USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Developing a culturally responsive literacy pedagogy :

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Developing a culturally responsive literacy pedagogy : pre-service teachers, teaching cases, and postcard narratives
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Gunn, AnnMarie Alberton
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Teaching cases
Multicultural education
Casebased instruction
Culturally responsive pedagogy
Dissertations, Academic -- Curriculum and Instruction -- Masters -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Abstract:
ABSTRACT: The results of the U. S Census provide evidence that our population is becoming more varied and that diversity is most salient in our schools. This demographic shift will continue to have a significant impact on the curriculum, students, teachers, and other aspects of education as we have historically known it. One of the most challenging aspect is that while our students are becoming more diverse, our teacher population is not. Eighty to ninety percent of the teaching population is White, heterosexual, middle class females, with little experiences with people from diverse backgrounds. (Lowenstein, 2009; Sleeter, 2001). The academic achievement gap continues to widen between culturally diverse students and their White peers. This disparity in achievement along demographic lines indicates a clear and present need to more fully prepare teachers on how to educate children of diverse backgrounds--a crucial component of developing a culturally responsive pedagogy. "As our society changes, so must our teacher education practices" (Lee, Summers, & Garza, 2009, p.1). This mixed method study was developed around the hypothesis that teaching cases and student-written postcard narratives using an empathetic identity (Wiseman, 1978) should be used in a literacy course to foster a culturally responsive literacy pedagogy. This study took place over one semester at a four year college, in a preservice education literacy course. Five teaching cases were written or modified to be aligned with this particular course's content. I examined 20 preservice teachers (n=20) and a professor as they engaged in case-based instruction. Immediately following the teaching case discussion, the preservice teachers engaged in a writing exercise where they used an empathetic identity to imagine having the person in the teaching case's experience (Wiseman, 1978).. This study employed a mixed method design. Interviews with the professor, a professor's journal, a researcher reflective journal, a pre and post teaching case, nonparticipant observation notes, preservice teacher written narratives, and the statistically significant results from the CDAI (Henry, 1991) at the alpha .05 level demonstrated that teaching cases effectively influenced preservice teacher's perceptions and insights leading to a culturally responsive literacy pedagogy. Three major conclusions were drawn from this study. First, the implementation of teaching cases that feature diversity and literacy issues made an impact on the professor of this literacy course. The professor found that using teaching cases motivated her students, fostered a deeper discussion of the weekly topics, and created more transfer power of important topics to the classroom discussion than reading scholarly articles. Secondly, teaching cases that feature diversity and literacy issues influenced many of the preservice teachers' insights and perceptions related to a culturally responsive pedagogy. The contextulization and alignment with the course content made them powerful tools to motivate and foster an entrance for preservice teachers to engage into a critical inquiry about culturally responsive teaching practices. Finally, the third conclusion drawn from this study is that utilizing activities which allow preservice teachers to use an empathetic lens can be a very powerful experience that may lead to developing a culturally responsive literacy pedagogy. Three recommendations to teacher education are suggested based on the conclusions drawn from the data. First, teacher education curriculum should include experiences that can foster a culturally responsive pedagogy. The use of teaching cases featuring diversity and literacy issues is strongly suggested, as well as cultivating experiences that allow the preservice teachers to use an empathetic identity. Secondly, these experiences should be viewed as valuable tools for professors in higher education, as the teaching population of higher education mirrors that of our teaching population (Lowenstien, 2009; Sleeter, 2001). During the case-based discussion the professor and preservice teachers can draw upon their shared knowledge of theoretical, cultural, cognitive, and experiential knowledge of teaching children from diverse backgrounds (Nordoff & Kleinfeld, 1992) as a conduit for a culturally responsive literacy pedagogy. Finally, teacher education has a responsibility to the well-being of their preservice teachers when purposely creating cathartic experiences. Culminating discussions should be designed to balance these emotional experiences (Ellis, 1995; Shulman, 1992). Several areas were identified for future research, encompassing the implementation of teaching cases and preservice teacher curriculum.
Thesis:
Dissertation (PHD)--University of South Florida, 2010.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Statement of Responsibility:
by AnnMarie Alberton Gunn.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains X pages.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0004755
usfldc handle - e14.4755
System ID:
SFS0028047:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

Developing a Culturally Responsive Literacy Pedagogy: Preservice Teachers, Teaching Cases, and Postcard Narratives b y Annmarie Alberton Gunn A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Childhood Education and Literacy Studies College of Education University of South Florida Co Major Professor: Nancy Williams, Ph.D. Co Major Professor: Linda S. Evans, Ph.D. James R. King, Ed.D. Audra Parker, Ph.D. Date of App roval: November 3, 2010 Keywords: teaching cases culturally responsvie pedagogy, multicultural education, empatetic idientiy, case based instruction Copyright, 2010, Annmarie A. Gunn

PAGE 2

DEDICATION I dedicate this dissertation to my family. First, to my husband Scott, for the love and support you provided throughout this process ; I am eternally grateful Our two toddlers, Matthew and Lance who were both born during my doctoral program, I thank you both for your unconditional love To m y mother and father, thanks for your constant support through all of my endeavors, especially the 13 years of college you have encouraged me through! Finally to my sisters Laura and Donna, thanks for list ening to my breakdowns and encouraging me to keep one foot in front of the other. and her preservice teachers is an inspiration to me.

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This mo ment would not have been reached without the support of numerous professors, colleagues, and friends. Thank you to all of you, your love and support helped me reach my goal. Thank you to my major professors, Dr. Linda Evans and Dr. Nancy Williams. They ar e my mentors, professors and friends. I will always be grateful for your guidance, knowledge, and support. To Dr. Audra Parke r thank you for your dedication to helping me stay organized and providing me with an opportunity to learn from and study with you. Dr. Jim King I took for my first doctoral level class with you and it opened my mind to a new way of thinking; thank you for encouraging me to explore new ideas and theories. To my fellow doctoral students, I will always be grateful for your support and friendship. Thank you to James Welsh, Barbara Peterson, and Aarti Bellara for the hours you dedicated to helping me. Thank you t o Monica Nannis for proof reading every page of my dissertation and finally to all my friends for the love and support you provided.

PAGE 4

i TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... v LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... v i ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... vii CHAPTER I ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 1 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 1 History of US Immigration ................................ ................................ .......... 1 Education and the Demographic Shif t ................................ ......................... 3 Diversity in F lorida ................................ ................................ ..................... 4 Diversity and the Teaching P rofession ................................ ....................... 4 The Achievement G ap ................................ ................................ ................. 5 M ulticultural Education ................................ ................................ ............... 5 Culturally Responsive Pedagogy ................................ ................................ 7 Theoretical Framework ................................ ................................ ............................ 9 Critical Inquiry and Teaching Cases ................................ ................................ ...... 11 My Experiences ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 12 Pu rpose of the Study ................................ ................................ .............................. 13 Research Questions ................................ ................................ ................................ 14 Potential Limitations ................................ ................................ .............................. 1 4 Terminology ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 16 Ethnicity ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 1 6 Terms ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 16 CHAPT ER II ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 19 What is Culturally Responsive Teaching? ................................ ............................. 21 T erms ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 21 Culturally Responsive Teachers ................................ ................................ 2 3 Culturally Responsive Pedagogy in Higher Education ................................ .......... 2 5 Preservice Teachers ................................ ................................ ................... 27 Self sociocultural consciousness ................................ ....................... 27 Whiteness ................................ ................................ .......................... 2 9 Empathetic identity ................................ ................................ ........... 3 1 Literacy and Culture ................................ ................................ ............................ 32 Funds of Knowledge ................................ ................................ .................. 3 4 Teaching Cases ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 36 History ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 37

PAGE 5

ii Definition ................................ ................................ ................................ 37 Rationale for Teaching Cases in Preservice Teacher Education ............... 39 Problems with Cases ................................ ................................ .................. 42 Teaching Cases with Diversity Issues ................................ ................................ 43 Advantages of Cases with Diversity Issues ................................ ............... 4 3 Research on Teaching Cases and Diversity Issues ................................ .... 45 Theoretical Frame ................................ ................................ ................................ 49 Sociocultural Theory (SCT) ................................ ................................ ....... 5 1 Zone of Proximal Development ................................ ................................ 51 Situated Learning ................................ ................................ ....................... 52 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 5 4 CHAPTER III ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 55 T he Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 55 The Profess or ................................ ................................ ............................. 56 Course ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 57 Preservice Teacher Participant s ................................ ................................ 58 Researcher ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 59 Design of the Study ................................ ................................ ................................ 60 Research Question ................................ ................................ ................................ 61 Developing the Study ................................ ................................ ............................. 62 Panel of Literacy Expert ................................ ................................ ........................ 63 D ata Sources ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 64 Interviews ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 65 ................................ ................................ ................... 67 Researcher Reflective Journal ................................ ................................ .... 6 8 Case based Instruction ................................ ................................ ............... 68 Non Participant Observation Notes ................................ ........................... 68 Pre and Post Teaching Cases ................................ ................................ ..... 70 Postcard Narratives ................................ ................................ .................... 70 Culturally Diversity Awareness Inventory (CDAI) ................................ ... 71 Research Plan ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 73 Trustworthiness ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 7 4 Dependability ................................ ................................ ............................. 75 Confidentiality ................................ ................................ ........................... 75 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 76 I nterviews ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 78 Pre and Post Teaching Cases ................................ ................................ ..... 78 Postcar d Narratives ................................ ................................ .................... 79 Quantitative Data ................................ ................................ ....................... 80 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 82 CHAPTER IV ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 84 Background of the Professor ................................ ................................ ................ 86 Question One ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 88 Research Question 1 ................................ ................................ .................. 88

PAGE 6

iii ................................ ................................ .................... 89 Summary ................................ ................................ ........................... 92 Contextual Factors ................................ ................................ ..................... 92 Summary ................................ ................................ ........................... 9 4 Case based Discourse ................................ ................................ ................ 94 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 97 Question Tw o ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 9 8 Research Question 2 ................................ ................................ ................. 9 8 Case based Instruction ................................ ................................ ......................... 99 Case based Instruction, Tim ................................ ................................ ...... 99 Case based Discourse ................................ ................................ ..... 100 C RT Pedagogy ................................ ................................ ................ 101 Postcard Narratives, Tim ................................ ................................ ......... 102 Need to be challenged ................................ ................................ ..... 102 Equality ................................ ................................ ........................... 102 Summary ................................ ................................ ......................... 103 Case based Instruction, Anna ................................ ................................ .. 1 03 Culturally Res ponsive Literacy Pedagogy ................................ ...... 104 Empowerment ................................ ................................ ................. 105 Postcard Narratives, Anna ................................ ................................ ....... 1 06 Negativity. ................................ ................................ ....................... 106 Outlier ................................ ................................ ............................. 1 06 S ummary ................................ ................................ ......................... 107 Case based Instruction, Andrea ................................ ............................... 107 C ase based Discourse ................................ ................................ ..... 109 Personal Connection ................................ ................................ ..... 1 09 Postcard Narratives, Andrea ................................ ................................ .... 110 Immutable ................................ ................................ ....................... 110 C hance ................................ ................................ ............................. 1 11 Summary ................................ ................................ ......................... 111 Case based Instruction, Elena ................................ ................................ .. 11 1 Achievement. ................................ ................................ .................. 113 Culturally Responsive Literacy Pedagogy ................................ .... 113 Postcard Narratives, Elena ................................ .............................. 114 Cross Case Analysis ................................ ................................ ............... 114 Dispositions ................................ ................................ ..................... 114 Solutions orientation ................................ ................................ ....... 115 Attachment ................................ ................................ ...................... 116 Cross case analysis summary ................................ ......................... 11 7 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 117 Pre and Post Data ................................ ................................ ................................ 118 Pre and Post Case, Janice ................................ ................................ ........ 118 List of Issues ................................ ................................ ................... 120 Pedagogical Strategies to Handle the Issues ................................ 12 4 Quantitative Data, Cultural Diversity Awareness Inventory .................. 12 5 Pre and Post Test ................................ ................................ ............. 127

PAGE 7

iv Findings. ................................ ................................ .............................. 12 8 Assumptions ................................ ................................ ........................ 12 8 Limi tations. ................................ ................................ ......................... 12 9 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 1 30 CHAPTER V ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 13 2 Background/ Summary ................................ ................................ ...................... 13 2 Purpose of the Study ................................ ................................ ........... 13 3 Research Questions ................................ ................................ ............. 13 3 The Study ................................ ................................ ............................ 13 4 Interpretation of the Findings ................................ ................................ ............ 13 4 Findings ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 13 5 Influences on the Case based Discourse ................................ ............. 13 5 The Researcher ................................ ................................ ........... 1 3 7 The Professor ................................ ................................ .............. 137 Th e Preservice Teachers ................................ ............................. 13 9 Motivation fostering Critical Inquiry ................................ .................. 14 1 Methodological dissemination ................................ ................... 14 2 Postc ard Narratives ................................ ................................ ............ 14 5 Cont extualized Cases ................................ ................................ ......... 14 7 Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 14 8 Implications ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 1 50 Recommendations for Future Research ................................ ............................ 15 3 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 15 5 APPENDICES ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 16 4 Appendix A. Cultural Diversity Awareness Inventory ................................ ............. 16 5 Appendix B: RED 3309 Syllabus ................................ ................................ ..... 16 7 Appendix C: Rubric Used by Expert Panel ................................ ...................... 179 Appendix D : Cases ................................ ................................ ........................... 180 Appendix E : Interview Protocol A ................................ ................................ ... 187 Appendix F : Nonparticipant Observation Notes ................................ .............. 188 Appendix G: Point Value for Each Question on the CDAI ............................. 189 ABOUT THE AUTHOR ................................ ................................ ................... END PAGE

PAGE 8

v LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Research questions and description of data sources from study participants ..... 65 Table 2. Research Schedule and Data Collection ................................ ............................ 73 Table 3. Research questions and description of data sources from study participants. .. 8 5 Table 4. Frequency count of issues identified in pre and post test teaching case ........... 121 Table 5. Descriptive Statistics ................................ ................................ ......................... 1 29

PAGE 9

vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Literacy Course Context. Model of the classroom environment and dissemination of course content where the study took place ............................ 49 Figure 2 Theoretical Frame Guiding the Course Context. This model is guided by the theoretical from for this study. ................................ ............................... 50 Figur e 3 Theoretical Frame and Findings Influencing the Classroom Context. A model depicting findings and the theoretical frame of this study where teaching cases and narratives where embedded into a literacy course. ........... 13 6

PAGE 10

vii ABSTRACT The r esults of the U. S Census provide evidence that our population is becoming more varied and that diversity is most salient in our schools. This demographic shift will continue to have a significant impact on the curriculum, students, teachers, and other aspect s of education as we have historically known it. One of the most challenging aspect is that while our students are becoming more diverse, our teacher population is not. Eighty to ninety percent of the teaching population is W hite heterosexual, midd le class females, with little experiences with people from diverse backgrounds. (Lowenstein, 2009; Sleeter, 2001). The academic achievement gap continues to widen between culturally diverse students and their White peers. This disparity in achievement al ong demographic lines indicates a clear and present need to more fully prepare teachers on how to educate children of diverse backgrounds -a crucial component of developing a culturally (Lee, Summers, & Garza, 2009, p.1). This mixed method study was developed around the hypothesis that teaching cases and student written postcard narratives using an empathetic identity (Wiseman, 1978) should be used in a literacy course to foster a culturally responsive literacy pedagogy. This study took place over one semester at a four year college, in a preservice education literacy course. Five teaching cases were written or modified to be aligned nt. I examined 20 preservice teachers (n=20) and a professor as they engaged in case based instruction. Immediately following the teaching

PAGE 11

viii case discussion, the preservice teachers engaged in a writing exercise where they used an empathetic identity to ima (Wiseman, 1978) . This study employed a mixed method desig n Interviews with the professor, a nonparticipant obse rvation notes, preservice teacher written narratives, and the stati sti cally significant results from the CDAI (Henry, 1991) at the alpha .05 level demonstrated that teaching cases effectively influence d and insights leadin g to a culturally responsive literacy pedagogy. Three major conclusions were drawn from this study. First, the implementation of teaching cases that feature diversity and literacy issues made an impact on the professor of this literacy course. The profess or found that using teaching cases motivated her students, fostered a deeper discussion of the weekly topics, and created more transfer power of important topics to the classroom discussion than reading scholarly articles. Secondly, teaching cases that fea ture diversity and literacy issues influence d many of the The contextualization and alignment with the course content made them powerful tools to motivate and foster an entrance for preservice teachers to engage into a critical inquiry about culturally responsive teaching practices. Finally, the third conclusion drawn from this study is that utilizing activities which allow preservice teachers to use an empathetic len s can be a very powerful experience that may lead to developing a culturally responsive literacy pedagogy.

PAGE 12

ix Three recommendations to teacher education are suggested based on the conclusions drawn from the data. First, teacher education curriculum should in clude experiences that can foster a culturally responsive pedagogy. The use of teaching cases featur ing diversity and literacy issues is strongly suggested, as well as cultivating experiences that allow the preservice teachers to use an empathetic identity Secondly, these experiences should be viewed as valuable tools for professors in higher education, as the teaching population of higher education mirrors that of our teaching population (Lowenstien, 2009; Sleeter, 2001). During the case based discussio n the professor and preservice teacher s can draw upon their shared knowledge of theoretical, cultural, cognitive, and experiential knowledge of teaching children from diverse background s (Nordoff & Kleinfeld, 1992) as a conduit for a culturally responsive literacy pedagogy. Finally, teacher education has a responsibility to the well being of their preservice teachers when purposely creating cathartic experiences. Culminating discussions should be designed to balance these emotional experiences (Ellis, 19 95; Shulman, 1992). Several areas were identified for future research, encompassing the implementation of teaching cases and preservice teacher curriculum.

PAGE 13

1 CHAPTER I We must listen to the people from all corners of the earth. We must listen to the people who have been marginalized by our society due to their race, sexual orientation, gender, culture, or education. We must listen to them so that we can ques tion how we can make this a better place to live and learn for everyone (Kincheloe, 2007) Background The United States has become a country of perpetual immigration. Throughout our history, large coh orts of immigrants from many areas of the world have ar rived to our shores for very diverse, but specific reasons. These groups have uprooted themselves from their homeland to move to a strange country due to wars, revolution, political unrest, safety, religious persecution, economic opportunity, social mobili ty, and disasters such as famines or epidemics (Bryant, 1999; Massey, 1995). For the purpose of this study, the immigrants described below are people who have moved to America voluntarily seeking economic well being, better opportunities or greater politi cal freedom (Ogbu, 1992). History of US Immigration Our country has seen four major waves of immigration. The first wave began Many immigrants also came from Ireland Germany, and Scotland. (Bryant, 1999). The

PAGE 14

2 second wave started in the beginning of the twentieth century and lasted until the Great Depression. This wave was considered a mass immigration, with almost 19 million newcomers arriving to the United States o f America. Many of them were from Ireland and Germany, and filtered through Ellis Island in New York. Although the majority of immigrants came from Europe, these regions were drastically different. T his wave of immigration changed our population. Massey ( composition shifted from Northern and Western Europe to Southern and Eastern Europe as industrialization spread across the American continent. As a result the United States became less black, more white, and more firmly E (p.644) The third wave of immigration, During this period, immigrants equally came from Europe and the Americas, with approximately ten percent c oming from Asia (Massey, 1995). Sin America This new wave marks a clear break with the past waves. a profound transformation of immigration to the United States. Not only are there more immigrants, but increasingly they speak languages and bear cultures that are quite different than those brought by European immigra nts of the past (Massey, 1995, p.631). People from Asia Pacific, the Middle East, the Caribb ean, and Latin American countries have now become the newest wave of immigrants (Phutsong, 2001).

PAGE 15

3 Henry (1995 ) explains that today, one in four Americans is either Asian or Hispanic, and African Americans make up approximately one blic school populations. Diaz (1992) explains that this demographic shift is occurring for two reasons. First, the birth rate among persons of color in our country is higher than that of Caucasians, and secondly, the influx of the new wave of immigrants i s coming from places other than Europe. We are now in the century where this shift is occurring. The ethnic and racial composition of our nation is changing. Our newest immigrants are shifting the sociocultural world that was created by our historical Eur opean immigrants (Massey, 1995). Education and the Demographic Shift To educate our future children means to embrace the diversity that reaches ou r shores, states, and counties. The results of the U. S Census provide s evidence that our population is becomi ng more diverse and the diversity is most salient in our schools. One out of every three elementary students are of a racial or ethnic background, one out of five live in poverty, and more than one out of every seven students speaks a language other than E nglish at home (Villegas & Lucas, 2002). The US Census (2008) states the U S population presently consists of approximately one third minorities and by the year 2042, the minority population will be the majority. It is projected that in 2023, half of t he school aged children in our country will be from a minority background. The newspaper, The Garden City Telegram ( 2009/5/20) reported that 10 percent of counties nationwide are now characterized to be minority majority. Minority majority counties are co unties where more than half of the

PAGE 16

4 residents identify themselves as being of a group other than single race, non Hispanic white. This demographic shift has, and will continue to have, a significant impact on the curriculum, students, teachers, and every o ther aspect of schooling we have historically known t o ignore this shift is to marginalize every student, not just our minority population. Banks (2006) defines multicultural education as a movement that is leading schools down a path so all children from every social class, gender, race, and culture will have an equal opportunity to learn. Diversity in Florida The fact is that our population is becoming more diverse in all parts of our country is significantly noticeable in the state of Florida where this study takes place. According to the University of Florida News Hispanic white and black populations over the next 25 years. It was further reported by th e 2000 US Census and is projected to account for about 23% in 2030. Diversity and the Teaching Profession While our population is becoming more diverse every year, our teacher population is not. Eighty to ninety percent of the teaching population is white ( Lowenstein, 2009; Sleeter, 2001). The census extrapolations project that by 2010, 95% of elementary classroom teachers will be White, middle class females who ha ve had little interaction with people from diverse backgrounds ( Haberman, 1991). Researchers note

PAGE 17

5 that while approximately 40% of teachers have students with limited English proficiency in their classrooms, the majority of teachers are monolingual. Moreove r, only one quarter of those teachers have received training for working with English language learners (ELLs) (Sleeter, 2001; Zeichner, 1993). It is evident that there is great potential for a cultural mismatch between who is teaching and who is being ta ught. The Achievement Gap Today we are faced with a large gap between the academic performance of White students and that of minority students in school. The achievement gap refers to the social, ethnic, and economic disparities found in academic performan ce (Lavin Loucks, 2006). In part, t o address the gap, President Bush signed into law No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation in 2002 (Kozol, 2005) Yet, e ight years after this legislation was signed, the achievement gap is still present According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2007), every state that was able to report their statistics (42 states) showed a gap between the performance of Caucasian students and African Americans on national reading exam scores. Examination of high school graduation rates further demonstrates the significant impact of academic graduation rates shows Whites and Asians at 75 77% graduation rat e at 50 percent (Swanson, 2004). Multicultural Education academic performance of those minorities who have not traditionally done as well in

PAGE 18

6 t of the C ivil R igh ts movement, multicultural education emerged in discrimination in public accommodations, housing, employment, and education. In education, African Americans were the first minority group to demand that our educa tional institutions reform the curricula to reflect the experiences, culture and history of African Americans They protested against an inferior curriculum, and wanted the same education that was available to Whites (Ogbu, 1992). Over the past thirty years curricula have gradually changed to embrace not only African American culture and interests but that of other cultures based on the legal foundations of the Civil Rights movement. Today, multicultural curricula is alive in our schools. This multicultural shift is evident based on the increased diversity featured in contemporary textbooks and in the more rigorous requirements for specialized teacher training in the area of cultural and linguistic diversity (Banks, 2 006; Diaz, 199 2 ). Sometimes it is practiced by teachers, fear that multicultural education will transform America in ways that will result in their own disem nks, 2006, p.137). Despite the push for multicultural curricula in schools and in the education of Anglo or Eurocentric focused (Diaz, 1992). Unfortunately, much of th e multicultural infusion practiced is done so with a superficial focus on cultural celebrations or holidays (Banks, 1993 ; Evans, 2006). For example, many schools celebrate Black History Month, Hispanic Heritage month, make lanterns for the Chinese New Year and color the

PAGE 19

7 Mexican Flag for Cinco de Mayo, an ethnic additive approach that minimizes rather than celeb rates cultural diversity. content within the curriculum (as cited in Diaz, p13). The t rue focus of a multicultural curriculum, both for preservice teachers and their students, is to develop cross cultural competency that aides them in acquiring the insight to see themselves as part of a global society where their fate is embedded in the fat es of all people (Banks, 2006). Culturally Responsive Pedagogy A multicultural education may become a vehicle for preservice teachers to valuing a cultural responsive pedagogy. A culturally responsive pedagogy requires teachers to explore their own belief s about minority groups, learn about cultures other than their own, and develop strategies for educational equity ( Gay & Kirkland, 2003; Villegas & Lucas, 2002; Banks, 2006). Many teacher preparation programs have taken one or several of the following app roaches to bolstering the multicultural content to their education programs: (a) a free standing multicultural education course, (b) infusing multicultural curricula into core course work, and/or (c) adding a field based requirement in a diverse setting (S leeter, 2001). Despite the NCLB legislation, our minority students are still not performing to the same standards as their white peers. With teachers facing more pressure than ever to raise ssing with regard to the

PAGE 20

8 curriculum and culturally responsive teaching pedagogy deserves more attention. Villegas and Lucas (2002) identify six characteristics that define the culturally responsive teacher. 1. The teacher has a sociocultural consciousness. A culturally responsive teacher can recognize there are perspectives to one situation and these perspectives 2. A culturally responsive te acher holds affirming views of students from diverse backgrounds. 3. A culturally responsive teacher sees themselves as an agent of change and recognizes that he/she is responsible for bringing about educational change. 4. A culturally responsive teacher holds a constructivist review of learning. 5. A culturally responsive teacher knows about the lives of his or her students. 6. A culturally responsive teacher uses the culture, background, and knowledge that a student has to design instruction. According to Ladson Bi lling (1995), over the last 15 years anthropologists have s and school cultures. Researchers have recently drawn their attention to the importance of combining home culture and classroom e xperiences to enhancing the social, academic, and cultural needs of children (Phuntsog, 2001). Therefore, culturally responsive teachers go beyond the curriculum to capitalize on the cultural characteristics, experiences, and perspectives of diverse studen ts as a way of teaching them.

PAGE 21

9 Theoretical Framework This study uses a constructivist view of learning as a lens for exploring multicultural education. A constructivist view of learning considers all students as capable learners who make sense of the wor ld around them. The cultural background of a person plays a significant role i n how a person learns ( Au, 1993; Banks, 1993 ; Gay 2002 ), and for this reason constructivism places an emphasis on learning the culture, stories and ideologies of all families (V construction of knowledge, teachers must build upon the knowledge the student already has. To do this, teachers must engage their students in questioning, interpreting, and analyzing information (Villegas & Lu cas, 2002). 2006; 1993) dimensions of multicultural teaching. Banks (1993) states that dimensions of mu lticultural education must be clearly defined and implemented so teachers can respond to multicultural educa tion in appropriate ways and resistance can be minimized. Often teachers of math and science disciplines see multiculturalism as something that can be integrated in literature or social studies, marginalizing the relationship between multicultural curricul um and their specific course content. Multicultural education is also a reform movement designed to bring about a transformation of the school so that students from both genders and from diverse cultural and ethnic groups will have an equal chance to expe rience school success. Multicultural education view s the school as a social system consisting of highly interrelated parts and variables. Therefore, in order to transform the school to

PAGE 22

10 bring about educational equality, all major components of the school mu st be substantially changed (Banks, 1993, pp.25). 2006; 1 993) seminal work will serve as the foundation for this study. The dimensions are: a. Content Integration the extent to which teachers use exam ples and content from a variety of cultures in their teaching (Banks, 1993, p.25). b. Knowledge Construction when teachers need to help students understand, investigate, and determine how the implicit cultural assumptions, frames of references, perspectiv es, and biases within a discipline influence the ways that knowledge is constructed (Banks, 1993, p.25). c. Equity Pedagogy when teachers modify their teaching in ways that will facilitate the academic achievement of students from diverse racial, c ultural gender, and social class groups (Banks, 1993, p.25). d. Empowering School Culture grouping and labeling practices, sports participation, disproportionality in achievement, and the interaction of the staff and the students across ethnic and racial lines must be examined to create a school culture that empowers students from diverse racial, ethnic and gender groups (Banks, 1993, p.25). e. Prejudice Reduction attitudes and strategies that can be impleme nted to foster positive feelings towards one another and ethnic and racial groups (Ba nks, 2006, p.136). Zeicher, Grant, Gay, Gillette, Valli, & Villegas (1998) state that multicultural perspectives need to permeate the entire teacher education curriculum

PAGE 23

11 Critical Inquiry and Teaching Cases I chose to use teaching cases as a methodology and pedagogy for exploring diversity issues in a literacy course. Leistyna (2007) explains that teacher education needs to be structured to help preservice teachers into critical inquiry, elaborating that sociopolitical and economic realities that sha p. 117). Teaching cases are a vehicle for such a forum; they are sh ort vignettes situated in a specific time and place (Shulman, 1992 ) These narratives depict problems teachers face in the classroom (Shulman, 1992). Merseth (1994) explains that after the presentation of the case, preservice teachers can deconstruct the multiple layers and multiple perspectives that a case encompasses. education because it enables students of teaching to explore, analyze, and examine representations of re al classrooms. perspectives, we begin the journey of preservice teachers becom ing agents of change. Teaching cases can foster an environment in which a person can begin to question the facts upon which they base many of their opinions (Noddings, 2005) and help them become teachers who give students multiple perspectives (Ladson Bill ings, 1998).

