dependent measures of CRT) for this study, therefore, were submitted to a 2 X 2 (with level of CRT training and GE versus SE as grouping variables) multivariate analysis of variance (VIANOVA) (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1983). The Type I experimentwise error rate (alpha level) used to determine the statistical significance of the overall F statistic for multiple comparisons was set at .05. Univariate analyses of variance for significant group effects were conducted to determine group effects on individual criteria; the Type I error rate for the univariate F statistics also was set at .05. Table 3-3 contains an overview of the research questions, instrumentation, and statistical tests used in the study.

Demographic data collected from participating beginning teachers (see Appendix F) were submitted to Chi Square tests for relationships between teacher characteristics (i.e., age, gender, race, and university) and grouping variables. The results of the study are presented in the following chapter.






74

Table 3-3.
Overview of Research Questions, Instrumentation, and Analyses

Research Question Instrumentation Analysis
1. What is the Selected Praxis III MANOVA with relationship between criteria relevant to criterion scores as CRT scores and level CRT the DV and type of of preservicetraining program (SE vs. GE) in CRT? and level of CRT training as grouping
variables
2. What is the Selected Praxis III MANOVA with relationship between criteria relevant to criterion scores as CRT scores and CRT the DV and type of teacher preparation program (SE vs. GE) in SE versus GE? and level of CRT training as grouping
variables













CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of two aspects of preservice preparation on the competence of beginning teachers in skills critical for the effective teaching of students from culturally and/or linguistically diverse (CLD) backgrounds. Specifically, the effects of (a) low versus high preparation in culturally responsive teaching (CRT) and (b) preparation in general education (GE) versus special education (SE) were examined. To address these issues, 68 beginning teacher graduates of four state universities in Florida-University of Florida (UF), Florida State University (FSU), University of Central Florida (UCF), and University of South Florida (USF)-were assessed on nine performance criteria basic to CRT.

This chapter contains (a) demographic information about the sample,

(b) additional descriptive information about preservice preparation, (c) results of the survey of experts to determine the Praxis III criteria used as the CRT measure, and (d) the results of statistical analyses used to test the two hypotheses. To clarify how participants were grouped, these topics are prefaced by an explanation of the process used to determine level of





75






76

CRT preparation-the independent variable used to answer the first research question.

Following the explanation of how CRT preparation levels were determined is the Description of Participants. This section provides demographic information about only those participants included for statistical analyses of data (N = 51). Chi Square tests to determine any pre-existing relationship between demographic characteristic and grouping variables are included in this section. Moreover, to provide additional descriptive information about beginning teachers' preparation in CRT, it was decided to include data from all of the participants questioned (N = 68). Thus, a more detailed breakdown of (a) the level of multicultural coursework and (b) the level of diversity of internships that 68 participants reported in response to the appropriate post-observation interview questions follows the section containing demographic information. These data are presented for descriptive purposes only.

An explanation of the procedure to determine the subset of Praxis III criteria used as the study's measures of CRT follows the descriptive information. Included are the results of a survey of multicultural education experts and the method for final criteria selection.

In the final section of this chapter are results of the hypotheses tests. All data for these analyses were derived from participants included in either the low or high CRT preparation group (N = 51). Data presented comprise (a) means and standard deviations for Praxis III criterion scores of SE versus






77

GE participants and low versus high CRT preparation groups and (b) the results of the 2 x 2 multivariate analysis of variance (MIANOVA).

Determination of Levels of Preparation in CRT

Before examining the sample for between-group differences in

demographic characteristics, it was necessary to categorize all participants (those in SE and those in GE) as having had either a low, medium, or high level of preparation in CRT. Participants' answers to two questions added to the Praxis III post-observation interview determined their scores for preservice preparation in CRT. The total preparation score possible for any given participant was 2, 4, 6, 8, or 10, derived by adding the ratings (1, 3, or 5) for each participant on two components-coursework and internship-as described in Table 3-2. Two raters independently assigned scores to each component for each participant. Interrater reliability for Question 1, used to determine level of preservice coursework in multicultural content, was 76%. Interrater reliability for Question 2, used to determine level of internship experience in culturally diverse settings, was 91%. Total interrater reliability thus was 84%. After the raters independently assigned scores for each component, they discussed disagreements and reached consensus to assign ratings for items in question.

To enhance the conceptual validity of the CRT preparation grouping

variable, participants whose preparation placed them in the medium group (a score of 6) were eliminated from the sample used for statistical analyses. Only data from those participants rated as either high (receiving scores of 8 or 10) or low (receiving scores of 2 or 4) on CRT preparation were included to






78

test both experimental hypotheses. Seventeen participants (7 in SE and 10 in GE) thus were eliminated from the sample used for this purpose.

Description of Participants

All participants were in Florida and in their first full year of teaching. They also were teaching at the elementary level in their areas of certification. Demographic characteristics-gender, age, race, and university-for the sample included in statistical analyses (N = 51) first were examined for any potential relationship to CRT preparation group. In Table 4-1 are the frequencies and approximate percentages for each of the four demographic variables for participants by group. Chi Squares to test for the significance of any pre-existing relationship of characteristic to grouping variable were conducted and are also reported in Table 4-1. None of the Chi Square tests yielded a significant relationship between demographic characteristic and membership in a CRT preparation group.

Demographic characteristics for participants also were examined for any potential relationship to preservice preparation in SE versus GE. In Table 4-2 are the frequencies and approximate percentages for each variable for participants, grouped by SE versus GE. Chi Squares to test for the significance of any pre-existing relationship of characteristic to grouping variable were conducted and also are reported in Table 4-2. None of the Chi Square tests yielded a significant relationship between demographic characteristic and preparation in SE versus GE.






79

Table 4-1.
Demographic Characteristics of Participants by Low Versus High CRT Preparation

Low High n % n % Gender
Female 22 96 26 93 Male 1 4 2 7
(Chi Square = 0.178, 1, p = 0.673) Age
<25 9 39 20 71 25-34 11 48 7 25 35-44 2 9 0 0 45-54 1 4 1 4
(Chi Square = 6.635, 3, p2 = 0.084) Race
White 22 96 26 93 Black 1 4 1 3.5 Hispanic 0 0 0 0 Asian 0 0 1 3.5
(Chi Square = 0.851, 3, p = 0.653) University
UF 8 35 7 25 FSU 4 17 8 23.5 UCF 5 22 8 23.5 USF 6 26 5 18
(Chi Square = 1.709, 3, 2 = 0.635)
Total 23 100 28 100






80
Table 4-2.
Demographic Characteristics of Participants by SE Versus GE

Special Education General Education n % n % Gender
Female 27 93 21 95 Male 2 7 1 5
(Chi Square = 0.125, 1, o = 0.724) Age
<25 16 55 13 59 25-34 10 35 8 36 35-44 1 3 1 5 45-54 2 7 0 0
(Chi Square = 1.602, 3, p = 0.659) Race
White 27 93 21 95 Black 1 3.5 1 5 Hispanic 0 0 0 0 Asian 1 3.5 0 0
(Chi Square = 0.804, 3, p = 0.669) University
UF 8 27.67 7 32 FSU 5 17 7 32 UCF 8 27.67 5 23 USF 8 27.67 3 13
(Chi Square = 2.450, 3, 1 = 0.484)
Total 29 100 22 100






81

To summarize the sample's demographic characteristics, over 90% of the participants in each group (SE versus GE and Low versus High) were female and white. Although their ages varied considerably, at least 95% were in either the under 25 or 25-34 categories. The numbers from each of the four universities are relatively even, both between SE and GE and between levels of CRT preparation.

Additional Descriptive Information

To add information about beginning teachers' preservice preparation in CRT, the entire sample of participants questioned was used (N = 68). The preservice coursework and internship experiences that both SE teachers and GE teachers reported was addressed. The numbers of participants reporting each level of multicultural course content are presented in Table 4-3. A score of one indicates no multicultural course content or a minimal infusion, a score of three indicates a moderate infusion of content and/or one course in multicultural issues, and a score of five indicates a substantial infusion of multicultural content in preservice coursework. Means and standard deviations for each group and the total are also included in the table.


Table 4-3.
Frequency of Score Denoting Level of Coursework in Multicultural Content

Score SE GE Total Total %
1 17 14 31 45 3 11 14 25 37 5 8 4 12 18
Total 36 32 68 100
M 2.50 2.38 2.44 SD 1.59 1.36 1.49






82

Close to half (45%) of the total sample reported having had minimal or no coursework in multicultural content in their preservice preparation program. Thirty-seven percent reported having had one course in multicultural content or having had some infusion of content, and only 18% reported having had substantial exposure to multicultural content in their university program. More SE than GE students reported receiving a substantial infusion of multicultural content; GE students more frequently reported a moderate infusion (and/or completion of one course) or minimal infusion of content. The mean rating for the total sample (on a scale with ratings of 1, 3, or 5) was 2.44.

The number of participants who reported each level of internship

experience in diverse settings (for SE, GE, and total) are presented in Table 4-4. A score of one indicates internship experience in settings with fewer than 25% CLD students, a score of three indicates experience in settings with 25-40% CLD students, and a score of five indicates internship experience in settings with over 40% CLD students. Means and standard deviations for each group and the total are also included in the table.

In contrast to the coursework component of preparation, 53% of total participants reported having had at least one internship or practicum experience in a classroom where more than 40% of the students were from CLD backgrounds. An additional 35% reported at least one preservice experience in a classroom where between 25% and 40% of the students were CLD. The relative frequencies for SE versus GE do not differ markedly from






83

Table 4-4.
Frequency of Score Denoting Internship Experience in Settings with Varying Levels of Diversity

Score SE GE Total Total %
1 4 4 8 12 3 12 12 24 35 5 20 16 36 53
Total 36 32 68 100
M 3.88 3.75 3.82 SD 1.37 1.39 1.38


those for the total sample. The mean rating for level of experience in a diverse setting for all participants was 3.82 on a scale with ratings of 1, 3, or

5.

Additional comparisons were made between frequency of scores for the coursework component and frequency of scores for the internship component for participants categorized as having high, medium, and low levels of preservice preparation in CRT. In Table 4-5 are the frequencies and approximate corresponding percentages of ratings on each component for participants in the high group (n = 28). In order to get categorized as high on this variable-i.e., receive a score of 8 or 10-participants had to receive a minimum score of 3 on each component and a score of 5 on at least one component. Thus, of participants categorized in the high level of preservice preparation in CRT, 93% had at least one practicum experience in a classroom comprised of more than 40% CLD students. Less than half (39%)






84

Table 4-5.
Frequency of Level of Preparation Components for High Group

Coursework Internship Cultural Freq. % Diverse Freq. % Content students Some (3) 17 614 25%-40% 2 7 Subst. (5) 11 39 >40% 26 93
28 100 28 100


of that group had a substantial infusion of multicultural content in coursework.

In Table 4-6 are the frequencies and approximate corresponding

percentages of ratings on each component for participants in the medium group (n = 17). Medium total scores (a score of 6) indicated either moderate levels of both coursework and internship experiences or a high level of one component and a low level of the other.


Table 4-6
Freauency of Level of Preparation Components for Medium Group

Coursework Internship Cultural Freq. % Diverse Freq. % Content students Low (1) 10 59 <25% 1 6 Some (3) 6 35 25%-40% 6 35 Subst. (5) 1 6 >40% 10 59
17 100 17 100






85

It is obvious from Table 4-6 that participants in this middle group were more likely to have had diverse internships than to have completed coursework related to multicultural issues. In fact, the percentages for the low versus high levels in each category (coursework and internships) were exactly reversed. Thus, almost 60% of participants in this group reported minimal coursework in CRT but had internships in classes where over 40% of students were minorities.

In Table 4-7 are the frequencies and approximate corresponding

percentages of ratings on each component for participants in the low group (n = 23). In order to get categorized as low on the CRT preparation variable-i.e., receive a score of 2 or 4-participants received either low scores on both components or a low score on one component and a moderate score on the other.


Table 4-7.
Frequency of Level of Preparation Components for Low Group

Coursework Internship Cultural Freq. % Diverse Freq. % Content students Low (1) 21 91 <25% 7 30 Some (3) 2 9 25-40% 16 70
23 100 23 100



Over 90% of the participants falling in the low preparation group had minimal multicultural course content in their preservice programs but 70%






86
in this group did have an internship experience in a classroom where between 25% and 40% of the students were from diverse backgrounds.

To summarize the descriptions of beginning teachers' preservice preparation in CRT, the internship or practicum experience component received consistently higher scores (indicating experience in diverse settings) across all levels of preparation than did amount of coursework in multicultural content. Participants grouped in both high and medium levels more frequently reported experience in classrooms with a high percentage of minority students than a substantial infusion of multicultural content in coursework.

Selection of Praxis III Criteria to Measure CRT

Twenty experts in multicultural education were selected for a survey to determine a subset of the 19 Praxis III criteria that would be most pertinent to teaching CLD students. Ten of the 20 responded; of the 10, 8 completed the selection and ranking process. (Two responded but did not complete the task because of prior commitments.) To select criteria, both the number of respondents who selected a particular item and the relative importance assigned to that item were considered (Altschuld & Thomas, 1991). Specifically, the following steps were taken: (a) All items selected by fewer than half of the respondents were eliminated; (b) remaining items were weighted and importance points assigned to each. To assign points, the number of experts who selected each rank for a given item was multiplied by the weight (points) for that rank. Table 4-8 contains the Praxis III criteria selected by at least four respondents, the number of points corresponding to






87

each rank, the number of respondents who selected each possible rank for each criterion, and the total importance score for each criterion.


Table 4-8.
Frequency of Ranks Assigned to Each Praxis III Criterion

Criterion
Rank Points Al C2 B3 B2 C4 A4 D4 B1 C3
1 12 1 1 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 2 11 4 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 10 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 4 9 0 2 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 5 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 6 7 0 3 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 7 6 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 8 5 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 9 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 10 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 84 68 64 48 46 43 40 27 26
Importance
score
Number who 8 8 7 6 6 4 5 4 5 selected criterion



Importance scores were found for each criterion by totaling the products of the number who selected a given rank by the points corresponding to that rank. For example, for Criterion C3, one person assigned a rank of 5, one a






88
rank of 7, two a rank of 8, and one a rank of 11. Totaling the products of each rank's corresponding point value and the number assigning that rank yields (1 x 8) + (1 x 6) + (2 x 5) + (1 x 2) = 26 as the total importance score for that criterion. The last row in the table contains the total number of respondents who included each criterion in the subset they selected.

Following this procedure, Praxis III criteria were arranged in

descending order of total importance points. Nine criteria were not included as measures of CRT because they received lower total scores than those in Table 4-8 and were not selected by at least four experts. One additional criterion was selected by four experts but was eliminated because its total importance score was considerably lower than the scores of those included.

Tests of Hypotheses

A 2x2 between-subjects multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to test the first experimental hypothesis that there would be no differences between mean scores on nine dependent measures of CRT for participants who received high versus low preparation in CRT. The MANOVA was performed on the nine dependent measures selected through the survey of experts (Al, A4, B B2, B3, C2, C3, C4, and D4). Grouping variables were level of preparation in CRT (low versus high) and type of program (SE versus GE). Means and standard deviations for scores on each of the nine Praxis III criteria selected as measures of CRT were calculated for participants in low versus high CRT preparation groups and are presented in Table 4-9.






89
Table 4-9
Mean Scores on Selected Praxis III Criteria by Preparation Group

Low High
Preparation Preparation
(n=23) (n=28)
Mean Mean
Criterion Criterion Description (Std. Dev.) (Std. Dev.) Al Knowledge of students' 2.652 2.446 backgrounds (.531) (.416) A4 Selection of appropriate 2.565 2.678 methods (.407) (.513) B1 Fairness 2.435 2.411 (.609) (.562)
B2 Rapport 2.609 2.596 (.563) (.550)
B3 Expectations for student 2.391 2.393 performance (.621) (.712) C2 Making content 2.500 2.571
comprehensible (.657) (.466)
C3 Extending students' thinking 2.130 2.107 (.678) (.643)
C4 Monitoring student 2.696 2.661
understanding (.516) (.431)
D4 Communication with parents 2.500 2.554 (.426) (.478)



MANOVA results did not indicate any significant differences in dependent variables due to level of CRT preparation (Hotelling's F [9, 39] = 0.767, t =

0.646). Thus, the first null hypothesis was not rejected.

The 2 x 2 MANOVA also was used to test the second experimental hypothesis that there would be no differences in mean scores on the nine measures of CRT for participants from SE versus GE preparation programs.






90
Means and standard deviations for scores on each of the nine Praxis III criteria were calculated for participants in SE and participants in GE. These are presented in Table 4-10. Results indicated a significant difference on at least one dependent variable due to preparation in SE versus GE (Hotelling's F [9, 39] = 4.223, p = 0.001). VIANOVA results did not indicate a significant interaction between the two grouping variables (Hotelling's E [9, 39] = 1.403, = 0.220).

Based on these findings, the second null hypothesis was rejected

(p<0.05). Thus, evidence supports a relationship between preparation in SE versus GE and Praxis III score on at least one criterion used to measure CRT. To determine which criteria contributed to the significant difference between SE and GE groups, univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted for each of the nine measures. The results of these analyses are presented in Table 4-11.






91

Table 4-10.
Mean Scores on Selected Praxis III Criteria by SE Versus GE


SE (n=29) GE (n=22) Criterion Criterion Description Mean Mean (Std. Dev.) (Std. Dev.) Al Knowledge of students' 2.655 2.386
backgrounds (.484) (.434)
A4 Selection of appropriate 2.690 2.545 methods (.507) (.405) B1 Fairness 2.552 2.250 (.488) (.650)
B2 Rapport 2.741 2.545 (.561) (.532)
B3 Expectations for 2.500 2.250
student performance (.612) (.720)
C2 Making content 2.534 2.545
comprehensible (.566) (.554)
C3 Extending students' 1.845 2.477 thinking (.536) (.626) C4 Monitoring student 2.776 2.545
understanding (.392) (.532)
D4 Communication with 2.534 2.523 parents (.481) (.422)




Full Text

PAGE 1

TEACHER PREPARATION FOR DIVERSE CLASSROOMS: PERFORMANCE-BASED ASSESSMENT OF BEGINNING TEACHERS BY ANN PARI^R DAUNIC 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 1996 UNIVERSITY OF FIOHIDA UBRARIES

PAGE 2

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would first like to thank the members of my doctoral committee for their valuable assistance in the completion of this dissertation: Dr. Cynthia Griffin and Dr. Simon Johnson for their constructive suggestions, Dr. Cecil Mercer for thoughtful insights and invaluable instruction in writing, and Dr. David Miller for patiently and generously providing expertise in measurement issues and statistical design and analysis. I would especially like to thank my chair, Dr. Vivian Correa. Her enthusiasm, professionahsm, and dedication have been an inspiration, and her expertise helped me turn incomplete ideas into researchable questions. She, along with the other committee members, has made sometimes tedious tasks also pleasurable ones. I would Hke to thank the special education faculty for their support, particularly Drs. Paul Sindelar and Mary Sue Rennells, with whom I have worked on Project SEART-C. Dr. Rennells has been a mentor who furnished encouragement and expertise throughout my tenure at the university and was particularly instrumental in my successful pursuit of a federal grant to fund this research. Thanks are due as well to Dr. Lynn Klem with the Educational Testing Sei-vice, who has been a consultant on the grant, and to u

PAGE 3

my colleagues Maria Blanes and Mary Eisele, who have provided both professional and personal support for the past three years. Last and most important, I would Hke to thank my family for their support, and particularly my husband Joel for his unwavering behef in my ability to succeed. He has always championed my interests, applauded my efforts, encouraged me to reach for higher goals, and patiently seived as my sounding board and partner along the way. m

PAGE 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii LIST OF TABLES vii ABSTRACT viii CHAPTERS 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM 1 Introduction 1 Purpose of the Study 4 Scope and Limitations of the Study 9 Definition of Terms 10 2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 14 Introduction 14 Criteria for Selection of Relevant Literature 15 Need for Culturally Responsive Teaching (CRT) 16 Knowledge Base for Culturally Responsive Teaching 33 Teacher Preparation and Assessment in CRT 44 Summary and Implications 56 3 METHODS AND PROCEDURES 58 Introduction 58 Description of the Null Hypotheses 58 Participants and Sampling Procedures 59 Instrumentation 61 Sources of Evidence 63 Description of Assessor Training 64 Determination of a Subset of Criteria for CRT 68 Levels of Preservice Preparation in CRT 69 IV

PAGE 5

4 RESULTS 75 Introduction 75 Determination of Levels of Preparation in CRT 77 Description of Participants 78 Additional Descriptive Information 81 Selection of Praxis III Criteria to Measure CRT 86 Tests of Hypotheses 88 Summary 96 5 DISCUSSION 99 Overview of Findings 99 Implications of Findings 101 Limitations of the Study 113 Suggestions for Future Research 115 Summary 117 APPENDICES A PARTICIPANT INFORMED CONSENT 120 B LETTER TO BEGINNING TEACHERS 122 C SAMPLE FEEDBACK LETTER 124 D PRAXIS III DOMAINS AND CRITERIA 125 E SAMPLE LETTER TO EXPERTS 127 F CANDIDATE PROFILE 132 G CLASS PROFILE 135 H INSTRUCTIONAL PROFILE 138 I PREOBSERVATION INTERVIEW 140 J POSTOBSERVATION INTERVIEW 141 K QUESTIONS ADDED TO POSTOBSERVATION INTERVIEW ... 143 L RECORD OF EVIDENCE 144

PAGE 6

M QUESTIONS FOR ASSESSOR REFLECTION 145 N PRAXIS III SCORING RULES AND MATRICES 151 REFERENCES 166 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 174 VI

PAGE 7

LIST OF TABLES page 2-1. Components of Culturally Responsive Teaching 41 31 Domain and Focus Areas Addressed by Praxis Ill-Classroom Performance Assessments Developed by the Educational Testing Service (1992) 62 3-2. Preservice Preparation in Culturally Responsive Teaching 71 3-3. Overview of Research Questions, Instrumentation, and Analyses 74 4-1. Demographic Characteristics of Participants by Low Versus High CRT Preparation 79 4-2. Demographic Characteristics of Participants by SE Versus GE 80 4-3. Frequency of Score Denoting Level of Coursework in Multicultural Content 81 4-4. Frequency of Score Denoting Internship Experience in Settings with Varying Levels of Diversity 83 4-5. Frequency of Level of Preparation Components for High Group 84 4-6 Frequency of Level of Preparation Components for Medium Group 84 4-7. Frequency of Level of Preparation Components for Low Group 85 4-8. Frequency of Ranks Assigned to Each Praxis III Criterion 87 4-9 Mean Scores on Selected Praxis III Criteria by Preparation Group 89 4-10. Mean Scores on Selected Praxis III Criteria by SE Versus GE 91 4-11. Summary of Univariate ANOVAs for Nine Praxis III Criteria 92 vu

PAGE 8

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 TEACHER PREPARATION FOR DIVERSE CLASSROOMS" PERFORMANCE-BASED ASSESSMENT OF BEGINNING TEACHERS By Ann Daunic August 1996 Chairman: Dr. Vivian Correa Major Department: Special Education To respond effectively to an increasingly culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) student population and the shortage of diverse teachers in today's schools, researchers in teacher education have addressed the need to prepare all teachers adequately for diverse classrooms. To date, most of the data in this area has consisted of ethnogi-aphic studies and teacher self-report inventories. In this study, a performance-based assessment was used to examine the effects of preservice preparation factors on culturally responsive teaching (CRT). Praxis III, a performance-based assessment for beginning teachers developed by the Educational Testing Service, is infused with sensitivity to culture as an integi-al part of effective teaching. In order to focus on teacher competencies most critical to CLD students, a subset of the Praxis III criteria was identified through a survey of experts and served as the measure of CRT vm

PAGE 9

for this study. The following questions were addressed: (a) Do selected CRT skills of beginning teachers with high levels of preparation in CRT differ from the skills of those with low preparation in CRT and (b) do selected CRT skills of SE beginning teachers differ from those of GE beginning teachers? Assessors trained in Praxis III gathered records of evidence for 68 beginning teacher gi-aduates of general or special education teacher education programs at four major state universities in Florida. Participants were designated as high or low in preservice preparation in CRT on the basis of their responses to questions concerning their coursework and internship experiences. Scores on nine Praxis 111 criteria were analyzed using a 2 x 2 multivariate analysis of variance. No differences in scores were found to result from different amounts of preparation in CRT, but special and general education teachers differed on three measurement criteria: Knowledge of students' backgrounds, fairness, and extending students' thinking. Implications of the findings for teacher education, measurement considerations, and future research needs were addressed. IX

PAGE 10

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM Introduction The nation's public schools are undergoing changes that present significant challenges to educators and policymakers, now and for the 21st century. Students from racially, culturally, and ethnically diverse backgrounds are entering the school system in increasing numbers (Williams, 1992), bringing with them a variety of languages, perspectives, and learning styles that challenge teachers to provide appropriate instruction (HiUiard, 1992; Ortiz & Garcia, 1995). Most recently, poHtical turmoil in Haiti, Cuba, and eastern Europe has sent literally thousands of refugees to seek asylum in the United States. Many of those granted asylum wiU gain access to public services, including public education. Over half of the students in California, Florida, and Texas schools are projected to come from culturally diverse famihes by 2010; 80% of teachers, however, will be white (Hodgkinson, 1992). The resulting differences between teachers from the majority, or dominant, culture and students from culturally and/or linguistically diverse (CLD) backgrounds (minority cultures) can pose problems for both teachers and students. The interrelationships between Anglo teachers and CLD students— termed

PAGE 11

2 cultural mismatch-have led to difficulties in student assessment (Harry, 1992b), academic performance (Obiakor, Algozzine, & Ford, 1993), and the participation of CLD parents in educational matters (Correa, 1989). CLD students thus suffer from disproportionately low rates of achievement and overidentification for special education (SE) progi-ams (Obiakor et al., 1993). Concurrently, budget crunches have forced states to reduce expenditures. Cuts in funding often have resulted in an increase in the number of students with special needs placed in general education (GE) classrooms (National Association of State Directors of Special Education, 1994). The challenges of an increasingly diverse student population are, therefore, as significant for teachers in GE as they are for those in SE. Clearly, whether beginning teachers are adequately prepared to teach CLD students is an important question. HiUiard (1992) proposed that equity issues in special education have more to do with pedagogical validity than with bias and fairness, stating that "appropriate services are those that are pedagogically valid (which also assumes that they are culturally sensitive and salient)" (p. 171). However, researchers have questioned the appropriateness (i.e., pedagogical validity) of the assessment and instruction of CLD students. Methods developed primarily without serious attention to the pervasive influences of culture and language on both teaching and learning processes continue to predominate (Cummins, 1986; Gersten & Woodward, 1994; Villegas, 1991).

