Special Selection
29
26
SPECIAL SECTION- DIFFERENTIATION
Figure 1
How can teacher educator candidates (TECs) move towards becoming cultural brokers in their work with English Learners (ELs)? What role does cultural privilege play in the development of culturally responsive pedagogy? Data were collected from TECs enrolled in a teacher education course designed to meet the instructional needs of ELs. Data were analyzed using Banks’s (1998, 2004) ideas about becoming “indigenous insiders” and the ability to develop curriculum at a higher level of multicultural competence. Initially, TECs were unclear on the role of a “cultural broker” and were not specifically aware of cultural privilege. Post-survey results indicate TECs had deeper knowledge of, and tools for, working with ELs, as well as a more self-reflective stance on cultural awareness.This study examined how TECs’ dispositions might evolve to better meet the needs of ELs. The Diversity & English Language course (DEL) was designed to meet requirements of the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education in the state of Missouri at both the graduate and undergraduate levels.
Candidates enrolled in the course:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Instructor feedback prompted TECs to reflect on their dispositions towards diverse cultures and languages. They were guided to adapt, modify, and implement the most effective strategies for being culturally responsive to their EL students as they designed lessons (Gay, 2010; Herrera, 2010; Sleeter and Cornbleth, 2011; Gottlieb, 2016).
Candidates took a survey at the beginning of the semester to identify what they already knew about ELs and what dispositions they brought to the course. The second survey, at the end of the semester, identified what they thought they still needed to learn about teaching ELs and to reflect on their cultural awareness as it related to their ability to be cultural brokers. Were TECs aware of cultural privilege? If so, how might that impact their teaching?
The survey was developed by the Principal Investigator (PI) and reviewed for validity and reliability by two additional researchers. The researcher team met regularly to review, audit and triangulate the data.
The 34 participants self-identified as being from the American (U.S.) middle class, born and raised in the Midwest. They were attending a public institution offering undergraduate teacher preparation and graduate programs in advanced teacher education. They were predominantly Caucasian, female, and Christian. Almost all had fathers with post-secondary education. No educational data was entered for mothers. All had high school diplomas; 11 had undergraduate degrees, and only one had an advanced degree. Most were under 25 years of age. There were four Hispanic students, one Asian student and two African American candidates in the group. Nearly half the group had some Spanish-speaking ability, but they graded their fluency as having “a lot of challenge”.
Purpose of the Study
Many White people do not consciously adhere to an active effort to exclude “the other”. Most teacher candidates are not necessarily prepared to examine the invisible cloak of privilege they bring with them into diverse classrooms. McIntosh (2003) notes that she enjoyed this “unearned skin privilege and have been conditioned into oblivion about its existence…[we] are taught to think of [our] lives as morally neutral, normative and average, and also ideal, so that when we work to benefit others, this is seen as work which will allow ‘them’ to be more like ‘us’(Minnich, as quoted in McIntosh, 2003, p. 191). This stance ignores the rich “funds of knowledge” diverse students bring with them to the classroom. (Moll, Amanti, Neff, and Gonzales, 1992). Consideration and validation of the experiences of students are an essential aspect of culturally responsive pedagogy. After teaching teacher education candidates for a long time, it became clear that it is urgent to prepare candidates to acquire dispositions and competences of cultural and linguistic diversity so that they effectively work with diverse populations in America (Banks, 2010; Gay, 2010).
Research Questions:
The five research questions were designed to prompt thinking about candidate dispositions, their views of cultural competence and their ideas about how to navigate (or “broker”) these relationships. The DEL was an online course, and the TECs were not engaged in clinical work where the researchers could observe their interactions with ELs. Therefore, the data had to be derived from the qualitative responses candidates offered in the pre and post surveys. Additionally, respondents were asked to rate themselves in terms of cultural “brokering.”
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
What do we mean by cultural privilege? Dower (1986) cautions us to take care when addressing the concept of “privilege”. To the extent that there is something that can be described as White privilege, such privilege is not equally distributed among all White people. It can be difficult to discern much privilege at all among the poor, regardless of race. Privilege can be correlated with social class rather than race in some circumstances. The concept of any kind of privilege is new to many young teachers raised in the middle of the United States. The majority of them have little or no experience with diverse populations and have not been encouraged to consider their own cultural contexts and world views. Banks (1998) noted: “Teacher candidates who are able to acquire the knowledge, skill, and perspectives need to become insiders within the communities in which they teach” (pp. 14-15).