PAGE 24

12 My Experiences I am one of the 8 7 90 % of the previously described teachers. Banks (2006) gender, language, religion and sexual orientation. I am wh ite, raised in the Catholic faith. My parents are first generation Polish Americans. O ther than a few words of Polish I enclave of Greenpoint, Brooklyn I grew up only sp eaking English. F our years of Spanish instruction in high school proved to be too little too late. I was raised a child of a blue collar middle class family and I am heterosexual. It was 1997 and with a Bachelor's of Science in Elementary Education diplo ma in hand, I was charged with the attitude that I was ready to change the world. I was armed with my thematic units, new outfits from the Gap, and the eagerness to bestow all of my learnings upon the children I would teach. I graduated in December, and w as quickly hired by a Title One school in S outh Florida. As Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz would just quit. I was excited for the challenge, not really having a clue about t he realities I would be facing. On the first day, my new pri ncipal ushered me down to my classroom a dilapidated portable. Out of approximately 30 second grade students, only six of them what the last teacher realize I was under prepared to change the world.

PAGE 25

13 I know times have changed and faculty in higher education is working hard to prepare thei r preservice tea chers. I see the ELL infused coursework our preservice teachers are exposed to and I know the discourse that is charged in higher education classrooms. Yet based on my observations in schools and supervision of preservice teacher interns, I know somewhere we are still falling short in our development of It was a S pring day last year, 2009, when I went to observe a smart, witty preservice teacher in action. I watched her teach a writing lesson to f irst graders. As I looked around the room, I noticed the large majority were Latino(a) students, but yet no accommodations were mentioned in her lesson plans. When I asked her why they were not there, why they were not evident in her teaching, her reply wa Because of this, I know we are missing the mark somewhere in higher education. Can teaching cases make the difference? Can they create a vicarious experience that will lea ve the preservice teacher exposed to a value and understan ding of grasp? Purpose of the Study The primary goal of a multicultural education is to ensure that all students in our schools receive an equal education. This study was developed around the hypothesis that teaching cases should be used in a literacy classroom to foster a culturally responsive pedagogy in preservice tea chers. The participants were preservice teachers and a professor during one semester of a literacy cour se. The purpose of this study was twofold. The first purpose of this study was to describe the perceptions of a professor who will facilitate case based instruction. The second purpose was to understand the lived

PAGE 26

14 experiences of preservice teachers in a li teracy course that incorporate s teaching cases as a meth odology. These teaching cases feature d diversity and literacy issues. Research Questions The research questions for this study are: 1. teaching cases as a vehicle for teaching culturally responsive literacy pedagogy? 2. How do teaching cases and case based instruction featuring diversity and literacy issues influence preservice teachers perceptions and insights related to culturally responsive teaching pract ices in literacy? Potential Limitations The following factors may have limit ed and potentially influence d my study: 1. The implementation of case based instruction is fairly new to the professor of this study and me I have presented one teaching case wit h a group of preservice teachers before they began their practicum experience in the fall of 2009 and approximately ten teaching cases in the spring 2010. I feel that teaching case s engage students in the teaching material and fostered an academically focu sed discourse on the issues pres ented in the case. However, these experience s used a lot of teaching time t hat I planned to spend teaching other material. Also, an in depth independent study on teaching cases was taken as part of my doctoral course work. I spent a semester researching the histories, purpose, problems and rationale of using teaching case under the guidance of a university professor. The professor of this study will be

PAGE 27

15 presented a small literature review to read about teaching cases and will be given the teaching cases for this course a month ahead of time to review and ask questions. She has never read or used a teaching case prior to this experience. 2. This is a mixed method r esearch study. As the researcher, I am the research instrument in this study, and as such the threat of research bias exists (Janesi ck, 2004). In order to minimize the potential bias, I kep t a researcher reflective journal, conduct ed a member check by having the participant review my transcripts, and triangulate d data. Also, I have be en transparent in revealing my own cultural background to the reader of this research. 3. This study also proceed ed on the assumption that the preservice teachers and professor will accurately reflect their position on the their personal aware ness of cultural diversity, reflections, and in their responses to the teaching cases. Honest answers will be encouraged and preservice teachers will use a code to support their anonymity. 4. Another limitation is, my findings are limited to my sample populat ion, one literacy course taught at a Southeastern college. However, this study may have redeeming features which make it highly valuable to the teacher education community. Partial applications may be possible to similar populations. 5. T his study was undert aken to see what would emerge from preservice based instruction. There can be no certainty that the changes that took place, were due to the case based pedagogy. Changes could be attributed to outside factors such as other course work, peer

PAGE 28

16 interaction, other professors, environmental factors, field based experiences, or other unnamed factors. 6. This study was conducted at a previous place of employment, and I know the professor of this course on a professional level. I had t he professor of the course conduct a member check for accuracy on the interview transcriptions and I had an expert in the field of literacy and diversity issues review m y data analysis for accuracy. Terminology Ethnicity Throughout this process the hope r emains that I showed respect for individuals and groups of people. People should have the opportunity to identify themselves according to their own cultural identity. The terminology chosen in this study was selected because it is used in the literature r eviewed and reported in the statistics section. Terms 1. Academic Achievement Gap the social, ethnicity, and economic disparities in academic achievement (Lavin Loucks, 2006). 2. Agent of Change a person who questions the fact on which they base many of their opinions (Noddings, 2005). Teachers who give students multiple perspectives (Ladson Billings, 1994). 3. Axial coding interconnect the categories and subcategories along the lines of their properties (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).

PAGE 29

17 4. Critical Literacy the process o f constructing and critically using oral and written language as a means of expression, interpretation and/or transformation of our lives and the lives around us (Quintero, 2007). 5. Critical Pedagogy an attempt to clarify the purpose of education for social justice in the wake of modernism (Stanley, 2007). 6. Cultural Diversity Awareness Inventory (CDAI) is a self examination survey to and behaviors towards elementary school children of culturally diverse background s. Developed by Gertrude Henry, 1991. 7. Culturally Responsive Teaching the combination of using the home in congruence with school culture to enhance the social, academic, and culture needs of children (Phuntsog; 2001; Gay & Kirkland, 2003). 8. Interview a me eting of two people to exchange information and ideas through questions/responses, resulting in communication and joint construction about a topic (Janesick, 200 4 ). 9. Member Checking feedback participants provide to check the data for accuracy (Creswell, 20 07 ). 10. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Federal Government legislation that increased the educational requirements of states, school districts and public schools (Bloomfield & Cooper, 2003). 11. Open coding developing categories of information by breaking them do wn into parts, examined and compared for similarities and differences (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). 12. Preservice Teacher an elementary education major

PAGE 30

18 13. Reading First -A government program to assist states and districts in the Kindergarten through third grade. Funds support professional development, diagnosing of students, classroom based instruction, and assessment (DOE, 2009). 14. Selective coding building a story that connects the ca tegories (Strauss & Corbin, 1988). 15. Sociocultural Consciousness behaving, and being is deeply influenced by factors such as race, ethnicity, social class, and language (Villegas & Lucas, 2002; Banks, 1993). 16. T eaching case short, narrative scenarios that depict situations a teacher could face in the schooling environment (Shulman, 1992).

PAGE 31

19 CHAPTER II In a nation that speaks of inalienable rights, the right to learn must be t learn at the same pace or in the same way, but all children can learn. This country must commit its will and its resources to the creation of schools that are humane centers of inquiry, where everybody is somebody. (Corrigan, 1990, pp.5) T he diversi ty in our classrooms demands that teachers review their educational philosophies regarding cultural difference. Slogans such as "one big melting pot" and "we are all alike under our skin" simply do not match the complexity present in our diverse society. These slogans dissociate the culture and values of our children from the classroom environment; they also blatantly ignore the educational preparation our students demand. The demographics of the United States are becoming more diverse, and this is especi ally salient for our K 12 population (Villegas & Lucas, 2002). Phuntsog (2001) states that this is because the United States is receiving an influx of immigrants from the Pacific, the Middle East, the Caribbean, and Latin America. According to Banks (2006) more than one of seven children in elementary school speaks a language other than English in their home. This ra tio is expected to rise in the 21 st century (Howard, 1999). In spite of NCLB, Reading First, and other legislation, our minority students are still not achieving at the same rate as their non minority cohorts. Since 1988 the

PAGE 32

20 achievement gap has widened between Whites and minority students. The National Center for Educational Statistics (2001) presented the following data (Haycock, 2001): Only 1 in 50 Latinos and 1 in 100 African American 17 year olds can read and gain information from specialized text, compared to about 1 in 12 Whites. About 1 in 30 Latinos and 1 in 100 African Americans can comfortably do multistep problem solving and element ary Algebra compared to 1 in 10 white students. Young African Americans are only about half as likely as White e 29; young Latinos are only one third as likely as Whites to earn a college degree. The disparities in achievement along demographic lines indicate a clear and present need to more fully prepare teachers on how to educate children of diverse backgrounds. The typical response from institutions of teacher education is to add a course or two in multicultura l, bilingual, or urban education and leave the rest of the curriculum intact (Villegas & Lucas, 2001). This approach does not go far enough to prepare preservice teachers to teach the students they will face in their future cl assrooms (Evans & Gunn, 2010 ). This literature review will explore the research and theories that surround a culturally responsive teaching (CRT), culturally responsive pedagogy in higher education, the role of literacy, the use of teaching cases as a methodology in teacher education, and the r esearch that combines diversity issues and teaching cases. The last

PAGE 33

21 section of this literature review presents the theoretical frame in which this study is embedded. What is Culturally Responsive Teaching? Many definitions are given to define cul turally responsive teaching. According to Ladson Billing (1995), over the last 15 years, anthropologists have tried to find ways to literature reviewed, all the definitions o f culturally responsive teaching include the combination of the home and school culture relationships (Au, 1993; Banks, 2006; Gay & Kirkland, 2003; Ladson Biilings, 1995b) Researchers have recently drawn their attention to the importance of combining ho me culture and classroom experiences to enhance the social, academic, and cultural needs of children (Phuntsog, 2001). Therefore, culturally responsive teachers go beyond the curriculum to use the cultural characteristics, experiences, and perspe ctives of diverse students as a means to teach them. An example of this type of instruction can be found in a Kathryn Au (1980) study k story is a speech event in Hawaiian culture that deals with discourse patterns. The teacher used talk story in lieu of a traditional classroom discourses. By using culturally sensitive approaches, the study showed a gain ing achievements. Terms In the literature examined, culturally responsive teaching takes on an assortment of terms to describe the attempts to match school culture s to home culture s to promote

PAGE 34

22 success in school. Other names used throughout the literature but that still used the definitions described above are: Billings, 199 2 ), me of these identities that race, religion, ethnicity, values, socioeconomics, sexuality, tradition, and region of birth (Banks, 2006; Wlodkowski & Ginsberg, 1995). A teache cultures must go to a deeper level of understanding; it must travel beyond the awareness and respect level. This is needed so that educators can select and incorporate culturally responsive teaching skills, techniques, strategies, and materials into their classroom. Evans and Gunn (2010) explain, the more a teacher classroom and integrate classroom practices that form bridges with language and literacy For example, Gay (2002) states that tea chers need to know which ethnic groups embrace cooperative problem solving, how different groups interact with adults, and how gender plays a role in socialization of children. These cultural values will have a direct implication for the instructional sett planning.

PAGE 35

23 Culturally Responsive Teachers According to Villegas and Lucas (2002), teachers who know about the lives of bridging preexisting experi ences with their classroom knowledge. Developing this type of knowledge begins w their own beliefs about other cultures. According to Gay and Kirkland (2003), teachers who engage in continuous critiques of how culture affect s teaching and learning behaviors need to have an understanding of their own culture and cultures of different ethnic groups. Villegas and Lucas (2002) identify six characteristics that define culturally responsive teachers. These teachers: (1) Have a soci ocultural consciousness. They can recognize there are multiple perspectives to one situation and these perspectives are influence affirming views of students from diverse backgro unds. (3) Sees themselves as agent s of change They recognize that they are responsible for bringing abo ut educational change. (4) Hold a constructi vist view of learning. (5) Know about the lives of their students. (6) Uses the culture, background, and knowledge that a student has to design instructi on. Culturally responsive teachers use the formal instruction of the school, state, and curriculum, and focus on multicultural strengths (Gay, 2002). Culturally responsive teachers know how to look for weaknesses in the curriculum and make changes to improve the quality of material. These teachers are also critically conscious of the power of the symbolic curriculum. This curriculum includes the images, awards, celebrations, and other artifacts used to teach knowledge, skills, values, and morals.

PAGE 36

24 Lad son Billings (1995b), studied eight culturally responsive teachers from a small school in North Carolina over three years. The researcher identified three commonalities these teachers had in their teaching philosophies that supported a CRT pedagogy. Below identifies the three commonalities Ladson Billings found and other research is embedded to support her findings. Each teacher believed: 1. Students must experience academic success. For example, Jordan (1985) discuss es how incorporating CRT practices int o the Kamehameha Early Education Program (KEEP ) program in Hawaii raised the achievement scores of local Polynesian children from the 25 th percentile to the 50 th percentile. 2 Students maintain their cultural competence. Fordham and Ogbu (1986) discuss th students end up playing a game of emotional tug of war for wanting to show interest in school, but could be ostracized by their peers for doing so. 3. S tudents must develop a critical consciousnes s to challenge the status quo. Noddings (2005) maintains that teachers need to teach students to be agents of change by having them question the facts upon which they base many of their opinions. chers not only know their students well, they use what they know about their students to give them access to who uses many strategies, has a sociocultural consciousness, and wants to facilitate change within their classroom is t ruly culturally responsive.

PAGE 37

25 Ladson Billings (1995a) asserts culturally responsive teaching is more than just a pedagogy of good teaching. Culturally responsive teaching allows students to experience academic success, maintain their cultural integrity, and develop a social consciousness (Gay & Kirkland, 2003). It also involves high interest activities from the perspectives of students Teachers and students are engaged in meaningful activities on topics of interest. There is no one strategy or group of str ategies that makes a teacher culturally responsive, but some of these strategies can make relationships between being a cultural responsive teacher and good teaching practices. and behaviors so that teachers can link these characteristics to their teaching practices and instructional processes. According to Gay (2002), culture strongly influences ethnically erachievement, teachers need to bridge home culture to the classroom instruction. Culturally Responsive Pedagogy in Higher Education It is clear that creating an environment that embraces CRT is critical to student achievement (Au, 1993; Jordan, 1985) Th is culturally responsive pedagogy begins with the philosophical structure of our institutions of education. This pedagogy is more than just a plethora of good teaching strategies; it also encompasses the educational to promotin g a CRT and the dedication of the administration, personnel and the CRT combines the philosophy, preservice teachers to educate in a globali zed society.

PAGE 38

26 Zeichner et al., (1998) form ed the Multicultural Preservice Teacher Education Project (MPTE Project). This group of leading researchers and scholars in the field of CRT met to review the current research in the field and make recommendations for preservice teacher education. Their recommendations were presented in three levels: (a) Institutional Level (b) Personnel Issues and (c) Curriculum and Instruction. The i nstitut ional level discussed the need for centers of higher education to embrace a culturally responsive pedagogy in their mi ssion and vision statement. College s of e ducation need to place a priority on the recruitment of faculty with a minority backgro und and/or with a multicultural knowledge base, and also fund research that support s building knowledge in this area. At the personnel level they suggest the recruitment of minority faculty. The researc hers also suggest a decrease in the excessive workloads faculties endure, which can enable them to make a commitment to embracing a CRT p edagogy through their research and teaching. They recommend a richly varied lecture series, awards presentations, and a wide range of course work. Finally, the MPTE Project suggests a need for the recruitment criteria of preservice teachers to go beyond th e traditional admission requirements of GPA and test scores. This includes a recommendation of broadening the criteria for admissions to consider the preservice dispositions towards working with diverse studen ts and a commitment to high academic expectations for all students. When the College of Education is committed to promoting a culturally responsive pedagogy throughout the college, a vision of preservice teachers developing this pedagogy becomes tangible.

PAGE 39

27 Preservice Teachers In our schools there currently is a mismatch between the students that we teach and the instructors who teach them. Our nation is becoming more diverse every year; however, our teachers are not. Sleeter (2001) explains that 87 90% of our teaching population is White fem ales. Furthermore, the census extrapolations project that by 2010, 95% of classroom teachers will be White, middle class females with little interaction with people from diverse backgrounds ( Lowenstein, 2009; Sleeter, 2001; Haberman, 1991). The majority of these women are also monolingual, European American, and are heterosexuals whom have had little interaction with people of color (Banks, 2006; Gay & We Our educational community needs to question the educational preparation that preservice teachers receive in dealing with students that have a different culture than their own. Self sociocultural consciousness. For preservice teachers to engage in CRT, the first fundamental step is for them to understand that they themselves have a culture (Gay & Kirkland, 2003) Culture can be defined as the language, beliefs, values and behaviors that are part of our daily lives. Our culture encompasses many aspects such as race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, occupation, and political ideology (B anks, 2006; Jordan 1992). Zygmunt Fillwalk and Clark (2007) study of preservice teachers found that many of these teachers believe that culture is a component of belonging to minority groups They see themselves as American and culture being something that minority groups own (McIntosh, 1997) Preservice teachers begin to develop a self sociocultural consciousness by first understand ing that they have a culture and then reflecting on the

PAGE 40

28 different components of their culture (Gay & Kirkland, 2003) Once they are able to identify with the many different components of their culture, they can make relationships to themselves and other people, and ultimate ly place themselves into a broader picture of our multicultural global society. While developing their self social cultural consciousness, teachers begin to recognize their own cultural, values, and beliefs in -essence their identit y. As they begin to ref lect upon their complex multidimensional identity, they are better able to see their race, ethnicity, social class, gender, language, religion and sexual orientation as part of a larger multicultural society. (Evans & Gunn, 2009, p 12 ) A self sociocultura thinking, behaving, and being is deeply influenced by factors as race, ethnicity, social class and language (Banks, 2006). Preservice teachers can begin the process of developing their self sociocult ural consciousness by exploring their own history, background, experiences, and grasping their own roots, which will ultimately assist them sociocultural consciousne ss), teachers are unable to cross the sociocultural boundaries sociocultural consciousness will allow preservice teachers to not only gain insight into other groups, but it will allow them the opportunity to see how their beliefs can shape their teaching practices. By understanding their culture and the culture of their students, preservice teachers can develop culturally responsive pedagogies that facilitate learning for all stud

PAGE 41

29 becomes a filter through which teachers teach their students academic content and skills (Gay & Kirkland, 2003). Whiteness. Developing a s elf sociocultural consciousness allows pre service teachers to become aware of the social stratification that exists in our society. People who come from diverse backgrounds are allowed differential access to power in America. Au and Blake (2003) refer to students from diverse backgrounds as studen ts who differ from the mainstream by (a) social class, (b) ethnicity, and (c) primary language. S ocial privilege is often invisible to the majority culture, as their social privilege as part of the dominate culture limits their ability to understand the da ily experiences and challenges the minority culture faces (McIntosh, 1997). Jay (2005) explains the privilege of power in an analogy of running a race where, despite all participants training intensely for months, all the White people get to line up fifty yards ahead of everyone else. Once the race begins, everyone runs fast. When the white people win the race, many of them praise their win and believe it is because of their hard work, effort, and skills. They have indeed trained and worked hard, but obje ctively they had an unfair advantage they may or may not have known about. Su (1997) studied African American, Asian American, and Latino preservice teachers to compare and contrasted their beliefs with those of their White preservice classmates. This stud y suggested that the preservice teachers from diverse backgrounds showed a much greater awareness of conditions of inequity in public schools. Further, many of these minority preservice students believed that good teachers were agents of change. They chall enged the status quo by changing public school curricula to address diversity issues. None of the White preservice teachers expressed these views.

PAGE 42

30 Individual White people may not know about this privilege and may also not feel particularly dominant. Some White people do not see the disproportionate amounts of power, authority, wealth, and dominance bestowed upon the entire race (Howard, 1999). Causey, Thomas, and Armento (2000) state that a nave egalitarianism is prevalent among preservice teachers. That is, they believe that everyone is created equal, have access to equal resources, and are treated equally. These eqalitarian beliefs can cause preservice teachers to inadvertently deny the privileges they have inherited due to their social class and skin c olor. Au and Blake (2003) studied three teachers; two were Hawaiian and considered insiders to the Hawaiian community and one was a Japanese American, considered an outsider to the Hawaiian community. The results of this study showed that all three preserv ice teachers valued literacy, the teaching of reading and writing, principles of instruction and providing a safe classroom environment. The two Hawaiian preservice teachers differed in their beliefs about perpetuating the culture and social justice. The f indings suggest that preservice teachers whose background differ P reservice teachers may not know how their Whiteness can affect the education of evaluative practices that privilege the affluent, White, and male segments of soc (Villegas & Lucas, 2002, p.24). Preservice teachers need to increase their awareness of the social inequalities and injustices so that they can appreciate and learn from the differences between themselves and the students they teach. This understanding will

PAGE 43

31 enable them to r espond to bridging their home and school life and help students recognize this flawed social stratification so that it is not perpetuated. Empathetic identity. Banks (2006) states that due to the increasing diversity in the United States, effective teach ers must become reflective in their practice towards diversity. This is often a challenging task for the majority population of future teachers. The majority of these White females have isolated, mono cultural experiences. Teacher education must help thei r preservice teachers critically analyze and rethink their notions of race, culture, and ethnicity and to view themselves as racial beings. In the results of a study, McAllister and Irvine (2002) showed that all of their 34 teacher participant s believed that empathy was an important factor in working effectively with students from diverse backgrounds. The researchers used four data sources to empathy, the teachers all agreed on the essence of empathy, focusing on the affective and wo p.437). When we provide an experience for preservice teachers to deliber ately imagine under a description we are not now under is not sufficient for performing the 113 ). By engaging preservice teachers in these educational experiences we can embed opportunities for preservice teachers to understand others and

PAGE 44

32 t here fore predict the real effects of their actions when in the classroom. Moghaddam (1999) explains that reflexive positioning is the process by which persons position themselves in private discourse. When we position ourselves in this type of reflection, we implicate an identity. This is accomplished by literally casting ourselves as a character positioned within a culturally based system, in a specific discourse, with particular social relations, in an institution (Carbaugh, 1999). Bartolome (2007) uses the social status in the through an empathetic approach can serve as a crucial experience for preservice teachers in becoming effective educators. Through this empath et ic approach, preservice teachers can position themselv es in the life of their culturally different students. The use of journals and extensive reflection are means to provide such an opportunity where preservice teachers can begin their journey of an empathetic understanding of social order and become a Borde r Crosser Literacy and Culture A u (1993) defines literacy as using reading and writing to construct meaning from text which aligns with the requirements of a specific social context. For our culturally diverse students, the most successful school practice s are ones that incorporate their home culture.

PAGE 45

33 Brice patterns and uses of li teracy between three different communit ies. These three communities were different in ethnicity, socioe c onomics, and the power they had in their communities and school s Her research describes these differences between each of these literacy at school. Evans and Gunn (20 10 ) maintain that when linguistic home and school learning environments have an evident difference, the achievement gap widens. A culturally responsive pedagogy embraces the literacy needs of students by connecting students' lives to their learning. Lads on Billings (1992) focused on two exceptional teachers and their teaching of literacy. One hundred percent of both their classrooms were comprised of minority students (African American, Latinos, and Vietnamese). Although both teachers were ceptional One teacher used a whole language approach, semantic mapping, and metacognitive journals during literacy in struction. The other relied on basal textbooks and differentiated bet ween subjects. However, both of these teachers legitimatized African American and Latino culture by making it the frame of reference for all texts. They did not shy away from race issues and the teachers showed an appreciation for all cultures. They also s howed physical signs of affection, allowed for the use of Black English during recess, allowed for linguistic code switching, promoted critical and scholarly discourse about the curriculum, and created an atmosphere of academic achievement. While both inst ructors had a different methodology of teaching literacy, they both valued the culture of their students.

PAGE 46

34 language hold the great promise for helping culturally and linguis tically diverse learners Moje and Hinchman (2004) examined how different teachers and students together constructed classroom activities to support the learning of content and literacy skills. They derived a set of cu lturally responsive principles when working with youth literacy learners from their research in two urban, content area classrooms. They are: 1. Culturally responsive pedagogy would begin with the formation of relationships between teachers and students. 2. Culturally responsive pedagogy should recognize and be respectful of the many different cultural experiences that any one person can embody. 3. Culturally responsive pedagogy works with youth to develop applications and to construct understandings that are relevant to them. 4. Culturally responsive pedagogy depends on knowledge of discipline related concepts. 5. Culturally re sponsive pedagogy invites participat ion in a multiple and varied discipline specific discourse experiences that include re ading, writing, speaking, listening, and performing in the service of increasingly sophisticated knowledge construction. Funds of Knowledge An example of culturally sensitive literacy instruction that c onnects learning to the student s lives is il lustrated in the work of Moll and Greenbe r g (1990). The concept of

PAGE 47

35 social, economic and productive well being and incorporating those values into resources, strategies, and activities for the classroom (Mo ll, Amanti, Neff, Gonzalez, 2005; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). Moll and Greenberg (1990) conducted research with the purpose of developing innovations in teaching by using the knowledge found in the homes of diverse student households, the observation and examination of classroom practices, and study groups with teachers after school. During these study groups, the researchers and teachers collaboratively examined h home culture (Moll, Amanti, Neff, Gonzalez, 2005). The community and parents participated in helping teachers d knowledge. The teachers and researchers developed an understanding about the child as a The teachers were able to take into their planning the know ledge of the multi dimensions about the child, not just their academic performance. Moll, Amanti, Neff, and Gonzalez (2005) discuss that t eachers rarely draw on ly, form a bridge for their diverse students to experience academic success.

