Negotiating Differences: Early Field Experiences in a Diverse Middle School Free

As our nation’s schools grow increasingly diverse, the composition of the teaching force in those schools remains mostly female, white and middle class (Banks, Cochran-Smith, Moll, Richert, Zeichner, Lepage, Darling-Hammond & Duffy, 2005; Hollins & Guzman, 2005; Zumwalt & Craig, 2005). This demographic divide between student and teacher populations in P12 public schools has created a cultural gap (Sleeter, 2001) raising serious concerns about the preparation of teachers as well as the education of students from minority populations (Bransford, Darling-Hammond & LePage, 2005; Hollins & Guzman, 2005). Research on student achievement validates these concerns as academic success has been connected to teachers’ knowledge of the social, cultural and language background of their students and how they utilize this information when planning and implementing their instruction (Gandara, 2002, Garcia, 1993). Furthermore, the link between minority student achievement and teacher preparation have become a major topic in research on teacher education (Banks, et al., 2005; Hollins & Guzman, 2005; Nieto, 2000; Pryor, 2006; Sleeter, 2001; Ukpokodu, 2003; Villegas & Lucas, 2002; Weiner, 1993) prompting researchers to critically examine how teachers are prepared to teach in diverse settings.

Previous reviews of research on approaches to preparing teachers for diverse populations reveal inconsistencies and gaps (Cochran-Smith, Davis, & Fries, 2003; Hollins & Guzman, 2005; Sleeter, 2001). Sleeter (2001) found that colleges of education prepare candidates for diverse classrooms in two rather different ways. Either they work to recruit candidates from culturally diverse communities or they work to develop attitudes, beliefs and depth of knowledge of diversity in their candidates. These two approaches are accomplished through various structures. Some create separate multicultural education courses while others work to maintain a strand of multicultural education throughout the entire teacher education program. Hollins and Guzman’s (2005) review suggests the former of the two scenarios dominate most institutions as issues of diversity are typically addressed within courses separated from the rest of the teacher education program or curricula creating the notion of diversity as an “add-on” or an optional part of teacher preparation.

In our review of the research exploring multicultural education courses (Artiles & McClafferty, 1998; Brandon, 2003; Dlamini, 2002; Graue, 2005; Meiners, 2002; Price & Valli, 2005; Sleeter, 2001; Weisman & Garza, 2002) we found mixed results (Garmon 2004; Hollins & Guzman, 2005). Some researchers found positive changes in students beliefs and understanding of diversity (Garmon, 1998; LaFramboise & Griffith, 1997; McFalls & Cobb-Roberts, 2001), while others found negative changes (Causey, Thomas, & Armento, 2000) providing support for Hollins & Guzman’s (2005) conclusion that the inconsistent and inconclusive findings have “little general application” to preparing teachers to teach diverse students (p. 479). We also reviewed the literature for studies that examined programs with a multicultural strand woven throughout the course work and field experiences. We found very few empirical studies conducted within general education pedagogy courses with objectives linked to shaping preservice teachers’ beliefs, attitudes and understanding about diversity. Moreover, we found no empirical studies within the literature on middle level teacher preparation.

Like many of the aforementioned researchers, we continue to struggle with the question of how to prepare a group of mostly white, middle-class, female preservice teachers (Cockrell, Placier, Cockrell & Middleton, 1999; Hollins & Guzman, 2005; Lawrence & Bunche, 1996; Meiners, 2002; Zumwalt & Craig, 2005) to effectively plan for, teach, and assess diverse students when they have little or no experience with diverse students themselves. While we strongly believe multicultural education courses are vital, we also believe limiting the discussion of race, class, culture and gender to one class within a teacher education program is neither serving the teaching candidates that ultimately will graduate, nor benefiting the students with whom these teaching candidates interact (Hollins & Guzman, 2005; Sleeter, 2001). Weaving the discussion of diversity throughout a teacher education program while providing experiences that allow the teaching candidates to interact with students that are socioeconomically, culturally, ethnically, and/or linguistically diverse has the potential to establish a foundation of understanding that could lead to an increased awareness of culturally responsive pedagogy (Gay, 2000).Therefore, the purpose of this study was to document any change in understanding of diversity in our preservice students after completing the first two general pedagogy courses in a middle school teacher education program that does not have a separate multicultural education course. The following questions guided our study:

1. How, if at all, do student’s understandings of diversity change during the first two general pedagogy courses in the Middle School Teacher Education Program?