PAGE 12

3 Moreover, cultural issues often are outside the conscious awareness of well-intentioned teachers. Those issues encompass beliefs, attitudes, and values— the substance of subjective culture-that influence both students and teachers but are routinely taken for granted (Banks, 1993; Ovando; 1993). The mismatch between teacher and student that results from practices insensitive to critical cultural differences has contributed to the failure of CLD students to make adequate progress in the educational system (Gay, 1993). Cultural mismatch has affected the participation of parents of CLD students in the educational system, as well. Overinclusion of their children in special education, bureaucratic structures, and poor communication with education professionals have hindered the involvement of CLD parents (Correa, 1989; Fradd & Correa, 1989; Harry, 1992b). These factors are exacerbated by the dearth of minority culture and bihngual personnel. With the growth in numbers of CLD students, education professionals must work to strengthen relationships with parents and communities. Relationships will strengthen when the cultural values and experiences of the children are validated through culturally responsive teaching. Through studies over the last two decades, educators have identified competencies critical to the effective teaching of CLD students (HoUins, 1993; Villegas, 1991). Many educators argue persuasively for culturally responsive pedagogy, but cries for reform have not been accompanied by significant change in teacher education (Grant, 1994). Grant recently has argued that

PAGE 13

4 "Schools of education, although clearly aware of the changing demographics in urban schools and the failure of their gi'aduates to successfully teach students of color, have done little to meet these challenges" (1994, p. 1). Moreover, research on teacher preparation programs that specifically address cultural issues is very limited (Grant, 1994). Professionals have recognized (a) the infusion of multicultural content throughout teacher education curricula and (b) experiences in culturally diverse communities as positive additions to the preparation of teachers (Burstein, Cabello, & Hamann, 1993; Grant, 1994). Indeed, the membership of The Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) has endorsed multicultural perspectives (Teaching from a multicultural perspective, August, 1995), and members of its Division for Diverse Exceptional Learners (DDEL) have proposed revisions to the "CEC Common Core of Knowledge and Skills" preamble to include statements specific to multicultural issues (CEC common core of knowledge and skills essential for all beginning special education teachers, June, 1995). The melting pot metaphor for United States society is eroding; so must the "color bfind" metaphor in teacher education (Grant, 1994). Purpose of the Study Despite calls for teacher educators to addi-ess challenges posed by increasingly diverse students, the assessment of teacher competencies in culturally responsive pedagogy has been based primarily on data from self-report measures and ethnogTaphic information (Grant, 1994; Villegas, 1991). Although much can be learned from effective practice in particular

PAGE 14

5 environments, and from listening to the reflections of recent teacher education graduates, there is a compelling need for additional research. Cultural responsiveness in teaching practice— built on the premise that the way students go about learning may differ across cultures (Villegas, 1991)— is difficult to measure directly and quantitatively. However, researchers have identified underlying principles critical to effective teaching in classrooms that include students from diverse backgrounds (Grant & Sleeter, 1993; HoUins, 1993). The present study was designed, therefore, to supplement research that has documented effective practice in particular environments. Praxis III, a performance-based assessment system newly developed through extensive research by the Educational Testing Service (ETS), has provided a means for examining how well beginning teachers exhibit competencies critical to culturally responsive teaching (CRT) in a variety of teaching contexts. The Praxis III assessment criteria are infused with sensitivity to culture as a major component of effective teaching (Dwyer, 1993). For the purpose of this study, a subset of criteria particularly critical to effective teaching of CLD students was selected through a survey of experts in multicultural education. I (a) compared the assessment profiles on the specified criteria of beginning teacher gi-aduates of four traditional universities in Florida who had received different levels of preservice training in cultural issues and (b) compared the degi-ee of CRT (assessment profiles) evidenced by those teachers prepared in SE versus GE teacher education

PAGE 15

6 programs. Levels of training in CRT were determined by categorizing responses to two interview questions added to the Praxis III assessment that addressed coursework in multicultural issues and internship experience in diverse settings. Research Questions Specifically, the following questions were addressed: 1. What is the relationship between scores on measures of CRT obtained by beginning teachers and level of preservice training in CRT? 2. What is the relationship between scores on measures of CRT obtained by beginning teachers and preservice preparation in SE versus GE? The records of evidence obtained through Praxis III yield criterion scores for each beginning teacher; they also provide qualitative descriptions of how individual beginning teachers adapt instruction for students in particular contexts. These descriptions add depth of understanding to findings based on criterion scores. Praxis III assessments also include demographic data for both the beginning teacher participants and the classrooms observed. This information can be examined for potential confounding relationships among teacher variables, teacher preparation, and student characteristics. Data were collected using Praxis III assessments for 68 beginning teacher graduates in Florida, records of evidence were prepared, and scores

PAGE 16

7 were analyzed using a MANOVA design. Implementation procedures are described fully in Chapter III. Importance to Teacher Education An investigation of the first research question added knowledge about the effect of cultural components in teacher preparation on the development of CRT in program graduates. Both academic preparation and life experience affect how teachers construct learning for their students (Johnston & Ochoa, 1993). Moreover, researchers have indicated that the infusion of cultural competencies into teacher education courses can produce positive change in teacher beliefs, knowledge, and skills related to CRT (Burstein & Cabello, 1989; Burstein et al., 1993; Grant, 1994). The present study provided further information about the possible relationship between characteristics of preservice preparation and specific teacher behaviors. I asked the second research question to address how different program orientations (i.e., SE vs. GE) affect the CRT profiles of program gxaduates. Only with knowledge gained from systematic observations in a variety of classrooms and contexts can such profiles begin to emerge. Teacher educators in GE traditionally have emphasized gi'oup processes, the scope and sequence of curriculum, and more recently, holistic approaches to teaching and learning. Conversely, SE professionals traditionally have prepared teachers to focus on student competencies within categories of disability. Although advocates of constructivism have constituted a recent

PAGE 17

8 force for change, special education has a firm foundation in positivistic, behavioral approaches (Sindelar, Pugach, Griffin, & Seidl, 1995). Increased insight into how teachers with GE or SE preparation exhibit competencies critical to CRT is important, given the changing demographics of the students all beginning teachers ultimately serve. Further, given current trends toward the inclusion of students with disabilities in general classrooms, a large portion of whom are from diverse backgrounds, it is critical that teacher educators from SE and GE collaborate in efforts to provide optimal educational strategies for all students (Pugach, 1992; Simpson, Whelan, & Zabel, 1993). Knowledge of variables in preservice training important to CRT, and of potential differences due to preparation orientation, can enhance that collaboration. Importance to Research Methodolog y The Praxis III assessment represents a means for the systematic examination of teacher behaviors, and teacher planning and reflection, in diverse classroom settings. It has been developed as an instrument for licensing beginning teachers and to date has not been incorporated in theoretical research. The potential that such a comprehensive and weU-conceptualized system holds for the study of complex student-teacher interactions in a variety of classroom contexts is encouraging. Moreover, Praxis is grounded in a commitment to the critical importance of culture to the teaching and learning process; therefore, it was particularly relevant to a

PAGE 18

9 study of teacher behaviors related to CRT. Its use was an initial step toward examining its effectiveness for such purposes. Scope and Limitations of the Study The participants in this study were graduates of four university teacher education programs, in either SE or GE, who were in their first year of teaching in their areas of certification in the state of Florida. Attempts were made to obtain relatively even numbers of volunteer participants from each of the four universities, and of those in GE versus SE. School locations for participant observations were not restricted to particular counties; however, if a county contained very few of the program graduates under consideration and was in a location that would pose logistic difficulties, it was eliminated. Participants were restricted to those teaching at the elementary level to provide as much parity between SE and GE teachers' classes as possible. (The GE gTaduates of colleges of education in Florida state universities are prepared to teach primaiily at the elementary level.) With these delimitations, a random sample was selected, stratified by GE versus SE and university, from which volunteers were obtained. No consideration was given to the demogi-aphic characteristics of participants or schools. However, the counties in which most of the graduates teach contain substantial numbers of culturally and/or linguistically diverse students. Some of the above considerations also constitute hmitations to the generahzability of this research. Generalizing findings to secondary teachers should be done with caution. It is also possible that the four Florida state

PAGE 19

10 universities have teacher education programs that are atypical in some way. If unidentified factors unique to these programs significantly affected the way in which their graduates interact with CLD students, preservice preparation variables would be confounded with these influences. A more hkely and more important hmitation is the use of only one assessment per participant. The Praxis III assessment system was designed to use in Hcensing beginning teachers. When used for that purpose, it entails at least three observations of a candidate under consideration, made during different periods of the initial year of teaching. Restricted by available time and limited resources, participants in this study were observed only once. The desire to include as large a sample as possible outweighed the limitation of observing each teacher on one occasion only. Definition of Terms Culturally or Linguistically Diverse (CLD) Although technically the word diverse is not appropriate to describe an individual, this term is used to define those individuals who are from minority backgrounds. It is used interchangeably with the term minority. (Individuals also can be disenfranchised or disadvantaged by virtue of gender, rehgious affiliation, geographic location, disability, sexual preference, or age; the focus of this study, however, is on students who have minority status by virtue of race, culture, ethnicity, or language.) The term also is applied to classrooms, schools, and communities that comprise individuals from a diversity of cultures and language backgrounds.

PAGE 20

11 Although I have chosen these terms (CLD and minority) to make the writing of this dissertation more succinct, I want to emphasize the importance of recognizing the diversity that exists within and among particular cultures. By using the term "CLD" as opposed to "White" or "Anglo" when describing a population, I in no way mean to imply that CLD individuals constitute a homogeneous gi-oup or to juxtapose all minorities with all individuals from white (non-Hispanic), "majority" culture backgrounds. I fuUy recognize the heterogeneity of individuals within any particular culture and the diversity of cultural backgi-ounds represented by today's students. Indeed, the proposed research ultimately addresses the pervasive consequences of a failure to respond appropriately to that diversity. Majority Culture The term majority culture is used to define traditional. Western, (Euro-centric), mainstream thought, patterns of behavior, or accepted institutional structures that are inherent in United States society. Although this country is undergoing constant and significant change, its institutions, dominant language, and cultural metaphors are gi'ounded in Western hegemony. Culturally Responsive Teaching (CRTV This term is defined as teaching— including planning, creating the classroom environment, and relating to students and parents— that incorporates sensitivity to language and cultural background in ways that help make connections between students' background knowledge and experiences and learning (see Villegas, 1991). It has been used by other researchers to include sensitivity to a

PAGE 21

12 broader spectrum of differences; for this study, I have focused primarily on Hnguistic, cultural, or racial differences. In identifying levels of preservice preparation in CRT, I am referring to coursework in multicultural content or practicum experiences that have helped to sensitize participants to the importance of cultural backgi'ound in the teaching and learning process. Beginnin g Teacher A beginning teacher is one who currently is completing his or her first full year as the teacher of record (having primary responsibility) for a classroom of students. Summary and Ovel^dew of Remaining Chapters In this study I addressed (a) the effects of preservice preparation in CRT and (b) GE versus SE teacher preparation on beginning teacher competencies critical to teaching students from diverse cultural backgi-ounds. Despite the recognition of professionals that they must attend to cultural issues in education, little research has been devoted to examining the influence of teacher preparation factors on actual teaching. The newly developed Praxis III beginning teacher assessment system facilitates progress toward that end and was used to measure culturally responsive teaching in this study. The research is a step toward enhancing the knowledge base of teacher educators. Such efforts can have a positive impact on all students and help advance methodology in this critical but complex area. In Chapter 2, 1 provide a review and analysis of relevant literature from the following areas: minority issues in education, culturally responsive

PAGE 22

13 teaching, and teacher preparation and assessment. Selected expository articles as well as empirical studies are included. The chapter ends with impHcations for further research. Chapter 3 contains a description of the sample, methodology, and procedures used in this study. Results are described in Chapter 4. In the final chapter (Chapter 5), I discuss the results in light of previous research and the scope and Hmitations of this study and the findings' impHcations for teacher education and future research.

PAGE 23

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Introduction In Chapter 1, 1 presented a rationale for a study of the relationship between factors in teacher preparation and the basic skills of beginning teachers in culturaUy responsive teaching (CRT). A particular contribution of this study is the use of a performance-based assessment to address this issue. The research questions, the scope and hmitations of the study, and an overview of the methodology were also included in Chapter 1. Chapter 2 contains a summary and analysis of selected professional Hterature relevant to teacher preparation and assessment in CRT. The chapter is divided into six major sections as follows: (a) criteria for selection of hterature; (b) need for CRT, including a discussion of changing demographics, assessment and instruction issues, and minority parent involvement in education; (c) conceptual and theoretical foundations; (d) empirical knowledge base for CRT; (e) current status of teacher preparation and assessment, including a discussion of the recently developed Praxis III assessment system; and (f) summary and impUcations for the present study. 14

PAGE 24

15 Criteria for Selection of Relevant Literature In this study, the effects of teacher preparation factors on the practice of CRT were examined using a performance -based assessment of beginning teachers. A review of studies in several areas of professional Uterature was necessary to provide background for the perspective that led to the study's conception. Therefore, the hterature discussed in this chapter includes (a) recent reviews of the professional hterature related to the areas outhned in the second paragraph of this chapter, (b) empirical work related to CRT, including several ethnographic studies, (c) empirical studies related to the effects of teacher preparation on CRT, and (d) selected expository literature that is particularly germane to an understanding of relevant issues and future directions for research. The majority of studies in this review were completed since 1985. I included exceptions if they were seminal studies cited frequently in more recent publications or contained information particularly pertinent to this study. Literature was accessed through the Information Clearinghouse (ERIC), a search of recent journals available at the Universities of Florida and Central Florida, and through discussions with professionals in the field. Descriptors used in an initial Hterature search included multicultural education, teacher education, assessment, and family needs. Demographic data from a variety of sources provided descriptions of the changing character of the United States population. Finally, recent unpubhshed material relevant to the study was provided by the Educational Testing Service.

PAGE 25

16 Need for Culturally Responsive Teachingf (CRT) Demographics At present, 30% of students are designated at-risk for failure, and that number is expected to rise dramatically (Williams, 1992). Included in the at-risk population are disproportionate and rapidly growing numbers of CLD students. The following demographic data illustrate current trends: • Ethnically diverse groups are growing at 2 to 3 times the rate of Caucasians; Hispanics are the fastest growing (Williams, 1992). • African Americans will constitute 25% of the student population by the year 2000 (Obiakor, Algozzine, & Ford, 1993). • In 1992, 33 states had K-12 populations of 20% or more CLD students, and all 25 of the nation's largest city school systems have "majority minorities" (Williams, 1992, p. 158). • Students from low-status backgrounds (e.g., African Americans, American Indians, Mexican Americans, Puerto Rican Americans, and students whose family income is at poverty level) constitute a disproportionately high percentage (60% to 80%) of those designated retarded (Amos & Landers, 1984). Recent studies have indicated that the category of learning disabilities (LD) is most prevalent for Hispanic students placed in special education (Ortiz & Garcia, 1995). LD has replaced mental retardation as the most prevalent placement for African American students in urban areas, as weU i (Gottheb, Alter, GottHeb, & Wishner, 1994). In a 1992 study of special

PAGE 26

17 education in urban schools (Gottlieb et al., 1994), 93% of the school population examined were from minority backgrounds. In special education, over 95% of students were minorities, over 80% were poor, and those in self-contained LD classes generally had low IQ scores and were prone to academic failure. Diversity (including characteristics of race, culture, ethnicity, language, and exceptionality) is becoming the norm in our nation's schools. The fact that today's students come from a variety of cultural and/or linguistic backgrounds essentially has rendered the term minority obsolete (Cloud, 1993). Highly correlated with so-called minority (i.e., CLD) status is poverty. To add to the previous examples, the percentage of Black children living below poverty levels is three times that of white childi'en (Obiakor et al., 1993). WiUiams (1992) reported that 90% of the increase in children born into poverty a few years ago was in households headed by a female African American or Hispanic and that African American childi-en were nine times more likely than Caucasians to be neurologically impaired. In an introduction to a series of articles on Hispanics and urban education, Ruiz (1995) addi-essed what he termed a demogi-aphic paradox. The Hispanic population grew by approximately 53% between 1980 and 1990 and now constitutes more than 8% of the total U. S. population; it is projected to be the country's largest ethnic gi-oup by the end of this century. However, only a small percentage (21%) reported voting in the 1990 election. Reyes and McCoUum (1992) indicated that current language policy, educational

PAGE 27

18 reform (e.g., America 2000), and literacy programs that treat all learners the same regardless of linguistic or cultural backgi'ound contribute to Hispanics' undereducation and poor literacy skills. It follows that low literacy levels affect voter turnout. They also affect minority groups' abihty to move up the education ladder and become productive members of the work force. If students from all backgi'ounds (particularly the increasing numbers whose cultures and languages are different from those of most teachers) are not educated appropriately, society as a whole stands to suffer from a reduced work force and less effective citizenry. Adherence to an educational system that optimally educates only white, middle-class, traditionally majority culture students is no longer viable. Indeed, the under education or inappropriate education of CLD students threatens the well-being of our country. Assessment Issues Appropriate education depends to a considerable degree on appropriate assessment. Difficulties in assessing CLD students are pervasive and well documented (Harry, 1992b). Educators have referred CLD students to special education in disproportionate numbers, frequently misinterpreting cultural or linguistic differences as disabilities. Conversely, diversity also can contribute to failure to identify those students who need services. Disabihties may be masked by what educators consider normal second language learning difficulties. Although implementation of the Civil Rights Act and the Individuals with Disabilities

PAGE 28

19 Education Act requires assessment in the native language, whether assessment leads to appropriate placement is still an issue. In Florida, for example, which has the fourth largest population with non-English speaking backgrounds in the country, only 3.4% of that population (as opposed to 12-15% of the total population) received special education services in addition to special EngHsh language instruction in 1985 (Fradd, Weismantel, Correa, & Algozzine, 1988). Figueroa, Fradd, and Correa (1989) summarized the work of two research institutes funded by the federal government to study the special education offered to Hispanic children. They reported findings specifically regarding assessment and instructional services. Among them were that (a) language proficiency was not seriously considered in special education assessment; (b) EngHsh-language problems that are typically characteristic of second language learners were misinterpreted as handicaps; (c) having parents born outside the United States increased the Likelihood of eligibility for special education; (d) prereferral modifications of regular programs were rare and showed Httle indication of primary language support; and (e) special education produced little academic development for this group. Through research in bifingual and special education, Gersten and Woodward (1994) found the paradoxical coexistence of overrepresentation and underrepresentation of language minority students in special education discussed previously. Moreover, they reported evidence from empirical studies that referrals can be more a reflection of teacher stress than of

PAGE 29

20 carefully diagnosed student learning deficits. A major determinant of referral rates was often a given teacher's belief that he or she was unable to provide adequate instruction. Although special education placements now may be approaching proportionate numbers for Hispanic students (i.e., consistent with their representation in the general student population), questions persist as to whether these students are appropriately identified and served. Recently Ortiz and Garcia (1995) reported that "there is little research on this population and virtually none which examines the influence of language proficiency on special education placement" (p. 472). Thus, even when assessments produce needed achievementability discrepancy scores for ehgibflity in LD placements, the question remains as to the reason(s) for the poor academic performance of language-minority students. Another contributing factor to misidentification of students for special services is lack of sensitivity to cultural values. For example. Lynch and Hanson (1992) noted that members of Native American cultures tend to consider individual achievement relatively undesirable. Native American childi-en frequently are taught to maintain a respectful silence in the face of authority. This tendency complicates the assessment process for these students. Findings from Jacobs' (1991) ethnographic studies of four Hmong third grade students provide a second example. Jacobs identified imbedded Anglo cultural tendencies that unintentionally led to misidentification of these

PAGE 30

21 students as LD. The studies documented the Hmong students' daily interactions in a southern California educational setting through use of participant and nonparticipant observations, structured and unstructured interviews, and analysis of school files. The children, who were recent refugees, were found to have problems "tuning in" to academic activities. Jacobs' analysis focused on the relationship between sociocultural and psychological factors related to cognitive development and academic achievement. The trauma resulting from the Hmong students' inability to perform led to withdi-awal from tasks and to further trauma from declining skill levels. Jacobs concluded that teacher educators need to sensitize potential teachers to the adjustment process for such children and provide a conceptual framework for understanding the interrelate dness of cultural expectations and student-teacher interactions. Performance Issues Teacher expectations play a significant role in student assessment and in student performance, as well (Ford, 1992; Villegas, 1991). Minority children often reinforce teacher perceptions by performing the way teachers expect them to perform (i.e., poorly). Terms such as different, disadvantaged, and limited further marginalize students already deemed at risk for learning difficulties by virtue of minority status. In addition, teachers who have not examined their own attitudes and expectancies may tend unconsciously to reproduce existing inequities (Cummins, 1986).

PAGE 31

22 Once CLD students have been placed in special education programs, they continue to suffer from disproportionately high drop-out rates. Gersten and Woodward (1994) synthesized the work of several prominent researchers and conducted their own observations over two years in an attempt to merge bodies of professional knowledge and research from bilingual and special education. Their work focused on students considered at risk for school failure or in need of special education. They (a) supplemented observations with interviews of teachers, students, parents, and administrators, (b) compared models of English instruction for bilingual students, and (c) examined pedagogical practices in special education. Gersten and Woodward concluded that a balance of meaning-based, hoHstic approaches with task-analytic instructional strategies may provide the most effective practice for teachers of bihngual students, including those with mild disabilities. The model of second language instruction used tended to be less important than providing students with a variety of tasks specific to both skill acquisition and complex cognitive functioning. Recent emphasis on educational reform efforts such as America 2000 may pose particular problems for minority students. Obiakor et al. (1993) discussed some of the potential effects on African American students, particularly those in urban settings. Although scores for these students have risen since 1971, the reading and writing performance of Blacks is still below that of Whites in the same grades, and 13-year-old Black males have the highest percentage of students below grade level for their age. These

PAGE 32

23 problems are compounded by those inherent in urban settings, such as higher student and teacher attrition. Obiakor et al. cited studies documenting effects of teacher attitudes and expectancies on student performance. They identified teacher behaviors that contribute to both overrepresentation of African American students in special education and the students' failure to make significant progress once in special classes. Teachers who hold lower expectations tend to (a) interact less frequently, (b) use more criticism and less praise, (c) use less feedback and more nonspecific feedback, and (d) demonstrate less patience when working with African American students as opposed to White students. Similarly, Ruiz (1995) described the poor response of Hispanic students within the educational system as currently structured. In 1991, Hispanics had a high school drop-out rate of 49%; of that number, Mexican Americans dropped out at a rate of more than 56%. He described schools as often ahenating places for Hispanics whose understanding of expected routines and procedures is generally poor. Ruiz suggested that schools as institutions often have not responded to the changing composition of their communities by embracing an attitude of cultural pluraUsm. Until their teachers and administrators are sensitized to the value of the Hispanic experience in this society, these students will continue to be underserved. In sum, teachers ill-equipped to adequately understand the influence of culture on student characteristics and behavior frequently misjudge the abilities of students from different cultures— be they African American,

PAGE 33

24 Hispanic, Native American, or Hmong— and consequently, their potential for success in school. Moreover, lack of cultural awareness has contributed to student failure. The miseducation of many bilingual and minority children may continue until Congi-ess and educators make appropriate assessment and instruction for CLD students a national priority (Figueroa et al., 1989). The next section of this chapter concerns the interrelationship between the current educational status of these students and the participation of their parents. Parental Involvement Lack of parental involvement contributes to the low achievement levels of minority students. Lynch and Stein (1987) noted that linguistic differences play a major role in determining communication patterns between home and school. Particularly in special education, language differences can make the translation of concepts concerning disability, instructional strategies, and parent involvement difficult, at best. Moreover, school personnel are hampered by the limited numbers of minority and bilingual professionals available, especially for speakers of Asian and Native American languages that have no written forms. Lynch and Stein (1987) examined how Mexican American families participated in their children's special education programs and compared their participation with that of Black and Anglo families studied previously. I Trained, bOingual (fluent in Spanish and English) interviewers who were i

PAGE 34

25 also parents of students with disabilities interviewed 63 parents of children in special education. The interviews were done in Spanish in the parents' homes. Results revealed that although parents generally were satisfied with their children's programs, they often were unaware of the services given and did not tend to be active participants in the assessment or lEP processes. Work schedules, lack of bihngual communication, and general communication problems were identified as barriers to active participation. Although Hispanics were significantly more likely than Blacks (previously studied) to rate professionals as effective, both groups tended to offer fewer suggestions at lEP meetings than did Anglos, and both knew significantly less about what services their children were to receive. Special educators have exacerbated the difficulties faced by minority parents in gaining access to educational processes when they treat disabilities as deficits belonging to individuals, within the context of a medical model. The deficit view of disability is frequently combined with a deficit view of the culturally diverse family. Harry (1992a; 1992b) has described how these views dictate discourse between parents and special educators in relationships controlled (intentionally or unintentionally) by professionals with higher status and more formal education. Some professionals have even withheld information from low SES or minority parents under the assumption that parents are too unsophisticated to benefit from professional information (Marion, 1980).

