Preparing teachers for diversity : a study of two university teacher education programs in Indiana.

Student teacher;Diversity;University;Teacher education;Race;Indiana

Vella Goebel, 1947-

University:University of Louisville

Department:Department of Leadership, Foundations, and Human Resource Education

关键词: Student teacher;    Diversity;    University;    Teacher education;    Race;    Indiana;   

Others  :  https://ir.library.louisville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1504&context=etd

美国|英语

来源: The Universite of Louisville's Institutional Repository

【 摘 要 】

This study assessed the efficacy of diversity training in teacher education programs at two Indiana universities from the viewpoints of teacher educators and teacher education majors. Three research questions guided the study: (a) To what extent did teacher educators exhibit classroom attitudes and behaviors consistent with practicing diversity education? (b) To what extent did teacher education majors perceive that teacher educators exhibited attitudes and behaviors consistent with practicing diversity education? (c) Did teacher education students and teacher educators agree about the extent to which their institutions supported diversity initiatives? The research questions were examined across the domains most frequently explored by diversity education researchers: race/ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and social class. The study included both qualitative and quantitative data analysis. There were four major findings for Midstates University: (a) only the race/ethnicity and social class domains were included in their classes by teacher educators; (b) students noted some instances of gender bias among faculty; (c) some students assessed their diversity training as lacking in substance; and (d) both teacher educators and students defined institutional support for diversity only in terms of race/ethnicity and social class. There were five major findings for the University of the Central Midwest: (a) the inclusion of the four diversity domains varied by teacher educator; (b) students perceived faculty attitudes and behaviors to be favorable toward race/ethnicity and social class; (c) student perceptions of faculty attitudes and behaviors toward sexual orientation were mixed; (d) students perceived a lack of practicality in their diversity training; (e) faculty and students defined institutional support differently. Major findings in the cross-case analysis in this study were (a) race/ethnicity was the diversity domain most frequently included in regular teacher education courses; (b) student and educator perceptions do not agree about the domains included; (c) studnets and teacher educators disagree about the relevance of diversity content; (d) teacher educators and education students agreed that there was little institutional support for domains other than race/ethnicity; (e) teacher educators and students define institutional support differently; and (e) teacher educators perceive that a dearth of diverse field-placement sites hamper diversity education efforts.