What is a cultural broker? Jezewski & Sotnik (2001) defined culture brokering as “the act of bridging, linking, or mediating between groups or persons of differing cultural backgrounds for the purpose of reducing conflict or producing change” (in Jezewski & Sotnik, 2001). The term was widely used in the mid 1900’s by anthropologists. Sometimes the term “cultural intermediary” was used along with “culture broker” or “cultural broker” (in Szasz, 1994). A multicultural perspective offers a more inclusive view. Banks (1998) describes cultural brokers as “indigenous insiders” working in diverse contexts. In this role, he suggests, teachers can fully acquire insights about the students they are going to serve. They should advocate for students and their families and empower them, so that they are able to develop their full potential in society. (pp. 7 – 8)
The concept of being a cultural broker was new to the participants in this study. For analytical purposes, the researchers looked for evidence that TECs had moved closer to being cultural brokers after taking the class. Gentemann and Whitehead (1983) combined the three major categories of key roles and responsibilities for teachers as cultural organizers, cultural mediators, and orchestrators of social contexts for learning into the single role of cultural broker (in Gay, 2010, p. 44). The term cultural broker is used to convey the idea:
of links between the mainstream culture in a pluralistic society and the various subcultures. The linking functions are maintained by actors who are acculturated in both the mainstream and the ethnic cultures, i.e., bicultural actors. The broker must... straddle both cultures, to take mainstream values and communicate them to the ethnic cultures and communicate the ethnic culture to the mainstream. (Gentemann & Whitehead, 1983, p. 119).
Researchers also searched for evidence that candidates had an awareness about cultural privilege and what that might mean in terms of their future work as teachers. McIntosh (2003) writes that “I think whites are carefully taught not to recognize white privilege, as males are taught not to recognize male privilege. So, I have begun in an untutored way to ask what it is like to have white privilege. I have come to see white privilege is like an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions, maps, passports, codebooks, visas, clothes, tools, and blank checks” (p. 191)
Findings
The research team examined narrative responses in all surveys. Several patterns were stranded throughout the perceptions of being “cultural brokers.” Almost all TECs expressed an “openness” toward “the other” and were comfortable being an “interpreter” of culture; however, there was less evidence of confidence about having an affect on the “. . . act of bridging, linking or mediating between groups or persons of differing cultural backgrounds for the purpose of reducing conflict or producing change” (Jezewski & Sotnik, 2001).
There was evidence that TECs took aspects of privilege for granted, completely unconsciously. For example, 22 out of the 34 respondents stated that in interacting with someone whose language was not English, they would simply get a translator or interpreter. They seemed to assume that a translator would be readily available to them. Nine other participants indicated that they had never been in the position of communicating with a person who did know speak English and were not sure what they would do.
The first question on managing differences of opinion elicited nearly unanimous agreement about having dispositions that included being “open-minded” and not making “assumptions.” However, when it came to mediation, there was more hesitance. Several respondents felt that the main goal was to find a common ground but were not sure how to make that happen. Said one, “Seek first to understand, and then be understood.” Responses showed TECs engaging in self-reflection, reviewing experiences, and critically examining the stance of “self” and the stance of the “other”. Respondents were proactive when it came to how they could learn more. They said they would “ask a lot of questions; do research; show respect; be curious, not shy.”
The TECs indicated a commitment to learning new things and taking the opportunity to embrace differences. An important value expressed by a significant number of them was that they should listen and acknowledge that the “other” had been heard. Sometimes the solution offered was to “agree to disagree.” The majority of individuals expressing this solution noted that it was healthy to understand that everyone was entitled to opinion, but that did not necessarily require a change of mind in their own opinions. As one respondent put it: “Allowing different opinions in the classroom brings diversity, challenges, and sometimes, change.”
Respondents were frank about how they would react to uncomfortable situations or experiences. Their solution was to withdraw, either from the conversation, or physically. However, almost all of these said they would follow up by doing research or asking questions in a setting where they were more comfortable (e.g., a class). One uncomfortable respondent noted, “I must admit that if I feel too passionately about something, I’m not able to fully listen and understand someone else’s point of view. I need time to reflect and try to get my emotions in order before I can have an effective conversation and can truly manage differences of opinion. Ultimately, I go back to what is considered most professional if there is a code of ethics. I use them to try to keep my personal feelings at bay.”
Another respondent mentioned “Staying calm” in the pre-survey. In the post survey, the person elaborated, “Listen, take a step back, and try to be as objective as possible. Ask questions with respect, journal to reflect, and do more research…Breathe and remember that we are all humans who have the same needs and wants for love, survival, and happiness. Everyone follows a different path.” Said another: “I have to manage my own biases if I have any towards beliefs, customs or practices to open myself up to the world which has many differing beliefs, customs and practices unfamiliar to my own. I have to understand the world is filled with diversity and that this is beautiful, even if it means discomfort in my own feelings.” In some cases, respondents may have been expressing anxiety related to privilege, even though they did not directly identify it as such. There is a certain amount of resistance to actually embracing differences.
The second question asked which teaching method was most effective in helping [the TEC] communicate with students of culturally diverse backgrounds. Again, the expressed disposition was open and positive. “Sit back and let them teach you.” “…I feel it is our responsibility to make sure every student has a voice and feel as welcomed [sic] as possible.”
As to the strategies that respondents believed would be effective with their future English learners, Visual tools – pictures, films, labels – topped the list. (13 respondents chose this). A moderate number chose Krashen (1981)-The Natural Approach in a meaningful context (seven). Six selected Physical/kinesthetic, while Differentiated Instruction rated three choices and home visits were noted by two. The rest had only one each: Communicative language teaching, valuing linguistic differences, small group; class discussions, constructivist, building relationships, and the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) Model.
The third research question asked TECs to identify the biggest challenge when communicating with students from diverse cultural backgrounds? Respondents had real concerns. The language barrier was the primary challenge. (15 respondents). One said “Not being able to sympathize with how their [sic] feeling…although as a teacher I can empathize and provide lots of support and alternative methods, it’s not exactly the same.
One person worried about resources and time, while another fretted about “preconceived notions they might have about me.” Respondents were self-aware (but not necessarily confident). And they rarely considered how uncomfortable their students might be in the classroom. This is also evidence of privilege, as well as an indicator of lack of experience. The TECs were more concerned about their own image as “teacher” and perceptions of themselves as competent, then they were about their future students.“Unfortunately, some teachers may take this as the students don’t understand, but it is not an intellectual issue, it’s an interpreting issue” one candidate said.
There was concern about being perceived as biased, arrogant, or ignorant. One TEC voiced the issue in this way: “Getting students to believe I care what they have to say without seeming ingenuine (as in, trying to feign membership in their culture).” Here there is evidence of an uncomfortable but identifiable awareness of privilege. Selected comments revealed this as a common concern:
“Recognizing my own biases”
“Remembering to ask for feedback”
“Making sure I am still being authentic.”
“Making sure the “intended message is being received on both ends.”
“I want to build their confidence while celebrating and maintaining their culture.”
“Understanding how they feel. [And what they understand]”
“If it is an immigrant student from a war-torn country, then more than likely the trauma
would be difficult to work with initially. However, after a while, the student and myself
have a relationship and that changes everything.”
The majority of respondents seemed self-aware and self-reflective about what they felt they could not bring to the “cultural broker” table. They voiced some insecurities:
“My ignorance about other cultures.” (Five respondents)
“Not knowing what is appropriate in the school setting”
“I may not understand the culture”
“I think the biggest challenge is when you don’t know their background. …it could
be challenging because you don’t want to offend anyone of make them uncomfortable”
When invited to identify ways to communicate with families who do not speak English, an overwhelming majority of respondents (30) chose to ask for help from a translator. The remaining four stated that they would be proactive by learning some words in the other speaker’s language. Three people mentioned that they would use visual materials, technology, and applications. A few people mentioned using gestures and one suggested using American Sign Language (ASL). One person said, “Being ethnic myself (Hispanic), gesturing is a big part of the way I communicate with everyone.” Several TECs suggested using Class Dojo.TM.
The final research question invited respondents to describe how they would advocate for EL students and their family in the community? Almost all respondents had good intentions for advocating. These were also in the “open” dispositions category. Said one, “Making them feel accepted. Not making them feel like their culture should be put on the back burner and helping them out in any ways I can.” Another wrote, “Encourage others to get to know them for the person/people that they are, rather than what they are perceived to be”. This statement implicitly acknowledges that there may be a biased perception of the “other”. When it came to taking action, one teacher wrote, “I corrected one of my students today who remarked in our classroom ‘We only speak English in school’ in response to one of my students referring to her Abuelita. I do not like this “English only” idea, and do not support it.” Ten people opted for having a culture day and joining in social events. Sharing advocacy and community resources also helps. This fits into the most basic Level of Integration of Multicultural Content, which Banks (2004) calls the “Contributions approach” focusing on “heroes, holidays, and discrete cultural elements” (p. 15).
Respondents who are already classroom teachers noted that they would make sure other students are encouraging and include ELs daily. They said they would develop relevant projects that tied into the culture(s) of their students. Seven TECs believed in creating a welcoming, proactive class that includes student cultures. These data demonstrate what Banks calls The Additive Approach which “allows the teacher to put ethnic content into curriculum without restructuring it... [The] most important shortcoming is that it usually results in the viewing of ethnic content from the perspectives of mainstream historians, writers, artists, and scientists…” (p. 15)
Some respondents reported that they would do research and use modification and accommodations, so students can “thrive” in the classroom. They wanted to build relationships. One offered that s/he would not mind “Being their voice when they can’t or don’t know how to use their voice.” Two respondents mentioned home visits again.
Finally, respondents were again asked to rate themselves as cultural brokers.
.