Research Proposal Statement:
Can community-based field experiences prepare pre-service teachers for cultural-responsive teaching?
I. Statement of Problem
A. Problem/Phenomena/Issue: A key issue in teacher education in the United States is preparing the culturally diverse homogeneous teaching workforce to successfully teach culturally diverse students. To address this challenge, teacher educators have restructured teacher education courses and programs for educating culturally responsive teachers (Ladson-Billings, 2009; Nieto, 2002; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). Community-based field experiences have been proposed as a starting point (e.g., Gallego, 2001). In such field experiences, teachers are given the opportunity “for developing relationships distinct from those that are possible in classroom and schools” (Gallego, 2001, pp. 314-315).
B. Historical Context: Traditionally teacher preparation programs offer little interaction with live students, let alone culturally diverse populations. If any engagement does take place, it is typically limited to observation or single interactions. There is not time to develop deep understandings or analyze what may or may not make a practice culturally sounds when pre-service teachers are not given quantities of time with which to engage these students. In some cases, pre-service teachers do not even receive theoretical education on this subject in the academic setting. Geneva Gay (2002) states
“…too many teachers are inadequately prepared to teach ethnically diverse students. Some professional programs still equivocate about including multicultural education despite the growing numbers of and disproportionately poor performance of students of color” (p. 106).
Yet, as with any profession, teachers need concrete experiences to grow in their professional understandings and be able to make impactful decisions that will positively shape outcomes for student learning. This is particularly true in the area of cultural relevancy as most K-12 institutions are dominated by a Euro-centric approach to education. “Native American educator Cornel Pewewardy (1993) asserts that one of the reasons Indian children experience difficulty in schools is that educators traditionally have attempted to insert culture into education, instead of inserting education into the culture” (Ladson-Billings, 1995, p. 159). Ladson-Billings goes on to establish the historical footprint of the foundations of culturally responsive teaching, looking at the ways in which anthropologists have sought answers to these questions for the last 15 years. “This work…has attempted to locate the problem of discontinuity between what students experience at home and what experience at school in speech and language interactions of teachers and students” (Ladson-Billings, 1995, p. 159).
C. Purpose of study and intellectual goals: I explore a field-based experience at a juvenile correctional facility that is embedded within a graduate, secondary reading course. In my research my intellectual goals will be to assess (1) How community-based field experiences can deepen literacy teachers’ interest in engaging with youths’ cultural and language backgrounds and identities? (2) How such experiences can better inform literacy teacher education that has multicultural goals and aims? (3) How such experiences can lead to improved sociocultural literacy practices?
D. Research questions: This study focuses on 20 pre-service English teachers enrolled in an adolescent literacy course taught in “third space” (Zeichner, 2010). As much of what teachers need to learn must be learned from practice rather than in preparing for practice (Hammerness, Darling-Hammond, & Bransford, 2005), third space provides rich opportunities for dealing critically with a culturally, linguistically, racially, and academically diverse context, prompting new thinking and learning for pre-service teachers around critical issues and their relationship to literacy theory, curriculum, and practice.
In partnership with the Department of Juvenile Justice, pre-service teachers worked one-on-one with incarcerated youth. This study will examine the influence of coursework and field experiences on pre-service teachers’ perceptions and attitudes about and around the literacy lives of incarcerated youth and issues of culture, language, race and ability.
In so doing, this study seeks to answer the following questions: (1) What is the influence of course work and field experience on pre-service teachers’ perceptions and attitudes about and around incarcerated youth and subsequent issues of culture, language, race and ability? (2) What is the influence of course work and field experience on pre-service teachers’ perceptions and attitudes about and around the teaching of literacy for at-risk youth?
II. Conceptual Framework
A. Assumptions and sources: Drawing on situated cognition theory, I posit that learning and teaching are fundamentally social accomplishments that are shaped both by an individual’s participation in particular settings of activity (Chaiklin, Hedgaard, & Jensen, 1999). Thus, learning takes place through participation in these third spaces, rather than through the internalization of course content inside the head of a pre-service teacher. I also believe that use of third space in a culturally diverse setting will help pre-service teachers develop notions of how to teach in a culturally responsive manner. My main sources for these ideas include Geneva Gay and Gloria Ladson-Billings.