PAGE 35

26 Problems perpetuated by a deficit view of disability are further complicated by socially constructed definitions of deviance (Harry, 1992a; Kauffman, 1989). Parents may view their children's disabilities differently than professionals. Disagi'eement over a particular label may not mean a denial of difficulties but simply a different name and interpretation for them. Harry (1992a) conducted an ethnogi'aphic study of the views of 12 low-income Puerto Rican parents (only one of whom was a native speaker of Engfish) whose children were classified as having learning disabihties or mild mental retardation. Findings from unstructured interviews and participant observations were triangulated with those from school documents and interviews of professionals. Parents were found to profess concerns similar to those of professionals regarding the confounding of variables related to language, culture, and disability. The over inclusion of CLD children in special education programs historically has contributed to low parental participation (Harry, 1992b). Culturally diverse families may view the educational system as "complex, intimidating, and bureaucratic" (Correa, 1989, p. 133). Minimal parental involvement in educational processes has significant implications for CLD children in both regular and special education, as parental advocacy traditionally has been a powerful force in educational reform (Fradd & Correa, 1989). Special educators have advocated change in the way professionals relate to CLD children and famihes (Correa, 1989; Figueroa, Fradd, & Correa, 1989; Nelson, Smith, & Dodd, 1992; Rueda, 1989). For

PAGE 36

27 example, Correa (1989) emphasized the responsibility of school professionals to assist families through the transition from their native culture to the school culture. Professionals who act as "culture brokers" assume the role of ally, providing a link between the majority and minority cultures. Given demographic projections, difficulties in the assessment and academic performance of CLD students, and the less than optimal involvement of minority parents in educational processes, there is a clear and pressing need to examine what we know about culturally responsive teaching (CRT). In the next section of this chapter, I address theoretical issues from anthropology and education that contribute to a conceptual framework for CRT. The theory included should provide a context for the current knowledge base and its critical importance. Theoretical and Conceptual Foundations As reviewed, recent studies have addressed the disparities in school performance between CLD and majority-culture students. A current explanation for the lower achievement of minority students is the discrepancy between their backgrounds and the cultural norms of predominately Anglo, middle-class teachers. Variations of this "cultural difference" approach have emphasized the importance of differences in dialect (Gay, 1993; Whitaker & Prieto, 1989), cognitive style (Irujo, 1989) and the way language is used at home and in the classroom (Cloud, 1993; Hilliard, 1980; Villegas, 1991). On the surface, the debate often seems to be about bias and fairness issues. Many fear that society is becoming increasingly insular

PAGE 37

28 as special interest gi-oups battle to get their pieces of the economic and social pie. In actuality, a conceptual discussion of the impact of culture on education involves subtle issues. Subconscious cultural meanings affect both students and teachers in schools structured to match majority culture norms. In the sections that foUow, I address (a) the pervasiveness of cultural influence, particularly its interrelationship with language; (b) the functionalist perspective of schools and its impact on education; and (c) implications for culturally responsive pedagogy. Culture and Language Culture is defined as not only the surface artifacts, hoHdays, and traditions shared by its members, but comprises the beliefs, values, and world view that evolve and are transmitted through generations (BuUivant, 1993). Lakoff and Johnson (as cited in Bonvillain, 1993) spoke of a (primarily subconscious) cultural lens through which individuals view the world. Linguistic anthropologists have studied the impact of that lens and specifically, its interrelationship with language. Advocates of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (Bonvillain, 1993), which evolved through extensive work with diverse cultures, have proposed to varying degi-ees that language and thought are interdependent. That is, the way one views the world is at least partially determined by both the structure and the lexical categories inherent in his or her language and consequently, in his or her primary culture. One's conceptual world is metaphorical; the metaphors pervade

PAGE 38

29 thinking and the formation of ideas without conscious awareness. For instance, linearity is a valued metaphor of Western culture. Individuals who are socialized in an Anglo culture are apt to think in terms of goals, speak of needing direction, and be famiUar with what it means to "follow the straight and narrow." Linguistic anthropologists have studied the way in which cultural metaphors affect the lexical categories of a language and vice versa (Bonvillain, 1993). What is salient and valued in a cultural group will affect the way its members organize experience through linguistic metaphors and patterns of interaction. Moreover, Vygotsky (1962) suggested that words, or units of "word meaning" are generalizations that include both thought and speech-verbal acts of thought. According to Vygotsky's theory, conceptual thought evolves from the internalization of external dialogxie and is a combination of the products of speech development and thought development. Whereas Piaget (Vygotsky, 1962) saw socialized thought as evolving from egocentric thought as a child moves towards the capacity for logical thinking, Vygotsky saw social thought (and speech) as leading to the development of egocentric thought. Thus, ideas are formed through language experiences. One does not "have" an idea and then learn how to say it; rather one constructs ideas as he or she internahzes language and thereby imposes structure on the world. Freire (1970) has written extensively about the interrelationship between language and power. Not only do individuals construct ideas

PAGE 39

30 through language experience, they use that experience to define themselves in relation to the world. Literacy and Hteracy experiences hold the power to shape the development of thought and language, to conceptuaHze experience, and to transform one's relationship to the world. Those whose language is not that of the majority (or dominant) culture may struggle to see themselves as active participants in social, economic, and political processes. Literacy development thus must serve to enhance conceptual thinking and to define and negotiate the relationship between the minority and majority cultures (Cummins, 1986; Ovando, 1993; Wilhs, 1995). The Functionalist Perspective The pervasive influence of culture on educational processes must be examined through a critical look at schools and traditional pedagogy. (Although a thorough review of critical theory in education is beyond the scope of this discussion, a brief overview of the functionalist paradigm augments the conceptual framework for culturally responsive teaching.) Historically, the predominant view of schools in this country has encompassed the assumption that they are functional institutions that help promote the ideals of a democratic society (Apple, 1990; Skrtic, 1991). Presumably, the most able students attain the most esteemed positions, the economic and social systems are thereby advanced; i.e., the system "works." In other words, the educational system functions as a meritocracy. Critical theorists (such as Apple and Skrtic) have questioned this assumption. They have proposed that groups (determined by culture, race.

PAGE 40

31 ethnicity, SES, gender, religion, sexual preference, or any interaction among these factors) in society have conflicting interests and values and that educational institutions have advanced the views and position of dominant cultural gi'oups. This institutional function need not be the result of conscious discrimination or racism; hegemony is a powerful but subtle force (Apple, 1990). Schools thus have been functional in the positive sense mainly for those who match the dominant culture. They have "selected" on the basis of cultural norms, language, and the match between students and accepted classroom practices (Adams, 1995; Willis, 1995). Price (1992) suggested that changes in demogi'aphics and recent economic trends have turned the United States into a mosaic, rather than a melting pot, of cultures. Two current trends— growing insularity and for increasing numbers a diminishing American di'eam— are not coincidental but related, according to Price. Moreover, educators must address issues of cultural inclusion and student self-esteem in order to reverse these trends. As Adams (1995) observed, there is an urgent need to examine whether the discourse of schooHng matches the discourse of democracy. The development of culturally responsive teaching is an attempt to meet that need. Implications for CRT If children define themselves and their relationship to the world through language and experience, schools must find ways to validate the experience of all students. Much of what professionals term culturally responsive pedagogy is closely aligned with best practices that have emerged

PAGE 41

32 from the effective teaching research (Grant & Sleeter, 1993; Hollins, 1993; Porter & Brophy, 1988; Thomas, Correa, & Morsink, 1995; Villegas, 1991). The critical task for educators is to "translate" these practices to achieve equity for CLD students. Kauffman (Kauffman & Hallahan, 1993) has suggested that teaching all students the same way often is ineffective for those who have specific learning or behavioral disabilities. The same principle applies to students from minority cultural and linguistic backgrounds. The task in both situations is to find strategies that help link the experience of the child and the goals for education (Lee, 1992). Cummins (1986) and Ovando (1993) have espoused bridging the gap between the home cultures of CLD students and classrooms by working in partnership with parents. Parent-school communication validates students' cultural identity. Moreover, parents can provide the opportunity to learn and practice complex linguistic skills in order to enhance concept development. Higher-order thinking skills cannot be developed through "watered-down" English to accomplish academic tasks or through dialog-ue constrained by second language development. Teachers and parents together can encourage use of the primary language and English, both at home and in school. Frequent alienation of CLD families from school processes makes partnership difficult to achieve; nevertheless, experiences that validate and legitimize cultural identity are critical (Asante, 1993; Price, 1992; Willis, 1995).

PAGE 42

33 Lee (1992) has used the term culturally responsive scaffolding to describe effective pedagogical practices that vahdate cultural experience and build on conceptual development. Methods or content chosen for its relevance to student experience helps the teacher "scaffold" the learning process and make use of the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1962). In such instances, students grasp the relationships between their knowledge and particular academic goals. Through this process, they are encouraged to see knowledge as constructed through cultural perspectives (Adams, 1995; Skrtic, 1991; WiUis, 1995). Hilliard (1992) noted that effective education has more to do with pedagogical vaUdity than with bias and fairness. This is true whether students are from minority cultures or whether they have disabilities. The challenge for educators is to find ways to make the pedagogy valid for an increasingly diverse student population. This cannot be done without an attempt to understand (a) how culture affects the way students construct their worlds and (b) how culture pervasively affects the way teachers construct learning for their students (Villegas, 1991). Both types of knowledge contribute to current views of best practice in CRT. Knowledge Base for Culturally Responsive Teaching Ethnogi-aphic Studies Culturally responsive pedagogy is based on the assumption that learning opportunities are optimized only when teachers know about the cultural backgTounds of their students and translate this knowledge into

PAGE 43

34 instruction (Villegas, 1991). Much of what is known about effective practice for CLD students comes from the efforts of ethnographic researchers. What follows is a review of studies that have contributed to the knowledge base for CRT. In an extensive review of Hterature on minority education from the perspective of a variety of academic discipHnes, Villegas (1991) described three innovative programs that have resulted in gains for CLD students. The Kamehameha Early Education Project (KEEP), started in the 1970s to improve reading scores for Polynesian childi'en in Hawaii, evolved over several years. Using ethnographic data, instructional strategies were carefully designed to bridge the gap between home and school. One example was to incorporate the collaborative orientation observed in Hawaiian homes into methods for teaching reading. Peer learning centers were established to encourage children to help each other on academic tasks. A second example involved use of joint turn-taking resembhng rules for a recurrent speech event in Hawaiian culture called the "talk story." Within three years, students in the KEEP laboratory school improved their reading scores dramatically. The second program Villegas (1991) described was designed to find ways to motivate secondary-level bilingual students to write. Participants in the San Diego Project engaged students in activities relevant to the needs and interests of community members. One example was a module developed around the topic of bihng-ualism; specifically, students were asked to develop

PAGE 44

35 a questionnaire to survey community members about bilingualism and write a report of their findings. Moll and Diaz (as cited in Villegas, 1991) attributed student success to the opportunity to engage in purposefiil activities designed around a relevant (both to students and community) topic. The third program concerns the work of Marva Collins, a highly publicized teacher who has drawn on her own cultural background to successfully engage African American students (Villegas, 1991). Collins successfully incorporated socially congruent patterns of communication (while teaching standard Enghsh as well) and a cooperative classroom atmosphere compatible with students' cultural values and resources. Students improved academically; they also strengthened their sense of identity and self worth. The recent work of Adams (1995) provides an instructive counter example of CRT. She critically examined why a Hterature-based multicultural curriculum failed to engage students in meaningful dialogue. Her conclusions were based on an ethnographic study of one middle school classroom in a predominantly white working-class neighborhood in the South. (Six of 23 students were African American.) Adams (1995) found that even a well-intentioned, sensitive teacher failed to engage students actively when discussing a book she selected for them by a Black, female author. Adams hypothesized several reasons for the lack of student involvement: (a) the teacher did not attempt to elicit students' personal experiences, (b) she followed traditional classroom

PAGE 45

36 procedures including teacher-directed discussions, and (c) she distanced herself from potentially volatile issues by maintaining a detached, depersonalized approach. In other words, the discourse of schooling in this case did not match the discourse of multiculturalism. Adams concluded that texts that reflect diversity can be effective if teachers use them to explore the construction of differences in society and to challenge oppression— i.e., to develop reflective and critical citizens. The students in the middle school classroom in Adams' study lacked the motivation to become involved. The theoretical position of Wlodkowski and Ginsberg (1995) is that motivation and culture are inseparable. They observed high school classrooms and identified successful CRT. Teachers who asked social science students to identify their own topics for research, and those who encouraged their students to examine cultural pluralism and power relations in the United States, provided positive illustrations of CRT. To supplement the knowledge base provided by ethnographers, the following section includes selected studies relevant to the efficacy of CRT. Well-documented studies that incorporate empirical findings are scarce; those that follow represent seminal or recent work in the field. Additional Research In providing a framework for the empowerment of minority students, Cummins (1986) examined a Spanish-only preschool program in the Carpenteria School District near Santa Barbara, California. It constituted one of the few programs in the United States that explicitly sought to teach

PAGE 46

37 students in their native language, involve the community, and promote conceptual development through meaningful hnguistic interaction. The program proved to be highly successful in closing the gap between English-background and Spanish-background children as measured by readiness for kindergarten scores. Spanish-backgi-ound childi-en for whom English was the focus of preschool instruction remained behind their English-background counterparts. Cummins noted that students who were truly proficient in their primary language transferred their skills more successfully to a second language. Achievement differences may have resulted from the transfer of linguistic processes to English; the enhanced self-esteem resulting from the knowledge that others value one's cultural group, language, and family also may have contributed to the results. Indeed, these phenomena may be inseparable. Lee (1992) provided another example of the effective use of minority students' language and social knowledge. She investigated use of a figurative skill called signifying, or ritual insult, common among African American students. The skill of signifying was used as a scaffold (see Palincsar & Brown [1987] for a discussion of cognitive scaffolding) for teaching novice readers to infer implied relationships in fiction. Participants in the study were African American high school students from a large urban district in the Midwest, many (41%) of whom had reading scores at the 25th percentile or below. An experimental design with four experimental and two control groups was used; prior to instruction, students were measured on signifying

PAGE 47

38 skills and social knowledge relevant to the novels under study. A pre/posttest design including both literal and inferential types of test questions was used to determine the relationship between relevant cultural knowledge and preand posttest scores. The study demonstrated that students' prior understanding (through their culture) served as a foundation for learning how to recognize layers of meaning in fiction. Ladson-Billings (1992) investigated culturally relevant teaching through observations, videotapes, and analyses of successful (as identified by parents) teachers of African American students. She noted the convergence of critical pedagogy and CRT. These teachers made deliberate attempts to prepare students to effect social change by capitalizing on their students' home and community cultures and by incorporating student experience as "official" content. Franklin (1992) reviewed studies to identify characteristics of African American learners relevant to their performance in the classroom. She characterized these students as often ambivalent learners: They were found to seek actively teacher attention and acceptance but if not successful, to become frustrated and even disruptive. African American students' motivation seemed to degenerate from eagerness in the early grades to apathy in the higher grades. Franklin proposed that the relatively monolithic environments of many traditional schools are incompatible with typically fast-paced home environments where these students are stimulated through a variety of sources simultaneously (e.g., television, music, and

PAGE 48

39 people). Findings from two studies indicated that this characteristic was reflected in differential responsiveness to variability in task presentation format. African American students' performance was markedly better in more varied task condition formats, whereas White learners' performance was unaffected by task variabihty. Summary Examples of successful CRT illustrate the value of designing instruction that incoi-porates students' background experiences. Teachers may be able to alter the negative trends for minority students if they build on students' interests, cultural and community resources, and linguistic experience. Although the examples cited are encouraging, the results of any single study are not necessarily apphcable to all contexts. Each learning community requires teaching that reflects local cultural differences (Villegas, 1991). An essential first step is the reahzation that all students bring cultural resources to the classroom that can provide a positive context for learning. Components of CRT The diversity of students and school environments precludes the possibility of providing neat prescriptions for teaching in all diverse classrooms. A culturally responsive pedagogy, therefore, is based on teacher attitudes and skills that require knowledge of the fundamental importance of culture to the learning process. Although the research base for CRT consists of studies done in particular environments with particular students,

PAGE 49

40 professionals agi'ee that certain general competencies are important. A brief description of these competencies follows. For purposes of this study, the competencies cited have been gleaned from the Hterature reviewed and from additional sources, most notably the work of Amos and Landers (1984), Baca and Amato (1989), and Burstein et al., (1993). References cited in this section are meant to be representative, not exhaustive. The components of CRT can be gi'ouped into the following major categories: (a) knowledge and sensitivity about cultural influences, (b) ability to provide a supportive learning context for CLD students, (c) appropriate instruction and assessment of CLD students, and (d) facilitation of parental involvement. The four major areas and their components are included in Table 2-1. The first category, knowledge and sensitivity about cultural influences, includes awareness of the effects of culture on student learning (Burstein et al., 1993), respect for cultural differences (Villegas, 1991), viewing student differences as sources of strength rather than difficulty (Franklin, 1992), and self-awareness of culture-based values and beliefs (Amos & Landers, 1984; Baca & Amato, 1989; Burstein & Cabello, 1989). The second category, providing a supportive environment for learning (Hollins, 1993; Hollins & Spencer, 1990), includes knowledge of the processes of language acquisition and development (Baca & Amato; Burstein et al.; Cloud, 1993), adequate classroom management skills (Burstein et al.), and high expectations for all students (Villegas, 1991).

PAGE 50

41 Table 2-1. Components of Culturally Responsive Teaching Domain Knowledge & sensitivity Supportive context for students Appropriate instruction Communication with parents & community Teacher Competencies Demonstrates knowledge about culture & how to seek information about diverse cultures Demonstrates respect for differences and the value of diversity Demonstrates self-efficacy and selfawareness Demonstrates knowledge of language acquisition & development Manages the classroom in culturally sensitive ways Demonstrates high expectations for students Selects appropriate methods & materials Uses a variety of instructional methods Connects instruction with student experiences Uses culturally appropriate assessment techniques Demonstrates knowledge of appropriate communication patterns & practices Demonstrates knowledge of community resources The third category of CRT components concerns appropriate planning and delivery of instruction (Amos & Landers, 1984; Baca & Amato, 1989; HoUins & Spencer, 1990). Included are (a) adaptation of curriculum for diverse students (Burstein et al., 1993); (b) selection of a variety of appropriate materials and methods, e.g., reciprocal teaching and direct instruction (Burstein & Cabello, 1989); (c) a balance between hoUstic methods and direct instruction (Gersten & Woodward, 1994); (d) formation of relationships between instruction and students' background experience (HolHns, 1993; Villegas, 1991); and (e) use of culturally appropriate and

PAGE 51

42 unbiased assessment (Baca & Amato; Burstein et al.; Villegas, 1991). The final category concerns both awareness of the importance of involving parents of CLD students in educational processes and skill in facilitating such involvement (Amos & Landers; Baca & Amato; Burstein et al.; Correa, 1992; Harry, 1992a; HoUins). Convergence with Best Practice Pedagogy that is responsive to a diversity of student backgrounds and needs does not consist of prescriptions; it depends, rather, on the incorporation of attitudes, beliefs, and knowledge about culture and its effects on teachers and students. The four broad-based competency areas described imply that teachers can make informed decisions based on information relevant to the teaching context as long as they have sufficient knowledge of effective teaching and a commitment to learning about their students' backgrounds. The practices described, particularly those in the second and third categories (outlined in Table 2-1), converge with the practices considered most salient in the literature on effective teaching (Dwyer, 1994; Porter & Brophy, 1988; Reynolds, 1992). Researchers in the areas of CRT and effective teaching indicate that a model of best teaching practice for all students should include: (a) the process as well as the content of teaching; (b) the classroom context, reflective of students' backgrounds and experiences; (c) the development of teachers as reflective decision-makers who adapt instructional methods, materials, and strategies for their students; (d) the

PAGE 52

43 development of teacher attitudes and beliefs that result in high expectations for all students and a problem-solving approach to reaching them. In addition, Amos and Landers (1984) addressed the marriage between multicultural education and special education. They cited four overlapping competency areas: (a) awareness of the pervasive influence of culture, (b) knowledge and skills for individualizing instruction, (c) knowledge about diverse cultural gi'oups (including students with disabilities), and (d) knowledge about conferencing with parents. The overlap between CRT and best practice in both general and special education provides considerable support for including common components in teacher preparation progi-ams. Particularly important for CLD students is emphasis on teachers' deliberate incorporation of student backgi'ound (i.e., cultural) experiences into meaningful classroom activities, including activities that encourage critical examination of power and equity issues (Villegas, 1991). Although teacher education program administrators have supported the inclusion of multicultural education training (Ford, 1992), researchers (e.g., Burstein et al., 1993; Figueroa, Fradd, & Correa, 1989; Franklin, 1992) have suggested that special education teachers continue to design instruction primarily according to disability label rather than culture-based student characteristics. General education teachers also may be Hi-prepared to consider cultural differences when planning instruction (Banks, 1994).

PAGE 53

44 Teacher Preparation and Assessment in CRT Fradd and Correa (1989) cited the lack of personnel training in cross-cultural communication and lack of awareness of the critical need for this training as the chief obstacles to optimal practice in special education for CLD students (emphasis added). Further, Gay (1993) noted that the lack of minority teachers heightens the demand for cultural sensitivity on the part of White, middle-class personnel. Overwhelming numbers of prospective teachers from culturally diverse backgi'ounds currently fail competency tests, and the best and brightest frequently choose other professions (Gilford, 1986). Although acknowledging that the content of teacher competency tests is sometimes of questionable vahdity, Gifford did not advocate faulting the testing system. Rather, public policy should demand that school improvement efforts directly address minority students' failure to be competitive on teacher exams. Thus, professionals must address the failure of schools to provide adequate education for these students. Equity within the education profession will not come through lower standards but through ensuring that more minority candidates are highly qualified. This can be accompHshed only when teachers are prepared to use culturally sensitive instruction. In the section that foUows, I review several studies that provide information about teacher preparation in CRT. Relevant Research Culturally sensitive teaching can result from both culture-general and culture-specific teacher education (Fox, Kuhlman, & Sales, 1988). In a

PAGE 54

45 general sense, teachers need to develop sensitivity to and respect for student differences. Teachers also need to develop an awareness of culture -specific influences. Culture may influence student learning preferences and cognitive styles. Further, culture-based cognition affects the way teachers construct learning for their students, as well. Shulman (as cited in Johnston & Ochoa, 1993) noted that both the academic training and Hfe experience of teachers influence their construction of the learning process. These experiences include both obvious and subtle cultural influences. Johnston and Ochoa have called for further research to explore specific eff'ects of teachers' understanding of culture on the teaching and learning process. To date, teacher assessments in CRT primarily have utilized self-report measures, such as questionnaires, journal entries, and teacher belief inventories. The only exception found was Grant and Koskela's (1986) study of the relationship between multicultural education in a teacher education program and multicultural education implemented in the classroom by the progi-am's practicum students. Subjects in the study were 23 white students (20 women and 3 men) in an elementary teacher education program at a large midwestern university. Students were followed through their preservice education program— including their field placements, many of which were in racially diverse metropohtan schools. An introductory course included multicultural content related to (a) societal attitudes and how they are reinforced or ameliorated by schools, (b) sensitivity to bias in

PAGE 55

46 instructional materials, and (c) relevant topics in litigation. Students and faculty were interviewed about both coursework and field experiences. Observations of a subsample during student teaching confirmed data from the interviews. The data indicated that student teachers (a) attempted and accomplished Httle multicultural education, even when opportunities readily presented themselves; (b) did demonstrate concern about children's self-esteem by making sure they understood assignments and how to do them; and (c) paid attention to students' learning rates and skills. In sum, they were concerned with lesson mechanics, especially discipline and students' skill acquisition. Grant and Koskela suggested that the fragmented nature of the instruction participants had received in multicultural education (frequently referred to as a particular instructor's "bandwagon") and its emphasis on individual, not specifically cultural, differences contributed to the scarcity of obseived multicultural practices. Some researchers theorize that preservice training effects pale in comparison to the influence of past role models and individual personalities. Moreover, inexperienced student teachers understandably must be concerned with simply getting the students through the lesson. These teachers thus may set low expectations for student learning and concentrate primarily on classroom management. Grant and Koskela concluded that education students must be helped to practice what they learn in coursework if they are to establish patterns of CRT. Grant and Secada (1990) reviewed studies with a focus on the precertification education of student teachers for diversity, citing the paucity

PAGE 56

47 of research in this area. Following are some of their findings: (a) 13 of 16 studies found were conducted prior to 1980, (b) program effectiveness was determined mainly by use of an attitude survey (many of which had not been used prior to a particular study), (c) all studies except one reported mixed results concerning teacher effectiveness in multicultural teaching. In general, the more intense the exposure to teaching in diverse settings and the more time spent learning related content, the more chance for successful learning. Grant and Secada (1990) made several recommendations regarding the need for further research. Those most pertinent here are: (a) programs should be assessed with measures that capture what preservice students actually do when in the classroom and (b) studies of the same variables across multiple progi-ams should be undertaken to increase generahzability of findings. Grant (1994) followed up with a review of 44 studies [27 of which were "new" since Grant and Secada (1990)] of teacher education in CRT. He noted that little change in teacher education has occurred despite the call for reform due to unmet needs of urban students and students of color. He identified some best practices to inform teacher educators about better preparing their students. These practices included (a) the infusion of multicultural content throughout the curriculum, (b) the provision of experiences in culturally diverse communities, and (c) placement with cooperating teachers who both know and advocate CRT. Again, Grant cited

PAGE 57

48 the need for further research, noting that his review found information about only 3.6% of institutions of higher education. Two other studies deserve mention. Burstein et al. (1993) described a model that infused important competencies throughout an existing teacher education program. The competencies were viewed as important in serving CLD students with learning disabihties. Overall program data indicated that competencies were indeed infused and that teachers perceived themselves (and were perceived by employers) as competent in serving CLD/LD students. However, all evaluation data were based on report instruments such as questionnaires and interviews. In the words of Burstein et al., "Despite the extensiveness of these data, they cannot substitute for systematic observation" (p. 11). Villegas (1993) described three teacher education progi-ams that were restructured effectively for diversity. A cross-site analysis revealed factors that enhanced their success. All three programs were based in institutions that were, themselves, committed to diversity in mission, goals, policies, and practices. Practices included the recruitment and retention of students, faculty, and administrators of color. Second, program curricula emphasized skills in using knowledge of students' language and culture in teaching. Issues of multiculturahsra were infused throughout progi'am courses, extensive field experiences were used to reinforce classroom learning, and faculty modeled multicultural strategies in their own teaching.

PAGE 58

49 Preparation in General versus Special Education The philosophy of teacher education that drives a particular preparation program may influence the beginning teacher graduate's response to cultural differences in the classroom. Specifically, teacher education for general education classrooms has focused on construction of student learning through an ecological, or contextual, approach to the interaction of students, teachers, and environment (Liston & Zeichner, 1990). General education teachers are prepared to utilize knowledge in the scope and sequence of curriculum and appropriate assessment of gi'oup processes and progress. In contrast, teacher education for students with special needs traditionally has emphasized the direct instruction of skills and strategies for individual student learning. Professionals (e.g., Heshusius, 1991; Welch, 1994) recently have advocated the infusion into special education of ecological considerations and attention to contextual variables. Nevertheless, special education professionals traditionally have prepared teachers to focus on specific student competencies within categories of disability. Although recently constructivists have advocated change, special education has a firm foundation in positivistic, behavioral approaches (Sindelar et al., 1995). Presumably, therefore, special education graduates have had more preservice training in individuahzing instruction for a diversity of learners than have their general education counterparts.