2. To what do the students attribute the changes that occurred?

As teacher educators we work from a critical multicultural perspective (Ukpokodu, 2003) consciously engaging in the construction of knowledge about social justice, diversity, and how to develop middle level curriculum that is equitable and accessible for all students. Teaching from this perspective means that we critique and challenge societal structures through a critical lens (Sleeter, 2001; Sleeter, Hughes, Meador, Whang, Rogers, Blackwell, Laughlin, & PeraltaNash, 2005), encourage our students to deconstruct their own identity and positionality in society (Brandon, 2003), and acknowledge the tensions inherent in the process of becoming a culturally responsive educator (Levine-Rasky, 1998). We believe that we must understand our “access to power, opportunity, and resources” (Brandon, 2003, p.36) before we can understand and enact socially just curriculum that breaks down the oppressive barriers for diverse students (Hollins & Guzman, 2005; Murrell, 2006).

We also believe that understanding how new teachers learn is equally as important and acknowledge the role P12 schooling experience plays in becoming a teacher. This “apprenticeship of observation” (Lortie, 1975) is a key variable in preservice teacher learning(Britzman, 1986; Britzman, 1991; Cole & Knowles; 1993, Graham, 1993; Richardson, 1997; Su, 1992) particularly when considering how preservice teachers develop an understanding of diversity and teaching diverse students (Hollins & Guzman, 2005). We know that our preservice teachers come to the classroom with beliefs and attitudes constructed in their previous schooling experiences and that as teacher educators we must provide our students opportunities to analyze and evaluate various situations to help them develop a metacognitive approach to their own teaching (Hammerness, Darling-Hammond, & Bransford, 2005; The National Research Council, 2000). These perspectives influence our curricular decisions as we study how we learn, focusing on constructivist theories and deconstructing how it is we come to know in order that our students might be metacognitive in their thinking, reflective in their decision making, and able to connect theory to what they experience in their classrooms.

Working from these perspectives and knowledge bases we engaged in a critical inquiry of our own work in an effort to better understand the reported changes our students underwent as well as to challenge additional structures that continue to be barriers to a socially just educational experience for all students. As the primary researchers we acknowledged that the observations, interactions and analysis would be viewed through our own “worldview[s], values and perspective[s]” (Merriam, 1998, p. 22). It is because we are white, female teacher educators who are from homogenous rural backgrounds and have traveled the very continuum we identify in this article that we are interested in conducting this particular research. Accordingly, we have made certain decisions about the kinds of questions we will ask, from where and how we will collect and analyze the data, and how we will write up our conclusions. Consequently, we believe we should critically examine ourselves as “the ghost in these research machines” (Heshusius & Ballard, 1996, p.103).

Working from a critical perspective, we employed case-study methodology as we observed and interacted with one group of students in two general pedagogy courses in a middle school teacher education program. This methodology was appropriate as case-study design acknowledges and highlights the context in which the phenomenon occurs, allowing for a focus on the particularity (Merriam, 1998; Stake, 1995; Yin, 2004) of this group of people (our students) in a particular place (Midwest Middle School) engaged in a particular activity (University courses) during a particular time (Spring semester 2006). The case we chose to examine during our study was one group of students enrolled in both of our general pedagogy courses. This group constitutes our case as they participated in the course activities, assignments and field experiences as a cohort.

As the instructors of the courses included in this study, we were able to be in the setting in an active sense forcing us to constantly construct and reconstruct our knowledge of how new teachers conceptualize diversity (Gillham, 2000). While we did not collect or analyze observation data for this case study, we did allow our observations in our classrooms and the school environment to generate our dialogue about the students’ experiences in our courses leading to further questions about the tensions inherent in learning to teach in a diverse setting.

The first two general pedagogy courses in our Middle School Teacher Education Program (MSTEP) are taught during the school day at Midwest Middle School (MMS). This particular middle school is unique as it serves two distinct groups of students in grades six through eight. The first group consists of early adolescents living within the Midwest community that are zoned for MMS. This group is predominately African American and Hispanic and represents the highest percentage of middle school students enrolled in free and reduced lunch programs as well as the highest percentage of minority students within our small Midwestern city. The second group of students is enrolled in the only gifted and talented program within the school district. This group is made up of early adolescents who have tested at or above the 98^th percentile on the state’s standardized test and are mostly white. The majority of the gifted and talented students are bussed to Midwest from their respective neighborhoods.