B. Literature review and key findings: In formulating my ideas about this topic, I engaged with three articles extensively amongst others. The Gay (2002) and Ladson-Billings (1995) articles focused on preparing teachers to engage with students in a culturally responsive manner. In their opinion, such engagement will foster success for students of all colors. Gay (2002) notes “It is based on the assumption that when academic knowledge and skills are situated within the lived experiences and frames of reference of students, they are more personally meaningful, have higher interest appeal, and are learned more easily and thoroughly” (p. 106). The premise then is that we have to know who our students are to effectively engage them in educational pursuits. Gay (2002) goes on to point out that this includes “ethnic groups’ cultural values, traditions, communication, learning styles, contributions, and relational patterns” (p. 107) as these inform who a student is personally. She notes that it seems to be the exception rather than the rule for teachers to incorporate strategies that illuminate these unique characteristics. Ladson-Billings (1995) supports this need by noting “Culturally relevant teachers utilize students’ culture as a vehicle for learning” (p. 161). It is through this validation of home language and culture that students will see themselves reflected in the lessons and thus become more engaged. Ladson-Billings (1995) also expresses this idea writing, “Culturally relevant teaching requires that students maintain some cultural integrity as well as academic excellence” (p. 160).
One such culture that needs to be explored is that of the incarcerated youth. Stephanie Guerra (2010) explores this culture in the context of the literacy education that teachers can provide. “Research consistently points to literacy as a major protective factor for at-risk youth…For incarcerated teens, literacy skills are strongly corrected to a lower chance of recidivism” (p. 1). Therefore, it is imperative for teachers to understand the cultural factors of incarcerated teens in hopes of making an impact on their literacy lives. Guerra (2010) further states that cultural factors for these students include “poverty, abuse, high rates of drop-out and expulsion…gang involvement…homelessness, teen pregnancy and parenthood…” (p. 2). Through field-experience pre-service teachers can began to understand the ways with which to engage these students in culturally appropriate ways, as it is unlikely that many will have prior knowledge of this unique population.
C. Study contribution: In order to provide experience for prospective teachers that foster critical perspective, a variety of qualitative inquiry strategies were used to gather data, such as surveys, semi-structured interviews, course artifacts, and observational notes. Data will be systematically coded using a content analysis approach. The goal of the data analysis is to identify the effects of the coursework and field experiences. Teaching in third space may alter pre-service teachers’ perceptions and attitudes about and around incarcerated youth—and subsequent issues of culture, language, race and ability—and impact their perceptions and attitudes about and around the teaching of literacy for at-risk youth.
D. Theoretical perspectives/concepts and potential application: In my research I emphasize how knowledge is “jointly constructed…both within the same time and place (e.g., peers in a classroom) and across time and space (e.g., prior actions and decisions made by others)” (Gallego, 2001, p. 315). I understand each teacher education context as an “activity system” in which teachers and teacher educators engaged with particular tools in order to reach certain goals. I use Activity Theory (Engeström, Miettinen, Punamäki, 1999) to understand learning as inextricably linked to doing (Jonassen & Rohrer-Murphy, 1999). With its focus on engagement with tools, social practices, the division of labor, outcomes, and goals, Activity Theory is in accord with the goals of sociocultural literacy teacher education and the goals of field experience.
E. Terms and definitions: (1) A. Culturally responsive teaching: “…using the cultural characteristics, experiences, and perspectives of ethnically diverse students as conduits for teaching them more effectively” (Gay, 2002, pp. 108). B. (2) Cultural scaffolding: “…using their own cultures and experiences to expand their intellectual horizons and academic achievement” (Gay, 2002, pp. 109). (3) Conscientization: “a process that invites learners to engage the world and others critically” (Ladson-Billings, 1995, pp. 162).
Works Cited
Chaiklin, S., Hedegaard, M., & Jensen, U.H. (1999). Activity theory and social
practice. Aarhus, DK: Aarhus University Press.
Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., Punamäki, R-L. (1999). Perspective on activity
theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gallego, M.A. (2001). Is Experience the Best Teacher? The Potential of
Coupling Classroom and Community-Based Field Experiences. Journal of
Teacher Education, 52, pp. 312-325.
Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive
teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 106-116.
Guerra, S. (2010). Reaching out to at-risk teens: building
literacy with incarcerated youth. PNLA Quarterly,
75(1), 1-12.
Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2005). How teachers
learn and develop. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.),
Preparing teachers for a changing world (pp. 358-389). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Jonassen, D.H. & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for
designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology, Research and Development 47 (1), pp. 61-79.
Ladsen-Billings, G. (2009). The Dreamkeepers: successful teachers of African
American children. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Ladsen-Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally
relevant pedagogy. Theory into practice, 34 (3), pp. 159-165.
Nieto, S. (2002). Language, culture and teaching: Critical perspectives for a
new century. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Villegas, A.M. & Lucas, T. (2002). Educating culturally responsive teachers: a
coherent approach. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and
field experiences in college and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 89-99.