PAGE 59

50 Although hterature in this area is sparse, two studies were found to be relevant to clarification of differences between general and special educators and how these differences might affect their practice of CRT. Goodlad and Field (1993) studied the "Education of Educators" and demonstrated a schism between the priorities of both students and faculty in general versus special education. Students in general education felt unprepared to individualize instruction for students with disabilities in their classes, yet they did not consider improvement of skills in this area a priority. Both the general education students and their faculty rated courses in special education as low interest. Although special education faculty expressed some desire for increased integi-ation, special education itself seemed to be viewed by educators as a separate system. Using qualitative methods, Gersten, Morvant, and Brengelman (1995) also found "subtle but profound differences between special and general educators in their conceptions of teaching. (p. 60). They approached instructional issues differently because of the way they thought about the teaching and learning process. It became clear that asking general education teachers to use practices accepted in special education, such as cumulative review and frequent checks for understanding, often required di-amatic shifts in the GE teachers' views of teaching. The researchers advocated taking these considerations into account when designing educational innovations that may involve collaborative efforts.

PAGE 60

51 Summary Conceptualizations of teaching and learning affect the way aU teachers construct learning for their students in classrooms that are becoming increasingly diverse. Thus, teacher preparation specifically focused on cultural sensitivity, the conceptual framework that drives a teacher education program— e.g., the behaviorist tradition of SE versus the holistic orientation of GE, personal experience, and role models all may influence teaching. An area in need of further study is how elements of teacher preparation specifically influence the observable competencies of beginning teachers in effective practice for CLD students. Praxis III— Classroom Performance Assessments Researchers have called for the incorporation of cultural considerations into the assessment of effective teaching practice, not only for the benefit of culturally diverse students but also to provide equitable assessments of teachers from diverse backgrounds (Dwyer, 1993; Dwyer, 1994; Dwyer & ViUegas, 1993; Nelson-Barber, 1991; ViUegas, 1991). A recently developed assessment system represents a response to that call. Praxis III: Classroom Performance Assessments of The Praxis Series: Professional Assessments for Beginning Teachers'^^' is part of a comprehensive assessment system for beginning teachers developed by the Educational Testing Service (Dwyer, 1994). The first two components of the Praxis series are designed to assess basic skills and knowledge of subject matter and pedagogy, respectively; the

PAGE 61

52 third component, Praxis III, is designed to assess application of this knowledge in the classroom. The Praxis III assessment is designed to be administered toward the end of an internship experience or during the first year of teaching for those states requiring a performance-based assessment as part of Licensing procedures. While Praxis III is predominately performance-based, a paper-and-pencil task is included to provide information about the classroom and instructional arrangements. In describing Praxis III, Dwyer and ViUegas (1993) emphasized assessment of both teacher actions and judgments within the context of the classroom (emphasis added). Teachers have the opportunity to explain their decisions in pre and postobservation interviews, in light of their grasp of the subject matter, the principles of learning and teaching, and the individual backgrounds of their pupils. Dwyer and Villegas stated: To assess knowledge and skills of such diversity, a variety of assessment methods should be used, some of which require a high degree of judgment by trained assessors; simple checklists of isolated skills are inadequate for assessing teaching skiU and unlikely to have a positive effect on teaching and learning. [Praxis Assessments] combine interviews with the teacher, direct classroom observation, and review of documents completed by the teacher to coUect data about 19 key aspects of teaching. Each of these aspects must then be judged by trained assessors in the context of the subject matter and students being taught, (p. 9) In addition to the adaptabihty of Praxis III teacher assessments to a variety of classroom contexts (e.g., grade levels and content areas), the 19 criteria are used not only to assess teacher behaviors but to look at teacher

PAGE 62

53 cognition as well. Most important to this study, the criteria are infused with sensitivity to culture as a major component of effective teaching (Dwyer, 1993). In fact, the conception of teaching and learning that provides the theoretical basis for the Praxis III assessment is, itself, culturally responsive. That conception is based on the premise that there is no such thing as good teaching that is not culturally responsive (Villegas, personal communication, July 22, 1994). Many of the criteria specified for the Praxis III assessment correspond closely to the components of CRT outhned in Table 2-1. In relating Praxis III criteria to the conception of teaching and learning espoused by its developers, Villegas (1992) outhned the 19 criteria within four domains: A— organizing content knowledge for student learning, B— creating an environment for student learning, C— teaching for student learning, and D— teacher profession ahsm. A complete discussion of the relationship between each domain (and corresponding criteria) and essential aspects of a culturally responsive pedagogy is contained in Villegas (1992). An overview of this relationship follows. Each domain is infused with two important themes. First, effective teachers must treat students from different cultural backgrounds equitably. In the context of the Praxis III assessment, this fundamental consideration is embedded in Domain B criteria concerned with establishing rapport with all students (B2), and communicating high expectations to each student (B3). Teachers are expected to see cultural differences as strengths and draw upon their students' cultural resources in estabhshing open and meaningful

PAGE 63

54 relationships with minority students. Further, a recurrent theme in education literature is that teachers who beheve their students are capable of learning tend to have more successful students (Villegas, 1992). In the C domain, equity issues underHe criteria consisting of encouraging all students to extend their thinking (C3), providing feedback to all students (C4), and using instructional time equitably (C5). All students, but particularly those who are performing below expectations, should have opportunities to engage in stimulating tasks that develop higher-order knowledge and skills. To provide appropriate feedback, teachers must be sensitive to verbal and nonverbal signals from CLD students that may indicate either confusion or understanding. Even beginning teachers should be able to identify when students are experiencing dif&culty or when an opportunity exists to extend their understanding (Villegas, 1992). The second theme infused in Praxis III criteria is that successful teachers build on students' individual and cultural resources. This consideration is clearly embedded in criteria in Domain A: becoming famihar with relevant aspects of students' background knowledge and experience (Al), selecting appropriate methods and materials (A4), and devising appropriate evaluation strategies (A5). To accommodate cultural differences in learning, teaching style must be flexible and varied and teachers must understand how the methods they use correspond to students' preferred participation styles. To evaluate students effectively, teachers also need some awareness of cultural differences in appropriate means of displajdng

PAGE 64

55 knowledge. Teachers who are insensitive to such cultural variations may misjudge pupils' competence (Villegas, 1992). Background experience, including cultural resources, also must be considered when making content comprehensible to students (criterion C2). This is when knowledge and skill in criterion Al— becoming familiar with students' background knowledge and experience— is put into practice in the teaching process. Effective teachers are able to build bridges between students' cultural resources and learning goals and tasks to make content meaningful and understandable. In addition, teachers need to draw on knowledge of cultural differences to communicate effectively with students' parents or guardians (criterion D4). This communication both helps to provide a supportive context for student learning and enhances teachers' understanding of the cultural and community resources of their students (ViUegas, 1992). Praxis III thus provides a means by which researchers can begin to look at how beginning teachers respond to CLD students in a variety of teaching contexts. Through the methods to be outlined in Chapter 3, investigators can provide quantitative measures on skills critical to culturally sensitive teaching through an examination of teacher performance on I \ specified criteria. The record of evidence collected for each teacher assessed is scored through a rigorously developed procedure; it also provides qualitative information about each teacher's response patterns as he or she interacts with students. Data from preand postobservation interviews

PAGE 65

56 enhance available information about teacher decision-making and self-evaluation processes. Summary and Implications Demographic changes, the failure of educational institutions to respond adequately to cultural diversity, and the mismatch between minority students and majority-culture teachers have resulted in professional attention to the need for CRT. Moreover, best practices in CRT have been identified that correspond closely to effective practices for all students. The additional ingredient necessary to make teaching culturally sensitive is a critical awareness of the pervasive influence of language and culture— both on the way teachers teach, and on the way students learn. To date, the assessment of teachers, and of their preparation in this area, has depended primarily on what teachers themselves say about how well they are prepared and how effectively they teach. Researchers have provided some evidence that infusing cultural competencies into the teacher education curriculum can produce positive changes in teacher beUefs, knowledge, and skills related to teaching CLD students. Preand posttraining questionnaires and ethnogi'aphic studies have provided information about teacher awareness and behaviors in particular environments. They have not adequately addressed the need to know more about how teacher preparation affects the response to cultural diversity across a variety of classroom situations and contexts.

PAGE 66

57 The Praxis III assessment system— a performance-based assessment infused with cultural considerations and developed with the assumption that good teaching is CRT-has provided a means by which research can begin to link components in teacher preparation with observable teacher behaviors. Systematic observations of teachers in multiple classroom settings thus can add needed data-based information to inform teacher educators. Through use of Praxis III, this study was designed to addi-ess systematically the relationships among specified teacher preparation program factors and CRT skills. Findings provided information relevant to teaching an increasingly diverse student population and thus potentially are of value to professionals interested in improving the quahty of education for aU students.

PAGE 67

CHAPTER 3 METHODS AND PROCEDURES Introduction This study was designed to examine the influence of factors in the preservice preparation of beginning teachers on how competent they are in skills identified as important for the effective teaching of students with culturally and/or hnguistically diverse (CLD) backgrounds. Specifically, it was designed to determine the effects of (a) level of preservice training in cultural responsiveness and (b) preparation in GE versus SE, on beginning teacher competencies identified as critical for culturally responsive teaching (CRT). It incorporated a performanced-based assessment that combines data from teachers' written documents, interviews, and observations to provide comprehensive descriptions of teacher behaviors. A description of the study's null hypotheses, participants, instrumentation, procedures, and treatment of data follows. Description of the Null Hypotheses The following null hypotheses were tested in the study. HI: There are no statistically significant differences on measures of CRT competencies between beginning teachers who have a high versus low 58

PAGE 68

59 level of preservice preparation in issues related to culturally responsive teaching. H2: There are no statistically significant differences on measures of CRT competencies between beginning teacher gi-aduates of GE teacher preparation progi-ams and beginning teacher graduates of SE teacher preparation programs. Participants and Samphng Procedures Participants The sample for the study consisted of beginning teacher gi-aduates of four major Florida universities currently teaching in Florida public schools. The sample was limited to beginning teachers at the elementary level teaching in their areas of certification. Since the general education programs in question are designed for preparation to teach elementary school students, the grade level limitation was imposed in order to match the general and special education training as closely as possible. Demographic data— gender, age, race, and university— were obtained from a Candidate Profile that each participant completed (see Appendix F). Each Praxis assessment requires approximately 8-10 hours of assessor time to complete; adherence to the study's timeframe thus restricted total sample size to one that was both methodologically sufficient (see Shavelson, 1988) and practically feasible. The total sample size was 68 beginning teachers, 35 graduates in SE, and 33 graduates in GE.

PAGE 69

60 Sampling Procedures All beginning public school teachers in either general or special education who graduated from the four state universities and were teaching in the state of Florida were identified. The pool was then limited to those teaching at the elementary level in their areas of certification. Further, geogi-aphic areas were restricted to those in which relatively balanced numbers of general and special education teachers from each of the four universities were located. Districts that presented problems due to excessive travel requirements for a relatively small number of potential participants were also eliminated. From the resulting pool of teachers, a stratified random sampling procedure was used to select equal numbers of teachers from each of the four universities, and from general and special education. Random selection of participants minimized the effects of potentially contaminating variables, given the constraints of the need to select beginning teachers with specified types of preservice training. Randomly selected beginning teachers were sent a letter (included in Appendix B) informing them that they had been selected to participate in an important research study and asked to volunteer. The letter included general information about the activities their participation would require and the approximate time commitment involved. It also explained that the assessor would provide them with general feedback following the observations (if they desired it) and that all information obtained from the

PAGE 70

61 study would be strictly confidential. Letters were followed with phone calls to selected participants until the required number of volunteers was obtained. Instrumentation This study contributes information relevant to the effective teaching of students from culturally diverse backgi-ounds. It also was designed to help further research methodology in this area. A newly developed performance-based assessment of beginning teachers— an assessment that is infused with cultural content— was used to investigate the research questions posed. This study's findings added information about the assessment's utility for further research in CRT. The instrument that was used to measure CRT in this study is the Praxis III assessment system developed by the Educational Testing Service (ETS). The 19 measurement criteria that constitute the assessment were developed from extensive research, the results of three job analyses, and a multi-state vaUdity study (Dwyer, 1993, 1994). They were piloted extensively in the field and refined in collaboration with practicing educators. The criteria comprise four domains of teacher competence. These domains, with the corresponding focus areas defined by ETS, are displayed in Table 3-1. Praxis III domains and criteria are contained in Appendix D. The Praxis III assessment system uses three data-coUection methods— direct observation of classroom practice, written descriptions of the students and what they are to learn (these are recorded by the participant on

PAGE 71

62 Table 3-1. Domain and Focus Ai-eas Addressed bv Praxis Ill-Classroom Performance. Assessme nts Developed bv the Educational Testing Service (1992') Domain Focus Organizing content knowledge for student learning Teacher understanding of students and subject matter Creating an environment for student learning Human interactions in the classroom Teaching for student learning Overall goal of teaching— helping students connect with the content Teacher professionalism Facility to evaluate and enhance one's own instructional effectiveness SOURCE: Praxis III: Classroom Performance Assessments Fact Sheet, no date, ETS Praxis III profile forms), and interviews that are structured around the classroom observation. Following completion of the assessment cycle (preobseivation interview, observation, and postobservation interview), the assessor reviews all notes taken during the three phases as well as the teacher-prepared written documents. Evidence for each assessment criterion may be drawn from any of these sources. A record of evidence is compiled for each criterion; a written summary statement relates that evidence to the criterion's specified scoring rules, and a score is assigned accordingly. Criterion scores range from 1.0 to 3.5 at intei-vals of .5. Scoring rules and matrices are included in Appendix N. Assessors in this study used a laptop computer during the interviews and observations to record evidence for the assessments.

PAGE 72

63 The time required for each assessment cycle varies somewhat for each participant. The preobservation interview takes approximately 20-30 minutes. Following the interview, the assessor observes a class "period" that may last from 20 minutes to an hour, depending on such factors as subject content, grade level, and exceptionalities involved. Following the classroom obsei-vation as soon as possible, the assessor interviews the beginning teacher again. The postobservation interview requires from 30-40 minutes. Following the assessment cycle, the assessor codes all notes recorded during the interviews and observation. For each criterion, pertinent information is transferred to the record of evidence, a summary statement is written, and a score is assigned. This process usually takes approximately 1 1/2 hours for each of the four domains. (Each domain includes 4 or 5 criteria.) Sources of Evidence Prior to the preobservation interview, the assessor provides each participant with three assessment profiles: a Candidate Profile that asks for information about the participant concerning educational backgi'ound and experience, a Classroom Profile that asks for information about demographic and academic characteristics of the students involved, and an Instruction Profile that asks for information about the lesson to be observed. The participating teacher is asked to reflect on the lesson-planning process in terms of goals, relationship to past and future learning, methods, materials, and means of evaluation.

PAGE 73

64 Through the preobservation interview, the assessor provides an opportunity for the teacher to explain the planning process and why he or she selected particular goals and methods given the students in the class. Through the postobservation interview, the teacher is provided an opportunity to reflect on what happened during the lesson and how he or she would use this information to plan future lessons. The assessor also asks about teacher communication with parents or guardians and fellow professionals. Description of Assessor Training The Praxis III assessment system is a high-inference instrument. Assessors are asked to consider each participant's teaching context (i.e., grade level, subject, and student characteristics) and to di'aw on their own professional experience to judge the evidence collected for each criterion. Therefore, each assessor must complete an intensive, week-long training by ETS personnel. The training consists of highly interactive instruction that incorporates videotapes, the examination of printed materials, and multiple simulated assessments. Throughout the first four days, trainees receive feedback from instructors and fellow participants. They then conduct a field test using the instrument and return for a fifth day of feedback, skill reinforcement, and consoKdation of training. Training culminates in a performance-based assessment that covers the full range of Praxis III activities and is used to determine assessor competence. Assessors are cautioned that there is a wide range of teaching styles that are acceptable, even though they may not match assessors' individual

PAGE 74

65 preferences. Moreover, Praxis III trainers emphasized the importance of not penalizing beginning teachers for circumstances that may be beyond their control (e.g., class size, building facilities, or lack of resources). Thus, assessors are to use informed judgments based on their training and professional experience while adhering closely to the scoring rules for each criterion. Both assessors in this study were trained at the same time by highly qualified ETS personnel. (Several of those involved in training the assessors were also involved in the development of the instrument.) The two assessors were doctoral students in special education at the University of Florida, and each had gained some experience with Praxis III prior to collecting data for this study. Vahditv and Rehability Praxis III was developed as a result of six years of extensive research by ETS personnel. The developers thought it essential to articulate a guiding conception of teaching and learning and a set of criteria by which beginning teaching could be assessed (Dwyer, 1994). The resulting conceptual framework was discussed in Chapter 2. This section's focus is the research and development effort guided by that framework, which culminated in the 19 Praxis III criteria. Prior to a determination of specific criteria, the developers identified the knowledge base from which to estabhsh an initial set of assessment criteria. This knowledge base was derived from three main sources of evidence: practicing teachers, theoretical research, and teacher licensing

PAGE 75

66 requirements. These sources were identified in order to consider multiple perspectives rather than rely on one paradigm of effective teaching. Knowledge Base The first major source of information for Praxis III development consisted of practicing teachers. The developers conducted large-scale studies to determine important tasks required of beginning teaching (see Rosenfeld, Freeberg, & Bukatko, 1992; Rosenfeld, Reynolds, & Bukatko, 1992; Rosenfeld, Wilder, & Bukatdo, 1992). Teachers from elementary, middle, and secondary levels were surveyed about the importance of specific tasks for their own teaching as well as beginning teaching. Further, they were asked to identify other important aspects of teaching that may not have been included in the survey. The second information source was a series of research reviews. Guided by a panel of experts, researchers reviewed literature on effective teaching, effective beginning teaching, and effective teaching in multicultural classrooms. Theoretical perspectives and empirical findings thus strengthened the knowledge base about good teaching provided by practicing teachers. The third source of evidence for assessment content was an analysis of states' regulations and practices regarding beginning teacher assessments. Through a nationwide content analysis of state performance assessment requirements, information was identified and compiled. Developers focused on requirements related to the assessment of actual teaching rather than on other knowledge, skills, experience, or educational attainment.

PAGE 76

67 Criterion Development From the three sources described above, a knowledge base for the assessment of beginning teachers was formed. The development team used this information to di'aft an initial set of assessment criteria. A National Advisory Committee reviewed the research base and the criteria. Committee members first advised the development team to bring the criteria more in line with the guiding conceptional framework. The team then developed several revised versions of the assessment criteria and conducted small-scale pilot studies to test their effectiveness in actual teaching situations. Through these studies, the criteria and the assessment process underwent extensive revisions. Large-scale field work was conducted to further refine criteria. During this phase of the development process, scoring rules were dehneated and clarified by collaborating teachers and researchers. Concurrent with the refinement of the assessment criteria, field studies also focused on assessor training. Several modifications were made to clarify particular scoring rules and enhance skills in note taking, coding, and use of multiple sources of evidence. Additional assessors were trained using the completed version of the Praxis III assessment system. A thorough description of the development process and the knowledge base for each of the 19 assessment criteria can be found in Dwyer (1994). A preHminary analysis of data collected during field testing indicated a moderate to high level of inter-rater agreement between paired assessors who observed the same teaching event (Dwyer, 1994). However, no inter-rater

PAGE 77

68 reliability data have been published to date. ETS does not emphasize the importance of inter-rater reliability; rather, they stress the importance of using highly trained assessors. Ultimately, therefore, the rehabihty and vahdity of Praxis III rests in the rigor of assessor training (Klem, personal communication, 1994; Villegas, 1992). Determination of a Subset of Criteria for CRT The developers of Praxis III assumed that cultural considerations are vitally important to effective teaching. Moreover, in order to focus on those practices most critical to CRT in this study, a measure of teacher behaviors selected specifically for their impact on the education of CLD students was defined. That measure consisted of a subset of the 19 Praxis criteria. A sample of 20 experts in issues concerning cultural diversity and education was identified. Experts were selected from a review of three recent edited texts concerning issues in multicultural education and culturally responsive teaching. Twenty authors who contributed chapters about issues relevant to this study (e.g., "Ethnic Minorities and Educational Equality" in Banks & Banks, 1993) were identified. Experts selected were sent a brief description of the 19 assessment criteria (presented in random order) along with a cover letter. They were asked to designate a subset of the 19 criteria that they considered Jiiost critical to the effective teaching of students from culturally or linguistically diverse backgrounds and to rank the selected criteria in order of importance. Expert vahdation was considered an

PAGE 78

69 appropriate means of identifying relevant measurement variables (Messick, 1989). A subset of 9 of the 19 Praxis III assessment criteria were selected through use of a modified Delphi survey technique (Altschuld & Thomas, 1991). The procedure was used to determine the relative importance of selected criteria and to ehminate those criteria ranked lowest or not included by at least half of the experts responding. The resulting criteria were designated as the measure of CRT for this study. It is understood that the delineation of this subset does not preclude the importance of other considerations to the practice of CRT. Further, this delineation is not meant to imply that the Praxis III assessment system as a whole is not culturally responsive. Indeed, the strength of the Praxis III instrument for research in CRT is the commitment of its developers to the assumption that good teaching is, by definition, culturally responsive. The use of an appropriate subset of criteria, however, narrows the assessment focus to behaviors most critical to teaching CLD students (regardless of specific classroom characteristics). Although this subset contains teacher competencies important for the effective teaching of all students, it is assumed that the progi'ess of minority students would be particularly and differentially affected by strengths or weaknesses in these areas. Levels of Preservice Preparation in CRT The independent variable used to addi-ess the first research question in this study (level of preservice exposure to issues in cultural diversity) was

PAGE 79

70 identified by two additions to the postobservation interview questions. Those additions asked participants to describe multicultural course content and internship or practicum experience in diverse settings. A third question was asked about personal experiences with individuals h'om diverse backgrounds but was not used to determine level of preparation in CRT (see Appendix K). Preservice preparation in CRT included one (or both) of the following components: (a) completion of a course with a focus on cultural issues and/or the infusion of multicultural issues into courses completed or (b) a field experience in a culturally diverse setting. Each of these components was quantified to derive a total score for each participant. The components, levels of each, and the corresponding point values are presented in Table 3-2. Based on total score, participants each were assigned to one of two levels of preservice CRT preparation, as follows: Level I (low) = 2-4; Level II (high) = 8-10. Participants who received a "medium" score of 6 (n=17) were ehminated for the sake of conceptual validity. Research Procedures Scheduling of observations As soon as the sample of special and general education beginning teachers was finalized in accordance with the design of the study, assessors notified participants and informed them specifically about tasks involved (i.e., the observation, the preand postobservation interviews that are part of the Praxis III assessment, and the Praxis III profiles describing themselves.

PAGE 80

71 their classrooms, and their instructional planning). Subject participation met the University of Florida Institutional Review Board regulations. Table 3-2. Preservice Preparation in Culturally Responsive Teaching Component Criterion Point Value 1. Coursework Mmimalornone 1 (amount of Some infusion and/or multicultural 1 course 3 content) Substantial infusion throughout program 5 2. Internship (one or Student population < more classroom 25% CLD 1 experiences) Student population 25-40% CLD 3 Student population >40% CLD 5 All participants signed informed consent forms before participating in the study. Assessors scheduled observations (in conjunction with preand postobservation interviews) at a time convenient for participants during the second semester of the academic year. This time frame allowed the beginning teacher to become familiar with his or her classroom and students and to gain some experience before the observation took place, and it allowed assessors to complete assessments within the study's time frame. Assessors sent each of the volunteer participants a description of the 19 Praxis III assessment criteria and the Praxis III profile forms to be completed approximately one week prior to the scheduled observation.

PAGE 81

72 Completion of Praxis III Assessments Trained assessors— both doctoral students in special education— completed preobservation interviews, classroom observations, and postobservation interviews for the volunteer sample of beginning teachers. Following the guidelines of Praxis III, assessors then scored each record of evidence obtained. Assessors assured all participants that information obtained from the assessment process remains confidential and is only to be used for research purposes. They provided written feedback to participants who desired it. Written communication repeated thanks for participation in the study and dehneated general strengths and areas for reflection related to the four Praxis III domains. A sample feedback letter to a participating beginning teacher is included in Appendix C. Determination of Levels of Preservice Preparation in CRT As data were collected for each participant, his or her responses to two postobservation interview questions concerning preservice preparation in CRT were used to assign the participant to one of two levels (described previously) of preparation. Each component of preservice preparation was scored independently by two researchers (either two doctoral students or one doctoral student and a trained assistant). The scores for the two questions were totaled, and each participant was designated high— a score of 8 or 10, medium— a score of 6, or low— a score of 2 or 4.

PAGE 82

73 Treatment of the Data The Praxis III domains and criteria were designed to be interrelated to better mirror the integrated nature of teaching and thus are not assumed to be statistically independent (Dwyer, 1994). Scores on the specified Praxis III criteria (the dependent measures of CRT) for this study, therefore, were submitted to a 2 X 2 (with level of CRT training and GE versus SE as gi'ouping variables) multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) (Tabachnick & FideU, 1983). The Type I experimentwise error rate (alpha level) used to determine the statistical significance of the overall F statistic for multiple comparisons was set at .05. Univariate analyses of variance for significant group effects were conducted to determine group effects on individual criteria; the Type I error rate for the univariate F statistics also was set at .05. Table 3-3 contains an overview of the research questions, instrumentation, and statistical tests used in the study. Demographic data collected from participating beginning teachers (see Appendix F) were submitted to Chi Square tests for relationships between teacher characteristics (i.e., age, gender, race, and university) and grouping variables. The results of the study are presented in the following chapter.