PAGE 48

36 Teaching Cases Teacher education programs adopted the use of teaching cases to prepare fu ture teachers approximately twenty years ago (Mers eth, 1994). Interest in the use of using teaching cases as a pedagogy in the field of education began in the mid 199 rising interest in teacher cognition (Merseth, 1991). In a discipline whe re lecture, small group instruction, and discus sion are typically the norm, colleges of education are now turning to the use of teaching cases (McDade, 1995; Shulman, 1992). We [teacher education programs]observe widespread criticism of the quality of ins truction in teacher preparation programs, as well as of the quality of learning. Case methods are expected to be more engaging, more demanding, more intellectually exciting and stimulating, more likely to bridge the vast chasm between principle and practic Evidence that teaching cases are being implemented in teacher education can also be noted through the wide variety of collections of cases that are now found in teacher edu cation texts. It is important to understand the terms that relate and correspond to this teaching pedagogy. Throughout the reviewed literature, the following names are used interchangeably to describe teaching cases: Cases (Merseth, 1994; Richards & Gi pe, 1998; Broudy, 199 0 ) Case Method (Shulman, 1992)

PAGE 49

37 Case Study (McDade, 2009) Teaching Cases (Shulman, 1992; Kleinfeld, 1991) Case Methodology (Merseth, 1994) History Although teaching cases are relatively new to the discipline of teacher edu cation, they are not new to many other fields. The history of teaching cases in higher education Under the guidance of Dean Christopher Columbus Langdell, the faculty adopted the use of tea ching cases to expose law students to the specific analysis and discussion that revolve around the use of cases (Merseth, 1991). Dean Langdell introduced the implementation of teaching cases to his faculty because he believed that teaching cases would beco me the most effective way to connect theory to practice (Stevens, 1983 as cited in Shulman 199 2 ). Over the next 30 years, the use of teaching cases as a methodology spread to many other disciplines and practices. Now, they are currently used everywhere fro m the colleges of business to the teaching of chess. Definition Teaching cases are often short, narrative scenarios that depict situations a teacher could face in the schooling environment. Often teaching cases are based on real events that present a pr oblem to which professionals in the field can be exposed a nd problems from which professionals may gain significant learning and insights.

PAGE 50

38 claim. It argues that the story, event, or text is an instance of a larger class, an example of Cases, therefore, consist of selected problems of professional practice and constitute the problemata of the professional curr iculum. In the training of prospective professionals they form the core of clinical experience and test whether the student can apply theory. In teacher education, consensus on the professional education curriculum is not likely to be achieved without agre ement on the nature and content of desirable clinical experiences for prospective teachers. Consensus on this clinical experience in turn must rely on the identification of paradigm cases of professional practice. (Broudy, 1990, p.432) Teaching cases rela y a multidimensional situation in a school context (Merseth, 1994). Teaching cases are constructed to foster a livel y, academically charged discussion The discussion that follows the presentation of the case allows the preservice teachers to deconstruct t he multiple layers and multiple perspec tives that the case encompasses, as well as construct new meanings from the case. Teaching cases offer readers multiple representations of different problems and lend themselves to reinterpretation (Shulman, 1992). A teaching case initially exposes preservice teachers to a problem, and then allow s them to connect theory to practice. Teaching cases p rovide preservice students the opportunity to think about these vignettes in sophisticated, professional, and expert wa ys (Kleinfeld, 1991).

PAGE 51

39 Shulman (1992) explains that although teaching cases can explore and represent a wide variety of issues professionals face in education, they share some similar characteristics. They are narrative in form and they have a beginning, middle, and end. Within the plot, some type of dramatic tension unfolds. They are particular and specific in regards to a time and place. The scenarios reveal human situations, minds, conceptions, needs, frustrations, issues, and emotions. Finally, they i llustrate the social and cultural context of the situation throughout the events. Due to their narrative nature, teaching cases become more credible, relevant, and effective than traditional expository text. Teaching cases expose preservice teachers to scenarios that they could face in the field and these cases are used for a variety of purposes including teaching morals, ethics, and dispositions. Preservice teachers can begin applying strategies that they have learned in other classes. This allows the preservice teachers to envision and then deconstruct real situations they otherwise could not have anticipated in the living, breathing arena of a school (Shulman, 199 2 ). Rationale for Teaching Cases in Preservice Teacher Education The use of t eaching cases demands that profe ssors and preservice teachers be more engaging and intellectually stimulated, promote scholarly discussion, and become more adept in connecting principle to like a teac Teaching cases lend themselves to many instructional purposes. One reason teaching cases are used is to promote a bridge between theory and practice under the

PAGE 52

40 guidance of an expert (Shulman, 1992). Teaching cases offer to expose preservice teachers to realistic situations, aiding preservice teachers in connecting theories and concepts learned in class to the multidimensional and idiosyncratic field of education (Kleinfeld, 1991 ; West e d, 1997 ) Teaching cases also allow mentors an d novices to engage in meaningful discussion about these realistic scenarios. While preservice teachers are being taught using a teaching case pedagogy, a professor is there to guide the cognitive skills of their preservice teachers and can orientate indiv iduals to a particular method is indeed to teach preservice students how to think in complex and fruitful ways preservice teachers the time, expertise, and guidance to think about a situation that otherwise they would not have in a K 12 classroom setting. The use of teaching cases can be a very powerful experience for the preservice teacher. Teaching cases often e licit emotional and intellectual responses (Kleinfeld, 1998). Teacher educators must be prepared to handle the emotional responses that teaching cases can foster. Because of the demanding nature of using teaching cases as a methodology teacher educators m ust guide the discussion and reflections of their preservice teachers so that the important issues of the case rise to the surface. Kleinfeld sure different viewpoints ar e heard, and must control the emotional temperature of the discussion so that students become engaged but not so enraged that they become closed

PAGE 53

41 Another reason to use teaching cases is to aid preservice teachers in becoming critica l problems solvers. Teaching cases allow preservice teachers time to recognize and deconstruct the many layers of a problem that teachers face (Merseth, 1994), and comprehend the complexity of teaching without becoming overwhelmed. LaBoskey (1992) explains that when preservice teachers analyze one aspect of a teaching case, they are able to find that the other pieces come together more easily. It also allows the preservice teacher to look at future problems systematically, with more confidence, and through an experienced lens. As Kleinfeld (Kleinfeld, 1991, p. 10) states, In teaching such cases, I am often taken aback by the great difficulty many education students have in analyzing a problem situation. Many students see problems as no more than common sens e, obvious difficulties. They have not developed the idea that problems are constructed and can be constructed in more and less fruitful ways. Many education students also have little notion of how to think about a dilemma; they come up with nothing more t han a quick reaction and a single solution (p. 10). In a study of teaching cases with 54 preservice teachers, Kleinfeld (1991) found those preservice teachers who were taught using teaching cases showed significantly greater ability to analyze education problems. Kleinfeld explains t hat is why a critical discussion of cases is so important for teacher education. Preservice teachers need the exposure to problems that teachers face and time to deconstruct the problem with an expert.

PAGE 54

42 Shulman ( 1992) states that after a case is read and deconstructed in a critical analysis, the preservice teacher may treat this as model. They will be able to apply the concepts from this particular case to other problems and dilemmas they face in their future clas srooms. Teaching cases present a problem or situation, and lend themselves to a variety of possible approaches and resolutions. The teaching cases, therefore, will allow preservice teachers exposure to real problems, time to construct strategies to fit dif ferent children, reflect on ethical and policy issues, and reflect on pedagogical practices that are Problems with cases There is a fundamental problem with the use of teaching cases. The fi eld of education lacks research in the use of cases (Kleinfeld, 1991,1998; Shulman, 1992). ed in this paper advocates for the use of teaching cases, empirical research is still needed. Other problems with teaching case methodology also merit discussion. Grossman (1992) states that preservice teachers may find it difficult to connect the concept s they are exposed to in the teaching case with later classroom experiences. The development of high quality cases can also be costly (Kleinfeld, 1991). Shulman (1992) asserts that not only are teaching cases difficult to teach well, they are also time co nsuming. The ability to adequately prepare preservice teachers to understand and work with student diversity in regards to culture, linguistics and ability level is an imperative goal

PAGE 55

43 in any effective teacher education program. By using teaching c ases as a pedagogical practice, teacher education is facilitating key learning experiences. Teaching Cases with Diversity Issues Advantages of Cases with Diversity Issues Teaching cases do not present an overarching general situation; they are very spec ific scenarios. This specificity makes them an excellent tool for preparing teachers for the cultural diversity they will face in the classroom (Kleinfeld, 1998). Kleinfeld n can include counter examples or promote the deconstruction of stereotypes. Preservice teachers can reflect on cultural differences and examine the sea of cultures the y may face in the classroom. Teaching cases, therefore, allow their users to reflect on individual students. Wested (1997) states, preservice teachers need to be able to envision the problem through the eyes of the student who is implicated in the case T eachers will need the ability to connect the best instructional practices to capitalize Teacher education programs have many vehicles for encouraging preservice teachers to educate in a global society and beco me agents of change for their students in the classroom. Programs that promote preservice teachers becoming culturally responsive teachers fuse many of these practices into their coursework: the use of reflection, involvement in direct experiences with st udents and families with diverse backgrounds, participation in community events, and development of a self sociocultural

PAGE 56

44 consciousness (Gay and Kirkland, 2003; Ladson Billings, 1995a; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). However Kleinfeld (1998) states: Intellect ual analysis is not enough to prepare teachers for cultural diversity (Zeichner & Hoeft, 1996). Teachers need experiences that are emotionally unsettling, that open their hearts as well as their minds. Immersion experiences and fieldwork in culturally diff erent communities stimulate such emotional responses. The problem is that direct experiences are unpredictable and can The capacity to elicit vicarious emotional responses is one great advant age teaching cases can offer with regard to setting, people, and pedagogy. Cases offer preservice teachers an opportunity to critically analyze situations that are depicted in the case and that are thought to really happen in the classroom (Shulman, 1992) They allow prese rvice teachers to deconstruct situations, but also create emotions, and this is one of their tremendous assests (Kleinfeld, 1998). The professor using teaching cases as a meth odology must guide their class by allow ing different viewpoints to be heard, as well as provide time for preservice teachers to metacognitively deconstruct the scenario. They must also keep the classroom discussion productive so that preservice teachers do not Real teaching is sp ontaneous. Dilemmas arise, learning takes places, and the dynamic nature of children can unravel the most prepared Many times there is not a clear answer on how to handle a situation Teaching cases can prepare teachers with tools that wi ll allow them to approach dilemmas with sensitivity and wisdom. They will use these tools to make meaning of

PAGE 57

45 what happened and make decisions that are in the best interest of all learners (Wasserman, 1994). F our research studies that include the use of teaching cases that feature diversity issues will be discussed They are presented to show how the use of teaching cases cultural background in their teaching practices, h eightened their sensitivity towards cultural diversity, enhanced decision making abilities and multicultural perspectives, and have been successfully used to teach preservice teachers about CRT strategies. Research on Teaching Cases and Diversity Issues Lee, Summers, and Garza (2009) conducted a study with fifty seven (n=57) undergraduate preservice secondary education teachers who were enrolled in an adolescent growth and development course. This mixed methods study was developed to understand the effect multicultural attitudes. The findings from this study provided evidence that case based multicultural awareness. The researchers concluded that teaching cases are a tool to discuss difficult issues and allow preservice teachers an opportunity to examine their own biases and attitudes that can influence how they teach their future students. Kleinfeld (199 8) conducted research in the Teachers for Alaska (TFA) program, which was formed to address the needs of Eskimo and Indian children in Alaska. TFA is a certification program for teachers founded on the principle that teachers need to learn theory, philosop hy, substantive knowledge, and pedagogical strategies in connection with

PAGE 58

46 the minority populations that the teachers serve (Noordhoff and Kleinfeld, 1993). This program makes extensive use of teaching cases to alter the perceptions of teachers about teachin g culturally diverse students. At the start of this program only 28% of these midpoint, only 62% did so. By the conclusion of this program, 83% took into account culturall speech patterns, but by the end 46 % did (Kleinfeld, 1998). Dana and Floyd (1993) conducted a study of case based instruction and multiculturalism. Four classes of 20 to 30 preservice teachers enrolled in a seminar course were required to keep pre and post reflections of their case discussion. Dana and Floyd stated that teaching cases heightened sensitivity towards cultural diversity and how cultural diversity translates into preservice teachers t o examine their beliefs and biases towards multicultural issues. They also concluded that case based instruction can lead to an understanding of how beliefs can affect how preservice teachers perceive teaching and learning multicultural issues. Sudzina's (1993) research on case based instruction applied to preservice teacher s curriculum to enhance decision making abilities and multicultural perspectives is illustrated in two examples Her first example is from a sophomore level educational psychology cour se where in which 17 participants were enrolled. Preservice teachers were required to select a cases, analyze it and then lead a discussion of the case with the class. Preservice teachers were also required to provide a written analysis of their case.

PAGE 59

47 The results of this study were two fold: One find was that teaching cases increased communic ating their own personal experiences, concerns, and commitment to successfully teaching all students. In Sudzina's (1993) second example, there were 39 preservice teachers enrolled in an educational psychology course. In this research, the participants we re grouped in triads, each of which chose a case for analysis and discussion. The researcher noted that there was a high level of innovation and personal involvement by all group members. Kleinfeld (1988) used a specific teaching case over a two year spa n in this report. The class was required to to the case by answering two to three of the six questions posed. This case features a ol. The class then met and discussed the case. After the discussion, the researcher asked the participants to write a short paper on the case to conceptualize what they learned from the discussion. The researches have followed this reflective inquiry mode l of teacher education for two years. 1 Giving students vicarious experience with multicultural teaching problems emotional as well as intellec tual preparation for an unjust world (Kleinfeld, 1988, p. 22).

PAGE 60

48 2 Showing students how to spot issues and frame problems (Kleinfeld, 1988, p. 23). 3 Modeling the process of analysis and inquiry in teaching (Kleinfeld, 1988, p. 24). 4 Enlar 26). Kleinfeld (1988) notes that preservice teachers learn strategies and an expanded repertoire when taught using a case based methodology. Also stated in this research is that ther All of the research studies discussed above have illuminated the benefits of using teaching cases in teaching multicultural education concepts. While in three of the studies the participants were preservice teachers (Lee, Summers, & Garza, 2009; Dana & Floyd, year certification program (Kleinfeld, 1998; 1988). Two major r esults can be synthesized from these studies: 1. Case based instruction appears to be a useful tool to guide the reader to spot and discuss multicultural issues (Lee, Summers, & Garza; 2009; Kleinfeld, 1998; 1988; Sudzina, 1993).

PAGE 61

49 2. Teaching cases can be a used as a vehicle to discuss the beliefs and biases that Garza; 2009; Dana & Floyd, 1993; Sudzina, 1993). Theoretical Frame According to th e master syllabus, this course uses readings, lecture, group discussion, and field work to teach content and pedagogy (Figure 1 ). Figure 1 : Literacy Course Context. Model of the classroom environment and dissemination of course con tent where the study took place. This study will use Sociocultural Theory, Development (ZPD), and Situated Learning as theoretical frames and rationales for using teaching cases with diversity and literacy issu es for instruction. The teaching cases and postcard narratives will replace the use o f the ESOL scholarly articles (see Figure B).

PAGE 62

50 This model (Figure 2 ) portrays the classroom environment where this study was conducted and includes the influences of the addition of literacy teaching cases to the course content. It was developed using the theoretical frame that guided this study and depicts the development of a culturally responsive pedagogy with the implementation of teaching cases and postcard narratives. The preservice teachers and the professor are active participants within the course context. Together, the professor and preservice teachers discuss and navigate the course context: the teaching cases, the field work component, and the course work. The case based discourse and the postcard narratives are influenced by the preservice teach Figure 2 : Theoretical Frame Guiding the Course Context. This model is guided by the theoretical from for this study.

PAGE 63

51 Sociocultural T heory (SCT) Sociocultural theory (SCT) was first systematized by Vygots 1930s and derives from his concepts that knowledge is shared, created and then recreated (Nasir & Hand, 2006). John based on the concept that human activities take place in cultural contexts and are the construction of knowledge as the transformation of socially shared activities into an internalized process (John Steiner and Mahn, 1996). Liter acy development is the shared understanding of many, learning from particular social, cultural and educational groups (Alexander & Fox, 2004). By using this theory as a lens, preservice teachers can assist students from diverse backgrounds to achieve in sc hool by encouraging different strategies, techniques, and implementing the culture and historical backgrounds of diverse learners to help them succeed. This study will employ SCT as a lens to view the preservice teachers' interactions within the classroom context as they work through the teaching cases. Zone of Proximal Development The Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) is the distance between the problem solving abilities exhibited by a learner alone and their problem solving abilities of the learner when given (p. 187). An example of ZPD can be illustrated by imagining a ten year old girl who is given a mathematics problem that is more difficult than she could manage. Then, a

PAGE 64

52 teacher provides the girl with some guidance by ask ing the girl a probing question to assist her in metacognitively approaching the sequential steps necessary to solve the proble m. By asking purposeful questions to scaffold the girls thinking about the problem, she is then able to solve the problem. The girl is given more difficult problems and it is discover ed that with assistance she can solve problems designed for a thirteen y ear old student. Her ZPD is 3 years: the distance of her mental age and the level she reaches with assistance (Vygotsky, 1986). According to Kidd, Sanchez, Thorp (2005), the ZPD relates to developing culturally responsive teaching practices in the followin g way: preservice teachers to develop an awareness of cultures different from their own that will lead to an approach to instruction that enhances cultural and linguistic continuity bet The use of teaching cases allows for the preservice teacher to collaborate with a ex pert (the professor) about diversity issues that can arise during literacy instruction. By constructing a classroom environment where the p reservice teacher has the opportunity to engage in critical discourse about literacy and diversity issues throug h the use of teaching cases, the preservice teachers are provided the opportunity to move into their ZPD as culturally competent teachers (Figur e B). Situated Learning Preservice teachers, who are trying to reflect on the knowledge and theory gained from their university classes and apply these in their field experiences may become

PAGE 65

53 overwhelmed. Situated Learning focuses on the relationship betw een learning and the social situation from which it derives (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Situated learning is that which takes place in a social setting allowing for co construction of knowledge. It is not the knowledge that is passed down from professor to stud ent, but the learning that takes Wenger, 1991, community of practices as they learn from experts in a social setting (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Anderson, Reder & Simon (1996) state that often times there is a mismatch between what is learned in school situations and what is nee ded in the workplace. Situated l tion of theory and practice with the authentic schooling environment (Lave & Wenger, 1991 ) In the proposed study, teaching cases will be presented and facilitated by a literacy professional, and under this guided participation learning occurs (Rogoff, 19 95). The participation and engagement in teaching cases will be essential to situated learning and these social interactions are essential to learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Shulman and Si mon (1996) define situated learning and the idea that what is learned is specific to the situation in which it was learned. Situated learning gives us a potential to understand teaching cases arrative form, and specific, localized setting allows them to be an appropriate vehicle for learning. They foster effective forms of learning because they are situated in a specific time and place. This allows a bridge to form, and knowledge to transfer f rom the college classroom into the school ing environment (Shulman, 199 2 ).

PAGE 66

54 Preservice teachers engage in sociocultural practices by engaging in discourse power to renegoti ate the meaning of the past and future in constructing the meaning of allows for the development of a self sociocultural consciousness and a culturally responsive teaching pe dagogy. Summary In summary, preservice teachers need experiences that advance their awareness of the complexities, challenges, and differences in the student populations they will teach. Case based instruction has been recommended and supported by resear ch as a vehicle to prepare prospective teachers for the diversity issues they will face in the classroom (Dana & Floyd, 1993; Kleinfeld, 19 88 ; Shulman, 1992; Sudzina, 1993). Leistyna (2007) states that teacher education programs need to find ways to help preservice teachers engage in critical inquiry. Critical, in this case, implies being able to comprehend, pose questions, and a nalyze the sociopolitical and economic realities that shape our lives and the way we see others Using teaching cases as a focal point for discussion and then to us e an empathetic identity as a lens is a sociocultural act that empowers preservice teachers to develop their sociocultural consciousness and become agents of change Teaching cases offer another approach to how colleges of education traditionally prepare its teachers.

PAGE 67

55 C HAPTER III The purpose of this study was twofold. The first purpose was to describe the perc eptions of a professor who facilitate d case based instruction. The seco nd purpose of this study to underst and the lived experiences of preservice teachers in a literacy course that incorporates teaching cases as a method ology. These teaching cases feature d diversity and literacy issues. I investigate d these issues during the spring semester of 2010 at Sou th P acific College (SPC). I employ ed a mixed method design to understand the lived experiences of preservice teachers and a professor as they work ed with a series of teaching cases featuring literacy and diversity issues. Interviews, observations, preservice t eacher constructed postcard and pre and post res ponses to these teaching cases were used as qualitative data sources for this study. In addition, the Cultural Diversity Awarenes s Invento ry (Henry, 1991) was perceptions over the course of the semester (see Appendix A). The Setting South Pacific College is accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools to award the following degrees: selected Bachelor of Science degrees, Bachelor in Applied Science, Associate in Arts, Associate

PAGE 68

56 in Science, Associate in Applied Science, as well as vocational certificates a nd Applied Technology diplomas. SPC began as a private, two sites over the county. In 2001, SPC became an accredited four year co llege. In the 2006 2007 school year, it awarded 517 Baccalaureate and 1,866 Associates in Arts degrees. SPC presently offers nine different education degrees. This study took place in a required course for the Elementary Education degree. Preservic e t eachers in this program complete 120 credit hours and an additional 9 prerequisite credit hours. Preservice Elementary Education with an infused ESOL and Reading endorsement for grades Kindergarten through six This section will discuss the following aspects of the study: (a) the professor, (b) the course, (c) the preservice teacher participants and (d) the researcher. The Professor Laura Grace earned her Ph.D from a major S outhwest university. She has taught at the college level for six years, five of those years at SPC. Dr. Grace has taught a variety of classes within the field of educational literacy, such as courses that pertain to ture, and the teaching of emergent readers. Dr. Grace has told me that she enjoys traveling, teaching elementary aged students, and being part of the faculty at a teaching college. She is the professor of the course I studied in my research.

PAGE 69

57 Dr. Grace was selected for this study because of a past relationship I had with this professor. In 2005 I was hired by SPC as an adju nct instructor to teach an English S peaker s of O ther L anguages (TE SOL) course. The next semester I was hired again, but this time to faci litate a literacy course. Although Professor Grace was not teaching this course at this time, she had in the past. Dean Thomas recommended that if I had any questions I should see Professor Grace for guidance. Soon after I set up an appointment with Dr. Gr ace because I had questions about curriculum content and course materials. Professor Grace was extremely helpful, providing me with supplementary materials, advice, and support. I worked at SPC for two more semesters where I learned that the preservice tea chers held Professor Grace in high regard. I have a positive professional relationship with this profe ssor. She is someone I wanted to study because of her evident passion for teaching and the preference preservice teachers have for taking her classes. I m et with Professor Grace in the summer of 2009 to tell her my ideas about this study; she immediately told me she was interested. Course Before entering the elementary education program at SPC, preservice teachers are required to take three prerequisite co urse s They are: Introduction to Education, Teaching Diverse Populations, and Introduction to Educational Technology. Once preservice teachers have been accepted to the College of Education at SPC, one of the first courses preservice teachers will take is RED 3309, Early and Emergent Literacy K 2 (see Appendix B). According to the master syllabus:

PAGE 70

58 The course is designed to increase understanding of literacy development and conditions which promote total literacy from birth through lower elementary grade s. Language theory and current research are used to shape informed practices regarding literacy development. Connections are made among all aspects of literacy learning: reading, writing, listening, speaking and attitude development. The course explores an d develops many related activities to foster a balanced, positive, constructive attitude towards literacy in young children (p.1). Preservice teachers enrolled in this course also have a field experience component; they are required to visit an elementary school for a minimum of 15 hours to observe the teaching of reading. For this study, five teaching cases will be implemented in this undergraduate course. Preservice Teacher Participants There were two section s of this course offered at SPC, both taught by Dr. Grace. For the purpose of this study, I selected one section to study. During the week of January 25, 2010, I observed both sections. One section met on Mondays and Wednesdays; the other section was offered on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Both of these sections met at the same time and on the same campus. The Monday/Wednesdays section had 11 preservice students, 10 women and 1 male. The Tuesday/ Thursday section had 20 students enrolled 17 women and 3 men. I noted in my researcher reflective journal abo ut the I am leaning toward picking this class because this study was being analyzed using a Grounded Theory Approach (S trauss &

PAGE 71

59 Corbin, 1988), and I decided it would be best to choose the course section with a higher enrollment. I speculated that a larger class size could offer a richer discussion more interaction, and the possibility of preservice teachers bringing to th e classroom discussion a wider range of perspectives and diverse points of view. According to Dr. Grace, who has taught this course in the past, preservice teachers enrolled in this course reflect the demographics of the current teaching population. They a re predominately white females who c ome from middle class homes. There were 20 preservice teachers enroll ed in this course. Of the 20 students, 17 of them were females and three were males. Two of the twenty students identified themselves as Hispanic and t he rest of the preservice teachers identified themselves as Caucasian. This was their firs t course that specifically dealt with literacy in elementary education, and it is typically taken during their first semester of acceptance into the college of educat ion. All of the p reservice teachers enrolled in the Tuesday/Thursday section of RED 3309 were invited to particip ate in this study. Dr. Grace introduced me to her class during the third week of the semester to d iscuss the study. I answer ed any questions th at the preservice teachers had about the study and their participation in it, and then I distributed IRB consent forms. Researcher Due to the design of th is study, as the researcher I was the key instrument. I collected data, examined documents, observed behavior, and interviewed the professor (Creswel l, 2007). For this study, I was a non partic ipant observer in the classroom during the discu ssion of teaching cases. I observe d the professor and preservice teachers within

PAGE 72

60 the classroom setting as they enga ge d in case based instruction. I observe d the participants constructing knowledge, th e setting, and then describe d and interpret ed the complexities of this process from an outsider important for me to own agenda (Janesick, 200 4 ). As a teacher educator, I want to find methods that will instill a passion in preservice teachers. I want to uncover pedagogies that will enable preservice teachers to b ecome agents of change and strive for the second language learners to achieve at the same rate as their mainstream classmates. As a researcher I want to be reflexive in my practice. Creswell (2007) defines reflexivity as being, lues, and experiences that he or she brings to a qualitative research study cognizant of the possibili ty of bias, and continuously made informed decisions with bias in mind. Design of the Study Qualitative research begins with the use of a theoretical lens to make sense of was constructed utilizing a constructivism paradigm (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). This par adigm was selected because the objective of th is study was to understand the learning that takes place in social constructions between participants. Constructivism is seen as an appropriate lens for data collection and analysis because the data was created during classroom discussion and as the resear ch continue d (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). To support of knowledge, the professor had to build upon the knowledge the preservice teacher already possesse d. The professor allow ed for the preservice teachers to build upon one construct ed their

PAGE 73

61 knowledge (Villegas & Lucas, 2 002). The professor engage d her preservice teachers in questioning, interpreting, and analyzing information during case based instruction. Throu gh a constructivist lens, I analyze d the data collected, beginning with the perceptions of the professor about the use of case based instruction to teach literacy and diversity issues relevant to RED 3309 course ob jectives. Data collection include d esearcher reflective journal. I also analyze d how case based instruction and teaching cases influence d ssues. Data collection came from multiple sources. These sources include d the Cultural Diversity Awareness Inventory (Henry, 1991), non participant field notes, pre and post teaching case response s interviews with the professor and the preservice postcard narratives. Research Questions During the spring 2010 semester at Sout h Pacific College (SPC), I investigate d a perceptions of case based instruction that features literacy and diversity issue s. I also investigated teaching pra ctices and literacy issues that were embedde d within teaching cases. These specific questions guide d my inquiry: 1. teaching cases as a vehicle for teaching culturally responsive literacy pedagogy?

PAGE 74

62 2. How do teaching cases and case based instruction featuring diversity and literacy issues influence preservice teachers perceptions and insights related to culturally responsive teaching practices in literacy? Developing the Study In October of 2009, I met with Laura Grace and the Dean of SPC to discuss the possibilities of conducting this study at SPC. We decided that I would meet with the members of the reading faculty of this college to discuss my study and receive their input. In November 2009, seven fa culty members, the dean, and I met on a satellite campus. The idea of conducting this study at SPC was well received by the faculty. They felt that the information presented was grounded in research and permission was granted to move forward with this stu classes, we agreed that upon completion of this research, a workshop would be held for the entire reading faculty to present the teaching cases and results. I then began looking for teaching cases that featured literacy and cultural diversity issues that would be included in a course entitled RED 3309. While many cases featured one of these issues, most did not feature both. I then modified seven cases to feature both literacy and cultural di versity issues and co constructed one entirely. All of these cases were presented to a multicultural expert who reviewed the cases for cultural content. The multicultural expert is an assistan t professor at a major southeastern university. She holds a P h D in Curriculum and Instruction with a focus on second language and literacy. After the approval was received, the teaching cases were presented to a panel of literacy experts for further evaluation.