The MSTEP courses are taught in this particular school because of a partnership established with our university in the early 1990s as a Professional Development School (PDS). There have been many changes in the leadership of the school and the PDS relationship since its inception. These administrative changes have resulted in very little communication and collaboration between the school faculty and the university faculty. These two general pedagogy courses taught during the school day in the media room of Midwest are the existing remnants of that partnership.

After having taught these courses for one semester, we noted the fear with which the preservice students came to the first day of class at Midwest. With few students having ever been to the community of Midwest, they expressed anxiety about driving through the neighborhood and concern about being able to “handle” the students with which they would work. However, the transformation we witnessed throughout the semester was interesting as it appeared there was growth in our students’ understanding of diversity and culturally responsive pedagogy. With students begging to be able to come back to Midwest to complete their remaining field experiences, we began to question what had happened. We wondered if the combination of the context in which these courses were taught and experiences of the students while in the context brought about significant changes in their perceptions of diverse students and their understanding of diversity.

It was at this point that we began to ask ourselves, what caused this change? Can this change be considered “growth” in understanding diversity or is it simply enculturation to the context? If it is indeed growth, what experiences helped scaffold this growth and how can we ensure it continues throughout the program? Moreover, if this change is enculturation to the context, is it good or bad or does it promote dysconscious racism (King, 1991) that could only perpetuate stereotypes further? With these questions in mind we began a new semester focused on not only documenting the changes but also understanding how these changes in our students occurred.

While the research questions of our study are similar to those explored by a number of other researchers (Hollins & Guzman, 2005; Garmon, 1998, Lawrence & Bunche, 1996; Marshall, 1996; McFalls & Cobb-Roberts, 2001), the context of our study is a unique variable because of the demographics of the school and because the preservice teachers spend the entire semester immersed in the environment. These courses were designed for our students to experience diversity as a participant by taking on active roles throughout the school day in this diverse setting. They arrived each morning when the middle school students arrived. They ate lunch in the cafeteria with the students and interacted with them between classes. They had many more opportunities to become a part of the school community because they were physically there every week as opposed to experiencing diversity as a spectator only entering the school for their field experiences. Because of this unique situation, we wanted to explore the dramatic changes we witnessed in our students and to shed light on the changes in understanding of diversity that might have occurred.

The courses met two days a week for 16 weeks for a total of 4 hours per day at Midwest Middle School. As we designed these general pedagogy courses, we planned experiences and activities with the hope of promoting growth in our students’ understanding of diversity and culturally responsive pedagogy. We drew from Villegas and Lucas’s (2002) work as we set goals for the students in our courses. These goals included developing: 1) a sociocultural consciousness and an affirming attitude toward students from culturally diverse backgrounds, 2) a commitment and skills to make changes in school environments to be more responsive, 3) an understanding of constructivist teaching and learning, 4) an understanding of the importance of knowing their students, and 5) an ability to enact culturally responsive pedagogy that supports the development of a critical consciousness (an ability we define as identifying cultural dilemmas or perceived social injustices in educational settings and challenging the cultural norms of schools by always asking who is doing what? Why? For what purpose? And for the benefit of whom?). We believe if our students met each of these goals they would have the understanding and capacity to enact curriculum that is accessible and responsive to the cultural and developmental needs of all middle school students.

The first six weeks of class were devoted to various topics (i.e., literacy and curriculum development, adolescent development, social inequities, cultural identity, white privilege) that were intended to promote a critical view of schools and society (Murrell, 2006) by reading, discussing and reflecting on social inequities, cultural differences and our personal experiences as teachers and learners. Beginning the seventh week of class, the students were placed by the assistant principal with teachers on the regular education teams and the gifted and talented team for a five-week intensive field experience in which they were required to observe classroom activities, teach small and large group lessons, and complete various projects that focused on the students and community of Midwest. Students’ placements were made by the assistant principal and were either on the regular education teams or the gifted and talented team. Following their field experiences, the students came back to class and the remaining four weeks were spent debriefing the field experiences, explicitly making connections between theory and practice, discussing findings to class research projects, reflecting on teaching experiences and setting professional goals for the next semester.

The participants of this study were 23 preservice teachers recently admitted to the MSTEP at a research intensive university. All of the students were required to enroll in EDC 329 and EDC 341, the first set of general pedagogy courses. Students ranged in age from 20 to 53. There were 1 Hispanic and 22 Caucasian students; 8 males and 15 females. The majority of these students came to our program with little or no experience with diverse students and all volunteered to participate in this study.