PAGE 83

74 Table 3-3. Overview of Research Questions, Instrumentation, and Analyses Research Question 1. What is the relationship between CRT scores and level of preservicetrainingin CRT? 2. What is the relationship between CRT scores and teacher preparation in SE versus GE? Instrumentation Selected Praxis III criteria relevant to CRT Selected Praxis III criteria relevant to CRT Analysis MANOVA with criterion scores as the DV and type of program (SE vs. GE) and level of CRT training as grouping variables MANOVA with criterion scores as the DV and type of program (SE vs. GE) and level of CRT training as grouping variables

PAGE 84

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Introduction The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of two aspects of preservice preparation on the competence of beginning teachers in skills critical for the effective teaching of students from culturally and/or linguistically diverse (CLD) backgrounds. Specifically, the effects of (a) low versus high preparation in culturally responsive teaching (CRT) and (b) preparation in general education (GE) versus special education (SE) were examined. To address these issues, 68 beginning teacher graduates of four state universities in Florida— University of Florida (UF), Florida State University (FSU), University of Central Florida (UCF), and University of South Florida (USF)— were assessed on nine performance criteria basic to CRT. This chapter contains (a) demographic information about the sample, (b) additional descriptive information about preservice preparation, (c) results of the survey of experts to determine the Praxis III criteria used as the CRT measure, and (d) the results of statistical analyses used to test the two hypotheses. To clarify how participants were grouped, these topics are prefaced by an explanation of the process used to determine level of 75

PAGE 85

76 CRT preparation— the independent variable used to answer the first research question. Following the explanation of how CRT preparation levels were determined is the Description of Participants. This section provides demographic information about only those participants included for statistical analyses of data (N = 51). Chi Square tests to determine any pre-existing relationship between demographic characteristic and grouping variables are included in this section. Moreover, to provide additional descriptive information about beginning teachers' preparation in CRT, it was decided to include data from all of the participants questioned (N = 68). Thus, a more detailed breakdown of (a) the level of multicultural coursework and (b) the level of diversity of internships that 68 participants reported in response to the appropriate post-observation interview questions follows the section containing demogi'aphic information. These data are presented for descriptive pui-poses only. An explanation of the procedure to determine the subset of Praxis III criteria used as the study's measures of CRT follows the descriptive information. Included are the results of a survey of multicultural education experts and the method for final criteria selection. In the final section of this chapter are results of the hypotheses tests. All data for these analyses were derived from participants included in either the low or high CRT preparation group (N = 51). Data presented comprise (a) means and standard deviations for Praxis III criterion scores of SE versus

PAGE 86

77 GE participants and low versus high CRT preparation groups and (b) the results of the 2x2 multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). Determination of Levels of Preparation in CRT Before examining the sample for between-group differences in demographic characteristics, it was necessary to categorize all participants (those in SE and those in GE) as having had either a low, medium, or high level of preparation in CRT. Participants' answers to two questions added to the Praxis III post-observation interview determined their scores for preservice preparation in CRT. The total preparation score possible for any given participant was 2, 4, 6, 8, or 10, derived by adding the ratings (1, 3, or 5) for each participant on two components— coursework and internship— as described in Table 3-2. Two raters independently assigned scores to each component for each participant. Interrater reliability for Question 1, used to determine level of preservice coursework in multicultural content, was 76%. Interrater reliabihty for Question 2, used to determine level of internship experience in culturally diverse settings, was 91%. Total interrater reliability thus was 84%. After the raters independently assigned scores for each component, they discussed disagreements and reached consensus to assign ratings for items in question. To enhance the conceptual validity of the CRT preparation grouping variable, participants whose preparation placed them in the medium group (a score of 6) were eliminated from the sample used for statistical analyses. Only data from those participants rated as either high (receiving scores of 8 or 10) or low (receiving scores of 2 or 4) on CRT preparation were included to

PAGE 87

78 test both experimental hypotheses. Seventeen participants (7 in SE and 10 in GE) thus were eliminated from the sample used for this purpose. Description of Participants All participants were in Florida and in their first full year of teaching. They also were teaching at the elementary level in their areas of certification. Demographic characteristics— gender, age, race, and university— for the sample included in statistical analyses (N = 5 1) first were examined for any potential relationship to CRT preparation group. In Table 4-1 are the frequencies and approximate percentages for each of the four demographic variables for participants by gi'oup. Chi Squares to test for the significance of any pre-existing relationship of characteristic to grouping variable were conducted and are also reported in Table 4-1. None of the Chi Square tests yielded a significant relationship between demographic characteristic and membership in a CRT preparation group. Demographic characteristics for participants also were examined for any potential relationship to preservice preparation in SE versus GE. In Table 4-2 are the frequencies and approximate percentages for each variable for participants, gi'ouped by SE versus GE. Chi Squares to test for the significance of any pre-existing relationship of characteristic to grouping variable were conducted and also are reported in Table 4-2. None of the Chi Square tests yielded a significant relationship between demographic characteristic and preparation in SE versus GE.

PAGE 88

79 Table 4-1. Demographic Characteristics of Participants by Low Versus High CRT Preparation Low High n % n % Gender Female 22 96 26 93 Male 14 2 7 (Chi Square = 0.178, l,u = 0.673) Age <25 9 39 20 71 25-34 11 48 7 25 35-44 2 9 45-54 1 4 I 4 (Chi Square = 6.635, 3, u = = 0.084) Race White 22 96 26 93 Black 1 4 1 3.5 Hispanic Asian 1 3.5 (Chi Square 0.851, 3, p = 0.653) University UF 8 FSU 4 UCF 5 USF 6 (Chi Square = 1.709, 3, p = 0.635) Total 23 100 28 100 35 7 25 17 8 23.5 22 8 23.5 26 5 18

PAGE 89

80 Table 4-2. Demographic Characteristics of Participants by SE Versus GE Special Education General Education n % Gender Female 27 93 Male 2 7 (Chi Square = 0.125, 1 n = 0.724) Age <25 16 55 25-34 10 35 35-44 1 3 45-54 2 7 (Chi Square = 1.602, 3, p = 0.659) Race White 27 93 Black 1 3.5 Hispanic Asian 1 3.5 (Chi Square -= 0.804, 3, p = 0.669) University UF 8 27.67 FSU 5 17 UCF 8 27.67 USF 8 27.67 (Chi Square = = 2.450, 3, p 0.484) Total 29 100 n 21 1 13 8 1 21 1 7 7 5 3 22 % 95 5 59 36 5 95 5 32 32 23 13 100

PAGE 90

81 To summarize the sample's demogi-aphic characteristics, over 90% of the participants in each group (SE versus GE and Low versus High) were female and white. Although their ages varied considerably, at least 95% were in either the under 25 or 25-34 categories. The numbers from each of the four universities are relatively even, both between SE and GE and between levels of CRT preparation. Additional Descriptive Information To add information about beginning teachers' preservice preparation in CRT, the entire sample of participants questioned was used (N = 68). The preservice coursework and internship experiences that both SE teachers and GE teachers reported was addressed. The numbers of participants reporting each level of multicultural course content are presented in Table 4-3. A score of one indicates no multicultural course content or a minimal infusion, a score of three indicates a moderate infusion of content and/or one course in multicultural issues, and a score of five indicates a substantial infusion of multicultural content in preservice coursework. Means and standard deviations for each gToup and the total are also included in the table. Table 4-3. Frequency of Score Denoting Level of Couri rework in Multicultural Content Score SE GE Total Total % 1 17 14 31 45 3 11 14 25 37 5 8 4 12 18 Total 36 32 68 100 M 2.50 2.38 2.44 SD 1.59 1.36 1.49

PAGE 91

82 Close to half (45%) of the total sample reported having had minimal or no coursework in multicultural content in their preservice preparation program. Thirty-seven percent reported having had one course in multicultural content or having had some infusion of content, and only 18% reported having had substantial exposure to multicultural content in their university program. More SE than GE students reported receiving a substantial infusion of multicultural content; GE students more frequently reported a moderate infusion (and/or completion of one course) or minimal infusion of content. The mean rating for the total sample (on a scale with ratings of 1, 3, or 5) was 2.44. The number of participants who reported each level of internship experience in diverse settings (for SE, GE, and total) are presented in Table 4-4. A score of one indicates internship experience in settings with fewer than 25% CLD students, a score of three indicates experience in settings with 25-40% CLD students, and a score of five indicates internship experience in settings with over 40%) CLD students. Means and standard deviations for each group and the total are also included in the table. In contrast to the coursework component of preparation, 53% of total participants reported having had at least one internship or practicum experience in a classroom where more than 40% of the students were from CLD backgrounds. An additional 35% reported at least one preservice experience in a classroom where between 25% and 40% of the students were CLD. The relative frequencies for SE versus GE do not differ markedly from

PAGE 92

83 Table 4-4. Frequency of Score Denoting Internship Experience in Settings with Varying Levels of Diyersity Score SE GE Total Total % 1 4 4 8 12 3 12 12 24 35 5 20 16 36 53 Total 36 32 68 100 M 3.88 3.75 3.82 SD 1.37 1.39 1.38 those for the total sample. The mean rating for level of experience in a diverse setting for all participants was 3.82 on a scale with ratings of 1, 3, or 5. Additional comparisons were made between frequency of scores for the coursework component and frequency of scores for the internship component for participants categorized as having high, medium, and low levels of preservice preparation in CRT. In Table 4-5 are the frequencies and approximate corresponding percentages of ratings on each component for participants in the high gi-oup (n = 28). In order to get categorized as high on this variable— i.e., receive a score of 8 or 10-participants had to receive a minimum score of 3 on each component and a score of 5 on at least one component. Thus, of participants categorized in the high level of preservice preparation in CRT, 93% had at least one practicum experience in a classroom comprised of more than 40% CLD students. Less than half (39%)

PAGE 93

84 Table 4-5. Frequency of Level of Preparation Components for High Group Cour. sework Internship Cultural Content Freq. % Diverse students Freq. % Some (3) Subst. (5) 17 11 28 614 39 100 25%-40% >40% 2 7 26 93 28 100 of that group had a substantial infusion of multicultural content in course v^^ork. In Table 4-6 are the frequencies and approximate corresponding percentages of ratings on each component for participants in the medium group (n = 17). Medium total scores (a score of 6) indicated either moderate levels of both coursework and internship experiences or a high level of one component and a low level of the other. Table 4-6 Frequencv of Level of Preparation Components for Medium Group Coun sework Internship Cultural Content Freq. % Diverse students Freq. % Low (1) 10 59 <25% 1 6 Some (3) 6 35 25%-40% 6 35 Subst. (5) 1 6 >40% 10 59 17 100 17 100

PAGE 94

85 It is obvious from Table 4-6 that participants in this middle group were more likely to have had diverse internships than to have completed coursework related to multicultural issues. In fact, the percentages for the low^ versus high levels in each category (coursework and internships) were exactly reversed. Thus, almost 60% of participants in this group reported minimal coursework in CRT but had internships in classes where over 40% of students were minorities. In Table 4-7 are the frequencies and approximate corresponding percentages of ratings on each component for participants in the low group (n = 23). In order to get categorized as low on the CRT preparation variable— i.e., receive a score of 2 or 4— participants received either low scores on both components or a low score on one component and a moderate score on the other. Table 4-7. Frequencv of Level of Preparation Components for Low Group Coursework Internship Cultural Content Freq. % Diverse students Freq. % Low (1) 21 91 <25% 7 30 Some (3) 2 9 25-40% 16 70 23 100 23 100 Over 90%) of the participants falling in the low preparation group had minimal multicultural course content in their preservice programs but 70%

PAGE 95

86 in this group did have an internship experience in a classroom where between 25% and 40% of the students were from diverse backgrounds. To summarize the descriptions of beginning teachers' preservice preparation in CRT, the internship or practicum experience component received consistently higher scores (indicating experience in diverse settings) across all levels of preparation than did amount of coursework in multicultural content. Participants grouped in both high and medium levels more frequently reported experience in classrooms with a high percentage of minority students than a substantial infusion of multicultural content in coursework. Selection of Praxis III Criteria to Measure CRT Twenty experts in multicultural education were selected for a survey to determine a subset of the 19 Praxis III criteria that would be most pertinent to teaching CLD students. Ten of the 20 responded; of the 10, 8 completed the selection and ranking process. (Two responded but did not complete the task because of prior commitments.) To select criteria, both the number of respondents who selected a particular item and the relative importance assigned to that item were considered (Altschuld & Thomas, 1991). Specifically, the following steps were taken: (a) All items selected by fewer than half of the respondents were eliminated; (b) remaining items were weighted and importance points assigned to each. To assign points, the number of experts who selected each rank for a given item was multipHed by the weight (points) for that rank. Table 4-8 contains the Praxis III criteria selected by at least four respondents, the number of points corresponding to

PAGE 96

87 each rank, the number of respondents who selected each possible rank for each criterion, and the total importance score for each criterion. Table 4-8. Frequency of Ranks Assigned to Each Praxis III Criterion Criterion Rank Points Al C2 B3 B2 C4 A4 D4 Bl C3 1 12 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 11 4 1 2 3 10 2 1 1 1 1 4 9 2 1 1 1 1 2 5 8 1 2 1 6 7 3 1 1 1 7 6 1 3 1 8 5 2 1 2 9 4 1 1 10 3 11 2 1 12 1 1 Total Importance score 84 68 64 48 46 43 40 27 26 Number who selected criterion 8 8 7 6 6 4 5 4 5 Importance scores were found for each criterion by totaling the products of the number who selected a given rank by the points corresponding to that rank. For example, for Criterion C3, one person assigned a rank of 5, one a

PAGE 97

88 rank of 7, two a rank of 8, and one a rank of 1 1. Totaling the products of each rank's corresponding point value and the number assigning that rank yields (1 X 8) + (1 X 6) + (2 X 5) + (1 X 2) = 26 as the total importance score for that criterion. The last row in the table contains the total number of respondents who included each criterion in the subset they selected. Following this procedure, Praxis III criteria were arranged in descending order of total importance points. Nine criteria were not included as measures of CRT because they received lower total scores than those in Table 4-8 and were not selected by at least four experts. One additional criterion was selected by four experts but was eliminated because its total importance score was considerably lower than the scores of those included. Tests of Hypotheses A 2x2 between-subjects multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to test the first experimental hypothesis that there would be no differences between mean scores on nine dependent measures of CRT for participants who received high versus low preparation in CRT. The MANOVA was performed on the nine dependent measures selected through the survey of experts (Al, A4, Bl, B2, B3, C2, C3, C4, and D4). Grouping variables were level of preparation in CRT (low versus high) and type of program (SE versus GE). Means and standard deviations for scores on each of the nine Praxis III criteria selected as measures of CRT were calculated for participants in low versus high CRT preparation groups and are presented in Table 4-9.

PAGE 98

89 Table 4-9 Mean Scores on Selected Praxis III Criteria bv Preparation Group Criterion Low Preparation (n=23) Criterion Description Mean (Std. Dev.) High Preparation (n=28) Mean (Std. Dev.) Al Knowledge of students' backgrounds 2.652 (.531) 2.446 (.416) A4 Selection of appropriate methods 2.565 (.407) 2.678 (.513) Bl Fairness 2.435 (.609) 2.411 (.562) B2 Rapport 2.609 (.563) 2.596 (.550) B3 Expectations for student performance 2.391 (.621) 2.393 (.712) C2 Making content comprehensible 2.500 (.657) 2.571 (.466) 03 Extending students' thinking 2.130 (.678) 2.107 (.643) 04 Monitoring student understanding 2.696 (.516) 2.661 (.431) D4 Communication with parents 2.500 (.426) 2.554 (.478) MANOVA results did not indicate any significant differences in dependent variables due to level of CRT preparation (Hotelling's F [9, 39] = 0.767, p = 0.646). Thus, the first null hjrpothesis was not rejected. The 2x2 MANOVA also was used to test the second experimental hj^othesis that there would be no differences in mean scores on the nine measures of CRT for participants from SE versus GE preparation programs.

PAGE 99

90 Means and standard deviations for scores on each of the nine Praxis III criteria were calculated for participants in SE and participants in GE. These are presented in Table 4-10. Results indicated a significant difference on at least one dependent variable due to preparation in SE versus GE (Hotelling's F [9, 39] = 4.223, p = 0.001). MANOVA results did not indicate a significant interaction between the two grouping variables (Hotelling's F [9, 39] = 1.403, p = 0.220). Based on these findings, the second null hypothesis was rejected (p<0.05). Thus, evidence supports a relationship between preparation in SE versus GE and Praxis III score on at least one criterion used to measure CRT. To determine which criteria contributed to the significant difference between SE and GE groups, univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted for each of the nine measures. The results of these analyses are presented in Table 4-11.

PAGE 100

91 Table 4-10. Mean Scores on Selected Praxis III Criteria by SE Versus GE SE (n=29) GE (n=22) Criterion Criterion Description Mean Mean (Std. Dev.) (Std. Dev.) Al Knowledge of students' backgrounds 2.655 (.484) 2.386 (.434) A4 Selection of appropriate methods 2.690 (.507) 2.545 (.405) Bl Fairness 2.552 (.488) 2.250 (.650) B2 Rapport 2.741 (.561) 2.545 (.532) B3 Expectations for student performance 2.500 (.612) 2.250 (.720) C2 Making content comprehensible 2.534 (.566) 2.545 (.554) C3 Extending students' thinking 1.845 (.536) 2.477 (.626) C4 Monitoring student understanding 2.776 (.392) 2.545 (.532) D4 Communication with parents 2.534 (.481) 2.523 (.422)

PAGE 101

92 Table 4-11. Summary of Univariate ANOVAs for Nine Praxis III Criteria Praxis III Criterion Description df F Criterion Al Knowledge of 1,47 4.92* students' backgrounds A4 Selection of 1,47 1.23 appropriate methods Bl Fairness 1,47 4.26* B2 Rapport 1,47 2.22 B3 Expectations for 1,47 1.95 student performance 02 Making content 1,47 0.00 comprehensible C3 Extending students' 1,47 14.85** thinking 04 Monitoring student 1,47 3.35 understanding D4 Communication with 1,47 0.07 *Signilicant at the p<.05 level **Significant at the p<.001 level Sources of Significant Differences Significant differences between participants from SE versus GE preparation programs were found on three measurement criteria: Al, Bl, and C3. Following is an explanation of each. Criterion Al As presented in Table 4-10, the mean score for SE participants on Al was 2.655, and the mean score for GE participants on Al

PAGE 102

93 was 2.386. Thus participants from SE teacher preparation programs were more skilled than those from GE programs in becoming familiar with relevant aspects of students' background knowledge and experience. Teachers scoring higher on criterion Al generally (a) demonstrate a more I comprehensive understanding of why it is important to become familiar with students' background experiences, (b) are able to describe more procedures used to obtain this information, and (c) demonstrate a clear understanding of their students' background knowledge and experiences. In this context, background knowledge and experiences include students' prior knowledge of the subject being taught, their skills, interests, motivation to learn, developmental levels, and cultural experiences. SE teachers thus demonstrated greater familiarity with their students' skill levels and background experiences and knowledge of how to obtain this information. They also demonstrated a more thorough understanding of the importance of this information to their teaching. For example, SE teachers often stressed the importance of assessing students' prior knowledge of the subject matter in order to ensure successful learning experiences. In addition, they often communicated with parents to gain insights into students' backgrounds and to collaborate on behavior modification strategies. Criterion Bl The mean score for participants in SE on criterion Bl— creating a climate that promotes fairness— was 2.552; the mean for the GE group on this criterion was 2.250. Thus participants from SE teacher preparation programs were more Ukely than those from GE programs to treat

PAGE 103

94 all students in the classroom fairly and to promote fairness in student interactions. Fairness in this context means helping all students have access to learning and feel equally valued in the classroom, thus promoting a sense of selfworth. It does not mean necessarily treating all students the same, but impHes that teachers who score high value the diverse ways in which students express themselves and interact with each other. The following two examples provide illustrations of positive teacher behaviors. One SE pre-kindergarten teacher included an activity designed to teach her students to recognize each individual's written name during routine morning rituals, thereby enhancing aU students' self-esteem. A SE middle school teacher whose class included several bilingual students encouraged all of her students to learn some Spanish words during classroom discussions. Based on the scoring rules for Criterion Bl, SE teachers also were more likely than GE teachers to make sure that all students were involved in the lesson and not to allow any individuals to be consistently off task without trying to reengage them in lesson activities. Criterion C3 The mean score for the SE group on criterion C3— encouraging students to extend their thinking— was 1.845; the mean for the GE group on criterion C3 was 2.477. Thus the beginning teachers from GE preparation programs were more Ukely to encourage students to extend their thinking than were those from SE programs. In the context of this criterion, extending thinking includes providing opportunities for students to think independently, creatively, or critically within the context of the content

PAGE 104

95 being studied. In addition, a higher score indicated more likeHhood that teachers in this group used activities or strategies specifically designed to encourage students to think independently, creatively, or critically in ways relevant to their background knowledge and experiences. To illustrate, one GE teacher involved her students in a directed reading activity and then asked them to write their feelings and opinions about what they had discussed. Another taught writing within a content area by having students compose original haiku poetry following a discussion of the environment. Skill Profiles for SE Versus GE Participants To examine the profiles of both SE and GE beginning teachers' relative strengths and weaknesses as separate groups, Figure 4-1 depicts the scores on each of the nine measures for each group. The profiles of the two groups are somewhat similar in terms of relative skill levels with one exception. The GE beginning teachers as a group were relatively proficient in encouraging students to extend their thinking (Criterion C3), with a mean score of near 2.48. The SE beginning teachers had a similar profile (with sHghtly higher or similar mean scores) for all criteria except C3. The mean C3 score for the SE group (1.84) was markedly below the SE means on all other criteria. Although the significance of intra-group differences in criterion means was not determined, the general characteristics of group profiles are informative. For both groups, mean scores on the following criteria tended to be strong relative to those for other criteria measured: A4— creating or selecting teaching methods, learning activities, and instructional materials or other

PAGE 105

96 2.5 o u W < 1.5 ? m
PAGE 106

97 critical for the effective teaching of CLD students. Specifically, the effects of (a) level of preparation (high versus low) related to culturally responsive teaching (CRT) and (b) preparation in general education (GE) versus special education (SE) were examined. A performance-based assessment instrument (Praxis III) was used to measure teacher effectiveness. Participants were grouped into three levels of preparation in CRT based on their responses to questions about preservice coursework and internship experience. Demographic data was examined for pre-existing relationship to grouping variables, and additional descriptive information was presented regarding components of preparation in CRT. To narrow the focus of assessment to skills considered most critical for the development of CRT, a subset of Praxis III criteria was selected through a survey of experts in multicultural education. A MANOVA was used to test two null hjrpotheses: (a) That there would be no significant differences on measurement criteria between participants with high versus low levels of preparation in issues related to CRT and (b) that there would be no significant differences on measurement criteria between SE versus GE participants. Significant differences on Praxis III criteria were found only for the SE versus GE gi'ouping variable; therefore, only the second nuU hypothesis was rejected. Significant differences between these groups were found on three of nine criteria: On Al— becoming famihar with relevant aspects of students' background knowledge and experience and Bl— fairness, participants with SE

PAGE 107

98 preparation scored higher than those with GE preparation; on C 3— encouraging students to extend their thinking, GE beginning teachers scored higher than those in SE. The impHcations of the study's findings, Hmitations of the study, and suggestions for further research are presented in Chapter 5.

PAGE 108

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION This study was conducted to examine the relationship between components of teacher preparation and beginning teacher competence in skills basic to culturally responsive teaching (CRT). A performance-based assessment was used to address the following questions: (a) Do the CRT skills of beginning teachers with high levels of CRT preparation differ from the skills of those with low CRT preparation and (b) do the CRT skills of SE versus GE beginning teachers differ? The results of the study, their imphcations in Hght of previous findings, some Hmitations of the study, and suggestions for further research follow. Overview of Findings Beginning teachers who reported low versus high levels of preparation in CRT did not differ significantly on any of the nine dependent measures. However, data for three of nine CRT measures indicated significant differences between beginning teachers in SE and those in GE: criterion Al— becoming familiar with relevant aspects of students' background knowledge and experience, criterion Bl— creating a climate that promotes fairness, and criterion C 3— encouraging students to extend their thinking. Therefore, of the two questions investigated, only the second null 99

PAGE 109

100 hypothesis— that there are no significant differences between SE and GE beginning teachers on measures of CRT— was rejected. There was no significant interaction between level of preparation in CRT and training in SE or GE. On criterion Al, SE teachers tended to be more famiHar with students' backgi'ound knowledge and experiences and more knowledgeable about the importance of these factors to student learning than were GE teachers. SE teachers also tended to be more fair in their interactions with students than did GE teachers, as measured by criterion Bl. In contrast, the significantly higher mean score for GE teachers on criterion C3 indicated that GE teachers were better able to encourage students to extend their thinking than were SE teachers. Profiles of skills on all nine CRT criteria also were delineated for beginning teachers in SE and GE, respectively. Means for the two groups resulted in relatively similar CRT skill profiles. The following three criteria were relatively strong for participants within each group: A4— selecting appropriate methods, activities, and materials; B2— estabHshing rapport with students; and C4— monitoring student understanding and providing feedback. Descriptive statistics showed no significant relationship between any of four demographic variables— age, gender, race, and university— and either of the two grouping variables. Notably, the university at which these teachers were prepared was not related to the level of preparation in CRT reported by beginning teacher graduates. That is, beginning teachers from

PAGE 110

101 each university were equally likely to report a low versus high level of CRT training. Implications of Findings The findings summarized above have impUcations about the general level of teacher preparation in CRT. Both the absence of a significant CRT preparation group effect and the amount of multicultural coursework reported by all program graduates can be related to recent fiterature in teacher education. Moreover, findings indicate how teacher preparation in SE versus GE tends to affect basic CRT skills. The skill profiles of participants also are interesting in Hght of needed collaboration between special and general educators. Finally, the study has impHcations regarding the measurement of CRT. Preparation in CRT The lack of a significant effect due to reported levels of preparation in CRT is consistent with some findings reported by researchers who have studied the relationship between preservice experience in multicultural education and degree of CRT. Grant & Koskela (1986) conducted one of the only studies that incorporated direct observation to assess teaching effectiveness. Their data indicated that student teachers seldom put instruction in multicultural education to use in the classroom. The teachers were more concerned with lesson mechanics and disciphne than with opportunities to adapt instruction to students' cultural backgrounds, even when opportunities readily presented themselves. Grant and Koskela

PAGE 111

102 suggested that the fragmented nature of instruction in multicultural education may have contributed to the scarcity of CRT student teachers exhibited in the classroom. This also could be the case in the present study. In response to the postobservation interview question to determine amount of preservice coursework in multicultural issues, participants indicated exposure to a variety of topics in varying degrees. For example, one beginning teacher reported that she took a course concerned with CLD students that was "mostly disability oriented." Another said multicultural content was addi-essed in "some courses." This teacher described topics covered as "special needs kids, limited EngHsh, and rural versus urban or suburban— things to focus on for those kids in terms of their future, what they would need, and how education was perceived by that area." A third teacher answered that she had discussed multiculturalism in class cooperative groups where "we talked a lot about different cultures and how they learned, family structures, discipHne, etc. to help us work with them a little better." It may be difficult for beginning teachers to bridge the gap between such diverse content and classroom teaching unless teacher educators pay attention specifically to helping them do so (Grant & Koskela, 1986). Moreover, Grant and Secada (1990) found that the more time preservice teachers spent learning multicultural content, the more chance for the transition to effective CRT. In the present study, less than half of the group rated high in preservice CRT preparation (and only one of 17

PAGE 112

103 participants in the medium group) reported having had a substantial infusion of multicultural content in their coursework. Internship or practicum experience in diverse settings strengthened these overall ratings more than amount of coursework did. Also noteworthy is the description of CRT preparation components across all participants sampled. Almost half of the total sample of beginning teachers reported having had minimal or no exposure to multicultural content in their coursework, but almost 90% had had practicum experiences in classrooms where reportedly at least a fourth of the students were from CLD backgrounds. Over half of the teachers had had experiences in classrooms where they estimated that over 40% of students were minorities. This finding is consistent with Hterature on current student demographic trends (Obiakor, Algozzine, & Ford, 1993; Williams, 1992), particularly those in Florida (Fradd et al., 1988), and with research concerning the student diversity encountered by preservice teachers in tj^ical field placements (Grant & Koskela, 1986). The results of a Chi Square to examine data for a pre-existing relationship between university and overall level of CRT preparation indicated that preparation was not contingent on university attended. In other words, participants from each of the four universities included in the sample were equally likely to be rated as low versus high in level of CRT preparation as determined by coursework and internship experience. The perceptions of these beginning teacher gi'aduates thus would appear to support prior findings that the inclusion of multicultural content in teacher

PAGE 113

104 education has not nicreasGd substantially despite recognized need (Goodlad, 1993; Grant, 1994). Grant's review of teacher education research revealed that studies concerning CRT involved only 3.6% of higher education institutions. Skill Differences between SE and GE Teachers As mentioned in the overview of findings in the beginning of this chapter, significant differences in mean scores on three Praxis III criteria were found between beginning teachers in SE and those in GE. On criterion Al— becoming familiar with relevant aspects of students' background knowledge and experience and criterion Bl— creating a climate that promotes fairness, SE teachers significantly outperformed GE teachers. On criterion C3— encouraging students to extend their thinking, GE teachers were better than SE teachers. These differences relate to some differing predominate objectives in SE and GE teacher education programs addressed by researchers (Gersten, Morvant, & Brengelman, 1995; Goodlad & Field, 1993; Sindelar et al., 1995). Beginning SE teachers presumably have had more preservice training in individualizing instruction for a diversity of learners (Sindelar et al., 1995). The higher score on Al for SE teachers indicates that they are more aware of the need to incorporate individual student characteristics in their teaching (Dwyer, 1994). In contrast, GE preservice teachers in a recent study reported feeling unprepared to individualize instruction for students with disabilities; they also did not consider skill acquisition in this area a priority (Goodlad & Field, 1993). Beginning teachers in GE thus may tend to focus

PAGE 114

105 less on students as individuals and the importance of individual characteristics to student learning than do SE teachers, whether those characteristics relate to disability or to cultural background. In addressing the marriage between multicultural education and special education, Amos and Landers (1984) cited (a) the awareness of the pervasive influence of culture, (b) knowledge about diverse cultural groups— including students with disabilities, and (c) knowledge and skills for individualizing instruction as competency areas common to both fields. (An additional area cited was knowledge about conferencing with parents.) The significantly higher mean score for SE teachers on criterion Al is consistent with the view that skills critical to CRT and those critical to special educators overlap. Thus SE graduates may be more likely to have received training in the importance of students' backgrounds to both teaching and learning through programs that focus on individuaUzing instruction. This awareness is critical to helping students bridge the gap between experience and learning tasks. Teachers who use strategies to personahze learning for their students (e.g., cultural scaffolding [Lee, 1992]) not only help students grasp new concepts but vaHdate students' cultural experience and build self-esteem as well (Cummins, 1986). A commitment to learning about students' cultural resources and experiences, and skill in acquiring such knowledge, enables teachers to connect learning goals with students' cultural backgrounds (Villegas, 1991). Beginning SE teachers may try harder to incorporate any aspect of student experience, including cultural resources, in their teaching.