PAGE 75

63 Panel of Literacy Experts The panel of literacy ex perts met on November 16, 2009 to discuss the teaching cases that w ould be integrated into the s pring 2010 semester of RED 3309. The panel consisted of five experts in the area of literacy; one of the experts also has expertise in the field of culturally r esponsive teaching. All panel members have experience as educators in the K 12 schooling environment ranging f rom six years to 25 years. Three of the panel members are currently enrolled in a Ph.D. program at a research one university, and two of the memb ers ha ve earned a Ph.D. Currently, all members of the panel are teaching college level courses at a university in the area of literacy studies. One of the panel experts is in her thirties, two are in their forties, and two are in their fifties. This pan el met to discuss the quality and integrity of these teaching cases. This research plan was presented, along with the research questions. The panel was presented with one case to analyze and discuss. They were then provided with a rubric and asked to rate each teaching case (See Appendix C). The teaching case rubric rated the content of each case with regard to: 1. Multiple Layers: There is at least one literacy and one multicultural layer that could be deconstructed from the case. 2. Identifying of dilemma: An authentic problem that could be manifested in an elementary school setting is presented. 3. Language: The language is appropriate for students entering an elementary education program with regard to jargon. 4. Alignment to course: The case matches at least one

PAGE 76

64 5. Content: Case is of a high quality and is written to engage preservice teachers in dialogue that aligns with course objectives. The panel was asked to select the five that best fit this study and to choose one of those teaching cases to be used for the collection of pre and post data. The panel unanimously selected one case to be used for pre and post data collection. Each of the five teaching cases that were selected were rated a three, the highest rating, in all areas present ed on the rubric. In addition, the panel reviewed the syllabus for RED 3309 and made suggestions as to where they believed the teaching cases would be best integrated into the course calendar. The group unanimously supported the use of the teaching cases. They found them to be powerful teaching tools and felt they would engage preservice teachers in both literacy and cultural diversity issues. Data Sources Both qualitati ve and quantitative data were collected in order to a nswer the research questions. The qualitative data included : interview transcriptions, nonparticipant observation notes, researcher reflective journals, responses to a pre and rnals. The quantitative data wer e the pre and post scores from the Cultural Diversity Awareness Inventory (See Table 1).

PAGE 77

65 Table 1 Research questions and description of data sources from study participants. Questions Data Sources Participants perceptions of the use of teaching cases as a vehicle for teaching culturally responsive literacy pedagogy? Interviews (5 initial, and one after every case ) Researcher reflective journal Professor kept journal Nonparticipant observation notes Professor 2. How do teaching cases and case based instruction featuring diversity and literacy issues influe nce perceptions and insights related to cultural responsive teaching practices? Pre and post teaching case Nonparticipant observation notes Postcard Narratives Interviews with professor Cultural Diversity Awareness Invento ry (Henry, 1991) Preservice Teachers Participants Interviews Th ere were five teaching cases selected for this study. Four of the cases were used by Dr. Grace as a vehicle for teaching the course content of litera cy and diversity issues and one was us ed for pre and post data. I interview ed Dr. Grace after each of the f our cases was taught to collect her ideas about her use of teaching cases and preservice I also interview ed her one final time, after the preservice teachers respond e d to their post teaching case. These interviews were semi structured in terviews.

PAGE 78

66 Questions were also formulated from my own field notes and researcher journal, enabling us to jointly construct meaning regarding the use of teaching cases (Janesick, 200 4 ). Kvale (2009) describes a linear progression of steps that can guide an interviewer through their i nterview study. These stages guide d my interview inquiry: 1. Thematizing -Plan your research, clarify why and what you are studying. 2. Designing -Plan all seven s tages before interviewing. 3. Interviewing -Conduct interviews with a reflective approach to what you are trying to learn. 4. Transcribing -Transcribe your interviews verbatim. 5. Analyzing -Use the basis of the purpose and topic to decide what modes of analysis ar e most fitting for the interviews. 6. Verifying Ascertain the validity and reliability of your findings. 7. Reporting -Communicate your findings in a scholarly and ethical format. The goal of this initial interview was to th oughts, questions, and concerns about the use of teach ing cases. I use d a list of generated questions, protocol A (Appendix E). The following interviews also were semi structured wi th open ended questions. I ask ed questions that enhance d the development of the evolving theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1999). I chose a semi structured format to foster an authentic dialogue between researcher and interviewee (Creswell, 2007; Kvale, 2009). The topics sel ected for the interviews were researc h que stions and the data that emerged during the observations. The preservice

PAGE 79

67 rticipant observation notes guide d the questions aske d. The final interview took place after the post teaching case was presented. This interview focused on the experience of using teaching cases and case based instruction to teach diversity issues and litera cy concepts. This interview also focus ed reflections of on the use of teaching cases, her experiences planning and meeting her course objectives, and her perceptions of how teaching cases influenced the preservice I record ed each interview using a digital voice recorder and tr anscribed each interview following the interview. I email ed the transcription to Dr. Grace to check for accuracy. Member validation is presenting the participants the verbatim transcripts after an interview to check for validity (Kvale, 2009; Janesick, 200 4 ). Dr. Laura Grace, the professor of this course, wrote a r efl ective journal response after each week teaching cases were used, and on any occasion that she had thoughts, questions, feedback, or comments about teaching cases. Dr. Grace email ed her reflections to me The purpose of this journal was to allow Dr. Gr ace time to reflect on her thoughts about case based in struction and discourse that was constructed duri ng her class. Her journal was used as a tangible way to evaluate her experiences and clarify her thoughts (Janesick, 200 4 ) regarding case based instruc tion in the context of her classroom. Dr. Grace used to formulate questions for subsequent interviews.

PAGE 80

68 Researcher Reflective Journal I kept a reflective journal throughout the course of this study. Janesick (200 4 ) uses the metapho r of a researcher reflective journal as entire study (p.149). It allows the researcher to be reflexive in her thoughts, biases, and interpretations during interviews, observations, and field work. Researcher reflective j d with other data sources. I specifically use d my researche r reflective journal after conducting interviews and following classroom observations (Patton, 2002) Cas e based Instruction Dr. Grace use d a case based instruction methodology during the sp ring semester. Dr. Grace presented t he teaching cases that were aligned by the expert panel with that network site and the preservice teachers were respons ible for reading each case before the designated class. In addition, optional reading ma terial about the culture that was feature d in the teaching case was 3) research as a framework for her instru ctional delivery, Dr. Grace : 1. r eview ed the teaching case. 2. w ith the class, discuss ed the range of issues presented in the case. 3. w ith the class, discuss ed pedagogical strategies and their consequences. Non Participant Observation Notes I conducted o bservations during the classes in which the four teaching cases were presented and discussed. In addition, I took observation notes on the two days when th e

PAGE 81

69 pre and post teaching case was administered and on the day s the C DAI was administered. During the observations, an observation protocol was u sed to record information. I a ttempt ed to summarize chronologically the flow of activities using descriptive and reflective notes (Creswell, 2007; S trauss & Corbin, 19 98). T he field notes were intended interactions with peers, discussion, and the learning environment. Because Dr. Grace used f ramework for her instructional delivery, a section of the non participant observation notes was was followed in her methodological dissemination of the teaching case (See Appen dix F). I observe d her teaching, checking off and recording her methodology in using the t eaching cases to see if they were consistent with the framework Noordhoff and Kleinfeld (1998) used in their research. During these observation s, I also use d a rubri c to categorize preservice tea responses. This rubric was based on Villegas and Lucas (2002) characteristics of a cultural ly responsive teacher and al teaching. I used the rubric to mark answers that fit into one of these categories and to a. CRT Pedagogy The answer discusse d the background of students and may have use d examples of a culture. Preservice teacher discusse d or allude d to a constructivist view of learning.

PAGE 82

70 b. Empowerment Preservice teacher viewed him/herself as an agent of change for students and school culture. c. Sociocultural Consc iousness Preservice teacher had an understanding that are influenced by their cultures. This rubric was Appendix F). The purpose of this rubric was to use the current literature to guide the s throughout the semester. Pre and Post Teaching Cases Preservice teachers respond ed to the same teaching case at the beginning of the semester, and then agai n after four teaching cases had been taught during the semester. The preservice teachers were p rovided a copy of the teaching case and I read the case. I then ask ed the participants to write down all the issues (literacy and diversity) that the case present ed as well as the different pedagogical ways to handle those issues. I observe d these class s essions, took nonparticipant o bservation field notes, and wrote in my researcher reflective journal. Postcard Narratives After the class was engaged in pedagogical and methodological discourse that revolve d s, th e preservice teachers had an allotted time to write a narrative from a first person perspective. Professor Grace pass ed out 4 x 6 note cards that emulate d the postcards used in the project, Postsecret where people anonymously write their thoughts about a multitude of topics ( http://postsecret.blogspot.com/ ). As on this website, t he preservice teachers

PAGE 83

71 had the anonymity to examine the feelings of the student presented in the teaching case. The preservice teac her used an empath et ic identity to engage in this reflexive position process, and enter a private discourse with themselves (Moghaddam, 1999) about their perceptions of the issues discussed in the teaching case. The preservice teachers respond ed specifica lly to this writing prompt: I am ___________, I feel __________, because _________. I want you to _____________. This data provide d information about the perspectives and insights of the literacy and diversity issues presented in th e case. These postcard narratives were used to gain ies to internalize the issues in the case, empathize with the diverse learner, and look at the situation from the position of the student. Culturally Diversity Awareness Inventory (CDAI) The Cultural Diversity Awareness Inventory (CDAI) was developed by Gertrude Henry to examine attitudes of educators towards culturally diverse students and their families (Henry, 1991). This questionnaire was used to determine whether there was sign ificant growth amongst preservice teachers in their cultural awareness from the beginning to the end of the spring s emester (Appendix A). There were 28 opinion statements that address ed general cultural awareness using a Likert 5 point scale (e.g. 5 = st rongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = neutral, 2 = disagree, 1= strongly disagree). Two example statements from this survey are : I believe I would prefer to work with children and parents whose cultures are similar to mine and I believe cultural views of a diverse community should be included in the school years program planning.

PAGE 84

72 In a study with 506 teacher participants from Texas and Virginia, Henry (1995) determined test retest reliability of the CDAI to be at the .66 level. School districts in Texas and Virgin ia were targeted because of their states diverse populations. A panel of experts appraised the clarity and significance of each statement for content validity. alpha coefficient of .9 0 (Henry, 1995). Henry (1995 established, the instrument can be used to determine with some confidence what the A search on Googl e Scholar and Eric database using the key term: Cultural Diversity Awareness Inventory yielded seven studies: Barnes (2006), Brown (2004a), Brown (2004b), Davis & Turner (1993), Hadaway et al., (1988), Larke (1990), and Milner, Flowers, Moore, Moore, & F lowers (2003). All of these studies used preservice teachers enrolled in undergraduate course work as their participants in this study, except for Hadaway et al., (1988) whose participants were a compilation of preservice teachers, graduate students, and i n service teachers. None of these studies reporte d their psychometric properties (reliability or validity data). Three of the studies used the CDAI as a pre and post measure to show, in some form, if there was growth in cultural awareness (Barnes, 200 6; B rown 2004a; Hadaway et al. 1988). On the date of the pretest ad ministration, I introduce d myself, explain ed the purpose of the research, and advise d the pr eservice teachers that there were no right or wrong answers when completing this survey. I also ex plain ed that this questionnaire was completely anonymous, not shown to the p rofessor of the course, and in no fashion would be used as a grade or evaluation. Furthermore, I allow ed the preservice teachers to use as

PAGE 85

73 much time as necessary to complete the qu estionnaire. Lastly, I explain ed that the questionnaire would be re administered later in the semester. Research Plan Multiple sources of data were used in this study. The following schedule was co constructed with Professor Grace (Table 2). We met to a lign the teaching cases that were selected with her course calendar, using the suggestions set forth by the expert panel. Following this meeting, I finished the schedule by adding which types of data would be collected on the corresponding dates. Table 2 R esearch Schedule and Data Collection Week of Data Researcher Professor 1/25/10 CDAI Observation, RRJ 1/25/10 PreCase Observation/RRJ 2/03/10 Case/Narrative Observation/RRJ Interview 2/15/10 Case/Narrative O bservation/RRJ Interview 2/22/10 Case/Narrative Observation/RRJ Interview 3/13/10 Case/Narrative Observation/RRJ Interview 4/12/10 Post Case Observation/RRJ 4/12/10 CDAI/ Observation/RRJ Interview

PAGE 86

74 Trustworthiness I employ ed rigorous methods of data collection, data analysis and report writing whe n extensive data collection in the f of the account using one or Creswell (2007) discusses validation strategies frequently used by qualitative researchers. The seven strategies embedded in this research follow: 1. Prolonged engagement and persistent observation in the fiel d -I was present in the classroom during the case based instruction as a non participant observer taking field notes. 2. Triangulation of data -I use d several sources of data to provide evidence of themes and perspectives that rise during this study. 3. Peer rev iew or external check of the researc h process I had an outside source debrief my notes and ask questions about my methods, meanings and interpretations. 4. Clarify researcher bias I stated my position so the reader can understand my position and my biases that can impact this inquiry. 5. Member checking Following each interview, I sent my interviewee the transcriptions to review 6. Ri ch and thick description -I provided in detail the participants and setting in the study to enable the readers to gain insights to whether or not some of the findings can be transferred.

PAGE 87

75 7. External audits I had an external auditor to examine the process and product of my findings for accuracy. I used these seven strateg ies to guide my research, and to increase the rigor for keepin g my research trustworthy. I continuously look ed for points in my data that were contradictory. Dependability I followed these procedures for coding: 1. I code d the data through an inductive analysis. 2. I mark ed off units of analysis and develop a list of cod es. 3. I entered all data and codes into Atlas.ti. 4. I met with a n external coder on April 25, 2010 to assure reliability and stability in the analyzing of the d ata sets. She is a professor in the field education with expertise in cultural diversity pedagogy an d qualita tive research. Together we analyze d samples of the data and sought to meet with an 80% agreement on our codes (Miles & Huberman, 1994) 5. We then review ed her assigned codes, and ask ed ourselves whether we assigned the same code word to th e passages The decision was a yes or no, and we then calculate d the percentage of agreement The external coder and I reached an 87% agreement. Confidentiality D r. Grace and I explain ed to all p reservice t eachers that no one wa s obligated to participate in this study,

PAGE 88

76 and participants could withdraw from the study at any time. Participants were given a code for the pre and post quantitative data (CDAI). I was then able to match the means of the two surveys to determine if there was a significant difference in relationship to growth as measured by the CDAI. The two product based assignments were also handled in a confidenti al manner. The participants use d their assigned codes to label their pre and post resp onse to the teaching cases. The postcard narratives were collected in an envelope directly after class. No codes or names were written on these postcards to ensure anonymity of the preservice teachers. In additi on, these assignments were not shown to n or u sed as evaluation tools by the professor for the purpose of course grades Other data points transcription, nonparticipant notes, and res earcher reflective journal -were all kept electronically on a secure and password protected co mputer. All printed files were kept in a locked cabinet in my home Data Analysis initial design, continuing throughout the collection of data and data analysis, and ending with the gene rating of a theory (Patton, 2002; Strauss & Corbin, 1988). I approach ed each step in a systematic way to allow for rigor in the analysis process and allow for theory to emerge from the data. Grounded theory w as chosen for this study because,

PAGE 89

77 Grounded theory proves a systematic way for analyzing d ata. I began my analysis by conducting a micro analysis of all the data. I conduct ed a detailed, line by line analysis the in terplay between the two. I continue d my analysis by following these steps (Strauss & Corbin, 1988): 1. Open coding I began the process by readin g each of the responses. I look ed at words, phrases and/or sentences to dete rmine how to label them. I bracket ed analytic ideas that emerge d from the tex t and wrot e labels above the brackets. I continually add ed data, compare d data, and determine d how to label them. 2. Axial coding Dur ing and after open coding I systematically relate d categories and linked with subcat egories. Related labels were sorted to similar cod es identified. Then, I look ed at e ach code to see if the code fit with any of the previous codes. The hypothesis that derive d from the new data was modified, extended or delete d as necessary when compared with the incoming data Categories were highlighted throughout all data. 3. Selective coding I pull ed other categories together to form an explanation of the whole phenomenon by deciding on a cent ral category or if none captured it completely, a conceptual idea under which all cat egories could be organize d. I organize d the codes into the ATLAS.ti program to identify the emer ging themes of the data. I then identified shifts in perceptions and insights of participants over time in relation to literacy and diversity issues. I used ATLAS.ti software p rogram to assist with the analysis of the interviews, non participant field notes, professor journal, postcard narratives, and the researcher

PAGE 90

78 reflective journal. Atlas.Ti is a Windows based program developed by Scientific Software Development in Germany. It is a software program used in qualitative research for collation, categorization, and organization of data. The program allows the user to organize text files along with coding, memos and f indings (Creswell, 2007), and the program can illuminate the rec urrence of themes across the data formats. Interviews The interview recordings were transcribed soon after each interview, and the transcripts were read over in their entirety several times. Creswell (2007) explains that researchers need to immerse themse lves in the details to get a sense of the interview and resear cher reflective journals were analyzed to make s ense of what the interviewee had said (Strauss & Corbin, 1988). The t ranscript and audio recording was saved onto a personal computer. One copy of the transcript was printed and used for analysis following the grounded theory procedures above. Pre and Post Teaching Cases One teaching case was selected to be used for the purpose of pre and post data collection (See Appendix D, Janice). At the beginning and again at the end of the semester, the participants respond ed to the teaching case by identifying the cultural and literacy issues presented in the case. The preservice teachers wrote their responses without engaging in the case based ins truction or discussion that would normally accompany the cases used during the semester.

PAGE 91

79 interviews with th e professor, and resear cher reflective journal were used to understand how teaching cases and case based instruction influence d the perceptions and insights of pre service teachers in relation to literacy and cultural diversity issues presented in the teach ing cases. The originals responses were kept intact, and a copy of each was used for analysis. First, I co l lated the responses for each participant to examine potential change in their responses over the time period of this study. These data were analyzed by using the grounded theory systematic steps of: (a) open coding, (b) axial coding, and (c) selective coding. The pre teaching case was compared with the post teaching case looking at action/interaction and tracing it over time to note potential change o ver time. (Creswell, 2007). Postcard Narratives After eac h of the four teaching cases were taught in cl ass, the preservice teachers respond ed to the teaching case by using an empathic identity lens to engage in the reflexive p osition process. The preserv ice te achers filled out their post card and submitted them anonymously. They place d their postcards in a large envelope upon leaving class. The researcher gather ed all of the postcards, read them immediately following the class, and transcribe d them with a word processing progr am. The original postcard narratives were be ke pt intact. During analysis the postcards were sorted and resorted into categories Using grounded theory systematic approach, t hese responses, along with nonparticipant field n otes, prof the researcher reflective journal were used to understand how teaching cases and case based instruction influence d the

PAGE 92

80 perceptions and insights of preservice teachers in relationship to literacy and cultural diversity issues as present ed in the teaching cases. Quantitative Data The quantitative data comes from the Cultural Diversity Awareness Inventory (CDAI ; Henry ; 1991) This Likert scale was used as a pre and post study measure to ural diversity awareness during the spring semester. Prior to the start of the study, a cognitive interview was conducted with two volunteers to focus on the cognitive process that potential participants used w hen answering this inventory (Willis, 1991). This technique was employed to evaluate questions that could be potential sources of response error on this survey. The two volunteers recruited for the purpose of this interview had similar characteristics to the projected population of this study. One volunteer was a 21 year old, White woman who has earned an Associates of Arts degree and the other volunteer was a 20 year old, White woman who was enrolled in an elementary education program. During this trial bal protocol by: (1) reading the statement comprehension question. Both of these volunteers were interviewed separately on different days. Volunteer one found five stateme nts confusing and volunteer two found 4 statements confusing. Both volunteers found the same four statements confusing and therefore I decided that two volunteers were an adequate number for the cognitive interview. Although there we re 28 statements on the original CDAI, because four

PAGE 93

81 statements were confusing to both the volunteers, they were eliminated f or the purpose of this study. The 24 statements used for this study have a Likert style response scale that ranges from strongly agree to strongly disag ree. Each response has been coded with a weight value to quantify the data and determine a CDAI (Henry, 1991) composite score for each participant (Appendix G). The composite score is the sum of the points associated with each statement. Responses that ref lect more culturally aware views received higher scores on the instrument. For example, one question on the inventory cultural differences in foods, dress, family lif indicated they strongly agree receive d 5 points, agree receive d 4 points, neutral receive d 3 points, disagree received 2 points, and strongly disagree receive d 1 point. Conversely, ne gatively worded statements receive d poin ts on the opposite end of the spectrum (Crocker & Algina, 1986 groups as the U.S.A., I would accept the use of ethnic jokes or phrases by some chil they strongl y agree receive d 1 point agree receive d 2 points, neutral received 3 points, disagree received 4 points, and strongly disagree received 5 point s. A higher composite score indicated the preservice teacher had a higher cultural awareness as indicated by CDA I. A dependent means t test was used to analyze the pre and post test composite scores awareness during the spring semester ( =.05). Glass and Hopkins (1996) note that be cause the scores are dependent, as in pretest and posttest scores t test for paired

PAGE 94

82 observation would be used to analyze the data The co mposite scores from CDAI were analyzed using the SAS statistical software to see if the preservice teacher score cha nged at the =.05 in their cultural awareness during the spring semester. Summary In this mixed method study, preservice teache rs in a literacy course were instructed using case based instruct ion. The focus of this study was to examine the use of teachin g cases and case based instruction that feature d literacy and diversity issues and to unfold a teaching cases as a vehicle for teaching culturally responsive literacy pedagogy. Pa rticipants of this study were enrolled in a literacy course taught at South Pacific College by the sam e professor. The researcher emphasize d to the pres ervice teachers enrolled in this section that their participation was voluntary, and that they could have withdraw n at any time during the stu dy. The experiences of the professor and the preservice teachers were chronicled through: Interviews nonparticipant observation notes Postcard Narratives A pre and post teaching case The Cultural Diversity Awareness Inven tory (Henry, 1985) A grounded theory systematic approach was used to analyze the qualitative research data. The quantitative results of the CDAI were analyzed to determine if there

PAGE 95

83 was a significant difference in the pre and post survey scores. The analysi s was strengthened by using multiple data sources, methods, and theoretical perspectives to triangulate the data (Patton, 2002). To minimize researcher bias, the researcher established an audit trail to verify the rigor and maximize the accura cy of the final report.

PAGE 96

84 CHAPTER IV This study was developed to explore the use of teaching cases in a teacher education literacy course to foster a culturally responsive pedagogy in preservice teachers. It was conducted at South Pa cific College (SPC) in a course entitled, Early and Emergent Literacy. The course is one of the first courses preservice teachers encounter once they have been accepted into the College of Education or when they are finished with their Associates of Arts d egree and are awaiting acceptance into the College of Education. All 20 preservice teachers enrolled in this course agreed to be participants in this study, along with the professor of this course, Dr. Grace. The purpose of this study was twofold. The fir st purpose was to describe the perceptions of a professor who will facilitate case based instruction. In addition, the second purpose of this study was to understand the lived experiences of preservice teachers in a literacy course that incorporate d the u se of teaching cases as a methodology. These teaching c ases feature d diversity and lite racy issues. The research questions for this study are: 1. teaching culturally responsive l iteracy pedagogy? 2. How do teaching cases and case based instruction featuring diversity and to culturally responsive teaching practices in literacy?

PAGE 97

85 Data were collected from t he following sources (see Table 4) and coded with the abbreviations found in the parentheses: (a) interviews with the professor (INTV) (b) the se based instruction (OBN), (e) postcard narratives written from the student participants (narratives), (f) a pre and post teaching case (prepost), and (g) the Cultural Diversity Awareness Inventory (CDAI, Henry; 1991). Table 3 Research questions and de scription of data sources from study participants. Questions Data Sources Participants perceptions of the use of teaching cases as a vehicle for teaching culturally responsive literacy pedagogy? Interviews (5 initial, and one after every case) Researcher reflective journal Professor kept journal Nonparticipant observation notes Professor 2. How do teaching cases and case based instruction featuring diversity and literacy issues influe nce perceptions and insights related to cultural responsive teaching practices? Pre and post teaching case Nonparticipant observation notes Postcard Narratives Interviews with professor Cultural Diversity Awareness Invento ry (Henry, 1991) Preservice Teachers Participants

PAGE 98

86 The Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) is the theoretical frame that guided this study. It is the distance between the problem solving abilities exhibited by a learner alone and their problem solving abil ities when given assistance (Vygotsky, 1986). The teaching cases engaged the preservice teacher s and the professor in a case based discourse. The professor guided the preservice teachers as they discussed their ideas, strategies, and methodological choices in relationship to the issues in the case. She navigated the conversational flow, the topics discussed, and what issues were raised as significant. Therefore, to understand the content and the direction of the instructional conversation during case based instruction, it was important to understand more about the Background of the Professor Dr. Grace did not grow up knowing she was going to be an educator. She had a love for English and graduated with an English degree from the University of Jacksonville. She felt a calling to become a teacher and enrolled in a graduate program in the Western part of the United States to pursue her teaching degree. Over the next several years, Dr. Grace moved back to the J acksonville area, and taught fourth, fifth, and sixth North Florida. She then began teaching high school while she worked on her Ph.D. The State of Florida requires all t eachers to hold an ESOL Endorsement Certificate. Teachers can earn this certificate by taking 300 hours of in service workshops from taking two linguistic courses at the grad uate level and county provided workshops

PAGE 99

87 to fulfill the 300 hours that were required. Dr. Grace commented on taking these workshops: how to do these things with kids. Espec ially because I was working with so many 13, 2010). FCAT and I had to prepare them for t also recognized the challenges she faced as a practitioner. She said, of modifying a lesson. I know (what) they say about modifying lessons but every lesson, every day, 5 preps, I am not that good. And s o, there were times when I Finally, I asked Dr. Grace if she was comfortable as a professor teaching ESL always loo

PAGE 100

88 In the following section, each research question is presented. Next, the data sou rces I used and the findings from the data are discussed This chapter describes the perspectives and insights of the partici pants which comprise the findings of this study. Question One Research Question 1 What are a s of the use of teaching cases as a vehicle for teaching culturally responsive literacy pedagogy ? The data sources that answered this quest ion came from interviews with the conducted five interviews with Dr. Grace -one interview before case based instruction was facilitated, and one interview after eac h of the four teaching cases was taught. A course kept a reflective journal and responded on any occasion that she ha d thoughts, questions, feedback, or comments a bout teaching cases. Dr. Grace email ed her reflections to me The purpose of this journal was to allow Dr. Grace time to reflect on her thoughts about case based instruction and the discourse that was constructed during her class. I conducted o bservations during the classes in which the four teaching cases were presented and discussed During the observations, an observation protocol was used to record information, summarize chronologically the flow of activities and record descriptive and reflective note s (Creswell, 2007; S trauss & Corbin, 1998). The field engagement, attitudes, interactions with peers, discussion, and the learning environment. Lastly, I kept a researc reflective journal throughout the course of this study. It

PAGE 101

89 allowed me to be reflexive in my thoughts, and examine my biases and interpretations during interviews, observations, and field work. Three categories emerged from the data -journey, contextual factors, and case based discourse. Teaching cases are often short, narrative scenarios that depict situations a teacher could face in the schooling environment (Shulman, 199 2 ). They are stories and problems that p rofessionals face. They can form a clinical experience and test whether preservice teachers can apply theory to practice (B r oudy, 1990). Dr. Grace is new to case based instruction and teaching cases. We met for our first interview on January 25, 2010 to di hoping it will help with intrinsic motivation and possibly the preservice teachers can She also stated other reasons for agreeing to the study: I think this will stretch my teaching repertoire by trying something else. I think the class with the reading that has been assigned (ESOL readings) has gotten somewhat dated and not as interesting a s they could be, so I am excited about using them (INTV, Jan 25, 2010). I also asked Dr. Grace what her concerns were about implementing teaching cases in her classroom. She mentioned two: person dominates and other people not getting a chance to speak or not speaking the truth

PAGE 102

90 2010). However, this question was presented to Dr. Grace again at her final interview. I read the transcript to her verbatim. I have to say that those concerns did not come to fruition. It was quite the it, I think ecause they felt comfortable because o f the formats they were sharing, b ut I do think they were speaking honestly. The only part I am not sure is when they were almost brazen about what they would do (INTV, April 13, 2010). I also asked her if she had any concerns after the first day of implementation. Dr. (INTV, Feb 2, 2010). By the second teaching case, it be came evident that teaching cases became a methodology that the preservice teachers and the professor were not only looking forward to, but began connecting to ESL issues. The professor who is teaching the first ESL class that these same groups of students are in just stopped to introduce herself to me. She wanted to tell me that one of the preservice teachers began to discuss the teaching case in her class and Feb 16, 2010).