There were three data sources for this study; all in-class and out-of-class assignments for each participant, one 30-minute interview with each participant, and researcher notes and questions. We collected everything from the entire semester in an effort to consider how these new teachers were negotiating their own schooling experiences with the knowledge they were (re)constructing during class activities and field placements. We did not collect this data to triangulate the sources, rather to provide a complete picture of the students’ understanding throughout the semester that might indicate if changes occurred and the assignments or activities that might have prompted this change.

The first data source for this study included each participant’s inclass and out-of-class assignments for both courses. See Table 1 for details of each assignment. The class activities were designed to allow students the opportunity to consistently reflect on their own beliefs, attitudes and understandings of teaching and learning, diversity, issues of injustice, and adolescent development. All course assignments were collected to present a picture of the students from the beginning of the semester to the end of the semester and to show new learning that might have occurred.

The second data source was the notes and questions generated during our weekly conversations about the courses, the students and the study. As researchers, we reflected on and critiqued our individual courses, class activities, student responses, student questions and personal experiences within the Midwest community. We continued to come back to our understanding of how new teachers learn and worked to include more opportunities for our students to analyze and evaluate scenarios that would develop their ability to reflect on their teaching. Our dialogue led to many questions and ideas for improvement for the courses themselves and the MSTEP as a whole.

The final data source included one 30-minute interview with each participant and the notes taken during the interviews. The interviews were conducted the last day of class and focused on the students’ perceptions of their own growth during the semester with regard to diversity, middle level pedagogy, and confidence in the classroom. Questions for the interviews were developed from a preliminary analysis of course assignments and researcher notes and questions.

The data analysis for the study was ongoing throughout the semester. As we collected assignments we engaged in conversations about our perceptions of effectiveness and students’ reactions. We utilized this constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1999; Merriam, 1998; Strauss & Corbin, 1998) as we analyzed each class assignment throughout the semester. We conducted interviews at the end of the semester focused on questions developed from the early analysis of the course assignments and researcher notes and questions. At the conclusion of the semester, we engaged in a systematic analysis of each assignment by date and by student and the field notes generated throughout the semester. We took additional notes, posed questions, and recorded personal reflections about the initial findings. We then went back to the data with our notes and questions and began to code similarities and consistent patterns that emerged by comparing students to students by assignment and students to themselves over the course of the semester. Our dialogue continued throughout the analysis as we posed questions for one another and for the data. As we reread the data in an effort to support emerging themes, clear categories developed related to the change in our students’ understanding of diversity as well as the factors that contributed to those changes, or in some cases, lack of change.

Our findings are organized around our research questions. First, we describe the four categories that emerged with regard to our students’ understanding of diversity. These findings are structured in a continuum of understanding we developed for this study. Second, we describe two factors we believe contributed to the change in some students and the lack of change in others. Our findings point to issues teacher educators might consider when working to preparing teachers to teach in diverse settings.

First, we found our students in various places in their journeys to becoming culturally responsive educators. We believe this is natural and appropriate as the students came to our courses with different experiences and were constantly constructing and reconstructing their understanding of teaching and learning with students from diverse backgrounds while also negotiating their own understanding as teachers and as learners. As we noticed commonalities in the students’ perceived changes in understanding of diversity, four categories emerged within the data. We struggled with how to describe what the data revealed and finally decided that to establish a continuum (Lawrence & Bunche, 1996; Zollers, Albert & Cochran-Smith, 2000) on which to place their perceived change in understanding would be a helpful way to view the perceived changes that occurred and the potential growth that could occur in time. The continuum represents our belief that the students’ understanding of diversity and diverse learners is not static. We believe this is a continuum that is revisited frequently by educators within various contexts and ultimately becomes easier to negotiate with increasing skill and responsiveness with each new context. We cannot claim the students encountered each of the landmarks we identified along the continuum. We can simply describe where their perceived understanding fell after our data analysis.

The data reveal the majority of our students began the semester nervous and uncertain about completing their general pedagogy courses and first extensive field placement at MMS. Most students had limited or no experience with diverse students and had preconceived notions of MMS that led to their fear and anxiety about being in the Midwest community. We recognize this state of anxiety as the starting point of the continuum. While we believe all of the students come from different experiences and bring with them different conceptualizations of working with diverse students, we recognize the act of coming to MMS as the beginning of our exploration of their understanding of diversity.

The initial phase for the majority of the students came about by virtue of being in Midwest Middle School. We define this landmark as one in which students display uncertainty about what to expect from the context or the students. We found that these tensions were self-labeled as fear and based on conversations with people outside the community of Midwest as well as media representations of neighborhoods similar to Midwest.