PAGE 115

106 The higher score for SE teachers on the fairness criterion (Bl) also may reflect the focus on individual students that special educators characteristically exhibit. In the context of this criterion, fairness concerns how well teachers provide each student with equal access to learning and how much they help each feel equally valued in the classroom. Successful performance on Bl implies that teachers value diversity in their students' forms of expression and that they encourage fairness in student interactions (Dwyer, 1994). Special educators are prepared to be particularly sensitive to the struggle for equity experienced by students with disabilities (Skrtic, 1991). Therefore, they may be more aware of any factor that serves to alienate some students from the learning process or exclude them from classroom interactions. In contrast, the GE teachers' mean score on criterion Bl— along with the identical mean for B3, communicating challenging learning expectations— was the lowest for all of the criteria assessed. Thus, GE teachers as a group were more inclined to ignore individuals or groups of students within the class who were off-task or to pay more attention to some than to others, e.g., by repeatedly calling on a few eager class members. Professionals (Goodlad, 1993; Goodlad & Field, 1993, Pugach, 1992) have addi'essed the increasing need for GE teachers to assume responsibility for a diversity of students. Some general educators traditionally have tended to rely on the expertise of those in SE to deal with "problem" students (Johnson & Pugach, 1992). This tradition may still be a factor in teacher preparation

PAGE 116

107 that serves to focus beginning teachers' attention more on the group as a whole than on individuals, particularly those who are not engaged in group activities. The significant difference on criterion C3— that GE beginning teachers tend to encourage students to extend their thinking more than do SE beginning teachers— also is consistent with hterature concerning differences between the two gi'oups. Traditionally, a more constructivist approach to learning characterizes GE teacher preparation programs (Liston & Zeichner, 1990). That approach might predispose GE beginning teachers to ask questions that tap higher order thinking and to design instructional tasks specifically for that purpose— the skills assessed by criterion C3. Two examples from the present study illustrate tasks designed to encourage students to think creatively, critically, and independently. A first grade teacher in GE challenged her students to figure out how to divide pieces of construction paper into halves, thirds, and fourths when she taught a lesson on fractions. A second grade GE teacher asked students to design their own math problems using Mayan symbols, thereby integrating instruction in math and social studies. In contrast, SE beginning teachers who tend to focus on basic skill acquisition may provide fewer opportunities for creative or critical thinking. The lower mean score for the SE group on criterion C3 is consistent with the traditionally behaviorist orientation in special education noted by researchers (Johnson & Pugach, 1992; Sindelar et al., 1995). Many of the SE teachers in the present study used direct instruction techniques to teach

PAGE 117

108 reading, writing, and math skills. The questions they asked to extend students' thinking tended to be less frequent and were often within the context of prescribed lesson content. For example, during a direct instruction reading lesson, one SE teacher asked her students why a story character felt sad. Another SE teacher asked students to identify the "problem" in "The Boy Who Cried Wolf' as part of a story mapping activity. Theorists in CRT (Adams, 1995; Gersten & Woodward, 1994) as well as those in teacher education (Pugach, 1992; Sindelar et al., 1995) have advocated use of a balance between behaviorist and constructivist approaches to optimize learning for all students. Exclusive attention to basic skills may arrest Hnguistic and conceptual development for language minority students in particular (Ovando, 1993). Cummins (1986) noted that promoting the conceptual development of young Spanish -speaking children through use of their primary language as well as emphasizing skill in English resulted in improved academic readiness scores. Encouraging students to extend their thinking at all developmental levels thus is critical to teaching that is culturally responsive. CRT SkiU Profiles This study did not addi-ess whether the skill differences observed for participants within a particular preparation group (SE vs. GE) were significant— i.e., whether the profiles of skills for teachers within either group indicate that higher criterion scores represent significantly stronger skill areas. However, the similarity in the two group profiles is noteworthy. For both groups, mean scores on the following three criteria were relatively high:

PAGE 118

109 A4— creating or selecting teaching methods, learning activities, and instructional materials that are appropriate to students and aligned with lesson goals; B2— estabUshing and maintaining rapport with students; and C4— monitoring students' understanding of content, providing feedback, and adjusting learning activities if appropriate. On criterion A4— in the planning domain of the Praxis III assessment— teachers whose scores indicate proficiency tend to choose methods and materials appropriate to both the lesson goals and the students. Those who score highest must (a) allow opportunities for differentiated learning experiences for individuals or groups of students or (b) provide a sound explanation of why a single teaching method or learning strategy is appropriate for all students in the class (Dwyer, 1994). The following example from the present study illustrates proficiency on criterion A4. A skilled SE teacher presented story components to her third and fourth gi'aders, modeled how she used the components to create her own story, paired students to share skills and ideas, and required each to write an original story. She thus provided differentiated learning experiences to accommodate the learning styles of a variety of students. The fink between criterion A4 and CRT is how attentive teachers are to cultural resources when they consider what is appropriate for their students. For example, in order to score high on criterion A4, a teacher must consider her students' ethnicity and proficiency in English, as well as their developmental levels and exceptionalities, as she selects methods, activities, and materials (Dwyer, 1994). The teacher in the example cited above also

PAGE 119

no encouraged the oral use of Spanish to "enhance the self-esteem of bilingual students" and told her class she would type their stories so that the students could read what they had written to their families. This kind of attention to both enhancing self-esteem and making instruction meaningful within the context of students' personal experiences is advocated by professionals concerned with the progress of CLD students (Ladson-Bilhngs, 1992; Price, 1992; Villegas, 1991). On criterion B2— in the domain focused on the environment for student learning— teachers with high scores must successfully estabhsh rapport with students in ways appropriate to student characteristics, i.e., to their diverse backgrounds and needs (Dwyer, 1994). For example, one teacher in the current study was especially encouraging and solicitous with the youngest student in a SE class of predominately third and fourth graders. She was supportive of other students as well, but adapted her communication style appropriately to their more advanced developmental levels. Another SE teacher in a middle school class asked each student to relate what he or she had eaten for dinner the previous night and helped the students translate relevant words from Spanish to English and vice versa. Again, building successful rapport in ways appropriate to students' individual characteristics— particularly cultural background— can make the difference between students who are motivated and involved in learning and those who remain or become passive (Adams, 1995; Wlodkowski & Ginsberg, 1995).

PAGE 120

Ill High scores on criterion C4— in the teaching domain— indicate that teachers monitor individual students' or groups of students' understanding of content and adjust instruction appropriately as the lesson progresses. They also must provide substantive and specific feedback if needed (Dwyer, 1994). To illustrate, one SE teacher in the present study asked students to stop working on the stories they were writing so she could remind them of the elements they were to include. Her spontaneous adjustment to the lesson plan resulted from her discovery that individual students were having difficulty organizing their compositions. A second example is provided by a GE teacher who allowed a discussion of current events to exceed time allotted because her students were enthusiastic about relating their own knowledge and experience to lesson goals. Teachers who do not monitor student understanding in culturally sensitive ways and make such appropriate instructional adjustments may risk ahenating students (Obiakor et. al., 1993; Ruiz, 1995) or precipitate their withdrawal from academic activities (Jacobs, 1991). One might expect that different emphases in preservice preparation programs would result in different skill profiles for special and general educators (Goodlad & Field, 1993; Johnson & Pugach, 1992). For example, Gersten et al. (1995) noted that practices typical in SE such as frequent checks for understanding required a substantial shift in the orientation of GE teachers. However, the profile similarities found in the present study indicate that some common strengths exist. These strengths may enhance

PAGE 121

112 communication and collaboration between teachers from the two respective disciplines (Johnson & Pugach, 1992). This collaboration is essential as SE and GE teachers work with increasing numbers of CLD students and are challenged to meet a diversity of needs in the classroom. Teacher educators (Goodlad & Field, 1993; Pugach, 1992; Sindelar et al., 1995) have caUed for increased communication among diverse education professionals and a shared responsibility for educating all students. Measurement Considerations Developers of the performance-based assessment Praxis III infused sensitivity to culture in measurement criteria (Dwyer, 1994). The present study incorporated this instrument to provide a systematic assessment of teachers across both preparation programs and classroom contexts. One cost of the potential generalizability of findings, however, was specificity. The skills measured are basic to CRT; without proficiency in these areas, teachers would be poorly equipped to meet the needs of their CLD students. However, Praxis III assessment scores alone may not sufficiently tap how teachers incorporate cultural considerations into their teaching. For example, as measured by Praxis III criteria C2 and C4, respectively, both SE and GE participants in the present study were relatively proficient in making content comprehensible and monitoring student understanding. However, their favorable scores may reflect their ability to connect new learning with students' prior content knowledge and skill more than their sensitivity to students' cultural backgrounds per se (Dwyer, 1994). Similarly, teachers can

PAGE 122

113 build rapport by responding to developmental level or common interests as well as to culturally based characteristics. There is a need to study these processes with more precision, yet retain the potential for generahzing across contexts. Ultimately, systematic assessment combined with quahtative information will provide a more complete picture of the relationship between teacher preparation factors and CRT. The fact that systematic measurement of subtle or complex responses to culture is difficult does not obviate the need for the development of effective research strategies that tie components of teacher education to generalizable skills. Limitations of the Study This study was limited by the necessity to use pre-selected groups— i.e., beginning teachers in either SE or GE— and volunteer participants. Teachers in SE versus GE may differ in their attitudes, beliefs, knowledge, and/or skills related to CRT prior to entering their respective teacher education programs. Moreover, volunteers may be more confident in their abilities than strictly randomly selected teachers. The potential relationship between each of these factors and competence on measurement criteria is uncertain. The study is also limited by restricting the sample of participants to those teaching at the elementary level in the state of Florida. It is possible that participants' teacher preparation is particular to elementary education or to Florida universities, or that Florida school districts predispose teachers to certain behaviors in the classroom. Thus, findings should be generalized

PAGE 123

114 cautiously to secondary level teachers or those in different areas of the country. Assessors in this study observed each participant only once. Optimally, in order to be reasonably confident that assessment scores are vaUd for each participant, researchers observe the same teacher on several occasions, teaching a variety of lessons (Dwyer, 1994). The time required for each Praxis III assessment prohibited multiple observations of the same beginning teacher in the present study. The resulting individual scores, therefore, may be somewhat less rehable than those averaged across two or three occasions. The final limitation concerns the generic nature of the skills assessed. The nine Praxis III criteria selected through the survey of experts are related to critical CRT competencies cited in the Hterature (Amos & Landers, 1984; Baca & Amato, 1989; Dwyer, 1993; Dwyer, 1994; HoUins, 1993; ViUegas, 1991). They are not exhaustive, however, and do not capture some of the subtle ways in which skilled teachers scaffold learning (Lee, 1992; WiUis, 1995). The need for systematic assessment across teachers and classrooms thus took priority over detailed information about beginning teachers' responses to CLD students. The skills assessed in this study are basic skills, but they are part of an essential core of teaching that optimizes learning for CLD students (Villegas, 1992). It may not be reahstic to expect either SE or GE teachers to exhibit highly developed skill in such areas as cross cultural communication.

PAGE 124

115 multicultural history, second language acquisition, or critical theory during their first year of teaching (Grant & Koskela, 1986). Sufficient competence in the nine skills assessed in this study, however, is a realistic goal (Villegas, 1992). Those skills form a foundation for teaching that can develop into a pedagogy that is more fuUy responsive to Hnguistic and cultural diversity. Suggestions for Future Research To continue to explore the relationship between components of teacher preparation and beginning teacher competence in CRT, more studies that examine teacher performance across contexts are needed. The resulting information supplements data from ethnogi'aphic studies in particular environments. The Hmitations noted in the previous section suggest some possibiHties for such research. For example, studies of beginning teachers in secondary programs and those in different geographic regions would contribute to the generalizability of findings. Other considerations are more challenging. To attempt a more precise assessment of CRT skills, researchers need an instrument with the scoring rigor of Praxis 111 but comprised of competencies more specific to CLD students. Praxis III provides the foundation for such an instrument. Researchers might adjust assessor training to focus more exclusively on responsiveness to students' cultural or hnguistic characteristics (C. Dwyer, personal communication, July 26, 1994). Moreover, they could expand criteria to include additional aspects of CRT, such as communication with key members of students' communities and use of strategies such as ^.

PAGE 125

116 sheltered English (C. Sleeter, personal communication, March 13, 1996). Development of a reliable and valid performance-based assessment is a tedious process. The potential rewards, however, are more useful information about teaching skills, the refinement of teacher preparation, and ultimately, the enhancement of CRT (Dwyer & Villegas, 1993). Use of Praxis III hnks teacher education and culturally responsive teaching competence through actual observations of teachers. The current challenge is to continue to increase the vahdity and precision of performance-based measures of CRT, with Praxis III as a promising model. In its current form, Praxis III does provide data for quahtative analyses of teachers' responses to cultural differences. To score each criterion, assessors transfer observed behaviors to a record of evidence. These records provide quahtative data that enrich the information contained in the criterion score. The combination of numerical scores with systematic qualitative analyses would provide a more complete picture of how teachers respond to cultural and linguistic diversity. Longitudinal studies also could d^ add information about the development of CRT by comparing the performance of preservice teachers who had prescribed levels of multicultural training with their subsequent performance as more experienced teachers. In the present study, beginning teachers' preservice exposure to cultural issues was categorized as either low or high; levels were based on how much related course content the beginning teachers cited and how diverse their internship or practicum settings had been. Researchers have

PAGE 126

117 noted the potential influence of both on program gi'aduates' teaching (Grant, 1994). Use of their combination to categorize participants, however, precludes the possibility of examining the distinct contribution of each to teacher competence. Studies could be designed to examine such factors separately. Further, Grant (1994) noted the need for researchers to define more precisely each multicultural component involved in teacher education programs under study. The components of preparation used in the present study could be (a) studied separately, as mentioned previously, and (b) refined through information gained from multiple data sources. For example, course syllabi could contribute information about the infusion of multicultural content, and researchers could ask more detailed questions of participants concerning issues studied. In addition, information about (a) the relationship of students' cultural diversity to lesson planning and (b) whether supervising teachers mentioned or modeled CRT could augment descriptions of internship sites. Grant (1994) has documented the paucity of progi'ammatic research in multicultural teacher education. Thoughtfully designed studies that incorporate some of the variables discussed in this section could help begin to address this need. Summary To study the relationship between teacher preparation components and beginning teachers' skills in CRT, the effects of two preparation factors were examined. Beginning teachers in SE versus GE, and those with low

PAGE 127

118 versus high exposure to multicultural issues, were compared on nine skills critical to the development of CRT. Assessors measured the performance of participants using Praxis III, a recently developed performance-based assessment of beginning teachers. Expert opinion determined the nine (of 19) criteria that constituted the dependent measures for the study. Participants were grouped into two levels of CRT preparation based on their reports of multicultural content in preservice coursework and internship experience in diverse settings. A high versus low level of preparation related to multicultural issues was not significantly related to criterion scores. Preparation in SE versus GE was significantly related to beginning teachers' scores on three of the nine criteria measured. Teachers in SE were more Hkely to become famOiar with students' background knowledge and experience and to know the importance of this information to the teaching and learning process; they also were more likely to exhibit fairness. Those in GE were more likely to encourage students to extend their thinking about lesson content and more frequently used activities designed specifically for that purpose. Descriptive statistics for the sample of 68 beginning teachers did not indicate a significant relationship between level of preparation in CRT and university program. Moreover, almost half of the participants reported only minimal multicultural content in their university coursework. In contrast, the vast majority (88%) had experienced internships in classrooms where at least a fourth of the students were from minority backgrounds. Indeed, over

PAGE 128

119 half of all participants had taught in classrooms consisting of more than 40% CLD students. The study's findings were limited to elementary teachers in the state of Florida who volunteered to participate. Moreover, categories of preservice preparation were somewhat grossly defined, and systematic performance-based assessment of skills took precedence over rich descriptions of CRT. Suggestions for future research, therefore, include the continued refinement of performance -based assessments specific to CRT and more precision in description of preservice preparation components. Teaching that incorporates sensitivity to the pervasive influences of culture and language is vital to the education of an increasingly diverse student population. Carefully designed and executed studies of the relationship between teacher preparation and how beginning teachers respond to student diversity represent one means toward that end.

PAGE 129

APPENDIX A I PARTICIPANT INFORMED CONSENT My name is Paul Sindelar, the principal investigator of Project SEART-C. We are conducting an evaluation of teacher training programs in Florida. The purpose of this evaluation is to assess programs that offer certification in education. We plan to talk with program administrators, training personnel or faculty, as well as program participants. The evaluation has three components: interviews, profiles, and observations. As a program participant, we ask that you engage in several layers of assessment. First, complete two profiles. Second, permit us to observe you while you teach. Third participate in preobservation and postobservation interviews with an Evaluation Specialist from our project. There are no known risks or discomforts to be expected as a result of participating in this study. There are also no direct benefits to you as the participant. Profiles tjT)ically take about one hour to answer, and interviews may take from 20 to 30 minutes each. We estimate that the observed lesson will take from 20 to 50 minutes to complete. On profiles and interviews, you may choose not to answer any question which you do not wish to answer. Your participation is voluntary, and you can withdraw from any part of this study at any time without penalty. Unfortunately, 1 cannot offer you any compensation for participation. Profiles, interviews, and observations will be coded for the purpose of follow-up contact when necessary. Only project staff and consultants will view these data. All data will be numerically coded with no identifiable reference to you and will be kept confidential. Data will be destroyed after analysis, and all results will be reported in an aggregate or group form. If in the future you should have any questions about this procedure you may contact me at (904) 392-0701 ext. 279. 120

PAGE 130

121 PROJECT SEART-C INFORMED CONSENT FORM FOR PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS I have read and understand the procedure described above. I agree to participate in the procedure and I have received a copy of this description. Signature Date

PAGE 131

APPENDIX B LETTER TO BEGINNING TEACHERS date firstname lastname school address city, state zip code Dear salute, As we begin the new year, we hope that your school year thus far has been a successful one. We are writing to ask for your participation in an important and interesting research endeavor. Project SEART-C, at the University of Florida, is an investigation of teacher education programs in Florida. In the current phase of the project, SEART-C staff members are ready to begin observations of participants in traditional programs. The (name of university) Teacher Preparation Program is one of the programs under consideration. We would like to observe as many of the participants in this program as possible. We would like to encourage you to volunteer for this project because: 1) It will help provide valuable information regarding the effectiveness of this teacher preparation program, and 2) It will provide valuable feedback to you personally about your teaching through a process that allows for interaction between the teacher and the observer. The information obtained through the observations will remain strictly confidential and therefore will not be shared with principals, district personnel, or any (name of university) Teacher Preparation Program faculty. All data collected for Project SEART-C are aggTegated and reported only in term of categories of teacher education programs. However, the SEART-C staff member that conducts the observation will be happy to provide individualized feedback for your own information. This experience and the information you gain may be a valuable asset for you as you complete your 122

PAGE 132

123 portfolio for the Professional Orientation Program. The experience is intended to be a mutually beneficial one and not stressful for you in any way. Your participation would most Ukely require a total of 1 1/2 hours. That time would include (a) completing 2 forms about your class and the lesson and (b) participating in 2 brief interviews, pre and post observation. If you agree to participate, you will be fully informed as to the exact nature of the observation process. You will be given a chance to examine all materials the observer uses before the observation process begins. Please check the appropriate box on the enclosed self-addressed postcard and return it to us. If you agree to participate, we will contact you to set up a convenient observation date. We appreciate your careful consideration of this opportunity both to contribute to important research and to participate in lifelong learning. If you have any questions regarding the research or your participation, feel free to call Mary Eisele or Ann Daunic at the University of Florida (904/392-0701, extension 279) at any time. We wish you the best in the remainder of the 1994-95 school year. Warmest regards, Mary R. Eisele Evaluation Speciahst Project SEART-C Ann P. Daunic Evaluation Speciahst Project SEART-C

PAGE 133

APPENDIX C SAMPLE FEEDBACK LETTER (date) Dear ( participant ), Even though you probably had given up hope of ever receiving feedback from Project SEART-C at the University of Florida, we have not forgotten you nor how grateful we are for your participation in our research. We had promised you some informal feedback from the observation we conducted. Below is a summary of what we observed— in terms of some areas of strength and some suggestions you might consider for your future teaching. Strengths: Selected clear learning goals for the students (to understand and write describing words in poetry); chose methods, activities, and materials aligned with the goals and appropriate for the students, allowing for individual differences in vocabulary level; encouraged students to think creatively through poetry writing activity; monitored student understanding and used instructional time effectively. To improve teaching effectiveness: Make sure learning goals are clear to students and work on articulating clear explanations to help students remember parts of speech. Might draw on students' experiences to further engage them in the learning process. If you would like a more detailed description of what was observed during the class, please feel free to contact me any time at (407) 897-6125. Again, I want to personally thank you for being part of our study. We hope this year is going well for you and that you have enjoyed a hoHday break. Good luck in your teaching career! Sincerely, Ann Daunic Evaluation Specialist 124

PAGE 134

APPENDIX D PRAXIS III DOMAINS AND CRITERIA Domain A Organizing content knowledge for student learning Al Becoming familiar with relevant aspects of students' background knowledge and experience A2 Articulating clear learning goals for the lesson that are appropriate to the students A3 Demonstrating an understanding of the connections between the content that was learned previously, the current content, and the content that remains to be learned in the future A4 Creating or selecting teaching methods, learning activities, and instructional materials or other resources that are appropriate to the students and that are aligned with the goals of the lesson A5 Creating or selecting evaluation strategies that are appropriate for the students and that are aligned with the goals of the lesson Domain B Creating an environment for student learning Bl Creating a cUmate that promotes fairness B2 EstabHshing and maintaining rapport with students B3 Communicating challenging learning expectations to each student B4 EstabHshing and maintaining consistent standards of classroom behavior B5 Making the physical environment as safe and conducive to learning as possible Domain C Teaching for student learning Cl Making learning goals and instructional procedures clear to students C2 Making content comprehensible to students C3 Encouraging students to extend their thinking C4 Monitoring students' understanding of content through a variety of means, providing feedback to students to assist learning, and adjusting learning activities as the situation demands C5 Using instructional time effectively 125

PAGE 135

126 Domain D Teacher professionalism D 1 Reflecting on the extent to which the learning goals were met D2 Demonstrating a sense of efficacy D3 Building professional relationships with colleagues to share teaching insights and to coordinate learning activities for students D4 Communicating with parents or guardians about student learning Note: Taken from Dwyer, 1994.