PAGE 103

91 It seems like we are able to get at things with a little more depth and bring in that dimension because this classroom is ESOL infused. I like that. (INTV, Feb 2, 2010). It was half way through the study when Dr. Grace explained to me that she was finding the teaching cases to be motivational, effective, and something she would like to I reall students (preservice teachers) started talking about the case study before class. This was spontaneous and rarely do they talk about content before class unless it case study because I have something to say. It was really neat. It was a first where I had students (preservice teachers) that excited (INTV, Feb 16, 2010). It really humanized what teachers a re going through on a day to day basis and gives a face to the ELLs. I also like how the students (preservice teachers) genuinely seem motivated to read (PJ, Feb 22, 2010). During the last case based instruction, the case Elena (the teacher in the case), w as presented (See Appendix D). I noticed that none of the preservice teachers had mentioned Layla, the ESOL student presented in the case until Dr. Grace has mentioned her. Dr. Grace guided them she brought up Layla, the student in the case, to keep them f ocused on the ESOL issue. She brought up dispositions how to talk to

PAGE 104

92 administration (not presented in the case) and she gave them time to get involved (RRJ, March 15, 2010). Shulman (1992) explains that teaching cases can explore a wide variety of issues and offer the reader multiple representations of different problems. At the interview following the case based instruction of the teaching case Elena, Dr. Grace and I discussed down a 2010). I would do faculty and ESOL coordinator (PJ, March 4, 2010). Summary. Dr. Grace stated that she had several concerns about implementing teaching cases into her spring lit eracy course. Two of those concerns were that her perservice teachers would not engage in a lively discussion and that the teaching cases could use more than the allotted scheduled time. Both of these issues were not concerns by the end of the semester. Ac cording to Dr. Grace, the preservice teachers enrolled in this course were motivated to read and discuss the teaching case. Contextual Factors Preservice teachers enrolled in this course, entitled Early and Emergent Literacy originally were required to r ead a scholarly journal article that discussed ESL learners and literacy, and then write a paper discussing the topics in this article. For this study,

PAGE 105

93 preservice teachers enrolled in this section did not do this assignment, but instead engaged in four cla sses that involved the use of case based instruction, postcard narratives, and pre and post teaching data. Dr. Grace often compared the case based instruction to the scholarly article nt, but I think when it comes to trying to make a connection with the content, I think that is where case studies have their merit. (INTV, Feb 15, 2010). think that when it comes to other articles in the past when you have them (INTV Feb 2, 2010) However, I think that with scholarly articles students (preservice teachers) have to be taught how to "mine" through the in formation to find what is important -especially if it's a study with limitations, methodology, etc. With case studies, it's great for independent reading and to reinforce or introduce a particular topic. (PJ, Feb 22, 2010) You are going to experience thi s. You can have more of a transfer power than reading something from an article. (INTV, April 13, 2010) For this study, the teaching cases were used in place of the ESL scholarly articles. The teaching cases were specifically written or modified to fit th e literacy topic of that week as per the syllabus, (See Appendix B). They were also infused or modified to

PAGE 106

94 present different ESL and diversity issues. Dr. Grace comments that this was an important component of this study. I am pleased with the response fro m the students (preservice teachers) and ease of including them into the content. I think it really helped, AnnMarie, that you took the time to align the topic with what we were discussing. It made it more relevant and very real (PJ, Mar, 4, 2010). I conne cted to it right away because I think it fit really well to what we were talking about. (INTV, March 16, 2010). During the presentation of the second case, Anna (See Appendix D), Dr. Grace began to navigate the classroom discourse to infuse the ESL issues presented in the case and literacy topic. She stopped the review (of the case) and actually used the conversation to start teaching about running records pragmatics the cultural aspects of a miscue this is the first time I a m seeing Dr. Grace do this now this becomes not only a teaching case, but a spring board to discuss literacy issues. She is showing a handout on the ELMO to compliment this conversation (OBN, Feb, 16, 2010). Summary. The teaching cases in this study were selected and modified or written to: (1) align with the weekly literacy topics that were presented in the course syllabus (see Appendix B) and (2) feature diversity and ESL issues.

PAGE 107

95 Case based Discourse The preservice teachers in this course read the teac hing cases before class and summarized the case at the beginning of each class. The preservice teachers and the professor engaged in discussion and were introduced, used, and practiced discourses that are not only presented in this case, but used in the ed ucation profession. Preservice teachers in this course made connections to the students presented in the teaching cases. They connected their elementary schooling experiences to the ones the case illustrated. Dr. Grace said, I heard one group talking about a spelling test. I heard them actually talk about negative things about spelling tests from them growing up and discussing it and I thought gosh what a great literacy topic, a great literacy case. (INTV, Mar 16, 2010) When I was walking around and listen ing to small groups, I heard one group say that happened to me, I was Juan. She was Swedish, that was her first language and I was placed in a lower reading group. And she still remembered that, so I think it evoked for some of them an emotion and it trigg ered an emotion and they felt empathy for the student or the teacher. (INTV, Feb 15, 2010) The teaching cases were written with specific literacy and ESL issues for this course. However, teaching cases are multilayered and offer different perspectives (Sh ulman, 1992). During this semester, many different topics rose to the surface during

PAGE 108

96 get to experience a different voice and something interesting that was brought up today is the dispositions, how do you talk to a principal. (INTV, Mar 16, 2010). The preservice teachers enrolled in this course became invested in the teaching cases, which was reflected in their discourse in and out of class. After each case, I would leave the classroom and sit down the hallway at a table next to the soda machines and write in my researcher reflective journal. On February 16, 2010 I was sitting waiting for Dr. Grace for an interview. I noted that the preservice teachers just were let out of their class, and then two of them approached me. The preservice teachers are starting to filter out and two of them have just stopped me to discuss the case. One, just to ask me how the student in the case turned out. becoming invested in these stories. (RRJ, Feb 16, 2010) Midway through this study, I asked Dr. Grace if she felt there were any weak points in the actual teaching cases. She stated, I think if anything, for me, I am left wanting to know more. Because I have to fill information would be nice, but then again, that might detract from the conversation. I think in terms of length it might be nice to know more information or background about the student. (INTV, Feb 15, 2010) During the case based instruction, the preservice teachers made connections with the students in the case, and became invested. Through the teaching case and the case

PAGE 109

97 b ased discourse that took place during the class, the students and the professor wanted to know more about the student in the case and made connections to their personal lives. Summary The data sources that answered this question came from interviews wit h the the end of the semester, Dr. Grace was pleased with how the teaching cases engaged her students and compared them to the scholarly articles that have been us ed in this course in semesters past. She believes scholarly articles have a purpose in teacher education but appreciated how the teaching case were aligned to the course content, motivated her students, and exposed them to a variety of issues that were pre sented in the teaching case. The preservice teacher and the professor also made connections to the teaching cases. This was noted by Dr. Grace: I think that using case studies is inherently interesting to people because there is a story attached to it. The re is something about the structure of a story that personalize things and that hopefully students will care more about the situation as opposed to just reading abstract theory. (INTV, Jan 25, 2010) Dr. Grace thought that the use of teaching cases was a su ccessful means of teaching literacy and ESL concepts in her class and plans to use them in the future.

PAGE 110

98 Question Two Research Question 2 How do teaching cases and case based instruction featuring diversity and literacy tions and insights related to culturally responsive teaching practices? The data sources that answered this question came from interviews with the teaching case that was used as pre and post data collection, student written postcard narratives, and the Cultural Diversity Awareness Inventory. In addition to the data described to answer the first question, interviews with the professor, a researcher reflective journal, and a professor kept journal, four additional data sources were used to answer question number two. The preservice teachers responded to the same teaching case at the beginning of the semester, and then again after four teaching cases were taught (the pre and post case). The participants wrote down all the issues (literacy and diversity) that the case presented, as well as the different pedagogical ways to handle those issues. The preservice teachers also wrote on a 4 x 6 note card (student postcard nar ratives) after three of the four classes where case based instruction was implemented. (Dr. Grace did not have her preservice teachers fill out the note cards one time because she forgot.) They used an empathetic identity to engage in this reflexive posit ion process, and entered a private discourse with themselves (Moghaddam, 1999) about their perceptions of the issues discussed in the teaching case. After working with each case, the preservice teachers responded specifically to this writing prompt: I am __________, I

PAGE 111

99 feel __________, because _________. I want you to _____________. This exercise was understanding of the experiences the person in the case might be undergoing by casting diversity issues presented in the case. Lastly, the CDAI (Henry, 1991 ) was a questionnaire that was used to determine whether there was significant growth amongst preservice teachers in their cultural awareness from the beginning to the end of the spring semester (Appendix A). Case based Instruction In this first section, case based instruction, I first describe each case, then provide the findings from that particular case, followed by presenting the overarching themes from the postcard narratives, and conclude by synthesizing how the case based discourse informed the stud ent written postcard narratives. In the second section, pre and post data, I describe both the qualitative and quantitative data and present the findings. Case based Instruction, Tim Preservice teachers enrolled in this course were exposed to their first case based instruction on February 2, 2010. The name of this case is entitled Tim (See Appendix D). that this school lacks universal symbols, pictorial representations of places, and a print rich environment. Tim and the principal decide that Tim should shadow two ESL students during the first day to learn the school and classroom policies and practices that are related to the ESL students. One of the students, named Jos e, is a Cuban American

PAGE 112

100 who expresses to Tim that he feels his classroom teacher does not think he is as smart as the other students. Tim wonders how he can help the teachers at his new school address the needs of his ESL students. This case brings to the forefront issues such as expectations for ESL students, reverse discrimination, print rich environments, and communication. It was selected to be presented this way because it was aligned with the course topics for that week which included phonemic awarene ss, phonics, and alphabet tests. her instructional delivery. I observed her follow this framework as a section of the non participant observation notes was dedicated to follow (See Appendix F). She began her case based instruction by asking preservice teachers to summarize the case, then she had them discuss the issues in what she referred to as a 8 volun teers to sit in a circle and discuss the issues, while the rest of the preservice teachers listened to the discussion. Following this activity, the whole class discussed these issues together. Finally, Dr. Grace discussed the pedagogical strategies and th e consequences of the choices that they made with her class. I noted, I like the fish bowl technique, it gave those 8 students (preservice teachers) a voice no one talked but them for 5 minutes and then it was opened for the rest of the class to discuss. Those 8 students (preservice teachers) had a lively discussion (OBN, Feb 2, 2010). Case based Discourse. Many issues were presented in this case, and some were not related to ESL or literacy issues. Although these other issues may not be the focus for

PAGE 113

101 the The ent back and observe more and then in a nice way talk to the teacher not in a pushy way, in a BN, Feb 2, 2010). Preservice teachers then began discussing more of the ESL issues presented in the case. CRT Pedagogy. The conversation seemed to flow in the direction of whoever made the last comment. One of the major issues presented in the case was the theme of holding low expectations and reverse expectations for diverse students. Dr. Grace noted, I had to prompt a rompting the The preservice teachers then began to make connections. One preserv ice teacher connected the ESL student in this case with the Native American student presented in their pre test. They talked about honoring difference, multicultural clubs, and recognizing individuals and I think it brought to the surface the thought of h ow do we honor

PAGE 114

102 prompt (the teaching case). (INTV, Feb 2, 2010) Postcard Narratives, Tim Following the case based discussion, the preservice teachers responded to this case by wri ting a narrative that followed this prompt: I am Jose_ __, I feel __________, because _________. I want you to _____________. The preservice teachers wrote their feelings about the student presented in the teaching case anonymously and handed these notec ards in by placing them in an envelope. Two themes emerged from these postcard narratives about Tim: the need to be challenged and equality. Need to be challenged. Eight of the 20 cards alluded to or stated that Jose, the Cuban American represented in the teaching case wants to and needs to be challenged academically in the classroom. I am Jose and I feel misunderstood when I am in your class. I want you to challenge me more and view me as a student rather than a Hispanic student with lower abilities. I am Jose and I feel stupid, low and different when the teacher gives me problems that are much easier. I want you to give me problems that challenge me so I can learn more. I want to be like everyone else. Equality. Eleven of the 20 postcards stated that Jos e wants to be treated like every other student, or equally. I am Jose and I feel resentful when you (the teacher) treats me like I am dumb. I want you to see me for my abilities and treat equally with the other students.

PAGE 115

103 I am Jose and I feel upset when you give me simpler problems than the rest of the class. I want you to treat me equally. I am Jose and I feel insulted when my teacher does not challenge me academically because of my ethnicity. I want you to treat me with the same respect as the other studen ts in my class. Summary. The discourse that followed the presentation of the teaching case Tim, influenced the responses in the postcard narratives. Dr. Grace commented that during the case discussion she had to prompt her preservice teachers to think a bout how there was a lower expectation for the ESL students in the teaching case. Once she brought these issues to the forefront a classroom dialogue began to focus on the two ESL Why grouping by her itage and postcard narratives and all of the postcard narratives addressed how the ESL students were either being marginalized by not being treated equally to the other students or by not being challenged academically. Case based Instruction, Anna On February 16, 2010 the second teaching case, Anna, was presented to the class (See Appendix D). Anna Cohen just graduated from college and is embarking on her teaching career as a second grade teacher. She is following the county protocol of assessing all of her students with a running record as a means to group them into their appropriate reading level groups. A Mexican American student named Juan continues to mispronounce the word chick that as a miscue. Anna feels conflicted about placing Juan in a lower reading group for

PAGE 116

104 mispronouncing the word several times, as she knows that he understands the meaning of the word. She decides to consult the reading specialist, who advises her to follow county guidelines and place him in the lower group. This teaching case highlights these literacy and diversity issues: pronunciation, accent, running records, assessments, and grouping. It was selected to be presented this discussion were running records, assessment, and learning stations. k for her instructional delivery. She placed the preservice teachers into small groups with 3 5 people per group. She arranged the preservice teachers in groups by proximity to one another. She asked the preservice teachers to discuss what they would do i f they were Anna and report their strategies. Finally, as a class they discussed all the pedagogical strategies and the consequences of those choices. Culturally Responsive Literacy Pedagogy. It was during this case based discussion that the literacy an d cultural concept as one unit was unveiled to the preservice We thought it was wrong the wa y he was getting tested, it could be cultural. The guidelines should be different. We are behind Anna that she should go down to the county office and complain. (OBN, Feb 16, 2010). Why is only one assessment being used to determine the level of reading? I only the beginning of the word. We would work on the beginning sounds, since that is what he is saying wrong. (OBN, Feb 16, 2010).

PAGE 117

105 layers this case has to offer. Under the gui dance of their professor the different groups began to discuss the different pedagogical strategies to handle the issues in the teaching case. because this would damage his self es teem (OBN, Feb 16, 2010). placed in a lower reading group, because that will not help him succeed. They say he is a very bright student. I am assuming his language is Spanish, so is this a reading problem (OBN, Feb 16, 2010)? It is at this point that Dr. Grace discussed grouping students heterogeneously and homogenously. She continued the conversation, discussing with her preservice teachers how to change and manipulate those grou ps based on other factors besides ability (OBN, Feb 16, 2010). Empowerment. During the classroom discourse, preservice teachers began to get frustrated with the assessment guidelines, not understanding why the county would adopt guidelines that can potent and Lucas (2002) discuss that a culturally responsive teacher sees him or herself as an agent of change and as someone who can bring about change for their students. The preservice students in this class began to explore becoming an agent of change for Juan word wrong he should only be marked wrong once. We would buck the system (OBN, Feb 16, 2010). Dr. G race extended this conversation by discussing what she described as

PAGE 118

106 policy, and then you act in the best interest of your students behind the closed door of your cl assroom (OBN, Feb 16, 2010). Postcard Narratives, Anna Following the case based discussion, the preservice teachers responded to this case by taking on the identity of the Mexican American student in the teaching case. They followed this prompt: I am ____J uan_______, I feel __________, because _________. I want you to _____________. An overarching theme of negativity developed as a finding. Negativity. Nineteen of the 20 postcards used the words frustrated, upset, or nervous when responding to this readin g prompt. Of those 19 postcards, three themes were extracted: (1) asking the teacher for help, (2) telling the teacher that they know the word and just mispronouncing it, and (3) asking for different assessments. I am nervous and I feel anxious when tested I want you to help me understand the word. I am Juan and I feel frustrated when I know the word but cannot say it aloud correctly. I want you to know that I know it, but cannot pronounce it. I am Juan and I am nervous and feel like a failure when my grad e/reading group depends on one assessment. I want you to test me using various assessments. Outlier. This one postcard stood alone and expressed a positive lens. The expression and insight stood alone, and had merit for being represented. I am Juan and I feel happy when reading. I want you to give me more to read.

PAGE 119

107 Summary. During this case based discussion, the conversation flowed from the preservice teachers trying to understand the county policy to advocacy for the student presented in the case, Juan. Wh en the preservice students then had the opportunity to use an empathetic identity in the form of a narrative, nineteen of the 20 preservice teachers echoed the classroom discourse by writing feelings such as frustration, anxious, and nervousness. One of th e preservice teachers approached me after the class and said, Case based Instruction, Andrea On February 23, 2010 the third teaching case, Andre a was presented to the class (See Appendix D). Andrea Perkins is an experienced third grade teacher who has just When she returns to school she has decided to implem ent the new literacy practices she has learned while continuing her education and reading current research. Some of these changes include abandoning the traditional weekly spelling test and practicing words from stories and essays that students write. When the parents question her new practices, the principal tells Andrea that she wants her to return to the traditional methods and focus on preparing her students for the state writing test. The principal tells Andrea to return to the basal text and materials administer weekly spelling tests and end of the unit reading tests, and to have all students read out of the same basal despite their home language or reading ability. Andrea is upset and does not understand why the community and principal want her to im plement outdated practices. She decides to meet with the

PAGE 120

108 principal to discuss the importance of supporting the current research that will develop literacy for all her students. This case was modified to showcase these issues: guided reading, reading writi ng connection, and differentiating instruction for all learners. This case was chosen to be presented this week because it aligned with the weekly topics of reading writing connection and spelling (See Appendix B). For the last two teaching cases, the preservice students were to list three to five issues they felt were illustrated in the case before they came to class. As in past weeks, Dr. Grace had her students read the case before class, but this time she asked them to write a letter to the principal discussing the issues. I noted in my researcher reflective journal that the time spent on the teaching case was a lot shorter than in past two case based classes. I noted, They put a lot of thought into that (their letters). Their letters were well const ructed but it limited their conversation, because they were just reading their thoughts. At the end of the class they found common themes, but I think that perhaps the sociocultural climate that co constructs knowledge together was altered because they al ready had processed their information (RRJ, Feb 23, 2010). for her instructional delivery. The class summarized the teaching case and discussed the issues presented. Then, she a sked her students to form groups of four, according to the read their letter to their group, she also noted that if they were uncomfortable reading aloud, the could p ass their letter to their group members to read. As they took turns

PAGE 121

109 reading, I heard several groups commenting on the commonalities in their letters (OBN, FEB 23, 2010). Case based Discourse. From the beginning of the class, the preservice teachers were dispositions, how you talk to a principal. I asked Dr. Grace why she chose to have her preservice students write a letter to prepare them for their class, and she comment ed: I think the positive is, they get to experience a different voice and something interesting that was brought up today is disposition, how do you talk to a think some of them realize that. If I am addressing something to a principal I need to change the way I communicate. I think some of the students need some lessons in, party manners, dinner gloves, and how to talk in certain situations (INTV, Feb 23, 2010). One of the topics that was missing from the classroom discourse was the ESL issues. During our interview, I asked Dr. Grace why she thought the ESL component was not a part of the conversation. She offered two insights: That is interesting; I think it went directly t o that (literacy discourse) instead of more specific in the letter to make sure they are addressing it. (INTV, Feb 23, 2010). Personal Connection. The preservice students were engaged in the classroom discourse, and all 20 students were on task (OBN, Feb 23, 2010) while discussing their

PAGE 122

110 letters in the case. One of the topics that every group d iscussed was the spelling tests; the preservice teachers made a personal connection with this literacy topic. Now they are talking about how much they hated spelling tests when they were young. And I know hear another group discussing the lack of worth of a spelling test (OBN, Feb 23, 2010). I (Dr. Grace) heard one group talking about a spelling test. I heard them actually talk about the negative things about spelling tests from growing up and discussing it and I thought gosh what a great literacy topic, a great literacy case (INTV, Feb 23, 2010). Postcard Narratives, Andrea Following the case based discussion, the preservice teachers responded to this case by taking on the identity of the teacher, Andrea in the teaching case. They followed this prompt: I a m ____Andrea_______, I feel __________, because _________. I want you to _____________. The terms immutable and chance were chosen to illustrate the overarching themes. Immutable. to the change in pedagogy and instructional delivery that Andrea adopted after receiving trusted as a professional. I am Andrea Perkins and I feel that the students will learn more effectively when the students can learn in a contextualized way. I want you to let me try this method and prove this way can be better.

PAGE 123

111 I am Andrea and I feel frustrated when you tell me how to teach my students effectively. I want you to trust my skills and let me prove my ability to teach. Chance. The term chance was selected because eight of the twenty postcards had the word chance written on them. want to. I want you to g ive me a chance. I am Andrea and I feel discouraged when I know that different methods of instruction may help students, but they are not allowed or put into use. I want you to give me and my new program a chance. Summary. The preservice teachers were on task and engaged in reading and listening to their letters during small group work. The students talked about the literacy new teaching practices. According to my ob they agreed to ask the principal to watch me while I do it (new teaching practices), and if give them a chance to show how t heir ideas can work (OBN, Feb 23, 2010). These ideas and thoughts were emulated in the postcard narratives postcards where the preservice teachers wrote about feeling unprofessionalized by the principal and wanting a chance to put new practices into place. Case based Instruction, Elena On March 16, 2010 the preservice students enrolled in RED 3309 experienced their last case based instruction class with the case entitled, Elena (See Appendix D). Elena is a first grade teacher who has five years experien ce. Elena uses a thematic based

PAGE 124

112 scores, the administration wants all primary teachers to focus on reading comprehension and merely sprinkle writing throughout the da y. In the case, Elena reflects on the success of her ESL student, Layla, and attributes her academic gains to Layla being engaged in writing assignments that came from the class reading content. When Elena decides to talk to her first grade team about this prepare to present her position to the administration for the best interest of her students. This case was chosen to illustrate the following topics: literacy and ESL best practices, combining home and school culture and thematic units. According to the writing. When I asked Dr. Grace why talking about (INTV, March 16, 2010). The class was asked to write a 25 word summary of the teaching case before they came framework for her instructional delivery. Before prompting the class to summarize the student did. The class then summarized the teaching case and discussed the issues a This is where she asked the students to read their papers then switch their papers with a t least two other people, and read the letters authored by their classmates. Next, Dr. Grace asked the students to role play. In groups, one person was to be the administrator, one

PAGE 125

113 Then, Dr. Grace explained the guidelines: Everyone had to say something, have a real conversation, and keep the discourse appropriate. Dr. Grace reminded her preservice teachers to think about the ESL student Layla and the dispositions of how to talk to a principal. Achievement. One group discussed the idea of allowing Elena to continue her methods of teaching if her running record scores improved quarterly. Dr. Grace explained to the class that if you can make an argument for performance to go up when chi ldren are improving and enjoying, then the administration would have a hard time arguing against but the underlying message she is delivering to her preservice teachers is that administrators do not always pick the right thing to do (OBN, March 16, 2010). During our interview, k (INTV, March 16, 2010). Culturally Responsive Literacy Pedagogy conversations, the students were much more focused on the ESL student, Layla, and the ESL issues present in the case. Some of the comments I noted were: One gr oup brings up Layla and how this type of instruction helps ELL learn. Another group talks about Layla and why this (instruction) is important. Dr. Grace talks about challenging the hierchary and how that can be a good thing for ELLs. (OBN, March 16, 2010)

PAGE 126

114 Postcard Narratives, Elena. Due to the amount of time discussing the teaching case, the class time ended before Dr. Grace had engaged her students in writing the postcard narratives. Cross Case Analysis To gain a deeper understanding of case based inst ruction, I wanted to explore the themes that emerged across the different cases (Miles & Huberman, 1994). While these teaching cases were specifically written to focus on literacy and diversity issues that were presented in the teaching cases, several othe r issues rose to the surface during the case based discussions. Merseth (1994) states that teaching cases are multi dimensional and offer the reader many layers to be unfolded. During an interview with Dr. Grace, I stated that I was finding that during t he case based instruction many issues were being raised by the preservice teachers that I never even considered when I read the case. She responded, interpret it, or (INTV, Feb 23, 2010). After the four case based instruction sessions were individually analyzed, three themes emerged across the case based instruction sessions: dispositions, a s olutions orientation, and attachment. Dispositions. It was during the case of Anna that the subject of dispositions was first brought up. One group of preservice teachers really focused on wanting to change nes should be different. We are behind Anna (the teacher in the case) that she should go down to the county office and to discuss these problems with, how to talk to the specialist in the case, and also brings up

PAGE 127

115 closed, and act in the best interest of the students (OBN, Feb 16, 2010). The subject of dispositions arises again during the case Elena. During this case, the teacher Elena is trying to convince her principal that she should be allowed to use a new writing reading methodology that she recently le arned. Many of the preservice Dr. Grace stated, tty easy in this case to be all bravado but in the real world, you would never confront an administrator in a challenging manner. One school instead of this is what I wan t to do, you need to let me. So, it was an when it comes to administration you need to mind your p & qs. (INTV, March 16, 2010). Solutions orientation. During the teaching cases of Anna and Tim several preservice teachers expressed the notion that they were trying to fix or find solutions to the issues presented in the teaching cases. After the first teaching case was presented, I 2010).

PAGE 128

116 Two weeks later, during the teaching case discussion of Anna, Dr. Grace also commented on the students trying to find solutions. She (Dr. Grace) is also now talking about how there is not a right answer to these situations. The preservice teachers want to know what to do here, they want solutions (OBN, Feb 15, 2010). Feb 15, 2010). Attachment. The preservice teachers asked questions that showed they were concerned about the people represented in the teaching cases after the first case (Tim) happened preservice teachers seem to be invested in the student in the case, Juan. Dr. Grace tion of power and that spoke to them. And I think they had empathy for Juan (INTV, Feb 15, 2010). In my researcher reflective journal I noted, discuss the case. One just to ask me how the student in the case turned out. She becoming invested in these stories (RRJ, Feb 15, 2010).