For most of the students, this was the first time they had ever experienced socioeconomic, cultural, racial, and/or linguistic diversity. Walking into a school building filled with children that looked very different from themselves was a visual reminder of the unknown elements these courses and field experiences held. The tensions of the unknown were enough to make the students nervous and apprehensive on the first day.

To document initial perceptions about the school and community, the students completed a First Day Survey during their first class at Midwest. Two of the questions on the survey asked them to describe what they knew about Midwest and what their expectations were for the semester. Many students came with preconceived notions about Midwest being a “dangerous area” that was “scary” and “rundown” based on rumors they had heard from others which were clearly noted on their First Day Survey. Below are two excerpts from the First Day Survey that are representative of the majority of the students’ responses on the first day:

Interestingly, even though there were no questions on the First Day Survey asking students to describe experiences with diversity, many explained that they had “had no experiences what so ever with diversity because of where [they] grew up”. They explained that they were “excited to get this kind of experience” and to “learn about all the different cultures and stuff”. The First Day Survey also revealed that a few students did not have preconceived notions about Midwest before the semester began. They based their expectations for the semester on their experience of driving through the neighborhood to the school as noted in the excerpt below:

With this glimpse of the initial perceptions of Midwest and its students, we began the semester with our goals in mind by engaging the students in activities that required them to consider the social inequities in our schools and in society. We talked openly about oppressive structures (King, 1991), socially just practices (Ayers, 2004) and white privilege (McIntosh, 1988). We also engaged students in activities around constructivist theories (Oldfather & West, (1999) and culturally and developmentally responsive pedagogy (Gay, 2000; Jackson & Davis, 2000). We worked to help them construct an understanding of the “structural inequalities in the social, historical and political contexts of schooling” (Murrell, 2006, p. 81) and to deconstruct their identity as learners and as teachers.

We met with tensions from students who believed that it was not their fault for not having had the experiences of working with diverse students. The climate in the classroom was tense and uncomfortable at times. These tensions became apparent early as we read exit slips from one class session asking the students to reflect on the class discussion of experiences with diversity. The excerpt from the Exit Slip below is an indication of how many of the students felt early in the semester:

It was not until we began a systematic analysis of the data that we were able to see that a few students had not moved beyond the tensions of the unknown. When asked in the interview at the end of the semester if the experience at Midwest had bolstered confidence in teaching diverse middle school students, one student replied,

While all of our students began the semester very anxious about the context in which their first field placement in the MSTEP would take place, most of them were able to engage in experiences that reduced their anxiety by actively involving them in the entire school community and moving them beyond the Tensions of the Unknown.

We have labeled our second landmark as Resistance. We believe this landmark is represented by those who often see diversity as a positive thing, but are afraid and uncertain they will be able to “deal” with it. These students see diversity as a “thing” that can step in front of other “important” issues, or as an “add on” to the regular curriculum instead of a component that is embedded into every aspect of the classroom. These students many times express deficit views of the students and the environment.

This landmark on the continuum is represented by data we believe show that some of the students still exhibited anxiety about being in the environment as well as a resistant perspective toward culturally responsive teaching. We found that a small number of students fell into this category. Comments representative of students identified within this landmark, at the beginning of the semester, were very similar to those of their classmates in that they were worried about Midwest being a “dangerous area” or the students being “thuggish or whatever”. However, after the field experiences and the weeks following the field experience, their comments were relatively the same. They continued to say that “this type of school was too hard” or “too hectic” and that they would “probably not teach in a school like this”. Below are excerpts from four students’ interviews we believe represent a resistant attitude toward culturally responsive teaching in a diverse context:

In the end, these students appeared to be relieved that the field experience had come to an end, and that while they “learned a lot about this type of environment”, they were “glad it [wa]s over”. The data never show a level of comfort with the environment that would merit coming back to Midwest or going to another diverse middle school. The data also never revealed a change in perception of the community and students of Midwest.

The third area we identified in which the majority of our students’ understanding fell moved beyond the state of Resistance previously described to a state we have recognized as Enculturation. The students that expressed this understanding had grown accustomed to the setting in which they were immersed. They saw diversity as a very positive thing and had learned to ‘function’ within the context. They discussed their happiness and ease with the setting and often a desire to return. They had assimilated to the cultural norms of Midwest by learning and accepting the management systems, communication styles, and belief systems already in place (Pai & Adler, 1997). While we believe Enculturation means that they had accepted the norms and customs of the school climate, we view this as problematic as there are issues inherent in this acceptance that represent a lack of critical perspective we desire for them to possess.