PAGE 136

APPENDIX E SAMPLE LETTER TO EXPERTS date INSIDE ADDRESS Dear NAME, As a doctoral candidate at the University of Florida, I am working under Dr. Vivian Correa on a study involving the assessment of culturally responsive teaching. I have included with this letter a list of teaching competencies, each one followed by a brief explanation. I would like you, as an expert in multicultural issues, to identify a subset of these competencies— as many as you think appropriate— that are ?nost critical in teaching students who are culturally and/or Linguistically diverse. After you identify a subset, please rank the competencies identified in order of importance, assigning a rank of 1 to the most important, 2 to the second most important, etc. I do not think this task will take too much of your time and would very much appreciate your participation. I have enclosed a self-addressed, stamped envelope for your convenience. We would Hke to hear from you as soon as possible, but no later than March 15. Again, thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, Ann P. Daunic Doctoral Candidate University of Florida 127

PAGE 137

128 Teaching Competencies 1. Establishing and maintaining consistent standards of classroom behavior. A teacher's ability to demonstrate positive behavior and ensure that students understand the consequences for breaches of behavior standards. Also includes how appropriate, respectful, and efficient teachers' responses to misbehavior are. 2. Reflecting on the extent to which learning goals are met. Ability to judge accurately whether learning goals are achieved and methods are effective. Includes whether a teacher can support judgements made with specific evidence and whether she can use insights gained to improve instruction. 3. Establishing and maintaining rapport with students. A teacher's abihty to show concern for students in ways appropriate to their individual characteristics; generally, to relate positively to students. 4. Encouraging students to extend their thinking. A teacher's abihty to use content as a springboard to independent, creative, or critical thinking or to design activities that specifically encourage such thinking. 5. Using instructional time effectively. The ability to pace instruction so that students have meaningful work or activities and remain on task. Includes how weU a teacher can estabhsh routines and handle interruptions efficiently. 6. Monitoring students' understanding of content through a variety of means, providing feedback to students to assist learning, and adjusting learning activities as the situation demands. The abihty to be sensitive to verbal and nonverbal cues from students as to their understanding of what is expected and to recognize teachable moments as they occur. 7. Demonstrating an understanding of the connections between the content that was learned previously, the current content, and the content that remains to be learned in the future.

PAGE 138

129 A teacher's understanding of the structure or hierarchy of a disciphne. Entails proper sequencing of content across lessons and understanding why a particular sequence is logical. 8. Communicating challenging learning expectations to each student. How a teacher is able to communicate to each student that he or she is capable of meaningful achievement. Includes the abihty to encourage students to meet high standards that are within their reach. 9. Making learning goals and instructional procedures clear to students. How well a teacher communicates, either explicitly or implicitly, the learning goals and procedures for the lesson to all individuals in the class. 10. Creating or selecting evaluation strategies that are appropriate for the students and that are aligned with the goals of the lesson. Ability to plan evaluation that is sufficiently systematic to provide useful information about the extent to which learning goals have been met by all individuals in the class. 11. Demonstrating a sense of efficacy. A sense of commitment and persistence in looking for more effective alternatives to reach students who are having difficulty. 12. Creating a climate that promotes fairness. Ability to treat students fairly, help them feel equally valued, and provide them equitable access to learning. Includes avoidance of stereotyped views and encouragement of fairness among students. 13. Making the physical environment as safe and conducive to learning as possible. Within the hmitations of available control, the abihty to use the classroom as a reflection of and a resource for the learning that takes place there. 14. Making content comprehensible to students. Ability to communicate content clearly and accurately to the students in the class. Includes structuring the lesson so that its progression makes sense conceptually.

PAGE 139

130 15. Creating or selecting teaching methods, learning activities, and instructional materials or other resources that are appropriate to the students and that are aligned with the goals of the lesson. Ability to select carefuUy methods and resources that reflect both the common and unique experiences of the students and to provide a rationale for their use. 16. Articulating clear learning goals for the lesson that are appropriate to the students. AbiHty to distinguish student outcomes from activities and to provide a rationale for either a single learning goal or goals differentiated for individuals in the class. 17. Becoming familiar with relevant aspects of students' background knowledge and experience. Ability to demonstrate an understanding of students' skills and background experiences, knowledge of sources for this information, and why this knowledge is important. 18. Building professional relationships with colleagues to share teaching insights and to coordinate learning activities for students. Abihty both to identify available resources and to form relationships with professional colleagues in order to improve and enrich students' learning. 19. Communicating with parents or guardians about student learning. Knowledge of various means of communication and the appropriate use of those means, within realistic limits, to foster school success for students.

PAGE 140

131 Competencies Particularly Critical for the Effective Teaching of Culturally and/or Linguistically Diverse Students competency number rank

PAGE 141

APPENDIX F CANDIDATE PROFILE The following are questions to be completed by the participant of the study. 1. What is your age? a. b. c. d. e. f. Under 25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 or over What is your ger a. b. Female Male 3. How do you describe yourself? a. African American or Black b. Asian American/Asian (Ex.: Japanese, Chinese, Korean) c. Southeast Asian American/Southeast Asian (Ex.: Cambodian, Hmong, Khmer, Laotian, Vietnamese) d. Pacific Island American/Pacific Islander e. Mexican, Mexican American, or Chicano f. Puerto Rican g. Other Hispanic, Latino, or Latin American h. Native American, American Indian, or Alaskan Native I. White j. Other (please specify) Questions 4-7 Please provide the following information regarding your ACADEMIC BACKGROUND (Check and complete ALL that apply). 4. Bachelor's degi-ee a. Not begun b. In progi'ess 132

PAGE 142

133 c. Completed Major (please specify) Minor (please specify) Master's degree or equivalent a. Not begun b. In progress c. Completed Major (please specify) Doctorate or equivalent a. Not begun b. In progress c. Completed Are you going through an alternate-route teacher training program? a. Yes b. No Which of the following best describes the type of SCHOOL in which you are CURRENTLY teaching? a. b. c. d. Primary elementary Upper elementary Comprehensive elementary Middle e. Junior high I h. Senior high Comprehensive secondary Other (please specify) 9. Which of the following best describes the LEVEL of your primary teaching assignment? a. Pre-Kindergarten Grade 2 b. Grades 3-5 c. Grades 6-8 d. Grades 9-12 e. More than one of the levels above (please specify)

PAGE 143

134 10. Which of the following best describes the CONTENT of your primary teaching assignment? a. All or most elementary school subjects b. All or most middle school subjects c. Business d. Computer science e. English as a second language f. Foreign language g. Health/physical education h. Home economics I. Language arts/communications j. Mathematics k. Physical/biological/chemical sciences 1. Social sciences m. Special education n. Visual arts/music/theatre/dance 0. Vocational education p. Other (please specify) Note: Taken from Dwyer, 1994. 11. Which of the following best describes your CURRENT STATUS? a. Temporary substitute teacher (assigned on a daily basis) b. Permanent substitute teacher (assigned on a long-term basis) c. Teacher with emergency /temporary Ucense d. Student teacher e. First-year teacher f. Teacher with one or more years of experience g. Other (please specify)

PAGE 144

APPENDIX G CLASS PROFILE The following are questions to be completed by the participant of the study. 1. Which of the following best describes the LEVEL of the class being observed? a. Pre-Kindergarten Grade 2 b. Grades 3-5 c. Grades 6-8 d. Grades 9-12 e. More than one of the levels above (please specify) 2. Which of the following best describes the CONTENT of the class being observed? a. Business b. Computer science c. Enghsh as a second language d. Foreign language e. Health/physical education f. Home economics gLanguage arts/communications h. Mathematics I. Physical/biological/chemical sciences JSocial sciences k. Special education 1. Visual arts/music/theatre/dance m. Vocational education n. Other (please specify) Which of the following best describes the areas from which your students come? (Check ALL that apply.) a. Low income, urban b. Middle or upper income, urban c. Low income, suburban d. Middle or upper income, suburban 135

PAGE 145

136 e. Low income, small town (not suburban) f. Middle or upper income, small town (not suburban) g. Low income, rural h. Middle or upper income, rural 4. What is the TOTAL NUMBER of students enrolled in the class to be observed? 5a. What is the number of MALE students? 5b. What is the number of FEMALE students? 6. What is the AGE range for all of the students in the class? 7. What is the estimated number of students identified in each RACIAL/ETHNIC GROUP? a. African American or Black b. Asian American/Asian (Ex.: Japanese, Chinese, Korean) c. Southeast Asian American/Southeast Asian (Ex.: Cambodian, Hmong, Khmer, Laotian, Vietnamese) d. Pacific Island American/Pacific Islander e. Mexican, Mexican American, or Chicane f. Puerto Rican g. Other Hispanic, Latino, or Latin American h. Native American, American Indian, or Alaskan Native i. White j. Other (please specify) 8. What is the estimated number of students in each of the following LANGUAGE categories? a. English language proficient b. Limited EngHsh language proficient 9. Approximately what PERCENTAGE of your class can be categorized as the following? a. Above-average or advanced skill level b. Average or intermediate skill level c. Below-average skill level 10. Approximately how many students in this class have been identified as having EXCEPTIONALITIES? a. BHnd or visually impaired b. Deaf or hearing impaired

PAGE 146

137 c. Developmentally disabled d. Emotionally or behaviorally disabled e. Gifted f. Learning disabled g. Physically disabled h. Other (please specify) 11. Is there anything about the LEARNING ENVIRONMENT that you think might affect your students or the scheduled observation (e.g., this is not your own classroom; there is a new display, pet, or equipment in the room; there is construction going on in the building)? Is so, please note. 12. What are the most important CLASSROOM ROUTINES, PROCEDURES, RULES and EXPECTATIONS FOR STUDENT BEHAVIOR that will be in operation during the observed lesson (e.g., collecting papers, reviewing homework, safety precautions)? 13. Axe there any CIRCUMSTANCES that the assessor should be aware of in order to understand what will occur during the scheduled observation (e.g., use of schoolwide discipline, schoolwide policies, interruptions, behavior patterns of certain students)? If so, please explain. 14. In the space below, please provide a simple SKETCH of the arrangement of the instructional space for this lesson (e.g., student desks, teacher desk, student work space, arrangement of playing field or laboratory). Please attach a SEATING CHART with the students' names, if available, or a LIST of students for the class to be observed. Note: Taken from Dwyer, 1994.

PAGE 147

APPENDIX H INSTRUCTIONAL PROFILE The foUowing are questions to be completed by the participant of the study. 1. What are your GOALS for student learning for this class period? In other words, what changes do you hope will occur in the students as a result of this class period? Include learning goals in any domain that is relevant to the lesson (e.g., academic, social, affective, cognitive, aesthetic, and/or psychomotor goals). 2. Where appropriate in PLANNING THIS LESSON, how have you used or accommodated the diverse experiences, related to the categories Hsted below, that your students bring to class? a. Gender b. Race/ethnicity c. EngHsh language proficiency d. Economic status e. SkiU level f. Exceptionahties 3. How does the CONTENT of this lesson build on what has been learned PREVIOUSLY? 4. How does the CONTENT of this lesson relate to what students will be learning in the FUTURE? 5. What teaching METHODS have you selected to help you achieve your learning goals (e.g., teacher presentation, peer teaching, programmed instruction, etc.)? 6. What learning ACTIVITIES have you planned for this class (e.g., game to learn map skills, drawing the action in a story, quiz, etc.)? Briefly outline the sequence of activities and indicate approximately how much time you plan to spend on each. 7. What instructional MATERIALS, if any, will you use to help your students reach the specified learning goals? If appropriate please STAPLE to this form a copy of any student MATERIALS you plan to 138

PAGE 148

139 use with this class (e.g., map, vocabulary list, questions to be answered, printed instructions, homework). 8. If you will be GROUPING students for this class period, please provide the following information. a. Group name or number, number of students, and basis for group membership b. Is this a TYPICAL grouping pattern for this class? If not, please explain. 9. How wiU you know that the students have learned what you intended them to learn? If appropriate please STAPLE to this form a copy of your EVALUATION PLAN or INSTRUMENT (e.g., a Hst of oral questions, written quiz, student demonstration of a skill, or any other evaluation strategy you plan to use). Note: Taken from Dwyer, 1994.

PAGE 149

APPENDIX I PREOBSERVATION INTERVIEW Questions to be asked during the preobservation interview: 1. I've reviewed your CLASS and INSTRUCTION profiles. Please take a few moments to look them over and teU me if there have been any changes in these since you completed them. 2. Why have you chosen these GOALS? 3. How do the connections between this lesson, past learning, and future learning reflect the ORGANIZATION of the SUBJECT or DISCIPLINE as a whole? 4a. What PRIOR KNOWLEDGE and SKILLS do students need in order to be successful in reaching the goal(s) of the lesson? 4b. How do you become FAMILIAR with the PRIOR KNOWLEDGE and SKILLS your students bring to this and other lessons? 5a. How do you become FAMILIAR with your students' CULTURAL RESOURCES (e.g., experiences outside of school, approaches to learning, styles of interacting and relating)? 5b. How does this lesson accommodate and use your students' CULTURAL RESOURCES? 5c. Why are the accommodations you have made IMPORTANT to student learning? 6 Why have you chosen these TEACHING METHODS? 7. Why have you chosen these particular learning ACTIVITIES? 8. Why have you chosen these INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS? 9a. Why have you chosen to EVALUATE student learning using the strategies you've described? 9b. If student outcomes are not going to be evaluated today, when will this occur? Note: Taken from Dwyer, 1994. 140

PAGE 150

APPENDIX J POSTOBSERVATION INTERVIEW Questions to be asked during the postobservation interview: la. In Ught of your INSTRUCTIONAL GOALS, how do you think the lesson went? lb. Did the students learn what you wanted them to learn? How do you know that the students learned or did not learn what you wanted them to learn? Ic. Were the teaching METHODS effective? How do you know they were or were not effective? Id. Were the ACTIVITIES you used helpful? How do you know they were or were not helpful? le. Were the MATERIALS you used helpful? How do you know they were or were not helpful? 2. Did you DEPART from anything you had planned to do during this class period? If so, when and why? 3a. If you could teach this class period over again to the same class: What would you do DIFFERENTLY? Why? f 3b. If you could teach this class period over again to the same class: What | would you do the SAME? Why? 4. Based on what happened today, what do you plan to do NEXT with this class? 5a. How do you think (a child who appeared to be doing well) performed today? 5b. How do you account for this performance? 5c. What might you try in the future with (the child)? 6a. How do you think (a child who appeared to be having problems) performed today? 6b. How do you account for this performance? 141

PAGE 151

142 6c. What might you try in the future with (the child)? 7. When you need ASSISTANCE with your teaching skills, or when you have PROBLEMS with a particular student, whom do you talk with? 8. Do you COORDINATE learning activities with other teachers? If so, why and how? 9a. What forms of COMMUNICATION do you use with the PARENTS OR GUARDIANS of the students in this class? 9b. How and under what conditions do you use them? 10. Is there ANYTHING ELSE you feel I should know about today's lesson? 11. 1 have several questions about the lesson. Note: Taken from Dwyer, 1994.

PAGE 152

APPENDIX K QUESTIONS ADDED TO POSTOBSERVATION INTERVIEW Post-Observation Interview Questions Concerning CRT Preparation When you were a university student, did you have some training that specifically concerned sensitivity to culturally or linguistically diverse students in today's schools? Courses? Topics addressed? (e.g., teaching strategies, information about culture, second language acquisition) Approximately how many hours of discussion? Did you have any field experiences in a culturally diverse classroom? Type and extent of experience (e.g., practicum, internship, volunteer)? Backgrounds of students in terms of language and ethnicity? Proportion that were from diverse backgrounds? Kind of classroom (e.g., resource grade level, subject, etc.)? Have you had any significant personal experience with individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds? Nature of experience? Relationship to individual? Length of experience? Significance to you? 143

PAGE 153

APPENDIX L RECORD OF EVIDENCE The following is an example of the record of evidence form, completed by the assessor for one criterion. Al. Becoming familiar with relevant aspects of students' background knowledge and experiences. (assessor provides written examples of positive and negative evidence) Summarv Statement : (assessor writes a statement that is aligned with the scoring rules and matrices) Evaluation : 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Note: Taken from Dwyer, 1994. 144

PAGE 154

APPENDIX M QUESTIONS FOR ASSESSOR REFLECTION Al How does the teacher find out about students' background knowledge and experiences? How does the teacher find out about students' foundation for understanding of the content? Is the teacher able to describe why it is important to become familiar with students' background knowledge and experiences? Is the teacher's degree of famiharity with students' background knowledge and experiences adequate in relation to the number of students he or she teaches? A2 Is the teacher able to state learning goals for the current lesson? Does the teacher state the goals in terms of student outcomes, clearly distinguishing outcomes from activities? Does the teacher give a clear rationale for the stated goals? Does the teacher provide different goals for groups or individual students? Does the teacher provide an acceptable explanation of why the differentiated goals are appropriate for groups or individual students? A3 Can the teacher explain how the content he or she has planned for today connects to what the students have previously learned? Can the teacher explain how the content he or she planned for today connects to what the students will study in the future? To what extent can the teacher explain how today's lesson fits with larger goals of learning in the disciphne? A4 Are the methods, activities, materials, and resources selected by the teacher ahgned with the goals of the lesson? Are the methods and activities appropriate to the students' developmental levels? Do the materials and activities provide for varied styles of participation? 145

PAGE 155

146 Are the activities, materials, and resources appropriate to the students' developmental levels? Do they reflect the common and unique experiences of different ethnic groups, of males and females, of different economic groups, of groups with exceptionalities? Are the activities, and resources appropriate for students of limited EngHsh proficiency? If a single activity is used, can the teacher provide a sound explanation of why a single activity is appropriate for all students/ Is there evidence that the teacher has considered various methods, activities, and materials, and has considered the advantages and disadvantages of each? A5 How is the plan for evaluation aligned with the learning goals of the lesson? Is the plan for evaluation sufficiently systematic to provide the teacher with useful information about the extent to which learning goals have been met? Is the evaluation appropriate to the students in the class? What methods are used? How are students of limited EngHsh proficiency and student with exceptionahties provided with opportunities to display their knowledge of content? Can the teacher describe how he or she will use the results of the evaluation in planning future instruction? B 1 Is the teacher fair in interactions with students during the observed class period? In what ways does the teacher help students to have access to learning? In what ways does the teacher help the students feel equally valued in the classroom? Are there patterns of either exclusion or overattention in student-teacher interactions? Does the teacher show evidence of stereotyped views of students? Is the teacher inappropriately negative in remarks to students? Do students treat each other fairly? Does the teacher respond appropriately to stereotype-based, demeaning, or other unfair comments by students?

PAGE 156

147 B2 Does the teacher attempt to relate positively to students? Does the teacher show concern for the students? Does the teacher tailor personal interactions according to the individual characteristics of students? Do the teacher's attempts to estabhsh rapport take into account the students' backgrounds and experiences? Are the teacher's attempts to estabhsh rapport appropriate to the students' developmental levels? B3 How does the teacher show, by words, actions, or attitude, that each student is capable of meaningful achievement? In what ways do the students demonstrate a clear understanding of the teacher's expectations for achievement that may have been stated explicitly prior to the observation? Are the learning expectations for students challenging but within their reach? B4 Ai'e consistent standards of classroom behavior evident? How are standards established? Does the teacher model respectful and appropriate standards of behavior? Do estabhshed standards of behavior convey a sense of respect for the students? How are the standards maintained? How does the teacher respond to serious behavior problems? Are her or his responses appropriate? Does the teacher respond to inappropriate behavior consistently and appropriately? B5 How much control does the teacher have over the physical environment? Are any safety violations or risks evident? To what extent is there a match between the lesson or activity and the furniture or room configuration?

PAGE 157

148 Is the space arranged so that all students, including those with special needs, have access to the lesson? How does the room reflect the learning that takes place there? C 1 Does the teacher communicate learning goals to the students, either explicitly or impHcitly? Are the directions to students for instructional procedures clear? How does the teacher help students of different backgrounds (ethnic groups, language groups, males and females, students with exceptionalities) understand the learning goals of the lesson? How does the teacher help students of different backgrounds (ethnic groups, language groups, males and females, students with exceptionalities) understand the instructional procedures of the lesson? Are the students able to carry out the instructional procedures? C2 Does the teacher communicate content clearly and accurately? Is this done equitably for females and males, students of different ethnic groups, students of different economic groups, students with exceptionahties, students of limited English proficiency? In lessons that are not teacher-directed, has the teacher structured the learning environment or process in a way that enables students to understand the content? Are students generally engaged with the content? Does the lesson as a whole have a coherent structure? C3 Does the teacher recognize and use opportunities to help students extend their thinking? Is the teacher able to use the current content appropriately as a springboard to independent, creative, or critical thinking? Does the teacher challenge students' thinking in ways relevant to their background knowledge and experiences? Does the teacher structure specific learning activities that encourage students to extend their thinking? C4 Does the teacher monitor students' understanding of the content? Is this don equitably?

PAGE 158

149 Does the teacher provide substantive feedback to students? Is this done equitably? Does the teacher adjust learning activities as needed? Is the adjustment equitable? C5 Is the instruction paced in such a way that students appear to be on task most of the time? Is there evidence of established routines and procedures that help the teacher maximize the time available for instruction? If a noninstructional interruption occurs, is instruction resumed efficiently? Do all students have meaningful work or activities for the entire instructional time? D 1 What judgments does the teacher make about the extent to which the goals were met? Are these judgments accurate? How does the teacher support her or his judgment? What explanation does the teacher give for deviations from the instructional plan? How does the teacher analyze the effectiveness of her or his teaching strategies? How does the teacher articulate ways in which insights gained from this lesson could be used to improve future instruction? D2 In what ways does the teacher convey a sense of efficacy with respect to students' learning? What specific actions does the teacher suggest for working with individual students who are not meeting the learning goals? D3 Does the teacher identify colleagues within the school who can provide instructional help that is relevant to the observed lesson or to students in the class? If appropriate, does the teacher identify colleagues whose participation is either necessary or helpful in coordinating learning activities for students? Does the teacher consult with colleagues on matters related to learning and instruction or other professional matters?

PAGE 159

150 In what ways does the teacher collaborate with colleagues outside his or her classroom to coordinate learning activities or address other teaching concerns? D4 Does the teacher demonstrate knowledge of how he or she could communicate with parents or guardians? Does the teacher communicate appropriately with paretns or guardians in ways that are suitable for his or her teaching situations? Note: Taken from Dwyer, 1994.

PAGE 160

Al APPENDIX N PRAXIS III SCORING RULES AND MATRICES Becoming familiar with relevant aspects of students' background knowledge and experiences Scoring Rules 1.0 The teacher demonstrates a lack of understanding of why it is important to become familiar with students' backgi'ound experiences, does not know how to find this information, and lacks familiarity with students' background experiences. 1.5 Above level 1.0, but below level 2.0 2.0 The teacher demonstrates some understanding of why it is important to become familiar with students' background experiences, describes one procedure used to obtain this information, and has some familiarity with the background and experiences of students in the class. 2.5 Above level 2.0, but below level 3.0 3.0 The teacher demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of why it is important to become famihar with students' background experiences, describes several procedures used to obtain this information, and demonstrates a clear understanding of students' background knowledge and experiences. 3.5 Above level 3.0 Understanding of importance of becoming famihar Knowledge of how to become familiar Level of understanding of students' background experiences 1 Lacks understanding Doesn't know how Lacks familiarity 2 Some understanding Describes one procedure used Some famOiarity 3 Comprehensive understanding Describes several procedures used Clear understanding 151

PAGE 161

152 A2 Articulating clear learning goals for the lesson that are appropriate to the students Scoring Rules 1.0 The teacher does not articulate clear learning goals OR the teacher has chosen goals that are inappropriate for the students. 1.5 Above level 1.0, but below level 2.0 2.0 The teacher articulates clear learning goals that are appropriate for the students. 2.5 Above level 2.0, but below level 3.0 3.0 The teacher articulates clear learning goals and provides a well-thought-out explanation of why they are appropriate for the students OR the teacher articulates clear learning goals that are appropriate to the students and are differentiated for groups or individual students in the class. 3.5 Above level 3.0 Clear articulation of goals Appropriateness for students 1.0 Not Clear OR Inappropriate 2.0 Clear Appropriate in general 3.0 Clear Explanation of why appropriate for all students OR differentiated goals A3 Demonstrating an understanding of the connections between the content that was learned previously, the current content, and the content that remains to be learned in the future Scoring Rules 1.0 The teacher does not explain how the content of this lesson relates to the content of previous or future lessons OR the explanation given is illogical or inaccurate. 1.5 Above level 1.0, but below level 2.0

PAGE 162

153 2.0 The teacher accurately explains how the content of this lesson relates to the content of previous or future lessons. 2.5 Above level 2.0, but below level 3.0 3.0 In addition to the requirements for level 2.0, the teacher accurately explains how the content of this lesson fits within the structure of the discipline. 3.5 Above level 3.0 Explanation of relation to previous and future lessons Fit within structure of discipHne 1 Doesn't explain OR explanation is illogical N/A 2 Explains previous or future accurately N/A 3 Explains previous or future accurately Explains accurately A4 Creating or selecting teaching methods, learning activities, and instructional materials or other resources that are appropriate to the students and that are ahgned with the goals of the lesson Scoring Rules 1.0 The teacher chooses methods, activities, or materials that are unrelated to the goals of the lesson OR the methods, activities, or materials are clearly not appropriate to the students. 1.5 Above level 1.0, but below level 2.0 2.0 The teacher chooses methods, activities, and materials that are aligned with the goals of the lesson and that are appropriate to the students in general. 2.5 Above level 2.0, but below level 3.0 3.0 In addition to the requirements for level 2.0, the teacher chooses methods, activities, and materials that allow a differentiated learning experience for individuals or groups of students OR the teacher provides a sound explanation of why the single teaching method or learning activity in the lesson is appropriate for all students.

PAGE 163

154 3.5 Above level 3.0 Alignment with goals Appropriateness for students 1.0 Unrelated OR Inappropriate 2.0 Aligned with goals Appropriate to students in general 3.0 Aligned with goals Allow for differentiated learning experiences OR sound explanation of why single method or activity is appropriate A5 Creating or selecting evaluation strategies that are appropriate for the students and that are aligned with the goals of the lesson Scoring Rules 1.0 The teacher has not provided for systematically evaluating student learning OR the evaluation planned is clearly inappropriate either to the goals of the lesson or to the students. 1.5 Above level 1.0, but below level 2.0 2.0 The teacher has a plan for systematically evaluating student learning that is aligned with the goals of the lesson and appropriate to the students. 2.5 Above level 2.0, but below level 3.0 3.0 In addition to the requirements for level 2.0, the teacher can describe how he or she will use the results of the evaluation in planning future instruction. 3.5 Above level 3.0 Plan for systematic evaluation Appropriateness for goals and students Use of results for planning 1.0 Not provided OR inappropriate for goals or students N/A 2.0 Provided and systematic Appropriate for goals and students N/A 3.0 Provided and systematic Appropriate for goals and students Describes how will use

PAGE 164

155 B 1 Creating a climate that promotes fairness Scoring Rules 1.0 The teacher is unfair in the treatment of students OR the teacher tolerates obviously unfair behavior among students. 1.5 Above level 1.0, but below level 2.0 2.0 The teacher is fair in the treatment of students and does not accept obviously unfair behavior among students. 2.5 Above level 2.0, but below level 3.0 3.0 The teacher is fair in the treatment of students and actively encourages fairness among students. 3.5 Above level 3.0 Teacher treatment of students Teacher handling of fairness among students 1.0 Unfair to students OR tolerates obviously unfair behavior among students 2.0 Fair to students Does not accept obviously unfair behavior among students 3.0 Fair to students Actively encourages fairness among students B2 Establishing and maintaining rapport with students Scoring Rules 1.0 The teacher does not attempt to estabhsh rapport with students OR the teacher's attempts are inappropriate. 1.5 Above level 1.0, but below level 2.0 2.0 The teacher establishes a basic level of rapport with the students. 2.5 Above level 2.0, but below level 3.0 3.0 The teacher successfully estabHshes rapport in ways that are appropriate to students' diverse backgrounds and needs.