PAGE 129

117 During the case based instruction of Andrea, the preservice teachers discusse d the tests when they were young (Feb, 23, 2010).During an interview with Dr. Grace she commented that several students made connections with themselves during the te aching Dr. Grace also commented aft me, how they were building upon their prior experiences with administrators (INTV, March 16, 2010). Cross case analysis summary During the spring 2010 semester, four teaching cases were presented and di scussed. Three themes emerged across the four case based discussions: (1) the preservice teachers and the professor discussed dispositions; (2) some of the preservice teachers tried to find solutions to the issues that were presented in the cases; and (3) some of the preservice teachers showed an emotional attachment to the people presented in the teaching case. Summary Four teaching cases were used over the spring semester of RED 3309 at South Pacific College. During the case based classes the professor, Dr. Grace had the students read the teaching cases before class and respond to them in some format before attending

PAGE 130

1 18 research as a framework for her instructional delivery. She then chose a different type of discussion format for each case. Data was collected and triangulated from the following sources and coded with the abbreviations found in the parentheses: (a) interviews with the professor (INTV) (b) pt journal (PJ), (c) researcher reflective journal (RRJ), (d) observation based instruction (OBN), (e) postcard narratives written from the student participants (NARRATIVES). Pre and Post Data In this section the findings from the pre and post data will be presented. The findings will come from a pre and post teaching case, Janice (See Appendix D) and the Cultural Diversity Awareness Inventory (CDAI, Henry; 1991) (See Appendix A). Pre and Post Case, Janice On November 16, 2009 a panel of literacy experts met to discuss the quality and integrity of the cases used in this study. They were presented with eight cases and asked to rate each case using a rubric (See Appendix C). The panel then selected one case to be used for the collec tion of pre and post data. The panel unanimously selected the case Janice to be used for pre and post data collection due to the cultural and literacy issues that were embedded within the case. On, January 26, 2010 t he preservice teachers were provided a c opy of the teaching case and I read the directions to them. I asked the preservice teachers to write down all the issues (literacy and diversity) that the case present ed as well as the different

PAGE 131

119 pedagogical ways they would handle those issues. They wrote their responses without engaging in the case based inst ruction or discussion. The preservice students submitted their papers in an envelope handed to me. On April 13, 2010 I followed the same procedures for the post data collection. The teaching case Janic e (See Appendix B) is about a teacher, Janice Smith, who has enjoyed teaching for the last ten years in North Carolina. Her school was located in a where she began teaching at a school much different than the one she taught at in North Carolina. Her new school is populated with students from a nearby Apache Reservation, the majority of the students are on free or reduced lunch, and they speak with a different dialect than she was accustomed to. She is troubled by the disconnect she feels from her st udents. Janice decides to motivate her students with a poetry unit. During the poetry unit one of her students writes this poem Have you ever hurt about baskets? I have, seeing my grandmother weaving for a long time. Have you ever hurt about work? I have, because my father works too hard and he tells how he works. Have you ever hurt about cattle? I have, because my grandfather has been working on the cattle for a long time. Have you ever hurt about school? I have, because I learned a lot of words from school, And they are not my words.

PAGE 132

120 After reading this poem, Janice tries to understand why this particular student From the twenty preservice teachers in the cla ss, fourteen pre and post papers were correlated and analyzed. Six papers were unable to be matched by code; one pretest did not have a matching posttest and 5 pretests were not placed in the envelope, leaving five posttests without a matching pretest for comparative analysis. List of Issues. After reading the teaching case, the preservice students were asked to identify all the different issues in the case and then asked what pedagogical strategies they would choose to use when handling those issues. For example, on the pre ulture from what Janice correlated, twelve of the participants identified more issues on the post test than on their he same, and the other student identified one less issue.

PAGE 133

121 Table 4 Frequency c o unt of issues identified in pre and post test teaching case The participants identified the following issues for both the pre and post test: 1. Dialect The teacher had a hard time understanding the di fferent speech patterns/dialect. 2. Different culture The teacher did not understand the cultural differences or chose not to try and understand these differences. Pre Test Post Test Participant Cultural and Literacy Issues Cultural and Literacy Issues 1 2 3 2 2 4 3 2 5 4 3 2 5 2 3 6 2 3 7 1 3 8 2 3 9 2 4 10 1 3 11 1 3 12 2 5 13 2 3 14 3 3 T o tal 27 47

PAGE 134

122 3. Unaware The teacher was unaware that there was a cultural difference between herself and her students. 4. Social Inequality The student struggles due to social injustices. 5. Culturally Unresponsive Pedagogy The teacher does not have a culturally responsive pedagogy or methodology. In the post data collection all the above issues were identified by th e preservice students. In addition to these issues, three new categories emerged. They were: 1. Frustration The student or teacher is frustrated at school. Many of the of the that took place in the teaching case. Their responses identify that the teacher, Janice, was culturally different than her students and she could not use her own cultural and background as a basis for designing instruction, under standing (Noordhoff & Kleinfeld, 1993; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). Furthermore, the frustration the students f elt in the teaching case when the teacher did not know how to or did not try to bridge their culture with the content they were learning (Au, 1993). 2. Value The teacher does not value her students who come from a background that is different with rega rd to socioeconomics, culture,

PAGE 135

123 need for the teacher in the case to hold affirming views of her diverse responses il lustrated that they felt the teacher should be a person who is an agent of change for these students by advocating for their social, cultural and political well being ( Leiystna, 2007; Noddings, 2005). 3. Sameness The teacher wants to teach every child th e same way. The egalitarianism in their responses. Many of them showed an understanding that the teacher in the teaching case believed all people are created equal and should be treated as such without reflecting the privileges that many white people inherit (Causey, Thomas, Amento, 2009; Gay & Kirkland, 2003; McIntosh, 1997). Many of their answers also demonstrated an understanding that the teacher has not developed a sociocultural cons ciousness, poetry and perspectives were influenced by her culture (Banks, 2006; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). On the pretest, the preservice teachers demonstrated an understanding of five cultural issues t hat were presented in the teaching case. In total, the preservice teachers collaboratively recognized 27 issues on the pre test. The results of the posttest showed an increase in the number of preservice teachers who were able to recognize these five cultu ral differences; 47 issues were identified on the posttest in comparison to the 27 issues listed on the pretest. In addition,

PAGE 136

124 that data from the posttest brought to the forefront three new cultural issues presented in the teaching case that further illustr ated a deeper development of a culturally responsive literacy pedagogy. Pedagogical Strategies to Handle the Issues. After listing all the issues that were present in the teaching case, the preservice teachers were instructed to write down a pedagogical s trategy(ies) they would use to handle those issues, and discuss their choice On the pretest, most of the preservice teachers believed that talking to the student and studying the culture would be the be st ways to handle the issues in the case. I would sit down with the child and discuss the problems they have with school and try to help them. I would take a step back and try to understand the local culture, customs, and heritage. On the posttest, the pre service teachers identified many more pedagogical strategies. They identified a total of 32 strategies, compared to 17 strategies identified on the pretest. In addition to talking to the students they mentioned talking to their parents. Possibly understand ing more fully the importance of culture in this teaching case, more preservice teachers also discussed the teacher studying the local culture and the students studying their culture. Two new pedagogical strategies emerged on the post test -the teacher tea ching differently, and finding mentors and support groups for students and teachers at this school.

PAGE 137

125 poem. Then I would ask her why she feels like school is irrelevant for he r and if there was a way that I could help her feel more comfortable. I would also try to I would research and find out as much information about my students culture as possible. If I had questi ons, I would call and visit parents. would want them to share parts of their culture with me. I would go to the reservation and write a poem about it. In summary, the preservic e teachers enrolled in this course read the same teaching case on the first day and last day of this study. In their responses to the pre and post teaching cases, the preservice teachers were able to recognize more cultural and literacy issues on the post test, than on the pretest. The preservice teachers also demonstrated the ability to identify more pedagogical strategies to handle these issues on the post test. Quantitative Data, Cultural Diversity Awareness Inventory (Henry, 1991) Cultural Diversity A wareness Inventory (CDAI ; Henry, 1991) provided the quantitative data for this study This Likert scale was used as a pre and post study during the 2010 Spring semester. Prior to using this instrument with the preservice teachers in this study a cognitive interview was conducted to focus on the cognitive process that potential participants

PAGE 138

126 would use when answering this inventory (Willis, 1991). This technique was employed to evaluate questions that could be potential sources of response error on this survey. Two volunteers with similar characteristics to the projected population for this study were recruited for this interview. One volunteer was a 21 year old White woman who has earned an Associates of Arts degree, and the other volunteer was a 20 year old White woman who was enrolled in an elementary education program. During this trial t comprehension question. Both of these volunteers were interviewed separately on different days. Volunteer one found five questions confusing and volunteer two found four statements confusing. Both volunteers found the same four statements confusing and therefore I decided that two volunteers were an adequate number for the cognitive interview. Although there are 28 statements on the original CDAI, because four statements were confusing to both the volunteers, they were eliminated for the purpose of this study. The 24 statements used for this study have a Likert style response scale that ranges from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Each response has been coded with a weight value to quantify the data and determine a CDAI (Henry, 1991) composite score for each participant (Appendix G). The composite score is the sum of the points associated with each statement. Responses that reflect more culturally aware views receive d higher scores on the instrument. For example, one question on the inventory ed

PAGE 139

127 they strongly agree received 5 points, agree received 4 points, neutral received 3 points, disagree received 2 points, and strongly disagree received 1 point. Conversely, negatively worded statements received points on the opposite end of the spectrum ( groups as the U.S.A., I would accept the use of ethnic jokes or phrases by some strongly agree received 1 point, agree received 2 points, neutral received 3 points, disagree received 4 points, and strongly disagree received 5 points. A higher a composite score indicated the preservice teacher has a higher cultural awareness as indicated by CDAI. A dependent means t test was used to analyze the pre and post test composite awareness during the spring semester ( =.05). The composite scores from CDAI were analyzed using the SAS statistical softwa changed at the =.05 level in their cultural awareness during the spring semester. Pre and Post Test. The Cultural Awareness Inventory was administered as a pretest on January 26, 2010 and as a post test on Apr il 13, 2010 to 20 preservice teachers. Each participant was advised that their participation was voluntary and confidential. The preservice teachers used a confidential code to enable the pre and post test to be matched for the purpose of the statistical m easure of a dependent means t test. the post test to me. In addition, one participant did not answer one question on their post

PAGE 140

128 test. After consultation with a measurement expert, (personal communication with J. their answers as a substitute for the one m average score, I was able to use their inventory in my analysis. The null hypothesis for this quantitative report is: The will be no significant difference in the mean scores from the preservice test to the posttest as measured by the Cultural Diversity Awareness Inventory (Henry, 1991). Findings. The scores for each participant were paired (Appendix H) and analyzed using SAS software. This analysis revealed a significant difference between mean levels of the pre and post test scores, t(18) = 3.36; p < .05. The mean post test scores were significantly higher (M= 91.36, SD= 7.04) than in the pretest (M=88.00, SD= 7.18). The 95% confidence interval for the difference between means extended from 1. 26 and 5.47. The analysis rejects the null at the alpha .05 level. The effect size was computed at 0.47. Assumptions. The three underlying assumptions of the depen dent means t test are the assumption of independence, the assumption of homogeneity of variance, and the assumption of normality. They are discussed below (See Table 4): were independent The assumption of homogeneity of variance was met; the variances in both the pre and post test were nearly identical.

PAGE 141

129 The assumption of normality was met; skewness and kurtosis of the difference variable were examined and b oth values were below an absolute value of 1 indicating that it was tenable to assume the normality assumption was not violated. Table 5 Descriptive Statistics Variables Mean Standard Deviation Skewness Kurtosis Pretest 88.000 7.187 .708 0.307 Posttest 91.368 7.041 0.668 0.224 Diff 3.368 4.37 0.082 0.885 Limitations. Two limitations of this study are th a t the population is homogenous and it is a small sample size; seventeen of the 18 participants identified themselves as Caucasian. Results cannot be projected to the total teaching population. Another limitation of this study is that firm conclusions may not be able to be drawn from the results because alternate explanations could be offered to support results. Many of the students enrolled in this course were also concurrently enrolled in a course that focuses on strategies, methodologies, and theories of teaching students who speak English as a second language. Another limitation to these findings is that throughout the course of this semester stud ents were also required to work 15 hours in field based

PAGE 142

130 settings. The results of the CDAI (Henry, 1991) could also be based on their experiences from this field based experience or the process of maturation during the Spring semester. Finally, a limitation to this study is that there is not a control group. All the participants in this experiment received the same treatment of exposure to teaching cases. Based on the results of the CDAI (Henry, 1991) during the spring semester of RED 3309, a significant di fference has been found between the pre and posttest of 19 Summary Teaching cases that were used in this study were selected based on their content, ice teachers, authenticity of problems presented in the teaching case, and the multiple literacy and multicultural layers that can be deconstructed from the case (See Appendix C). Interviews with the professor, a researcher reflective journal, and a profes sor kept journal to teaching a cultural responsive literacy pedagogy. journal, a pre a nd post teaching case, nonparticipant observation notes, preservice teacher written postcard narratives, and the results from the CDAI (Henry, 1991) demonstrated rel ated to developing a culturally responsive literacy pedagogy.

PAGE 143

131 The analysis of the CDAI (Henry, 1991) rejects the null hypothesis that there significant gains on the preserv

PAGE 144

132 CHAPTER V Those responsible for preparing them (preservice teachers) must first articulate a vision of teaching and learning in a diverse society (Villegas & Lucas; 2002, p.30) This chapter b egins with a brief background and summary of the purpose of this study. I then proceed with my interpretations of the findings, implications of these findings, and finally recommendations for future research. Although the findings of this study cannot be g eneralized to all populations, there are implications and methodological discoveries that pertain to developing culturally responsive literacy pedagogy in preservice teachers. This study was conducted to examine the use of teaching cases that incorporate d iversity and literacy issues and their resultant effects on preservice teachers. Both quantitative and qualitative data support the use of teaching cases as a vehicle to developing culturally responsive literacy pedagogy in preservice teachers. Background / Summary The results of the U. S Census provide evidence that our population is becoming more diverse and that diversity is most salient in our schools. This demographic shift has had, and will continue to have, a significant impact on the curriculum, stu dents, teachers, and every other aspect of schooling as we have historically known it. While our

PAGE 145

133 population is becoming more diverse every year, our teacher population is not. Eighty to ninety percent of the teaching population is white (Lowenstein, 2009; Sleeter, 2001). The census extrapolations project that by 2010, 95% of classroom teachers will be White, middle class females who have little interaction with people from diverse backgrounds (Haberman, 1991). Purpose of the Study As a teacher educator and researcher, I wanted to explore the use of a methodology to prepare preservice teachers for working in a global society. Therefore, this study was developed around the hypothesis that teaching cases could be used in a lit eracy classroom to foster a cultur ally responsive pedagogy in preservice teachers. The purpose of this study was twofold. The first purpose of this study was to describe the perceptions of a professor who facilitated case based instruction. The second purpose was to understand the lived ex periences of preservice teachers in a literacy course that incorporated teaching cases featuring diversity and literacy issues as a methodology Research Questions The research questions for this study are: 1. teaching cases as a vehicle for teaching culturally responsive literacy pedagogy? 2. How do teaching cases and case based instruction featuring diversity and to culturally respons ive teaching practices in literacy?

PAGE 146

134 The Study This study was conducted at South Pacific College (SPC) during one semester of a literacy course. All of the preservice teachers enrolled in this course (n=20) and the professor volunteered to participate in this study. This study employed a mixed method design using both qualitative and quantitative data to understand the lived experiences of the professor and preservice teachers. Interviews, observations, preservice teacher constructed postcard narratives, a pre and post responses to these teaching cases were used as qualitative data sources for this study. In addition, the Cultural Diversity Awareness Inventory (CDAI; Henry, 1991) was used as the qu perceptions over the course of the semester (see Appendix A). A grounded theory systematic approach was used to analyze the qualitative research data. The analysis was strengthened by using multiple data sources, methods, and theoretical perspectives to triangulate the data (Patton, 2002). The software program Atas.ti was used for collation, categorization, and organization of the qualitative dat a. To minimize researcher bias, I established an audit trail to verify the rigor and maximize the accuracy of the final report. Interpretation of the Findings I began the analysis by reading the data multiple times and analyzing it through a grounded th eory systematic approach of (a) open coding, (b) axial coding, and (c) selective coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1988). This data analysis revealed (1) an impact on the professor who used them during one semester of a literacy course and (2) that case

PAGE 147

135 based inst ruction and teaching cases that featured diversity and literacy issues appeared to teaching practices. The quantitative data also illuminated this finding. According t o the Cultural Diversity Awareness Inventory (Henry, 1991) statistically significant gains in cultural awareness did develop during one semester of this literacy course. In the following section, I will provide a discussion for each of the four finding: i nfluences on the case based discourse, motivation fostering critical inquiry, postcard postcard narratives, and contextualized cases. Within the discussion, I relate the findings of this study to previous research. My inquiry was guided by the theoretical frameworks of culturally responsive teaching (Banks, 2006; 2002; Villegas & Lucas, 2002) as well as sociocultural theory, Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), and situated learning theory (John Steiner and Mahn, 1996; Vygotsky, 1986; Lave & Wenger, 1991). F indings Influences on the Case based Discourse Teaching cases are constructed to foster a lively, academically charged discussion. The class discussion that follows the presentation of the case allows the preservice teachers to deconstruct the multiple lay ers and multiple perspectives that the case encompasses, as well as construct new meanings from the case (Shulman, 1992). The researcher, the professor and the preservice teachers brought to the classroom different background factors that influenced their contribution to the classroom discourse (See Figure c).

PAGE 148

136 Figure 3 : Theoretical Frame and Findings Influencing the Classroom Context. A model depicting findings and the theoretical frame of this study where teaching cases and postcard narratives where emb edded into a literacy course. These factors (see Figure 3 ) influenced how the professor and the preservice teachers engaged in the case based discourse as individuals and as a group while discussing the teaching case. The professor used the cases to discu ss specific literacy into various new topics of discussion. During this study, the perspectives and biases of the researcher, the professor, and the preservice teach ers also influenced the case based discourse.

PAGE 149

137 The Researcher. This study was designed specifically to explore if teaching perceptions and insights related to culturally responsive teaching practices. As a researcher, a college instructor, and an elementary school educator, I am personally invested in teacher education; I have been transparent about my interest in the development of culturally responsive teaching pedagog ies to prepare teacher educators to instruct students who are culturally, ethnically and linguistically different from themselves (Lee, Summers, Garza, 2009). It was during the teaching case of Andrea that my perspectives and biases influenced the professo r of this course. The preservice teachers were engaged in the literacy topics that were presented in that case; however neither the ESL student nor the diversity issues were discussed that day. During the interview I asked Dr. Grace why she felt the ESL is sues were not present in the discussion. Dr. Grace stated That is interesting; I think it went directly to that (literacy issues) instead of the unless you mentioned it. It w as during the next session that I realized the influence that conversation had Did anyone mention wo groups raised their hands and they began to discuss the diversity issues Dr. Grace guided them -(RRJ, March 16, 2010). I have added another dimension to the classroom environment

PAGE 150

138 model (Figure B), to represent the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) that took place between myself and the professor. By scaffolding her during the interview with a probing que stion about the classroom discourse, I believe it affected how she approached the next case based discussion with her preservice teachers. The Professor. Under the guidance of a professor, teaching cases help preservice Shulman, 1992). Like a captain of a boat, the professor navigated the course of conversation. During the case personal history, culture, bias and perspectives guided the inquiry with her preservice teachers. I had to Throughout the next two cases, Dr. Grace continued to guide their conversations and keep them focused on different issues. Dr. Grace has an undergraduate degree in English and during the fourth case she explained her deepened connection to the case. During her interview I asked her to reflect on the case based discussion that had taken place approximately an hour before the how I like to teach so I can see a thousand good things about wh at I can see how it relates One of the greatest strengths of teaching cases is the many ways they can be interpreted. While these teaching cases were constructed to feature diversity and literacy

PAGE 151

139 issues, man y other issues that teachers face in the classroom were brought into the discussion during the case based discourse. One of the many strengths that teaching cases bring to the classroom is a fluidity to the discussion of other issues that teachers face. It is important to explore these issues that can arise during the conversation, but it is equally important for the facilitator to have guidelines or a lesson plan to make sure specific topics are covered (personal conversation K. Colucci). The Preservice T eachers. The preservice teachers appeared to identify with certain components of the teaching cases. Dr. Grace thought that this connection made things and that hopeful ly students will care more about the situation as opposed to just did connect to the teaching cases, and the cases fostered emotional responses. Kleinfeld (1998) sta When I was walking around listening to the small groups, I heard one group say that happened to me, I was Juan. She was Swedish, that w as her first language, I was placed in a lower reading group. And she still remembered that, so I think it evoked for some of them an emotion (INTV, Feb 15, 2010). As the semester progressed the preservice teachers were able to relate and identify more is sues that were embedded within the case. This was illustrated in the pre and post case data as the preservice teachers identified 27 literacy and cultural issues on the pretest compared to 47 issues on the post. The preservice teachers not only identified more

PAGE 152

140 issues, but additionally, many of their answers on the post test illustrated a deeper the answers on the post test explained how culture, language, and ethnicity shou ld be to learn about the students in the case, develop a sociocultural consciousness, and engage in culturally responsive teaching practices (Villegas and Lucas, 2002; Banks, 2006; 2002). Some examples are: culture as possible. If I had questions, I would call and visit parents. back grounds. The teacher is not relating to the students. She is not giving them content they can identify with. In three studies, (Lee, Summers, & Garza, 2009; Causey, Thomas & Armento, 1999; Kleinfeld, 1998), prior experiences also initially showed to inf luence preservice & Garza (2009) found that the use of teaching cases was an effective instructional strategy for preservice teachers to gain insight into the attitudes a nd biases that could influence how they teach in their future classrooms. Kleinfeld (1998) observed that the teachers in her study who were at the beginning of a teacher education program, relied on their personal frames of reference instead of practical s kills, experience in diverse

PAGE 153

141 teaching cases gave the reader vicarious experiences that prepared them emotionally and intellectually (2) students learned how to spot issues and frame problems outside their bias. Causey, Thomas & Armento (1999) asserted that the tendency of preservice education geared towards influencing attitudes towa rds diversity. They reported that preservice teachers rely on their beliefs and use them as a lens to interpret new information. Similar to the research explored above, the preservice teachers in my study, appeared to use their frame of reference to discu ss the teaching cases. They became emotional invested in the characters in the teaching case, and for some of the preservice teachers this fostered a response of wanting to help the character in the case. As the semester evolved, the preservice teachers st ill appeared to use their frame of reference to discuss the case, but developed the ability to identify more issues that did not relate to themselves as well as implement a culturally responsive lens on viewing these issues. Motivation fostering Critical I nquiry The professor of this course found teaching case and case based instruction to be a motivational tool for engaging preservice teachers into critical inquiry, where they were able to explore, analyze, and examine the reality that shapes not only the ir lives but the lives of the people found in the teaching cases (Leistyna, 2007; Merseth 1994). After the second session of case based instruction, I interviewed Dr. Grace and asked her how she felt case based instruction was developing in her class. She commented,

PAGE 154

142 I really like it; I think the students are motivated. I noticed in my other class that the students started talking about the case study before class. This was spontaneous and rarely do they talk about content before class unless it is like, study because I have something to say. It was really neat. It was a first where I had students that excited (INTV, Feb 15, 2010). In this study, the motivation on the part of pres only (1) keep them on task, but also (2)actively engaged them in case based discourse. The preservice teachers explored pedagogical strategies for handling issues presented in the case while engaging in case based discourse Through their conversation, understandings developed about the literacy and diversity issues through shared problem solving. The preservice teachers posed questions and anaylzed the sociopolitical and economic realities that shaped the many facets and pe ople in the school environment of learners where they co constructed knowledge as they dissected the many layers of the teaching case (John Steiner and Mahn, 1996; Lave & Wenger; 1991). Methodological dissemination At the beginning of the study, Dr. Grace and I met to discuss how she would implement teaching cases into her classro om. I showed her the observation tool I would be using to follow the flow of conversation, and discussed using a framework that emulated instructional delivery. The framework followed sequential procedures for the delivery of the teaching case. When the class began, the professor and preservice teachers (1)

PAGE 155

143 reviewed the teaching case (2) discussed the range of issues presented in the case, and (3) explored the pedagogical strategies and their potential conse quences. During this meeting, Dr. Grace and I discussed how the teaching cases would be uploaded to the the designated class. Another element of our discussion was to examine different ways she could hold the preservice teachers accountable for reading the case before class. This study uses sociocultural theory as a lens, and the co construction of literacy and diversity knowledge during the case based discussion wa s an important piece of this study. Therefore, Dr. in both time to complete and length of response. Prior to class, the preservice teachers were to list three to five issues they found in the case on a piece of paper before class, saving the in depth analysis for class discussion. During the beginning of the first two 5 issues they saw in the t eaching case. It was during the third case, Andrea, where Dr. Grace chose a different approach. On this day, Dr. Grace asked her students to write a letter to the principal discussing the issues in the case. I noted in my researcher reflective journal that the time spent on the teaching case appeared a lot shorter than in the past two case based classes. They put a lot of thought into that (their letters). Their letters were well constructed but it limited their conversation, because they were just readin g their thoughts. At the end of the class they found common themes, but I think that

PAGE 156

144 perhaps the sociocultural climate that co constructs knowledge together was altered because they already had processed their information (RRJ, Feb 23, 2010). During the final case, Elena, Dr. Grace again required a different way for the preservice teachers to demonstrate accountability for reading the teaching case. This time, she asked the preservice teachers to write a 25 word summary of the case. The classroom conversa tion took more time than in all the previous session. Except for the third meeting, I observed the class actively deconstructing the case. I observed the preservice teachers sharing, creating, and recreating knowledge together (Lave & Wenger; 2002; John Steiner and Mahn, 1996). Several studies in the literature indicated similar findings that case based instruction fostered an environment where students were able to increase their understanding of issues raised in elementary school classrooms (Kleinfeld, 1998; Sudzina; 1993). Sudzina (1993) found that teaching cases fostered a high level of motivation that led to personal involvement of all 39 preservice teacher participants. and discuss the process of analyzing and posing critical inquiry into problems that teachers face in the classroom. Like the research stated above, in this study, the teaching cases appeared to engage and motivate the preservice students. As the students discussed the issues in the teaching case, they embarked on critical inquiry, co constructing knowledge to develop skills to act as agents of change for their students (Leistyna, 2007; Villegas & Lucas, 2002).

PAGE 157

145 Postcard Narratives Banks (2006) states tha t due to the increasing diversity in the United States, effective teachers must become reflective in their practice towards diversity. The preservice teachers in this study wrote postcard narratives directly following the case based discussion. During the written response, they assumed the identity of a person presented in the case. For the first two cases, they were asked to embody the role of the student character in their writing. During the third teaching case, the preservice teachers envisioned themsel ves as the teacher in the case. They responded specifically to this writing prompt on a 4 x 6 notecard: I am ___________, I feel __________, because _________. I want you to _____________. The preservice teachers took on the position of these characters and experimented with being another person (Wiseman, 1978) and live through their experiences. One argument of using an empathetic identity, is you can truly only be yourself. Wiseman (1978) argues that this is an experiment and if we can see ourselves as someone, then we can see ourselves as someone else. For the postcard narratives, the preservice teachers immersed themselves in their character and took on reactionary feelings to the issues presented in the teaching case. This encouraged them to develop traits of a culturally responsive literacy pedagogy The responses on the post cards demonstrated the preservice teachers developing traits of a culturally responsive pedagogy by: (1) demanding an affirming attitude for students of diverse backgrounds, (2 ) becoming an agent of change for all students, and (3) elicting a constructivist view of learning for students. These data exemplify these points

PAGE 158

146 I am Jose and I feel stupid, low and different when the teacher gives me problems that are much easier. I wan t you to give me problems that challenge me so I can learn more. I want to be like everyone else. I am Juan and I am nervous and feel like a failure when my grade/reading group depends on one assessment. I want you to test me using various assessments. I a m Andrea and I feel discouraged when I know that different methods of instruction may help students, but they are not allowed or put into use. I want you to give me and my new program a chance. In the research base on teaching cases that featured diversity issues, five studies were found (Lee, Summers, & Garza, 2009; Kleinfeld, 1998; Dana & Floyd 1993; Sudzina, 1993; Kleinfeld, 1991). Similar to my research, all of these research studies required the participants in these teacher education classes to respon d to the teaching cases with a writing task. Unlike those studies, the preservice teachers in this study used an empathetic identity to view a character in the teaching case. Teaching cases allow the reader to consider other perspectives; using an empathet ic identity allows the reader to The postcard activity encouraged the preservice teachers to identify with the character in the teaching case by using an empathetic lens. In their postcards responses preservice teachers used a culturally responsive literacy pedagogy while responding to specific literacy and diversity issues that were present in the case.

PAGE 159

147 Contextualized Cases All of the teaching cases that were used in this study were written or modified to feature both diversi ty and literacy issues. They were also designed to meet this particular are Jan 19, 2010). The teaching cases were aligned to the weekly topics and we re contextualized to the curriculum being taught. This component became an integral part of the study because the preservice teachers and the professor were able to connect to the teaching ink it fit really well to running She stopped the review and actually used it to start teaching about running records miscues. She now is discussing pragmatics the cultural aspects of a miscue this is the first time I am seeing Dr. Grace do this now this becomes not only a teaching ca showing a handout on the ELMO to compliment this conversation. (OBN, Feb, 2, 2010).

PAGE 160

148 For this study, several books Cases in Literacy: An Agenda for Discussion, Cases Studies in Suicide: Experiences of Mental Health Professionals, and Case Stories for Elementary Methods: Meeting the INTASC Standards were reviewed. These books were written for specific topics. Similar to these books, four other studies in the literature discuss the importance of conten t contained in the teaching cases. ( Kleinfeld, 1998; Dana & Floyd 1993; Sudzina, 1993; Kleinfeld, 1998 ), however no empirical research was found which discussed writing and aligning teaching cases to match course objectives and content. Dr. Grace voiced th at the teaching cases were successful in her classroom because not operate from a set of principles or theories, but rather build, through experience on contextualized the current inquiry featured one or more diversity issues, and was meant to bring these issues into the class discussion. A culturally responsive literacy pedagogy is developed (Banks, 2006; 2002). By allowing the time to discuss these issues in the case, the preservice teachers and professor can examine the many perspectives and biases of everyo ne in the case based discussion. Conclusions Three major conclusions have been drawn from this study. First, the implementation of teaching cases that feature diversity and literacy issues made an impact on the professor of this educational literacy course This conclusion was drawn

PAGE 161

149 from interviews with the professor, a researcher reflective journal, observation notes, and a professor kept journal. Dr. Grace found that use of teaching cases to motivated her students, foster a deeper discussion of the weekly topics, and created more transfer power of important topics to the classroom discussion than reading scholarly articles. Secondly, teaching cases that feature diversity and literacy issues did influence tions related to a culturally responsive pedagogy. This conclusion is based on the statically significant results of the issues, the interviews conducted with the profes nonparticipant observation notes, the narratives pre and post teaching case data, and my researcher reflective journal. The fact that these teaching cases were contextualized and written to be aligned with the course conten t made them powerful tools to motivate and foster an entrance for preservice teachers to engage in to a critical inquiry about culturally responsive teaching practices. Finally, the third conclusion drawn from this study is that utilizing activities which allow preservice teachers to use an empathetic lens can be a very powerful experience that may lead to developing a culturally responsive literacy pedagogy. The preservice teachers in this study had the opportunity to immerse themselves in characters withi n the teaching cases and took on reactionary feelings to the issues that were presented. Their written desires illustrated traits of culturally responsive literacy pedagogy.

PAGE 162

150 Implications ee, Summers, Garza, 2009, p.1). Cultivating experiences that will allow preservice teachers to not only learn about other cultures, but embrace cultural differences and use them as a way to teach students is a necessary component of developing a culturally responsive pedagogy. In this study, evidence was provided that teaching cases and postcard narratives were an authentic methodology for developing a culturally responsive literacy pedagogy for the preservice teachers and professor of this course. Through the case based discussion, the participants discussed ways to empower themselves to become agents of changes for their students. In this section I will discuss three responsibilities of teacher education: 1. Teacher education needs to be careful not to view preservice teachers as deficient in culture and experiences. 2. Teacher education needs to incorporate teaching cases into its required curriculum in order to foster culturally responsive literacy pedagogy in both preservice teachers and professors. 3. Teacher e ducation has a responsibility to the well being of preservice teachers when purposefully creating emotional experiences. My first recommendation is for teacher education to be careful not to view their preservice teachers as deficient in culture and experi ences. Preservice teachers and professors use their culture, experiences, perspectives and bias as a frame of reference when viewing information (Lee, Summers, & Garza, 2009; Causey, Thomas & Armento, 1999; Kleinfeld, 1998). Parallel to the majority of pre service teachers, faculty in higher education are also mostly White women.(Lowenstein, 2009; Sleeter, 2001). In this study,

PAGE 163

151 experiences (see figure B) did appear to contribute and enrich the case based discourse. Therefore, teacher education must be careful not to view their preservice teachers as a group of students void of valuable experiences and culture (Lowenstein, 2009). Teacher education must also be careful no t to teach the same stereotypes we want our preservice teachers to avoid when learning and thinking about culture, race, and ethnicity. Howe and Berv (2000) state that using a constructivist learning theory as a lens, preservice teacher education should t ake as its starting points the knowledge and interest the preservice teachers bring to the classroom, and then design meaningful experiences that assist them in constructing understanding. My second recommendation is for teaching education to incorporate t eaching cases into its required curriculum in order to foster culturally responsive literacy teaching practices in both preservice teachers and professors. Teacher education has a responsibility to prepare preservice teachers to teach in a global society Preservice teachers and professors of higher education come from similar populations where many are from middle class homes and are white, heterosexual women (Lowenstein, 2009). Teaching cases that feature diversity and literacy issues should be used to develop culturally responsive pedagogies for the preservice teachers and professors of the course. Case based discussions offer participants the opportunity to depict the diversity and literacy issues represented in the case within a sociocultural contex t. The professor and preservice teachers can then draw upon their shared knowledge of theoretical, cultural, cognitive, and experiential knowledge of teaching children (Nordoff &Kleinfeld, 1992; Kleinfeld,1998).

PAGE 164

152 Futhermore, the teaching cases that are used should be aligned to the course preservice teachers to make connections between theory and strategies. Teaching cases were found to be an effective methodology for t eaching course objectives in this study. Thus, two recommendations are being made: (1) A lesson plan to guide the use of teaching cases within the education class should be considered to ensure that the key objectives of the instruction are discussed, whil e allowing time for the evocative nature of other issues that arise during discussion. (2) The delivery of the teaching cases should be create a rich discussion where s tudents work together sharing, creating and recreating knowledge (Nasir & Hand, 2006) then this study found an interactive, sociocultural engage them in a self refl ection, then designing activities where the preservice teachers respond to the teaching case utilizing a writing activity could also be considered. My final recommendation is for teacher education to safe guard the well being of their preservice teachers w hen purposefully creating emotional experiences. Using teaching cases and postcard narratives with an empathetic lens has proven to be an emotional experience for some preservice teachers. Many researchers believe these emotional experiences can lead to pr eservice teachers developing traits of a culturally responsive teaching pedagogy (Kleinfeld, 1998; Shulman, 1992; Kleinfeld, 1991; the preservice teachers who engaged in t he case based discourse and postcard narratives (Kleinfeld, 1998). Many of the preservice teachers showed care and concern for the

PAGE 165

153 students presented in the teaching case and even asked about them as if they were real people. Teacher education has a respo nsibility to our preservice teachers to bring closure to these emotions. This was evident when one preservice teacher approached me after RJ, Feb 16, 2010). Bringing closure to these emotional experiences will insure these cathartic exercises to become effective instructional practices (Ellis, 1995). One suggestion would be for the professor to cultivate a discussion during the closure to th e case based discourse that reveals the characters of the teaching case as fictional. However, a discussion should also be fostered about the larger population that the character represents and the advocacy that was discussed during the case based discour se. Further investigation in the field of psychology would strengthen our knowledge base for providing closure to the issues discussed in our preservice classes. Recommendations for Future Research Teaching cases have proven to be an effective methodolo gy for developing a culturally responsive pedagogy with teachers and preservice teachers (Lee, Summers, Garza, 2009; Kleinfeld, 1998,1988; Dana and Floyd,1993; Sudzina, 1993).This study contributes to the small field of research that uses teaching cases in multicultural education. The results and conclusions are specific to the group (n=20) of preservice teachers who enrolled in this study over one semester, therefore the results are limited in sample size and longevity. Further studies are needed to broade n understanding on how the use of case based instruction can promote the development of culturally responsive literacy pedagogy. This research should be conducted using a larger population, and over

PAGE 166

154 longer periods of time. Other researchers may want to ext end the inquiry in my study by exploring such topics as: Can writing teaching cases based on their practicum experiences assist preservice students construct meaning from their literacy and diversity experiences? At what point, and for how many semesters d uring a preservice student program of study, should teaching cases be implemented to be most effective? case based instruction to allow for them to discuss prior experiences while mai ntaining focus on cultural and literacy topics? Does the use of teaching cases in preservice teacher education transfer into classroom practice?

PAGE 167

155 REFERENCES Ahmad, S. (2009, 5, 30). County now majority minority population. The Garden City Tel egram. Retrieved from http:// gctelegram.com/news/county now majority minority population 5 20 09 Alexander, P.A. and Fox, E. (2004). A historical perspective on reading research and practice. In R.B Ruddell, & J.N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical Models And Processes of Reading Fifth Edition (pp. 1182 1218). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Anderson, J. R., Reder, L.M., & Simon, H.A. (1996). Situated learning and education. Educational Researcher, 25 (4), 5 11. Au, K.H. (1980). Participation structures in a reading lesson with Hawaiian children: Analysis of a culturally appropriate instructional event. Anthropology & Education Quarterly,11 91 115. Au, K.H. (1993). Literacy instruction in multicultural setting. Forth Worth, TX: Harcourt B race. Javanovich College Publishers. Au, K.H. & Blake, K.M. (2003). Cultural identity and learning to teach in a diverse community: Findings from a collective case study. Journal of Teacher Education, 54 (3), 192 205. Barnes, C.J. (2006). Preparing prese rvice teachers to teach in culturally responsive ways. The Negro Educational Review, 57(1 2), 85 100. Banks, J.A. (1993). Multicultural education: Characteristics and goals. In J.A. Banks, & C.A. Banks, (Eds.), Multicultural education issues and pers pectives (pp. 3 28). Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster, Inc. Banks, J.A. (2006). Race, culture, and education: The selected works of James A. Banks. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Bartolome, L.I. (2007). Critical pedagogy and teacher ed ucation: Radicalizing prospective In P. McLaren, P.& Kincheloe, J.L. (eds.) Critical pedagogy: Where are we now ? New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc. Bloomfield, D., & Cooper, B. (2003). Making sense out of NCLB. T. H. E. Journal 30 (10), 6 32.

PAGE 168

156 Brice H eath, S. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Brown, E. L. (2004a). What precipitates change in cultural diversity awareness during a multicultural course: The messag e of the method? Journal of Teacher Education, 55 (4), 325 340. Brown, E. L. (2004b). The relationship of self concept to changes in cultural diversity awareness implications for urban teacher education. The Urban Review, 36 (2), 119 141. Bryant, J. (1 999). Immigration in the United States. Retrieved from: http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1999/3/99.03.01.x.html B r oudy, H.S. (1990). Case studies Why and how. Teac her College Record 91 (3), 427 438. Causey, V.E., Thomas, C.D., Armento, B.J. (2000). Cultural diversity is basically a foreign term to me: The challenges of diversity for preservice teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16 33 45. Carbau gh, C. (1999). Positioning as display of cultural identity. In van Langenhove and R. Harre (Eds.), Positioning Theory (pp.160 177). Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers Inc. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Corrigan, D. C. (1990). Human differences for the common good. In V. Florez and R. Donato (Eds. ), (pp.3 7) College Station, TX: Texas A &M University Printing Center. Dana, N.F. & Floyd, D.M. (1993). Prepareing preservice teachers for multicultural classroom: A report on the case study appro ach. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators. Davis, L.E. & Turner, J. S. (1993). An investigation of the cultural sensitivity level of elementary preservice teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid South Educational Research Association. Davis, L.E & Whitener Lepanto, V. (1994). Preservice teachers and culturally diverse families: How do they perceive one another? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid South Educational Research Associat ion.

PAGE 169

157 Diaz, C. (1992). The next millennium: A multicultural imperative for education. In C. Diaz (Ed.), Multicultural Education for the 21 st Century. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association. Dunn, S. (2010). Case stories for elementary methods: Meeting the INTASC standards. Boston: Allyn & Bacon Evans, L. (2006). Literacy issues for English language learners: Making connections. ) In J. Govoni (Ed.) Perspectives in Teaching K 12 English Language Learners Boston Evans, L.S.& Gunn, A.A (2 element in pre service teacher education. Unpublished manuscript. Urban Review 18 1 31. Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive reaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53 106 116. Gay, G. & Kirkland, K. (2003). Developing cultural critical consciousness and self reflection in preservice teacher education. Theory Into Practice, 42, 181 187. Granello, P.F., & Juhnke, G.A. (2010). Case studies in suicide: Experiences of mental health professionals.New Jersey: Pearson & Merill. Grossman, P. (1992). Teaching and learning with cases: Unanswered questions. In J. H. Shulman (Ed.), Case methods in teacher education (pp.227 239). New York: Teachers College Press. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook o f qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 105 116) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hadaway, N.L & Others. (1988, February). Multicultural education: What educators know, what they need to know. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association of Col leges for Teachers, New Orleans, LA. Haberman, M. (1991). Can cultural awareness be taught in teacher education programs? Teacher Education, 4 (1), 25 31. Haycock, K. (2001). Closing the gap. Educational Leadership, 58 (6), 6 11. Henry, G.B. (1991). Cult ural diversity awareness inventory [Likert Scale]: ETS Test Collection.

PAGE 170

158 Henry, G.B. (1995). Determining the reliability and validity of the cultural diversity awareness Inventory (CDAI).Unpublished manuscript. Howard, G. R. (1999). schools New York: Teachers College Press. Howe, K. R., & Berv, J. (2000). Constructing constructivism: Epistemological and pedagogical. In D. C. Phillips (ed.). Constructivism in education: Opinions and seco nd opinions on controversial issues (pp19 40). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. International Reading Association. (1989) Cases in Literacy: An agenda for discussion. Delware: International Reading Association Janesick, V. J. (2004) Stretching exe rcises for qualitative researchers. 2nd ed Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage. Jay, G. (2005). Whiteness studies and the multicultural literature classroom. MELUS, 30( 2), 99 121. John Steiner, V., & Mahn, H. (1996). Sociocultural approaches to learning and development: A Vygotskian framework. Educational Psychologist, 31 (3 4), 191 206 Jordan, C. (1985). Translating culture: From ethnographic information to educational program. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 16 (2), 105 123. Jordan, C. (199 2). The role of culture in minority school achievement. Kamehameha Journal of Education 3 (2), 53 67. John Steriner, V. & Mahn, H. (1996). Sociocultural approaches to learning and development: A Vygotskian Framework. Educational Psychologist, 31 (3/4) 191 206. Kidd, J.K., Sanchez, S.Y., Thorp, E.L.. (2005). Cracking the challenge of changing dispositions: Changing hearts and minds through stories, narratives, and direct cultural interactions. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 26 (4), p.347 35 9. Kincheloe, J. (2007). Critical pedagogy in the Twenty first Century: Evolution for survival. In McLaren, P.& Kincheloe, J.L. (eds.) Critical Pedagogy: Where are we now? New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc. Kleinfeld, J. (1988). Learning to thi nk like a teacher: The study of cases.

PAGE 171

159 Kleinfeld, J. (1991, April). Changes in problem solving abilities of students taught through case methods. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. Kleinfel d, J. (1998). The uses of case studies in preparing teachers of cultural diversity. Theory Into Practice, 37 (2), 140 147. Kozol, J. (2005). The shame of the nation: The restoration of apartheid schooling in America. New York: Crown Publishers. Kvale, S & Brinkmann, S.(2009) Inter Views. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. LaBoskey, V.K. (1992). Case investigations: Preservice teacher research as an aid to reflection. Toward a pedagogy of cases. In J.L. Shulman (Ed.), Case method in te acher education (pp.175 193). New York: Teacher College Press. Ladson Billings, G. (1992). Reading between the lines and beyond the pages: A culturally relevant approach to literacy. Theory into Practice, 31, 312 320. Ladson Billings, G. (1994). The dre amkeepers: Successful teachers for African American children San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Ladson Billings, G. (1995a). But that's just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory Into Practice 34 (3), 159 165. Ladson Billings, G. (1995b). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32 465 491. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation New York: Cambridge University Press. Lavin Loucks, D. (2006). The academic achievement gap Dallas: J. McDonald Williams Institute. Lee, K. Summers, E. & Garza, R. (2009). Effects of case based learning on preservice Leader ship: The online journal, 7(1): retrieved from http://academicleadership.org/emprical_research/564_printer.shtml Leistyna, P. (2007). Neoliberal nonsense. In P. McLaren & J. Kincheloe, (Eds.) Critical pedagogy: Where are we now ? New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc. Lowenstein, K.L (2009). The work of multicultural teacher education: Reconceptualizing white teacher candidates as learners. Review of Educational Res earch, 97 (1), 163 196.

PAGE 172

160 Massey, D. S. (1995). The new immigration and ethnicity in the United States. Population and Development Review, 21 (3),631 652. McDade, S.A. (1995). Case study pedagogy to advance critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology. 22 (1) 37 41. McIntosh, P. (1997). White privilege and male privilege: A personal account of coming to see correspondences through work in women's studies. In R. Delgado & J. Stefanic (Eds.), Critical white studies: Looking behind the mirror (pp. 291 299). Ph iladelphia: Temple University Press. Merseth, K. K. (1991). The early history of case based instruction: Insights for teacher education today. Journal of Teacher Education, 42 (4), 243 249. Merseth, K.K. (1994). Cases, case method, and the professional development of educators. Retrieved from: http://www.ericdigests.org/1997 2/case.htm Merseth, K.K. (1996). Cases and case method in teacher education. In, J.Sikula (ed) Handbook of teacher ed ucaton, (2 nd ed). McAllister, G. & Irvine, J.J. (2002). The role of empathy in teaching culturally diverse Journal of Teacher Education, 53 (5), p.433 443. Miller, P.H. (2002). Theories of developmen tal psychology. New York: Worth Publishers. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An expanded source book: Qualitative data analysis, (2nd ed) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Milner, R.H., Flowers, L.A, Moore, E., Moore, J.L.,& Flowers, T.A. (2003). Preserv ice The High School Journal, October, 63 70. Moghaddam, F.M. (1999). Reflexive positioning: Culture and private discourse. In R. Harre & L.v.Langenhove,. (Eds.), Positioning Theory (pp.74 86). Ma ssachusetts: Blackwell Publishers Inc. Moje, E.B., & Hinchman (2004). Culturally responsive practices for youth literacy learning. In T.L.Jetton, & J.A. Dole (Eds.). Adolescent Literacy Research and Practice (pp.321 350). New York: Guildford Press. Moll L.C. & Greenberg, J.B. (1990). Creating zones of possibilities: Combining social context for instruction. In L.C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education (pp.319 348). New York: Cambridge University Press.

PAGE 173

161 Moll, L.C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., Gonzalez, N. (2005). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms, In Gonzalez, N, Moll, L.C., Amanti, C. (Eds), Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities and classrooms New Jersey: Lawren ce Erlbaum Associates. Montgomery, W. (2001). Creating culturally responsive, inclusive classrooms. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33 4 9. Nasir, N. S., & Hand, V. M. (2007). Exploring sociocultural perspectives on race, culture, and learning. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 449 475. National Center for Educational Statistics, (2007). Noddings, N. (2005). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education, 2 nd ed., New York: Teachers College Press. Noordhoff, K ., & Klein feld, J. (1993). Preparing teachers for multicultural classrooms. Teaching & Teacher Education, 9( 1), 27 39. Ogbu, J.U. (1992). Understanding cultural diversity and learning. Educational Researcher, 21 (8), 5 14. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative resea rch and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Phuntsog, N. (2001). Culturally responsive teaching: What do selected United States elementary school teachers think? Intercultural Education, 12 51 64. Quintero, E. (2007). Critical peda J.L Kincheloe,(Eds). Critical pedagogy: Where are we now ? New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc. Richards, J. & Gipe, J. (2000). Elementary literacy lessons: Cases and commentaries from the field. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Richards, J.C & Gipe, J.P (2000). Elementary literacy lessons: Cases and commentaries from the field. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erbaum Associates. Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: partici patory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. In J.V. Wertsch, P. del Rio, & A. Alvarez (Eds.) Sociocultural Studies of the Mind (p. 139 164). Shulman, L.S. (1992). Toward a pedagogy of cases. In J.L. Shulman (Ed.), Case method in teach er education (pp.1 32). New York: Teacher College Press.

PAGE 174

162 Sleeter, C,E. (2001). Preparing teachings for culturally diverse schools: Research and the overwhelming presence of whiteness. Journal of Teacher Education, 52 (94), 94 106. Stiegelbauer, S. M. (1986). Intercultural Dilemmas: New teachers in cross cultural settings. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Franscio, CA. Stanley, W.B. (2007). Critical pedagogy: Democratic realism, neoliberali sm, conservativism, and a tragic sense of education. In McLaren, P.& Kincheloe,J.L. (Eds). Critical pedagogy: Where are we now ? New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc. Strauss, A. L. & Corbin, J.L. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oak Sage: California. Sudzina, M.R. (1993). Dealing with diversity in the classroom: A case study approach. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators. Su, perspectives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13 325 340. Swanson, C. (2004). school graduation, class of 2001 Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Education Policy Center. United States Census (2008).United States Department of Education. United States Department of Education (2004). A guide to education and No Child Left Behind. Washington, D.C.: Office of Public Affairs.Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/guide/index.html United States Department of Education (2009). Reading First. Retrieved from www.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/index.html van Langenhove, L. & Harre, R. (1999). Introducing positioning theory. In L. van Langenhove & R. Harre (Eds.), Positioning Theory (pp.14 31). Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers Inc. Villegas, A.M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 53 20 32. Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and Language. The MIT Press, Cambridge: MA. Wasserman, S. (1994). Using cases to stud y teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 75 (8), 602 618.

PAGE 175

163 Wested, (1997). A program that supports the development and use of cases in education. R etrieved from http;// www.ed.gov/pubs/triedandtrue/teac h.html Willis, G. B. (1999). Course presented at Meeting of American Statistical Assoication. Wiseman, M. B. (1978). Empathetic identification. American Philosophical Quarterly, 15 (2), 107 113. Wlodkowski, R.J., & Ginsberg, M.B. (1995). A framework for culturally responsive teaching. Educational Leadership, 53(1), 17 21. Zeichner, K.M., Grant, C., Gay, G., Gillette, M., Valli, L., & Villegas, A.M. (1998). A research informed vision of good practice in multicu ltural teacher education: Design principles. Theory Into Practice, 37 (2), 163 171. Zeichner, K.M, & Hoeft, K. (1996). Teacher socialization for cultural diversity. In J. Sikula, T.J. Buttery, & E. Guyton (eds). Handbook of research on teacher education (3 rd edition) pp. 525 547. New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillian. Zygmunt Fillwalk, E. & Clark, P. (2007). Becoming Multicultural. Childhood Education, 83 (5), 288 293.

PAGE 176

164 APPENDICES

PAGE 177

165 Appendix A: Cultural Divers ity Awareness Inventory Please check the boxes which describe you: Age: Sex: Ethnicity: Caucasian African American Hispanic Asian Othe r C ULTURAL D IVERSITY A WARENESS I NVENTORY T HIS SELF EXAMINATION QUESTIONNAIRE IS DES I GNED TO ASSIST THE U SER IN LOOKING AT HIS OR HER OWN ATTITUDES BELIEFS AND BEHAVIOR TOWARDS ELEMENTARY C HILDREN OF CULTURALL Y DIVERSE B ACKGROUNDS T HERE ARE NO RIGHT ANSWERS O NLY WHAT YOU BELIEVE P LEASE BE SURE TO ANSWER EACH STATEMENT BY CHECKIN G S T RONGLY AGREE AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE OR STRONGLY DISAGREE T HE INTENDED USERS ARE ELEMENTARY EDUCATORS ( CLASSROOM TEACHERS PARAPROFESSIONALS T HERAPISTS SPECIALISTS ) INVOLVED IN DIRECT SERVICES T O ELEMENTARY CHILDREN OF C ULTURALLY DIVERSE BA CKGROUNDS Statement Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree I believe my culture to be different from some of the children I serve. I believe it is important to identify immediately the ethnic groups of the children I serve. I believe I would prefer to work with children and parents whose cultures are similar to mine. I believe I am uncomfortable with people who exhibit values or beliefs different from my own. I believe other than the required school act ivities, my interactions with parents should include unplanned activities (e.g. social events, meeting in shopping centers), or telephone conversations. I believe I am sometimes surprised when members of certain ethnic groups contribute to parti cular school activities (e.g., bilingual students on the debate team or Black students in the orchestra). I believe cultural views of a diverse community program planning. I believe it is nece ssary to include on going parent input in program planning.

PAGE 178

166 Appendix A (continued) I sometimes experience frustration when conducting conferences with parents whose culture is different than my own. I believe children are re sponsible for solving communication problems that are caused by their racial/ethnic identity. language, one should role model without any further explanation. I believe that there are times w hen the use of standard English should be accepted. I believe that in a society with as many racial groups as the U.S.A., I would accept the use of ethnic jokes or phrases by some children. I believe that there are times when ra cial statements should be ignored. I believe that translating a standardized assessment from English to another language to be questionable since it alters reliability and validity. I believe translating a standardized achievem dominant language gives the child an added advantage and does not allow for peer comparison. I believe parents know little about assessing their own children. I believe that the teaching of ethn ic customs and traditions is NOT the responsibility of public school programs or personnel. I believe it is my responsibility to provide opportunities for children to share cultural differences in foods, dress, family life, and/or beliefs. I believe I make adaptations in programming to accommodate the different cultures as my enrollment changes. I believe the displays and frequently used materials within my settings show at least three different ethnic groups or customs. I believe each child should be involved in a regular rotating schedule for job assignments (e.g., different classroom helpers are assigned daily, weekly, or monthly). expectations of the

PAGE 179

167 Appendix B: RED 3309 Syllabus This syllabus, course calendar, and other attending documents are subject to change during the semester in the event of extenuating circumstances. I. COURSE DESCRIPT ION This course is designed to increase understanding of early literacy development and the conditions which promote total literacy from birth through lower elementary grades. Language theory and current research are used to shape informed practices regar ding literacy development. Connections are made among all aspects of literacy learning: reading, writing, listening, speaking and attitude development. The course explores and develops many related activities to foster a balanced, positive, constructive a ttitude towards literacy in young children. It includes a minimum of 1 5 clock hours of observation/teaching reading in educational setting(s). This cours e is writing intensive. II. MAJOR LEARNING OUTCOMES: 1. The student will demonstrate an understanding of the concepts of the reading process. 2. The student will demonstrate an understanding of the relationship between oral language development and reading fluency. 3. The student will demonstrate an understanding of the stages of oral language, reading and writing d evelopment. 4. The student will demonstrate an understanding of the concepts associated with Balanced Literacy. 5. The student will demonstrate an understanding of how to teach reading. 6. The student will demonstrate an understanding of the importance of est ablishing a print rich environment using various printed artifacts and texts. 7. The student will demonstrate an understanding of the importance of ongoing assessment to inform curriculum. 8. The student will demonstrate an understanding of various ways te chnology supports the acquisition of literacy skills in the lower elementary grades, K 2. Course Objectives Stated in Performance Terms: 1. The student will demonstrate an understanding of the concepts of the reading process by: a. explaining the impact of the a lphabetic principle, phonological awareness, and phonics on reading development. b. identifying characteristics of learning theories, cueing systems and models of the reading process that have shaped our teaching practices. c. identifying factors that affect lit literacy development, including factors specific to ESOL students and students with special needs.

PAGE 180

168 Appendix B (continued) d. applying strategies to promote acquisition of word knowledge, reading flu ency, and reading comprehension, including appropriate ESOL strategies. e. using strategies to build background knowledge and develop vocabulary. f. applying reading theories to actual instructional situations. 2. The student will demonstrate an understanding of t he relationship between oral language development and reading fluency by: a. observing simulations and actual classroom instruction. b. explaining the relationship between oral language and literacy development. 3. The student will demonstrate an understanding of the stages of oral language, reading and writing development by: a. creating conditions conducive to language acquisition, reading, and writing. b. organizing and managing the classroom to provide an environment conducive to effective grouping, individualization and instruction in reading 4. The student will demonstrate an understanding of the concepts associated with Balanced Literacy by: a. describing various components and characteristics of Balanced Literacy (listening, presenting, writing, reading, viewing, and speaking). b. practicing instructional strategies which reflect explicit and indirect teaching. c. designing instruction reflecting knowledge of the modes of instruction incorporated in Balanced Literacy environments. d. creating instructional experiences which in tegrate reading and writing across the curriculum. 5. The students will demonstrate an understanding of how to teach reading by: a. matching and adapting materials for students with various levels of proficiency in reading and writing, various modes of learning, and multiple intelligences, including ESOL students and students with special needs. b. applying instructional strategies to support struggling writers and readers. c. creating strategies, materials and activities that support language and literacy development to correct problems, including appropriate ESOL strategies. d. participating in school based experiences to apply campus based learning. 6. The student will demonstrate an understanding of the importance of establ ishing a print rich environment using various p rinted artifacts and texts by: a. categorizing and providing a variety of texts and printed materials in the classroom. b. utilizing instructional strategies to elicit student production of printed artifacts for literacy experiences in the classroom. c. orchestr ating literacy activities to utilize the printed artifacts generated by the students as well as the variety of texts and other printed materials in the classroom. 7. The student will demonstrate an understanding of the importance of ongoing assessment to inf orm curriculum by: a. constructing informal assessments appropriate to respecti ve grade levels. b. administering and interpreting formal assessments to determine appropriate instructional strategies for individual students c. identifying ways to assess the litera cy development of emergent, novice, transitional, and expert readers and writers in the primary classroom, including the use of alternative forms of assessment.

PAGE 181

169 Appendix B (continued) 8. The student will demonstrate an understanding of various ways techn ology supports the acquisition of literacy skills in the lower elementary grades, K 2 by: a. using technology as a resource for preparing lessons which support the development of early literacy and reading fluency. b. designing a lesson/unit which enhances lite racy development. c. previewing and evaluating Internet resources and current reading software for reading instruction and assessment. Criteria Performance Standard: Upon successful completion of the course, the student will, with a minimum of 75% accuracy, demonstrate mastery of each of the above stated objectives through classroom measures developed by individual course instructors. III. REQUIRED TEXTBOOK(S), RESOURCES AND MATERIALS A. Required Textbooks Tompkins, G. E. (2007). Literacy for the 21 st century. U pper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. B. Supplemental Material On reserve: Clay, M. (2002). An observation survey of early literacy achievement (Second Edition). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Recommended: Peregoy, S. F. & Boyle, O. F. (2001). Read ing, writing, & learning in ESL: A resource book for K 12 teachers (3 rd ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman. (** Required text for ESOL & other courses). Fountas, I.C. and Pinnell, G. (1999). Matching books to readers Using leveled books in guided reading K 3. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann C. Technology Web Based Readings (Required) are located on the ANGEL course supplement pages. It is a course requirement that you check this and the course email frequently. Some of your participation points will com e from this. ANGEL: http://angel.spcollege.edu D. Supplies Discussed in class. IV. COURSE REQUIREMENTS & EXPECTATIONS A. School Based Hours Course Requirements This course requires 10 hours of observation /participation in reading for grades K 2 in classroom set tings. Rubrics for completing the assignment and how it will be graded are included online in the ANGEL course supplement.

PAGE 182

170 Appendix B (continued) B. Required Assignments Point Value Assignme nt Due Date Where and How to Su bmit 50 Midterm based on assigned readings and class discussions. A specific focus of the exam is on the structure of words as it relates to the English Sound System Angel/ or in class 120 Students will organize a literacy day using a Balanced Literacy Model. Within the day the student will include three distinct literacy area plans: Word Work Lesson Plan, Reading Comprehension Lesson Plan, will also include a variety of early and emergent literacy strategies. In addition, the lessons will include ESOL Language Acquisition strategies and techniques. The student will adapt all strategies showing ESOL methods and assessment instruments. ESOL #5, 6, 16, 17, 21 Hardcopies in class Post in Live Text in ESOL. Do not submit for review. 40 Students will present the Reading Comprehension lesson plan to the class Presentations in class 20 points each Interactive cooperative group presentations: 1. Students will bring in three texts K 2 and develop a Text Gradi ent. ELED FSAC #2 2. Phonemic Awareness Presentations In resources and websites (i.e., Florida Center for Reading Research) for options in teaching students from differing profiles phonemic awareness. These possibilities include poems, songs, chants, and stretching words (with rubber bands). Then, students will model select practices to the class and problems that could occur with lack of phonemic awareness. 3. Stages of Reading Development Presentation in class

PAGE 183

171 Appendix B (continued) B. Required Assignments Point Value Assignme nt Due Date Where and How to Su bmit Presentations i n cooperative groups, the students will outline the stages of reading development (emergent, beginning, fluent, and mature) citing the general characteristics of each stage and problems that could occur at each developmental level. 4. Collaborative Group s Phonics Lesson Presentation Students will explain the differences among various strategies for teaching phonics such as phonic analysis, by analogy, syllabic analysis, and morphemic analysis. They will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each approach, and create a mini lesson on phonics using one of these methods and present to the class. 5. Word Work/ Vocabulary Collaborative Presentations. Students will identify the Dolch word list of most frequently used words and describe how to utilize a word wall or other methods K 2 classroom. In addition, students will compare the difference between words that are harder to learn and that are more hat are more concrete (ex, their names, brand names). Furthermore the students will discuss common problems with acquisition of vocabulary. Then, they frequency words and pre sent this to the class. 6 Cooperative groups will present a reading

PAGE 184

172 Appendix B (continued) B. Required Assignments Point Value Assignme nt Due Date Where and How to Su bmit fluency strategy that is developmentally appropriate for a K 2 student to the class (e g, modeling a Read Aloud to a K class). Discuss accuracy, automaticity, and prosody. Introduce stra tegies for increasing fluency for K 2 students. In addition, discuss through researching various assessments for measuring fluency and difficulties/ problems of not being a fluent reader. 200 *Assessment Portfolio: ( with a child). Individual assessments done then post in Live Text: Yopp Singer Phonemic Awareness Assessment. Present findings to the class. Concepts of Print/ Letter Identification. Present findings to the class Running Record miscues, fluency, and retell analysis for fluency. Present findings to the class (ELED FSAC #6). Writing Assessment/Spelling Present findings to the class. Critical Task Place in Live Text Hardcopies in class Then when graded upload into Live Text 100 School Based Hours Journal Written Responses to the School Based Experience Expectations FEAP #8 Must be posted on Live Text to receive credit. Submit for Review.

PAGE 185

173 Appendix B (continued) B. Required Assignments Point Value Assignme nt Due Date Where and How to Su bmit Critical Task Place In Live Text 100 Final TBA Students must submit for review, in LiveText, all FEA P aligned assignments in order to receive a passing grade in the course. In addition, all critical reading tasks must be passed with a 75% or higher to pass the class. **These assignments must be mastered in order to pass the class. If an assignment does not receive a grade of C or above, the instructor will work with the student to improve the understanding of the concept and performance of the assignment. The assignment must be corrected and resubmitted and cannot receive a grade higher than a C. In t he event of proven cheating or plagiarizing on any FEAPs assignment, the student will, at minimum, receive a non passing grade, not a withdrawal, for the course. Reading Endorsement Competencies Addressed Reading Competency Descriptor Comp. 1: Foundation s in Language and Cognition Has substantive knowledge of language structure and function and cognition for each of the five major components of the reading process. : 1.A.1; 1.B.1;1.B.2; 1.C.1; 1.C.2; 1.E.1; 1.E. 2 ; ; 1.E. 4; 1. D.1; 1.F.3; 1.F.4; 1.F.5 Comp. 2: Foundations of Research Based Practices Understands the principles of scientifically based reading as the foundation of comprehensive instruction that synchronizes and scaffolds each of the major components of the reading process toward student m astery : 2. A; 2. B; 2.D; 2.E; 2.F.1; 2.F.2; 2.F.3; 2.F.4 ; 2.6; Comp. 3: Foundations of Assessment Understands the role of assessments in guiding reading instruction and instructional decision making for reading progress of struggling readers : 3.1; 3.2; 3.3; 3.6; 3.7; 3.8; 3.9; 3.10; 3.12; Comp. 4: Foundations of d ifferentiation Has a broad knowledge of students from differing profiles, including with disabilities and students from diverse populations : 4.1; 4.2; 4.4 ; 4.5; 4.6; 4.7; 4.8; 4.10 Comp. 5: Application of Differentiated Instruction Has knowledge of effective, research based instructional methodology to prevent reading difficulties and promote acceleration of reading progress for struggling students, including students w ith disabilities and from diverse populations : 5.1; 5.4; 5.5; 5.6;5.7; 5.8 ; 5.9

PAGE 186

174 Appendix B continued For courses with lesson planning: It means that, if you read through the given source for ideas, but then rethink and rewrite the idea in your own words with your own modifications to meet the needs of the assignment. Anything adapted or used v erbatim must be cited with credit given to the author(s). This includes specific citations on all supplementary materials (i.e., assignment sheets, graphic organizers, checklists) that are not originally your work. This applies to all COE lesson plans un less the instructor directly specifies otherwise. All assignments must be done in Microsoft Word or Power Point. Assignments done in an incorrect format are subject the same conditions as late assignments. Note: Instructor reserves the right to change t he course calendar/assignments if necessary. CALENDAR AND TOPICAL OUTLINE WEEK TOPICAL COURSE CALENDAR ASSIGNMENTS DUE ONE 1/12 & 1/14 Introductions Orientation to the course Time capsules What is reading? Make sure that you can access the course throu gh Angel Review textbook QUIZ #1 (online ): MUST BE TAKEN BY SUNDAY 1/17, BY 11:59 P.M. PreCase/IRB/ CDAI TWO 1/19 & 1/21 NCLB Overview Components of an effective reading program Balanced Literacy Model Read GT, Ch. 1 QUIZ #2 (online) Download : SSS for Early/Emergent Reading (ANGEL or DOE website ) & Bookmark

PAGE 187

175 Appendix B (continued) THREE 1/26 & 1/28 Learning to Read Oral Language Development Concepts about Print R ead GT, Ch. 4 QUIZ #3 (online) PreCase/IRB/ CDAI FOUR 2/2 & 2/4 Phonemic Awareness Phonics Alphabet Tests Read GT, Ch. 5, pp. 142 167 QUIZ #4 (online) CONCEPTS ABOUT PRINT DUE Teaching Case Tim FIVE 2/9 & 2/11 Assessment Running Records Read G T, Ch. 3 QUIZ #5 (online) YOPP SINGER/ALPHABET ASSESSMENT DUE 2/11 SIX 2/16 & 2/18 Running Records Assessment continued Discuss learning centers/learning stations Read Ch. 2, pp. 38 52 Teaching Case Anna

PAGE 188

176 Appendix B (continued) SEVEN 2/23 & 2/25 Spelling Read GT, Ch. 5, 167 181 QUIZ #6 (online) RUNNING RECORDS ASSESSMENT DUE 2/25 Teaching Case Andrea EIGHT 3/2 & 3/4 Learning Center Exploration Review for Midterm MIDTERM LEARNING CENTER DUE 3/2 MIDTERM IN CLASS ON 3/4 N INE NO CLASS 3/9 & 3/11 SPC SPRING BREAK TEN 3/16 & 3/18 Writing ESOL and Struggling Readers Read GT, Ch. 10, pp. 343 354 AND Ch. 2, pp. 52 65, AND Ch. Ch. 11, pp. 372 383 QUIZ #7 (online) Teaching Case Elena ELEVEN 3/23 & 3/25 Vocabulary Read GT, Ch. 7 QUIZ #8 (online) IN CLASS VOCABULARY ACTIVITY DUE 3/25 WRITING ASSESSMENT DUE 3/25

PAGE 189

177 Appendix B (continued) TWELVE 3/30 & 4/1 Fluency Read GT, Ch. 6 QUIZ #9 (online) IN CLASS FLUENCY ACTIVITY DUE 4/1 THIRTEEN 4/6 & 4/8 C omprehension Read GT, Ch. 8 AND Ch. 9 of Fountas & Pinnell (available on Angel) QUIZ #10 (online) IN CLASS TEXT GRADIENT ACTIVITY ON 4/8 FOURTEEN 4/13 & 4/15 Comprehension continued Introduction to Lesson Planning SBH JOURNAL DUE 4/15 MUST BE SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY in LIVETEXT. PostCase/ CDAI FIFTEEN 4/20 & 4/22 In Class Time for Lesson Planning SIXTEEN 4/27 & 4/29 Presentation of Lesson Plans (ESOL Infused) Review for Final Exam Literacy Lesso n Plan DUE 4/27 LESSON PLAN PRESENTATIONS SEVEN TEEN FINAL EXAM DATE AND TIME TBA

PAGE 190

178 Appendix B (continued) V. SYLLABUS STATEMENTS COMMON TO ALL COE SYLLABI A. COE Syllabus Statements: https://angel.spcollege.edu/AngelUploads/Files/larrea_miriam/SPC_Syllabus_Common_Statements_M aster.htm B. SPC Syllabus Statements: https:/ /angel.spcollege.edu/AngelUploads/Files/larrea_miriam/Syllabus_Addendum.htm E ach student must read all topics within this syllabus related to the course (found in sections I V) and the content of the syllabus statements common to all COE syllabi (found in the links under section VI). If the student needs clarification on any items in the syllabus or linked statements, he/she should contact the course instructor. Critical Reading Assignments Templates and Rubrics Students must sub mit for review, in Live Text and hard copies assignments and the critical tasks in reading These assignments must be mastered in order to pass the cl ass. If an assignment does not receive a grade of C or above, the instructor will work with the student to improve the understanding of the concept and performance of the assignment. The assignment must be corrected and resubmitted and cannot receive a grade higher than a C. A. Assessment Portfolio Construct an assessment portfolio with K 2 students. Include in the portfolio a Yopp Singer phonemic awareness assessment, Concept of Print/ Letter Identification, Running Record, and Writing /Spelling Assessment. A one page analysis is written for each assessment noting the s of concern from the data, and plan of action for future instruction The Yopp Singer and Concepts of Print/Letter Identification assessments should be done with a kindergarten student. The Running record and Writing/Spelling Assessments should be done wi th a first or second grade student.

PAGE 191

179 Appendix C: Rubric Used by Expert Panel Excellent (3) Acceptable (2) Unacceptable (1) Multiple Layers There are several issues (including literacy and multicultural) that can be deconstructed from case. On ly one literacy and one multicultural issue can be deconstructed from case. Only one issue or none can be identified. Identifying of dilemma Authentic type problem that can be manifested in elementary school can be identified. An authentic problem is pres ented. The dilemma is vague or unrealistic. Language Language is appropriate for students entering an elementary education program. Language has some jargon that should be reconsidered or case does not contain enough jargon. Language used makes comprehend ing the case difficult for a preservice student. Align to course Case matches more than 1 objective. (suggest week for implementation?) Cases can be aligned to on objective on syllabus Cases does not match course objectives. Content Case is of high quali ty and written to engage students in dialogue that aligns with course. Case is of good quality and promotes some dialogue. Not a good choice. Comments:

PAGE 192

180 Appendix D: Cases Andrea Andrea Perkins is a third grade teacher and has been a teacher fo r several years. returned to her classroom last fall, she attempted to put into practice many informal, highly contextualized literacy assessments. At first, her administration was supportive. However, she started to hear that many parents were upset that she was not giving a weekly spelling test. When her principal approached her and asked her about the lack of a al Friday spelling test and instead I have my students practice words from the stories and essays that they write daily. I believe that this is a sound decision because the students use words from stories at their individual reading level. I based this dec ision on research and feel it best meets the and made it clear to Andrea that she should return to having all students read from a basal text, administer the end of the unit reading tests, and conduct weekly spelling tests from the basal materials. The principal wanted all the students, including all ESOL students, to engage in the same weekly activity. The principal even told Andrea that s he would have to give up her integrated reading writing science sessions so that she would have time to get the students ready for the state writing test.

PAGE 193

181 Appendix D (continued) Andrea has almost given up on her dream of a classroom in which reading, wr iting instruction, and assessment are completed for authentic purposes and real audiences. She does not understand why the community and her principal cannot abandon out dated practices and support her decisions. She decided to make an appointment with the principal to discuss the importance of supporting current research that will develop literacy for all of her students. Adopted from: National Council of Teachers of English (1989). Cases in Literacy: An agenda for discussion. International Reading Associa tion. Anna Anna Cohen is a new teacher in Brown County. She recently graduated from college and is excited to have been hired as a second grade teacher but is nervous about her first year. During the first month of school, the county requires all teachers to assess their students with a running record form and report the results to the county literacy department. Classroom teachers should use the results of the running records to group students into appropriate reading groups based on level. Anna completed her running

PAGE 194

182 Appendix D (continued) Juan is Mexican American, born in the United States. He is a student in the ESOL program who has been in this school since Kindergarten and is co nsidered to be a bright County Running Record Assessments Guide his mispronunciation should b e counted as a miscue. Anna could tell that Juan was getting nervous as she was marking his assessment paper. She also knew that the three miscues for this specific word would score him into a lower reading group although he knows the meaning of the word. Anna does not know how to handle this situation so she asks the reading coach for guidance. need to mark them as miscues and put him in the lower group. This is stated in the county Elena Elena Richards is a first grade teacher with five years experience. Elena enjoyed teaching until last year when new administrative guidelines required her to give up teaching her 90 minute language arts block to work with her students on reading as an isolated subject. In the past she taught language arts by integrating reading and writing. With the new guidelines she was told to sprinkle writing throughout the day because the

PAGE 195

183 Appendix D (continued) Elena was upset. She knows that best practice is to teach reading and writing together and that research provides evidence of th e strength in this process for early literacy development. It is also a documented best practice for ESL students. The following week at the first grade team meeting Elena discussed how she felt and found that most of her teammates agreed with her. Howev er, when she went to the administration to discuss the team meeting most of her colleagues did not want to join and close friend, Miss Paige. tion maintains that tests differentiate between reading and writing and the students will score higher in intermediate grades if the primary teachers concentrate solely on reading comprehension. The administration made the change in the instructional guide lines without consulting the classroom teachers and Elena believes she should present her position to the administration for reconsideration in the best interest of her students. She needs to prepare what she should say when she meets with them. Modified from: National Council of Teachers of English (1989). Cases in Literacy: An agenda for discussion. International Reading Association.

PAGE 196

184 Appendix D (continued) Janice Janice Smith, a teacher with ten years experience, has just moved to Arizona from North Carolina. Her last school, where she taught for her entire career, was located in a white, middle class neighborhood. Janice is a teacher who enjoys her job and cares about Ari zona. Janice was hired at Lakes Elementary and since she started she has felt like the students are not connecting with her. The student population is much different than her past experience, most of the students are from the nearby Apache Reservation, rec eive free or reduced lunch, and speak with a dialect very different from what she is accustomed to hearing in her North Carolina home. There are three months left of school and Janice decides to motivate and excite her students with a poetry unit. She brou ght in poems about the ocean, transportation, clothes, and friendship. She also brought in silly poems. Janice began to feel frustrated when one of her students wrote this poem: Have you ever hurt about baskets? I have, seeing my grandmother weaving for a long time. Have you ever hurt about work? I have, because my father works too hard and he tells how he works.

PAGE 197

185 Appendix D (continued) Have you ever hurt about cattle? I have, because my grandfather has been working on the cattle for a long time. Have you ever hurt about school? I have, because I learned a lot of words from school, And they are not my words. like school? Modified from: National Council of Teachers of Engl ish (1989). Cases in Literacy: An agenda for discussion. International Reading Association. Tim experience, entered his new school building. He was hired as the primary ES L aide, grades K 2, and was excited to meet the staff and students. Tim had been pleased when he attended the week of workshops prior to the first week of actual classes. He saw many welcoming faculty and a very diverse group of families. He and the princi pal decided during the week of workshops that it might be useful for him to shadow one or two ESL students during the first day to get an idea of the school and classroom policies and practices that are relative to ESL students. On the

PAGE 198

186 Appendix D (continu ed) first day, he followed one Vietnamese student in the morning and one Cuban student in the afternoon. Both had been placed in mainstream classrooms taught only in English. As Tim walked around he noticed that the school lacked universal symbols and pho tos of important places. He also saw that many of the classrooms were lacking resource books and did not provide a print rich environment. He asked one of the students if he was enjoying his first day of school. The student, Jose er thinks I am not as smart as the others. He gave me problems for his responses and promised to support him throughout the year. ten years, in two different schools. He knew that most teachers accepted, appreciated, and supported ESL students. However, he has also seen a few teachers who had expectations that were either much too low or much too high for such students. Most cases o f too high involved students of Asian heritage; cases of too low expectations often involved Latino or African American students. After school that day, Tim pondered how he might help teachers know more about the abilities, environment, and literacy needs of their ESL students. He knew that just telling teachers in a memo would not necessarily result in their knowing students better. Modif ied from: Redman, G. L. (1999). elementary school New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

PAGE 199

187 Appendix E: Interview Protocol A 1. Can you tell me why you became an educator? 2. What let you into higher education 3. Who t akes RED 3309? 4. What are your insight about using teaching cases and case based instruction to teach diversity and literacy issues to develop a culturally responsive literacy pedagogy? 5. Do you foresee any problems? I have asked all of my questions, do you h ave anything you like to share or add?

PAGE 200

188 Appendix F: Nonparticipant Observation Notes Noordhoff and Kleinfield Framework (2003) 1. Review Case 2. Discuss range of issues 3. Pedagogical Strategies and Consequences Preservice Teachers Pedagogy Empowerment Sociocultural Consciousness Descriptive Reflexive

PAGE 201

189 Appendix G: Point Value for Each Question on the CDAI (Henry, 1991) Statement Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree I believe my culture t o be different from some of the children I serve. 1 2 3 4 5 I believe it is important to identify immediately the ethnic groups of the children I serve. 1 2 3 4 5 I believe I would prefer to work with children and parents whose cultures are similar to mi ne. 5 4 3 2 1 I believe I am uncomfortable with people who exhibit values or beliefs different from my own. 5 4 3 2 1 I believe other than the required school activities, my interactions with parents should include unplanned activities (e.g. social event s, meeting in shopping centers), or telephone conversations. 1 2 3 4 5 I believe I am sometimes surprised when members of certain ethnic groups contribute to particular school activities (e.g., bilingual students on the debate team 5 4 3 2 1 I believe c ultural views of a diverse community should be included in the 1 2 3 4 5 I believe it is necessary to include on going parent input in program planning. 1 2 3 4 5 I sometimes experience frustration when conducting confer ences with parents whose culture is different from my own. 5 4 3 2 1 I believe children are responsible for solving communication problems that are caused by their racial/ethnic identity. 5 4 3 2 1 language, one should role model without any further explanation. 5 4 3 2 1

PAGE 202

190 Appendix G (continued) I believe that there are times when the standard English should be accepted. 1 2 3 4 5 I believe that in a society with as many racial groups as the U.S.A. I would accept the use of ethnic jokes or phrases by some children. 5 4 3 2 1 I believe that there are times when racial statements should be ignored. 5 4 3 2 1 I believe that translating a standardized assessment from English to another language to be questionable since it alters reliability and validity. 5 4 3 2 1 I believe translating a standardized achievement or intelligence test to the an added advantage and does not allow for pe er comparison. 5 4 3 2 1 I believe parents know little about assessing their own children. 5 4 3 2 1 I believe that the teaching of ethnic customs and traditions is NOT the responsibility of public school programs or personnel. 5 4 3 2 1 I believe it i s my responsibility to provide opportunities for children to share cultural differences in foods, dress, family life, and/or beliefs. 1 2 3 4 5 I believe I make adaptations in programming to accommodate the different cultures as my enrollment changes. 1 2 3 4 5 I believe the displays and frequently used materials within my settings show at least three different ethnic groups or customs. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 203

191 Appendix G (continued) I believe each child should be involved in a regular rotating schedule for job assignments (e.g., different c lassroom helpers are assigned daily, weekly, or monthly). 1 2 3 4 5 5 4 3 2 1

PAGE 204

ABOUT THE AUTHOR AnnMarie Alberton with an Emphasis in ESOL from Florida Atlantic University in 2000. Her research areas of interest included literacy studies, second language learners, development of a culturally responsive pedagogy, and teacher education. AnnMarie lives in Palm Harbor, FL with her husband Scott, two children Matthew and Lance, and their dog, Sammy.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim
leader nam 22 Ka 4500
controlfield tag 007 cr-bnu---uuuuu
008 s2010 flu s 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0004755
035
(OCoLC)
040
FHM
c FHM
049
FHMM
090
XX9999 (Online)
1 100
Gunn, AnnMarie Alberton.
0 245
Developing a culturally responsive literacy pedagogy :
b pre-service teachers, teaching cases, and postcard narratives
h [electronic resource] /
by AnnMarie Alberton Gunn.
260
[Tampa, Fla] :
University of South Florida,
2010.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains X pages.
502
Dissertation (PHD)--University of South Florida, 2010.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
538
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
3 520
ABSTRACT: The results of the U. S Census provide evidence that our population is becoming more varied and that diversity is most salient in our schools. This demographic shift will continue to have a significant impact on the curriculum, students, teachers, and other aspects of education as we have historically known it. One of the most challenging aspect is that while our students are becoming more diverse, our teacher population is not. Eighty to ninety percent of the teaching population is White, heterosexual, middle class females, with little experiences with people from diverse backgrounds. (Lowenstein, 2009; Sleeter, 2001). The academic achievement gap continues to widen between culturally diverse students and their White peers. This disparity in achievement along demographic lines indicates a clear and present need to more fully prepare teachers on how to educate children of diverse backgrounds--a crucial component of developing a culturally responsive pedagogy. "As our society changes, so must our teacher education practices" (Lee, Summers, & Garza, 2009, p.1). This mixed method study was developed around the hypothesis that teaching cases and student-written postcard narratives using an empathetic identity (Wiseman, 1978) should be used in a literacy course to foster a culturally responsive literacy pedagogy. This study took place over one semester at a four year college, in a preservice education literacy course. Five teaching cases were written or modified to be aligned with this particular course's content. I examined 20 preservice teachers (n=20) and a professor as they engaged in case-based instruction. Immediately following the teaching case discussion, the preservice teachers engaged in a writing exercise where they used an empathetic identity to imagine having the person in the teaching case's experience (Wiseman, 1978).. This study employed a mixed method design. Interviews with the professor, a professor's journal, a researcher reflective journal, a pre and post teaching case, nonparticipant observation notes, preservice teacher written narratives, and the statistically significant results from the CDAI (Henry, 1991) at the alpha .05 level demonstrated that teaching cases effectively influenced preservice teacher's perceptions and insights leading to a culturally responsive literacy pedagogy. Three major conclusions were drawn from this study. First, the implementation of teaching cases that feature diversity and literacy issues made an impact on the professor of this literacy course. The professor found that using teaching cases motivated her students, fostered a deeper discussion of the weekly topics, and created more transfer power of important topics to the classroom discussion than reading scholarly articles. Secondly, teaching cases that feature diversity and literacy issues influenced many of the preservice teachers' insights and perceptions related to a culturally responsive pedagogy. The contextulization and alignment with the course content made them powerful tools to motivate and foster an entrance for preservice teachers to engage into a critical inquiry about culturally responsive teaching practices. Finally, the third conclusion drawn from this study is that utilizing activities which allow preservice teachers to use an empathetic lens can be a very powerful experience that may lead to developing a culturally responsive literacy pedagogy. Three recommendations to teacher education are suggested based on the conclusions drawn from the data. First, teacher education curriculum should include experiences that can foster a culturally responsive pedagogy. The use of teaching cases featuring diversity and literacy issues is strongly suggested, as well as cultivating experiences that allow the preservice teachers to use an empathetic identity. Secondly, these experiences should be viewed as valuable tools for professors in higher education, as the teaching population of higher education mirrors that of our teaching population (Lowenstien, 2009; Sleeter, 2001). During the case-based discussion the professor and preservice teachers can draw upon their shared knowledge of theoretical, cultural, cognitive, and experiential knowledge of teaching children from diverse backgrounds (Nordoff & Kleinfeld, 1992) as a conduit for a culturally responsive literacy pedagogy. Finally, teacher education has a responsibility to the well-being of their preservice teachers when purposely creating cathartic experiences. Culminating discussions should be designed to balance these emotional experiences (Ellis, 1995; Shulman, 1992). Several areas were identified for future research, encompassing the implementation of teaching cases and preservice teacher curriculum.
590
Advisor: Nancy Willliams, Ph.D.
653
Teaching cases
Multicultural education
Casebased instruction
Culturally responsive pedagogy
690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Curriculum and Instruction
Masters.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.4755