Overall, unlike the students who were in the Resistance stage, these students were excited and happy to be working at Midwest. They “loved this experience” and were “so grateful to be able to experience [it]”. The statements below are excerpts from two students’ interviews the last day of class at Midwest:

They loved the students with which they worked and wanted to be able to come back to maintain the relationships they had developed. For many of the preservice students at the landmark of Enculturation, the positive experience with the middle school students was the aspect of the placement that was the most exciting and prompted the most change in perspective. On the Last Day Survey, students were asked to reflect on any change in their perspective that might have occurred over the semester. Many students acknowledge how their perspective of the students had changed. The excerpt below is particularly powerful at this particular landmark on our continuum:

They were also grateful to the faculty, staff and administration for the support and encouragement they gave to the students and to them as preservice teachers. This group of students viewed the faculty, staff and administration as dedicated and enthusiastic.

We acknowledge that the changes in the preservice students’ perceptions about Midwest and its students appeared quite positive. They had moved from being scared and anxious about driving into the community of Midwest, to being excited about coming to school each day to work with the various students within their field placement classrooms. We consider this growth in acceptance of others, openness to different contexts and willingness to face their own fears of the unknown. The students acknowledge that without this experience, they would have never considered taking a job in “a school like Midwest”.

However, it is within this category that we found what we believe to be the most examples of dysconscious racism meaning that our students exhibited an “uncritical habit of mind… [about] culturally sanctioned assumptions, myths, and beliefs…” (King, 1991, p.135). They continued to use words like “them”, “these type of kids”, and “other group of kids” to describe the minority students with whom they worked. Our students’ use of language that included “othering” overtones and deficit views of diverse students was never challenged in their field experiences. If anything, they were reinforced by staff who described students on the regular education teams as the “general population” and “these types of kids”. Our students accepted these terms without question leading us to believe they had not developed a critical consciousness that would force them to consider how those words marginalize the students with which they worked.

It also became apparent that while they had become comfortable within the environment, they were still cautious in describing what they had learned about teaching within a diverse context. During our interviews we noted how it appeared that many of the students searched for the “right” words to use when they described diverse students. There would be long pauses in the conversations and their answers would be disjointed. Below is an example of an excerpt from the interview transcripts that we feel show this insecurity:

Another similarity we found within this group of students was their reaction to one of their final tasks for the semester. On the last day of class we ask the students to analyze their responses on the First Day Survey. They were shocked that they had “judged a book by its cover”. The excerpt below from the Last Day Survey is a representation of the majority of the students that presented what we believe to be an enculturated attitude toward diversity and teaching diverse students:

These students left the field placement so grateful for the opportunity to have worked with the students and staff at Midwest. They had developed a level of comfort with the school and community that made them feel safe, accepted and confident. Many approached us with a desire to return to Midwest for one of the three remaining field experiences in the program and one student accepted a long-term substitute position for the remainder of the semester.

A small number of our students’ understanding of diversity fell into the category that we consider critical consciousness. We define this category as one in which students can and do identify cultural dilemmas or perceived social injustices in the setting and analyze the issues inherent in the setting that created the dilemmas or injustices. They do not accept the cultural norms of the school; rather, they view the environment, administration, faculty, resources and student activities through a critical perspective that forces them to question who is doing what? Why? For what purpose? And for the benefit of whom?

Our data reveal that these students recognized implicit racial overtones in structures, expectations of teachers, comments and norms of the school. One student came away from a team meeting “blown away” by the discussion about the students within the team on which he was placed. He writes in his Field Experience Reflection:

Another student critiqued the behavior/reward system created by his team of teachers within his Field Experience Reflection. Based on his observations, the team would draw a name from a hat of all the 8^th graders that had been on task and completed all of their work during the week. The winning 8^th grader would receive some type of reward for this behavior. This student’s response was based on the fact that he had seen many 8^th graders work hard and remain on task but never openly rewarded. He wondered, “What happens with those students that need a reward but their name is never drawn? Why can’t all kids have a reward?”

Finally, another student was frustrated by the attitudes expressed by the teachers on his team. In his Field Experience Reflection, this student articulates his frustration with what he perceives to be negative, stereotypical attitudes toward the students within the team on which he was placed.

Overall, these students left their field experience frustrated and somewhat angry. While they enjoyed working with the students within their placements, they were very disturbed by some of the issues they encountered. They were even more frustrated by the apparent lack of awareness of the issues by the teachers and administration.

The ultimate characteristic we would like for our students to exhibit moves beyond critical consciousness. We want them to move from a passive state of critical consciousness to an active state of becoming agents of change that work from a critical perspective and take action to create a socially just classroom environment within which culturally relevant pedagogy is enacted (Price & Valli, 2005). Therefore, we do not identify a final landmark on this continuum that represents the end of understanding diversity; rather we identify an action that results from a well developed critical consciousness. Taking action represents for us the potential growth that could occur when our students move beyond the continuum of understanding diversity and teaching diverse students. Our data does not show that any of our students moved beyond the state of critical consciousness.

According to our data, two factors contributed to the change in many of our students’ understanding of diversity and the lack of change in some. First, the school environment promoted growth in many of the students’ understanding of teaching in a diverse setting while also reinforcing stereotypical views and perpetuating a perspective of “othering”. Second, the assignments in our courses promoted change in understanding of diversity, as detailed in the previous sections, but they also promoted growth in understanding of constructivist teaching practices at the middle school level.

The school environment played a role with regard to the change in our students’ understanding of diversity and the lack thereof. Our data show our students responded in two starkly different ways to the Midwest school environment. First, one student praised the school because of the “awesome” gifted and talented program while another was disturbed by the way in which the prospective parents’ concerns about the “’general population’ kids interacting with the gifted kids” were never challenged. Second, some students questioned the structures of the context by disagreeing with the assignments and activities that seemed to water down the curriculum for regular education students while others accepted it as it “needed to be that way for this population” and that “[Midwest] is amazing to even function with the diversity,”. Overall, the data revealed evidence of “othering” within the school context but very little recognition of that by our students.

Conversely, all of the students consistently recorded in their Field Experience Reflections, and discussed in their interviews the care and support many teachers provided for their students, claiming that “the more we know about our students the better teachers we will be,”. One student wrote:

Many were amazed at the length to which the teachers went to build relationships with their students and make sure their students knew they were safe, cared for and supported at school. They were able to begin to identify the differences in classroom community construction and how the relationship with the teacher played an important role in the engagement of the students. Below are excerpts from the Child Study Research project that was completed during the intensive field placement:

There are clear contradictions in our students’ perceptions of the school environment as they recognized how the teachers cared for the students but did not recognize the marginalization of those same students. It appears they lacked the understanding of language that promoted deficit thinking and marginalization of students.

The data from our course assignments as described in various sections of this paper reveal both change and lack of change in understanding of diverse students. As we considered the original goals of our courses design (Villegas & Lucas, 2002) we did recognize the consistent growth in our students’ understanding of constructive teaching practices and how that might influences their teaching practice. In conjunction with their new understanding of adolescent development, constructivist teaching practices became a topic on which many reflected. We found that course readings and activities that prompted them to conceptualize the effect of the rapid growth during puberty on middle school students’ learning forced many students to consider how they might change their instruction. They reflected on the importance of engaging their students in activities that would help them better understand the concept or material better. One student recorded on an Exit Slip:

The activities also helped the students consider how this knowledge might influence their instructional decisions as they work to be developmentally responsive. Two responses below represent the majority of our students’ reflections on student engagement in their Reading Process Logs:

While understanding constructivist teaching and developmentally appropriate practices were not the main focus of our study, it was one of the goals of our course design. We believe that developing equitable and accessible curriculum for all middle school students requires our students to understand both culturally responsive practices as well as developmentally appropriate practices.

Having the opportunity to experience diversity immersed in an environment with students from diverse backgrounds is crucial for moving students beyond what we have identified as the landmark of Tensions of the Unknown. While other researchers have given this initial stage different names (i.e. contact stage, Helms, 1990; limited experience, Cockrell et al., 1999; see also McAllister & Irvine, 2000; Phinney & Rotheram, 1987; Tatum, 1997) we agree that coursework, reflection, and discussion alone are not enough to move our students beyond this stage; they must have the experiences that immersion in a diverse school setting can provide.

For our students that never moved beyond the state of Resistance, this was especially true. All but one of the students whose understanding of diversity fell between Tensions of the Unknown and Resistance were placed within the gifted and talented team where little racial, cultural, socioeconomic and/or linguistic diversity existed. These students did not have the opportunity to interact with teachers or students on the regular education teams. They only “heard about the other kids” which, we believe reinforced their preconceived ideas about the students and community of Midwest and never allowed them to gain a level of comfort or confidence within the setting. While our class discussions, readings and assignments were designed to promote understanding of diversity, the field experiences reinforced the perceptions with which these students began the semester resulting in the denial (McFalls & Cobb-Roberts, 2001) of the importance of culturally responsive education.

However, even if the context is economically, socially, linguistically and ethnically diverse, the teaching in that context must represent culturally responsive pedagogy or the preconceived ideas and stereotypes of diverse learners are only reinforced. For example, those students at the Enculturation landmark exhibited change in understanding and awareness of diversity and diverse students. However, we believe enculturation to the context promoted dysconscious (King, 1991) racism within the context as most students accepted the school structures as they were. No student within our Enculturation landmark questioned the language or structures within their placements on the regular education teams. Even though we discussed injustice and oppression in our courses, the reality of the context continues to be more powerful than the theoretical discussion within the University coursework (Berliner, 2001; Britzman, 1996, 1991; Zeichner, 1993; Zeichner & Gore, 1990; Zeichner & Tabachnick,1981). Additionally, as the first field experience in the MSTEP, students had no frame of reference for the context and very limited knowledge of middle schools in general.

The students who developed what we identify as a Critical Consciousness, struggled with the frustration of having no power to effect needed change. They heard conversations between veteran teachers that were disturbing but did not know what they could do or say. We acknowledge the difficult position for a preservice student as the power dynamics are silencing and promote an attitude of acceptance for fear of retribution on evaluation forms for the University field experience.

As we evaluate our findings in relation to our original goals (Villegas & Lucas, 2002), clearly many of our students lacked a critical consciousness, an affirming attitude toward students from culturally diverse backgrounds as well as a commitment and skill set to make changes in school environments to be more responsive. However, the data did show growth in our students understanding of constructivist teaching and learning and an understanding of the importance of knowing their students based on their experience in this context.

It is our hope to move students closer to critical consciousness, what Lawrence & Bunche (1996) identified as the Autonomy Stage of racial development – the point at which students have explored and embraced their own racial identities and have internalized the abilities to recognize and actively confront inequities they encounter in schools and society as a whole (533). The dysconscious racism we identified within the context was evident when the students did not challenge the terms used within the school such as “general population” and “normal population”; they did not critically consider the images that those words evoked and how those images perpetuate the othering embedded in the structure of the school. It is this critical identification of inequity and the willingness to challenge it on behalf of their future students that we continue to focus our efforts on helping our students better understand diversity (Easter, Shultz, Neyhart, & Reck, 1999; Lawrence & Bunche, 1996; McFalls & Cobb-Roberts, 2001; Price & Valli, 2005; Sleeter et al., 2005). Ultimately, we want the education the students in our program receive to be “a personal awakening and a call to action” (Nieto, 1999).

While we have identified parts of the context in which we placed our students for their field experience as problematic, we also acknowledge that, in our courses, we must do a better job of clearly stating our goals for the students. We need to improve the activities we conduct, assignments we prepare, and readings we require as well as be willing to engage the students in more of the tough conversations that cause them to deconstruct their own positions in society (Brandon, 2003; Price & Valli, 2005) and experience the kind of cognitive dissonance (McFalls & Cobb-Roberts, 2001) that will bring about a change in thinking. We also believe that we need to explicitly demonstrate for our students how not only to identify cultural dilemmas and social injustices, but also how to effect needed change (Price & Valli, 2005) even as a student. Specifically, while we discuss white privilege, we must make it explicit, along with the language that carries with it othering overtones (i.e. “those kids… ”), providing unmistakable examples of injustice in order that they might more clearly understand justice. Further, we realize we must “front-load” our courses even more with these activities before students enter their field experience. Students need in-depth activities and discussion in University courses prior to entering the diverse classroom, supportive supervision within the classrooms, and extensive reflection upon their return to their courses to be able to construct an understanding of culturally responsive pedagogy.

We recognize there is much more growth that needs to occur in our students’ understanding of diverse contexts, diverse students and culturally responsive pedagogy. However, we believe that in our quest to develop critical consciousness within our students that we have to recognize the small steps that have occurred and continue to engage them in experiences and activities that create cognitive dissonance that will lead to a critical awareness (McFalls & Cobb-Roberts, 2001) that impacts their actions in the classroom. We also believe that because our students have experienced diversity as a participant rather than a spectator and had the opportunity to have intense personal experiences with students that are socioeconomically, culturally, ethnically and/or linguistically diverse, a foundation has been established on which an understanding of the importance of viewing education of all students with a critical perspective can be built.