PAGE 165

156 3.5 Above level 3.0 Establishment of rapport Appropriateness to students 1.0 No attempt is made OR attempts made are inappropriate 2.0 Basic level of rapport is established Generally appropriate, not diversified 3.0 Attempts to establish rapport are successful Appropriate to students' diverse needs and backgrounds B3 Communicating challenging learning expectations to each student Scoring Rules 1.0 The teacher communicates explicitly or implicitly to individuals, to groups within the class, or to the class as a whole that they are incapable of learning or that the teacher's expectations for their learning are very low. 1.5 Above level 1.0, but below level 2.0 2.0 The teacher does nothing to communicate to any student that he or she is incapable of meeting learning expectations. 2.5 Above level 2.0, but below level 3.0 3.0 The teacher actively encourages students to meet challenging learning expectations. 3.5 Above level 3.0 ExpKcit or implicit communication to class, groups, or any individual about learning expectations 1.0 Communicates low expectations 2.0 Neutral; no negative effects 3.0 Actively encourages students to meet challenging expectations B4 Establishing and maintaining consistent standards of classroom behavior

PAGE 166

157 Scoring Rules 1.0 The teacher makes no attempt to respond to disruptive behavior OR the teacher's response to disruptive behavior does not demonstrate respect for the students. 1.5 Above level 1.0, but below level 2.0 2.0 The teacher makes appropriate attempts to respond to disruptive behavior in ways that demonstrate respect for the students OR there is no disruptive behavior during the lesson. 2.5 Above level 2.0, but below level 3.0 3.0 In addition to the requirements for level 2.0, the teacher responds to minor misbehavior consistently and with reasonable success, in ways that demonstrate respect for students OR student behavior during the lesson is consistently appropriate. 3.5 Above level 3.0 Response to behavior Respect for students 1.0 No attempt to respond to OR response doesn't disruptive behavior demonstrate respect 2.0 Appropriate attempts to respond to disruptive behavior OR no disruptive behavior Attempts to respond demonstrate respect 3.0 Consistent, reasonably successful responses to disruptive behavior and minor misbehavior OR student behavior consistently appropriate Responses demonstrate respect B5 Making the physical environment as safe and conducive to learning as possible Scoring Rules 1.0 The teacher allows the physical environment to be unsafe OR the teacher allows the physical environment to interfere with learning. 1.5 Above level 1.0, but below level 2.0

PAGE 167

158 2.0 The teacher creates a physical environment that is safe and does not interfere with learning. 2.5 Above level 2.0, but below level 3.0 3.0 The teacher uses the physical environment as a resource to facilitate learning. Provisions are made to accommodate all students, including those with special needs. If the teacher does not control the physical environment, he or she effectively adjusts the activities to the existing physical environment. 3.5 Above level 3.0 Safety Conduciveness to learning 1.0 Allows unsafe conditions OR allows to interfere with learning 2.0 Safe Doesn't interfere with learning 3.0 Safe Used as a resource and all students' needs accommodated OR Cannot control conditions but effectively adjusts activities for environment CI Making learning goals and instructional procedures clear to students Scoring Rules 1.0 The teacher provides the students with no information, confusing information, or inaccurate information about the learning goals or the instructional procedures for the lesson. 1.5 Above level 1.0, but below level 2.0 2.0 The students receive accurate information about the learning goals. The teacher provides the students with clear, accurate information about the instructional procedures for the lesson, and most of the students seem to understand. 2.5 Above level 2.0, but below level 3.0

PAGE 168

159 3.0 In addition to the requirements for level 2.0, the students seem to understand the learning goals fully. The teacher ensures that all students, including those who may initially have trouble, understand and can carry out the instructional procedures for the lesson. 3.5 Above level 3.0 Learning goals Instructional procedures 1.0 Students receive no OR students receive no information, confusing information, confusing information, or inaccurate information, or inaccurate information about goals information about instructional procedures 2.0 Students receive accurate information Teacher provides clean, accurate information; most students seem to understand 3.0 Students receive accurate information and seem to understand fully All students, including those who have trouble initially, can carry out C2 Making content comprehensible to students Scoring Rules 1.0 The content appears to be incomprehensible to the students OR the lesson contains substantive inaccuracies. 1.5 Above level 1.0, but below level 2.0 2.0 The content is accurate and appears to be comprehensible to the students. 2.5 Above level 2.0, but below level 3.0 3.0 In addition to the requirements for level 2.0, the lesson as a whole has a logical and coherent structure.

PAGE 169

160 3.5 Above level 3.0 Accuracy of content Comprehensibil-ity of content Lesson structure 1.0 Inaccurate OR appears N/A incomprehensible 2.0 Accurate Appears comprehensible N/A 3.0 Accurate Appears comprehensible Logical and coherent C3 Encouraging students to extend their thinking Scoring Rules 1.0 The teacher discourages students from thinking independently, creatively, or critically. 1.5 Above level 1.0, but below level 2.0 2.0 The teacher encourages students to think independently, creatively, or critically in the context of the content being studied. 2.5 Above level 2.0, but below level 3.0 3.0 The teacher uses activities or strategies that are specifically designed to actively encourage students to think independently, creatively, or critically about the content being taught. 3.5 Above level 3.0 Encouragement of independent, creative, or critical thinking 1.0 Discourages 2.0 Encourages within existing context of lesson 3.0 Encourages through activities or strategies designed or chosen with this intent

PAGE 170

161 C4 Monitoring students' understanding of content through a variety of means, providing feedback to students to assist learning, and adjusting learning activities as the situation demands Scoring Rules 1.0 The teacher makes no attempt to determine whether students are understanding and gives them no feedback. 1.5 Above level 1.0, but below level 2.0 2.0 The teacher monitors the students' understanding of the content. The students receive feedback as necessary. 2.5 Above level 2.0, but below level 3.0 3.0 The teacher monitors individual students' or groups of students' understanding of the content and makes appropriate instructional adjustments if necessary. If appropriate, students receive substantive and specific feedback. 3.5 Above level 3.0 Monitoring Providing feedback Adjusting 1.0 No attempt Not provided N/A 2.0 Monitors understanding Provides as necessary N/A 3.0 Monitors individuals' or groups' understanding Provides as necessary; substantive and specific Adjusts as necessary C5 Using instructional time effectively Scoring Rules 1.0 Substantial amounts of instructional time are spent on activities of little instructional value OR the pacing of the lesson is inappropriate to the content and/or the students. 1.5 Above level 1.0, but below level 2.0

PAGE 171

162 2.0 The pacing of the lesson is appropriate for most of the students. Noninstructional procedural matters do not occupy an excessive amount of time. 2.5 Above level 2.0, but below level 3.0 3.0 The teacher provides students with activities of instructional value for the entire instructional time and paces them appropriately. Any necessary noninstructional procedures are performed efficiently. 3.5 Above level 3.0 Use of instructional time Pacing 1.0 Substantial time on activities OR pacing inappropriate of little instructional value 2.0 Time on noninstructional activities not excessive Pacing appropriate for most students 3.0 Entire instructional time on activities of instructional value; noninstructional procedures efficient Pacing appropriate D 1 Reflecting on the extent to which the learning goals were met Scoring Rules 1.0 The teacher cannot accurately identify strengths and weaknesses of the lesson in relation to the learning goals. 1.5 Above level 1.0, but below level 2.0 2.0 The teacher accurately describes the strengths and weaknesses of the lesson in relation to the learning goals and describes in general terms how he or she could use the experience from this lesson in future instruction. 2.5 Above level 2.0, but below level 3.0 3.0 In addition to the requirements for level 2.0, the teacher supports his or her judgments with specific evidence from the observed lesson.

PAGE 172

163 3.5 Above level 3.0 Identifying strengths and weaknesses of lesson Using this experience in future 1.0 Cannot identify in relation to N/A lesson goals 2.0 Describes accurately in relation to lesson goals Describes in general terms how can use this experience in future instruction 3.0 Describes accurately in relation to lesson goals Describes how can use this experience in future instruction Uses specific evidence to support judgments D2 Demonstrating a sense of efficacy Scoring Rules 1.0 The teacher makes no attempt to find ways to help students who are not meeting the learning goals. 1.5 Above level 1.0, but below level 2.0 2.0 The teacher attempts to find ways to help specific students who are not meeting the learning goals, but cannot suggest any specific, practical actions that he or she has not already tried. 2.5 Above level 2.0, but below level 3.0 3.0 The teacher suggests specific, practical actions that he or she intends to take to help specific students who are not meeting the learning goals. 3.5 Above level 3.0 Attempts to help students who are not meeting learning goals 1.0 No attempt 2.0 Attempts to help, but can't suggest specific, practical actions beyond those already tried 3.0 Attempts to help and suggests specific, practical actions that intends to try with specific students

PAGE 173

164 D3 Building professional relationships with colleagues to share teaching insights and to coordinate learning activities for students Scoring Rules 1.0 The teacher demonstrates no knowledge of resources available through colleagues in the school or district OR the teacher is aware of such resources, but does not attempt to use them, despite an obvious need. 1.5 Above level 1.0, but below level 2.0 2.0 The teacher demonstrates knowledge of resources and attempts to consult with colleagues when necessary on matters related to learning and instruction. 2.5 Above level 2.0, but below level 3.0 3.0 In addition to the requirements for level 2.0, the teacher collaborates with colleagues outside of his or her own classroom to coordinate learning activities or to address other concerns related to teaching. 3.5 Above level 3.0 Knowledge of resources Professional interactions related to learning and instruction 1.0 No knowledge OR aware but ignores them, despite need N/A 2.0 Demonstrates knowledge Attempts to consult when necessary 3.0 Demonstrates knowledge Collaborates to coordinate learning activities or addi'ess other teaching concerns D4 Communicating with parents or guardians about student learning Scoring Rules 1.0 The teacher demonstrates no knowledge of forms of communication that she or he can use to communicate with parents or guardians OR the teacher makes no attempt to communicate with parents or guardians, even when it is clearly necessary to do so. 1.5 Above level 1.0, but below level 2.0

PAGE 174

165 2.0 The teacher demonstrates knowledge of forms of communication that she or he can use to communicate with parents or guardians of students for various purposes. 2.5 Above level 2.0, but below level 3.0 3.0 In addition to the requirements for level 2.0, the teacher describes situations in which she or he has communicated or would communicate with parents or guardians regarding specific students and indicates the forms of communication she or he has used or would use. 3.5 Above level 3.0 Knowledge of forms of communication with parents or guardians Attempts to communicate (actual or hypothetical) 1.0 No knowledge OR no attempt, even if clearly necessary 2.0 Demonstrates knowledge Links forms to various purposes 3.0 Demonstrates knowledge With reference to specific students, describes situations that call for communication and relevant forms of communication Note: Taken from Dwyer, 1994.

PAGE 175

REFERENCES Adams, N. G. (1995). What does it mean? Exploring the myths of multicultural education. Urban Education. 30 (1). 27-39. Altschuld, J. W.,& Thomas, P. M. (1991). Considerations in the appHcation of a modified scree test for Delphi survey data. Evaluation Review. 15 179-188. Amos, 0. E., & Landers, M. F. (1984). Special education and multicultural education: A compatible marriage. Theory into Practice. 23 144-150. Apple, M. W. (1990). Ideology and curriculum New York: Routledge. Asante, M. K. (1993). The Afrocentric idea in education. In J. A. Noll, (Ed.). Taking sides Guilford, CT: The Dushkin Publishing Group, Inc. Baca, L., & Amato, C. (1989). Bihngual special education: Training issues. Exceptional Children. 56 168-173. Banks, J. A. (1993). Multicultural education: Characteristics and goals. In J. A. Banks & C. A. McGee Banks, (Eds.). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives Boston: Allyn &, Bacon. Banks, J. A. (1994). Multiethnic education: Theory and practice (3rd Edition) Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. A. McGee. (Eds.). (1993). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives Boston: AUyn & Bacon. Bonvillain, N. (1993). Language, culture, and communication: The meaning of messages Englewood CHffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. BulHvant, B. M. (1993). Culture: Its nature and meaning for educators. In J. A. Banks & C. A. McGee Banks, (Eds.). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives Boston: AUyn & Bacon. 166

PAGE 176

167 Burstein, N. D., & Cabello, B. (1989). Preparing teachers to work with culturally diverse students: A teacher education model. Journal of Teacher Education. 40 (5). 9-16. Burstein, N., Cabello, B., & Hamann, J. (1993). Teacher preparation for culturally diverse urban students: Infusing competencies across the curriculum. Teacher Education and Special Education. 16 1-13. CEC common core of knowledge and skills essential for all beginning special education teachers. (1995, June). DDEL News p. 7. Cloud, N. (1993). Language, culture and disability: Implications for instruction and teacher preparation. Teacher Education and Special Education. 16 60-72. Correa, V. I. (1989). Involving culturally diverse families in the educational process. In S. Fradd & M. Weismantal (Eds.), Meeting the needs of culturally and linguistically different students: A handbook for educators (pp. 130-144). Boston: CoUege HiU. Correa, V. I. (1992). Cultural accessibility of services for culturally diverse clients with disabilities and their families. Rural Special Education Quarterly. 7 6-12. Cummins, J. (1986). Empowering minority students: A framework for intervention. Harvard Educational Review. 56 (1). 18-36. Dwyer, C. A. (1993). Teaching and diversity: Meeting the challenges for innovative teacher assessments. Journal of Teacher Education. 44 119-129. Dwyer, C. A. (1994). Development of the knowledge base for the Praxis III: Classroom performance assessments assessment criteria Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Dwyer, C. A., & Villegas, A. M. (1993). Guiding conceptions and assessment principles for The Praxis Series: Professional Assessments for Beginning Teachers"^^ (Research Rep. No. 93-17). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Figueroa, R. A., Fradd, S. H., & Correa, V. I. (1989). Bilingual special education and this special issue. Exceptional Children. 56 (2). 174-178.

PAGE 177

168 Ford, B. A. (1992). Multicultural education training for special educators working with African-American youth. Exceptional Children, 59 107-114. Fox, C. L., Kuhlman, N. A., & Sales, T. B. (1988). Cross-cultural concerns: What's missing from special education training programs? Teacher Education and Special Education. 11 155-161. Fradd, S., & Correa, V. (1989). Hispanic students at risk: Do we abdicate or advocate? Exceptional Children. 56 (2). 105-110. Fradd, S. H., Weismantal, M. J., Correa, V. L, & Algozzine, B. (1988). Developing a personnel training model for meeting the needs of handicapped and at-risk language-minority students. Teacher Education and Special Education 11 (1), 30-38. Franklin, M. E. (1992). Culturally sensitive instructional practices for African-American learners with disabihties. Exceptional Children. 59 115-122. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogv of the oppressed NY: Seabury Press. Gay, G. (1993). Ethnic minorities and educational equality. In J. A. Banks & C. A. McGee Banks, (Eds.). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Gersten, R., Morvant, M., & Brengelman, S. (1995). Close to the classroom is close to the bone: Coaching as a means to translate research into classroom practice. Exceptional Children. 62 52-66. Gersten, R., & Woodward, J. (1994). The language-minority student and special education: Issues, trends, and paradoxes. Exceptional Children. 60, 310-322. Gifford, B. R. (1986). Excellence and equity in teacher competency testing: A poHcy perspective. Journal of Negro Education. 55 251-271. Goodlad, J. I., & Field, S. (1993). Teachers for renewing schools. In J. I. Goodlad & T. C. Lovitt, (Eds.). Integrating general and special education (pp. 229-252). New York: Maxwell Macmillan International. Gottlieb, J., Alter, M., Gottlieb, B., & Wishner, T. (1994). Special education in urban America: It's not justifiable for many. Journal of Special Education. 27 .(4). 453-65.

PAGE 178

169 Grant, C. A. (1994). Best practices in teacher preparation for urban schools: Lessons from the multicultural teacher education literature. Action in Teacher Education. 16 (3). 1-18. Grant, C. A., & Koskela, R. A. (1986). Education that is multicultural and the relationship between preservice campus learning and field experiences. Journal of Educational Research. 79 197-204. Grant, C. A., & Secada, W.G. (1990). Preparing teachers for diversity. In W. R. Houston, (Ed.). Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 403422). New York: Macmillan. Grant, C, & Sleeter, C. (1993). Race, class, gender, and disability in the classroom. In J. A. Banks & C. A. McGee Banks, (Eds.). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Harris, K. R., & Pressley, M. (1991). The nature of cognitive strategy instruction: Interactive strategy construction. Exceptional Children. 57 392-404. Harry, B. (1992a). Cultural diversity, families and the special education system New York: Teachers College Press. Harry, B. (1992b). Restructuring the participation of African-American parents in special education. Exceptional Children. 59 (2), 123-131. Heshusius, L. (1991). Curriculum-based assessment and direct instruction: Critical reflections on fundamental assumptions. Exceptional Children. 57, 315-328. Hilliard, A. (1980). Cultural diversity and special education. Exceptional ChUdren. 46 584-588. HiUiard, A. (1992). The pitfaUs and promises of special education practice. Exceptional Children. 59 168-172. Hodgkinson, H. L. (1992). A demographic look at tomorrow Washington, DC: Research/technical report. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 359 087) Hollins, E. R. (1993). Assessing teacher competence for diverse populations. Theory into Practice. 32 93-99.

PAGE 179

170 Hollins, E. R., & Spencer, K. (1990). Restructuring schools for cultural inclusion: Changing the schooKng process for African American youngsters. Journal of Education, 172. 89-99. Irujo, S. (1989). Do you know why they all talk at once? Thoughts on cultural differences between Hispanics and Anglos. Equity and Choice. 5(3), 14-18. Jacobs, L. (1991). Assessment concerns: A study of cultural differences, teacher concepts, and inappropriate labehng. Teacher Education and Special Education. 14 43-48. Johnson, L. J., & Pugach, M. C. (1992). Continuing the dialogue: Embracing a more expansive understanding of collaborative relationships. In W. Stainback & S. Stainback (Eds.), Controversial issues confronting special education: Divergent perspectives Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Johnston, M., & Ochoa, A. (1993). Teacher education for global perspectives: A research agenda. Theory into Practice. 32 64-68. Kauffman, J. M. (1989). An historical perspective: A personal perspective on our history of service to mildly handicapped and at-risk students. Remedial and Special Education. 10 (6). 12-14. Kauffman, J. M., & Hallahan, D. P. (1993). Toward a comprehensive delivery system for special education. In J. I. Goodlad & T. C. Lovitt, (Eds.). Integrating general and special education (pp. 73-102). New York: Maxwell MacmiUan International. Ladson-Billings, G. (1992). Liberatory consequences of literacy: A case of culturally relevant instruction for African American students. Journal of Negro Education. 61 378-391. Lee, C. D. (1992). Literacy, cultural diverstiy, and instruction. Education and Urban Society. 24 279-291. Liston, D. P., & Zeichner, K. M. (1990). Traditions of reform in U. S. teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education. 41 (2). 3-20. Lynch, E., & Hanson, M. J. (1992). Developing cross-cultural competence: A guide for working with young children and their families Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

PAGE 180

171 Lynch, E., & Stein, R. (1987). Parent participation by ethnicity: A comparison of Hispanic, Black, and Anglo Families. Exceptional ChHdren. 54 (2). 105-111. Marion, R. (1980). Communicating with parents of culturally diverse exceptional children. Exceptional Children, 46 616-623. Messick, S. (1989). Vahdity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (Srded., pp. 13-103). New York: Macmillan. National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (1994). Teacher preparation, recruitment and retention Liaison Bulletin, March, 1994. Nelson, J. R., Smith, D. J., & Dodd, J. M. (1992). Understanding the cultural characteristics of American Indian famihes: Effective partnerships under the Individuahzed Family Service Plan (IFSP). Rural Special Education Quarterly. 11 (2). 33-36. Nelson-Barber, S. (1991). Considerations for the inclusion of multicultural competencies in teacher assessment. Teacher Education Quarterly. Summer, 1991. Obiakor, F. E., Algozzine, B., & Ford, B. A. (1993). Urban education, the general education initiative, and service delivery to African-American students. Urban Education. 28 313-327 Ortiz, A. A., & Garcia, S. B. (1995). Serving Hispanic students with learning disabilities: Recommended pohcies and practices. Urban Education. 29 471-481. Ovando, C. J. (1993). Language diversity and education. In J. A. Banks & C. A. McGee Banks, (Eds.). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, D. A. (1987). Enhancing instructional time through attention to meta-cognition. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 20, 66-75. Porter, A. C, & Brophy, J. (1988). Synthesis of research on good teaching: Insights from the work of the institute for research on teaching. Educational Leadership, 45 74-85. Price, H. B. (1992). Multiculturahsm: Myths and reahties. Phi Delta Kappan. 74 208-213.

PAGE 181

172 Pugach, M. (1992). Unifying the preservice preparation of teachers. In W. Stainback & S. Stainback, (Eds.). Controversial issues confronting special education: Divergent perspectives Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Reyes, M., & McCollum, P. (1992). Language, literacy and educational reform: Rethinking the issues. Education and Urban Society. 24 171-177. Reynolds, A. (1992). What is competent beginning teaching? A review of the Uterature. Review of Educational Research. 62 1-35. Rosenfeld, M., Freeberg, N., & Bukatko, P. (1992). The professional functions of secondary school teachers Princeton, NJ: Education Testing Service. Rosenfeld, M., Reynolds, A., & Bukatko, P. (1992). The professional functions of elementary school teachers Princeton, NJ: Education Testing Service. Rosenfeld, M., Wilder, G., & Bukatko, P. (1992). The professional functions of middle school teachers Princeton, NJ: Education Testing Service. Rueda, R. (1989). Defining mild disabilities with language-minority students. Exceptional Children. 56 121-28. Ruiz, R. (1995). Introduction: Hispanics and urban education. Urban Education. 29 371-374. Shavelson, R. J. (1988). Statistical reasoning for the behavioral sciences Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Simpson, R. L., Whelan, R. J., & Zabel, R. H. (1993). Special education personnel preparation in the 21st century: Issues and strategies. Remedial and Special Education. 14 (2). 7-22. Sindelar, P., Pugach, M., Griffin, C, & Seidl, B. (1995). Reforming teacher education: Challenging the philosophy and practices of educating regular and special educators. In J. L. Paul, H. Rosselli, & D. Evans, (Eds.). Integrating school restructuring and special education reform Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace. Skrtic, T. M. (1991). Behind special education: A critical analysis of professional culture and school organization Denver, CO: Love Pubhshing Company.

PAGE 182

173 Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1983). Using multivariate statistics NY: Harper & Row. Teaching from a multicultural perspective. (1995, August). CEC Today 2(2). p.7. Thomas, C. C, Correa,V. I., & Morsink, C. V. (1995). Interactive teaming: consultation and collaboration in special programs Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill. Villegas, A. M. (1991, September). Culturally responsive pedagogy for the 1990's and beyond Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Vniegas, A. M. (1992). The competence needed by beginning teachers in a multicultural society Paper prepared for the Annual Meeting of the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, San Antonio, TX: February 26, 1992. Villegas, A. M. (1993). Restructuring teacher education for diversity: The innovative curriculum Paper presented at Session 14.24, Increasing Teacher Diversity: Promising Practices of Teacher Education Programs, Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA, April 13, 1993. Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language Translated by E. Hanfman & G. Vakar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Welch, M. (1994). Ecological assessment: A collaborative approach to planning instructional interventions. Intervention in School and Clinic. 29, 160-164, 183. Whitaker, J. H., & Prieto, A. G. (1989). The effects of cultural and linguistic variables on the academic achievement of minority children. Focus on Exceptional Children. 21 (5). 1-10. Williams, B. F. (1992). Changing demographics: Challenges for educators. Intervention in School and Clinic. 27 157-163. Willis, A. I. (1995). Reading the world of school literacy: Contextualizing the experience of a young African American male. Harvard Educational Review. 65 (1). 30-49. Wlodkowski, R. J., & Ginsberg, M. B. (1995). A framework for culturally responsive teaching. Educational Leadership. 53 (1). 17-21.

PAGE 183

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Though born in New Jersey, Ms. Daunic considers herself a native of Oak Ridge, Tennessee, where she spent the majority of her youth with her parents and one older brother. She earned B.A. and M.S. degrees in psychology at Ohio Wesleyan University in Delaware, Ohio, and Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts, respectively. After spending six years in the Boston area, she was a tennis teacher and coach and played tournament platform tennis while living for ten years with her husband and children on the Manhattanville College campus in Purchase, New York. She subsequently joined the Manhattanville CoUege staff for two years as an academic counselor and College Skills Center supervisor for the Higher Education Opportunity Program. After moving to Orlando, Florida, in 1983, Ms. Daunic worked for nine years in administration and guidance at Luther High School. Her interest in educational issues and at-risk students led to the pursuit of an M.A. in exceptional education at the University of Central Florida and a Ph.D. in special education at the University of Florida. During her doctoral program Ms. Daunic worked as a research assistant for a federally funded teacher education study. She also served as an adjunct instructor and intern supervisor at the University of Central Florida. She plans to continue work 174

PAGE 184

175 in higher education, integrating interests in students at risk and with mild disabilities, multicultural issues, and teacher assessment. Ms. Daunic lives in Orlando with her husband Joel. She enjoys playing competitive tennis, listening to music, and travehng— particularly to see friends and family. Frequently included are sons Willy, a graduate of Vanderbilt University and resident of Nashville, and Rhys, a senior at Washington University in St. Louis.

PAGE 185

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Vivian I. Correa, Chair Professor of Special Education I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fuUy adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. TV.. Cecil D. Mercer Professor of Special Education I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. C:(hthVa C. Griffin Associate Professor of Special Education I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. M. David Miller Associate Professor of Foundations of Education

PAGE 186

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. I Simon 0. Johnson' 1 Professor of Instruction and Curriculum This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College of College of Education and to the Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. August 1996 Deaii, College^f Education^ Dean, Graduate School


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E5Z3WCB03_SRO6BB INGEST_TIME 2014-12-11T22:25:04Z PACKAGE AA00026486_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES