Overcoming the challenges of stand-alone multicultural courses: the possibilities of technology integration.

The goals of stand-alone cultural-diversity courses, in teacher education programs, are to raise the cross-cultural cognizance and sensitivity of future teachers so they can incorporate multicultural scholarship into their classrooms, careers, and personal lives; and to provide them with the skills to become transformation agents who instill social justice consciousness in K-12 students. However, time constraints and isolation (lack of connection to foundations and/or subject area instruction) often impede these goals.

This study examines a successful stand-alone multicultural course that added technology to address course challenges by: extending student/student and student/instructor interaction, sustaining postclass peer support, augmenting student/expert dialogue, and linking content and foundations curricula with multicultural pedagogy. The infusion of technology also created: A virtually paperless data storage/retrieval system, a productive tool to monitor student preclass preparation and comprehension, a vehicle for individual and small group debriefings, and an efficient method to evaluate, modify, and manage instruction.

**********

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The demographic projections of Haberman (1989) and Hodgkinson (1992; 2002) indicated an increasing divergence between the cultures and life experiences of K-12 students and those of their classroom teachers. By 2020 the homogeneity (white, middle class, female) of classroom teachers will reach 95% while the economic, ethnic, racial, religious, and social class diversity of the student population will increase nationally, to over 50% (Hodgkinson, 2002; Sadker & Sadker, 2000). This cultural incongruity is further exacerbated by the limited authentic cross-cultural knowledge and interaction experiences of both classroom teachers and their students.

Teacher education authorities such as Bennett (2003), Brown (2004), Gay (2000), and Pang (2001) indicated that, to be effective, classroom teachers must possess the multicultural knowledge, attitudes and behaviors that appropriately respond to issues of student diversity, political influences, and cross-cultural acceptance and validation. Additionally, Banks (1995), Pai (1990) and other multicultural theorists espoused that classroom teachers must be prepared to recognize biases and advocate for equitable access to educational opportunity for all students. Howard (2002), and Zeichner (1993) stated that an equally important imperative is to enable future teachers to transfer equity cognizance to their K-12 students and facilitate the incorporation of social justice tenets from a global perspective, into the cognitive structures of their students' current and future selves.

To foster social justice from an international perspective, teacher educators must begin to view cultural diversity training in a global perspective (Banks, J., 2001; Hilliard, 2001; Zong, 2002). With our growing global interdependence and the move toward a global consciousness, K-12 students must be morally cognizant of, genuinely respectful toward, and effectively prepared to appropriately interact with the many cultures they will encounter as adults in America and around the world. Understanding the continued opposition to multicultural tenets exhibited by students, instructors must develop new strategies to lower resistance and address the issue of providing future teachers with the skills to affect the transfer of global social justice precepts to the current and future lives of their K-12 students (Harrington, 2002; Howard, 2002).

Teacher educators such as Ahlquist (1991), Allport (1979), Brown (in press), Irvine (1992), Lehman (1993), and Sleeter (1995a) found that many teacher education students, enrolled in stand alone cultural diversity courses, attempt to resist multicultural precepts and seek to further reinforce their preconceived cultural biases. Brown (2002) found that undergraduate students exhibit their resistance through inadequate class preparation, participation, and discussion; opposition to required cross-cultural field experiences; and the submission of incomplete and/or mediocre research projects. As an instructor in stand alone graduate level cultural diversity courses, I find that student resistance is further exacerbated by the lack of opportunity to: build and sustain a class community, facilitate postclass peer interaction and support, augment student/expert dialogues, develop interdisciplinary connections, and monitor preclass preparation and comprehension. Finally, the race, ethnicity, and/or gender of an instructor, may also influence resistance. Teacher educators find that: the ethnicity and race of the classroom teacher can affect the self-efficacy and academic engagement of K-12 students (Ashante, 1987; Fordham, 1996; Hudley, 2001; Spencer, 2001), and the race and gender of cultural diversity instructors, on higher education campuses, can influence the acceptance/rejection, by teacher education students, of multicultural tenets examined during the course (Brown, in press; Howard, 1999; Sleeter 1996). However, case studies have shown that classroom teachers (regardless of race, ethnicity, gender), with appropriate multicultural training, can and do master the challenges of diversity in K-12 classrooms (Banks, C., 2001; Brown, in press; Gay, 2000; Pang, 2001).

This article does not address the effect of the increasing homogeneity (white, middle class, female, with limited cross-cultural experiences) of teacher education students nor the influence of the instructor's race and/or gender on the affect of the course for two important reasons: (a) Nieto (1998) and other multicultural teacher educators have found that black and Latino teacher education students can be as culturally encapsulated and as biased as their white peers, and (b) the efforts of higher education institutions and the initiatives of national, state, and local entities have been unable to significantly change the complexion or gender of teacher education students and ultimately K-12 classroom teachers.

This article examines the role of technology in overcoming student resistance to multicultural tenets and in providing future teachers with the skills and fortitude to bridge cultural divides to broaden their personal cross-cultural knowledge and experiences and those of the students they will encounter. The text describes the context in which the course was developed, challenges that motivated the course changes, examines the restructured course, and discusses the benefits and challenges of using technology in cultural diversity courses.

CONTEXT

This southeastern university is a research one institution with strong undergraduate and graduate teacher education programs. The only cultural diversity course, in its teacher education program, is a graduate level, standalone, three credit hour elective. In 1999, after soliciting input from faculty and external multicultural practitioners and conducting a review of the literature, the course was refocused, redesigned, and renamed by the current instructor. The course moved away from the "culturally different" ideology of assimilationist such as Ravitch (2000) and Schlesinger (1998) who believed that marginalized groups are socially and academically unsuccessful because they operate from a culturally disadvantaged, psychologically depressed, and/or emotionally deprived frame-of-reference. This assimilationist teaching focused on what educators such as Banks, J. (2001), Gordon (1995), and Partington (2000) considered, identifying the "cultural deficits" of "minority" groups and then developing a commitment to facilitating the exchange, by K-12 students, of their cultural identities for a shared national culture.

The restructured course was predicated on the underlying axioms of critical pedagogy and designed to facilitate the development, in future teachers, of a social reconstructionist attitude toward the issues of equity and social justice that are espoused by Brown (2000), Giroux (1991), McLaren (1998), Ladson-Billings (1994), and Sleeter and Grant (1999). The course now facilitates the examination of educational and social issues relating to cultural, ethnic, racial, linguistic, economic, academic, social, and gender diversity in the K-12 classroom from a multicultural perspective, and focuses on expanding multicultural cognizance and facilitating the development of reconstructionist competencies in pre and inservice educators. In 2000, the course was cross-listed with The College of Arts and Sciences. Now the diversity of graduate students who enroll in this course range from anthropology and African-American studies to psychology, the sciences, and social work.

The course, an elective, is offered once per semester with an enrollment cap of 20 students. Though the cap is reached, and often exceeded, four to five students drop within the first week because of the technology requirements. There is a wide rang of economic and religious diversity in each class. However, the average racial and ethnic diversity is less than 5%. Eighty percent of the students indicate that they were raised in racially homogenous communities and attended K-12 homogeneous schools (fewer than 5% students of color). Some state that they were not physically exposed to other races and ethnicities prior to entering the university. The instructor, a female African American assistant professor, is the only faculty member for this course and has taught the course four years, at this university, and previously for five years at other institutions.

Prior to the infusion of technology, the semester long weekly classes were consumed with: (a) reviewing the text and other assigned readings to check for student comprehension, (b) viewing videos that demonstrated both positive and negative cross-cultural attitudes, behaviors and teaching strategies, (c) mastering multicultural terminology to increase student proficiency in multicultural dialogue, and (d) engaging in field experiences as a means of enriching the learning environment. Additionally, students were required to submit weekly reflective journals (which were responded to and returned the following week) and conduct and present small group multicultural research projects. For a full review of the course content and comparative study, see What Precipitates Change in Cultural Diversity Awareness During a Multicultural Course: The Message or the Method in The Journal of Teacher Education (2004).

This course format was deemed successful and enriching by both students and colleagues with students often engaged in fervent discussions 15 to 20 minutes beyond the class period. Student projects, inclass discussions, and final course evaluations indicated that the course was successful in lowering student resistance to multicultural pedagogy. Most exited the course more self-aware, with a better understanding of their cultural frames-of-reference and the cultures of others, and possessing a proclivity to practice multicultural strategies in their personal and professional lives. However, weekly course assessments and the students' mid-point evaluation of the course indicated that they needed to engage in more facilitated reflective discourse, wanted to have more opportunities to share their personal experiences, and desired additional time for indepth exploration of effective multicultural classroom strategies.

The investigator began to explore ways in which the depth and breath of the course could be expanded without neglecting one or more of the foundational components. However, it was found that several challenges had to be addressed in the existing course before new instructional strategies could be developed and implemented.

CHALLENGES ADDRESSED WITH TECHNOLOGY

Generally, students were able to demonstrate a shift in their cultural diversity awareness and sensitivity and develop effective multicultural instructional and communication strategies by the conclusion of the course. However, the instructor suspected that many would be unable to maintain this shift because they had not received sufficient emotional support or developed enough personal connections to make the long-term commitment to multicultural advocacy and social justice practices. This was evident in their weekly reflections, final research projects, interpretations of the text, and responses to guided questions, and peer dialogue.

Most students mastered the material well and made consistent connections to multicultural theory and practice. However, they also became adept at justifying which cultural diversity tenets to accept or ignore. They had absorbed the material well enough to argue their positions competently yet not indepth enough to move them toward a position of advocacy. This was attributed to inconsistencies in the students' ability to incorporate the new multicultural schema into their cognitive structures in one semester.

Though most students acknowledged that the burden of change does not rest solely on the shoulders of those who are marginalized, they often shifted the responsibility for change to the "government" or "others" rather than themselves. Although all expressed a willingness to practice multicultural tenets in their own classrooms, most indicated a reluctance to actively challenge the "system" or engage in social change in their personal lives. This inconsistency was attributed to the disparity between the students' cultural diversity knowledge base and their internalized commitment to multicultural advocacy.

These challenges, of student inconsistency, could be attributed to: the lack of sufficient time to facilitate the incorporation of multicultural theory and practice into the students' cognitive structures and by isolation (lack of connection between multicultural tenets and educational foundations and subject area practices). These constraints ultimately limited the students' ability to gain the expertise necessary to transfer equity pedagogy knowledge to the current and future lives of K-12 students and others they would encounter in their professional and personal associations as deemed essential by Howard (1999), Sleeter and Grant (1999), and Zeichner (1993).

In 2001, to address the challenges, technology was integrated into the various layers of the course, as an instructional, assessment, discussion, and research tool. The infusion of technology had a three fold purpose: (a) to extend student/student and student/instructor interaction, (b) to monitor student preclass preparation and comprehension, (c) to engage students in dynamic unfettered dialogue on issues of class, race, religion, and ethnicity, and to model the use of technology as an instructional tool. The course is currently taught in a "smart" classroom and incorporates web (Blackboard) and multimedia instruction.

THE COURSE WITH TECHNOLOGY

Course Rationale

Educational experts connote that only teachers with a multicultural perspective will be willing and able to provide an equitable classroom environment where all students have an equal opportunity to learn. However, research indicates that most teachers enter and exit multicultural courses with limited cross-cultural knowledge and experiences (Brown, 2004; Cochran-Smith, 1995; Sleeter, 1995b). This course, Education in a Culturally Diverse Society, provides students with an overview of the diverse cultural, social, and academic characteristics and requirements of K-12 learners. The students examine the consequences of cultural illiteracy and biased attitudes and behaviors on themselves and others and explore strategies to assist them in providing the students they encounter with equitable opportunities for success.

Course Objectives

The four strands undergirding the course include: (a) reflection on the root of one's personal belief systems and cultural frames-of-reference (self examination), (b) examination of one's perception of "other" cultures and the effect of biased attitudes and behaviors on "one's" and "others" quality of life (cross cultural awareness), (c) exploration of the influence of political agendas and teacher attitudes and behaviors on the educational attainment, emotional well-being, and adult productivity of diverse student populations (cultural biases), and (d) development of equity based instructional and management strategies and a commitment to multicultural tenets and social justice axioms in one's personal and professional life (instructional strategies). These objectives, manifested in each strand, reflect the knowledge, skills, and attitudes required of multicultural educators.

INSTRUCTIONAL METHODOLOGY

To accomplish the goals and objectives of the course, a student centered approach that used discussion, interaction, and reflection was employed. Additionally, the students were involved in group field experiences, clinical activities, and research projects. The four strands of the course began with student introductions focused on self-examination and concluded with group presentations of indepth research projects focused on strategies to overcome impediments to the academic and social success of underachieving students. The following instructional strategies are described by strand.

Self-Examination:

One's concept of "self" influences the lens through which the world is viewed and shapes one's perceptions, and behaviors toward others (Brown, 2004; Gordon, 1995). Classroom studies also indicate that teachers' self-concepts can be strong predictors of their behavior toward students (Allinder, 1994; Bandura, 1982; and Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990). The research of Banks, 1997; Banks, C., 2001; and Valentine, 1997, indicated that self-examination must also include one's history, traditions, and current associations and behavior patterns, because all influence a teacher's ability to nurture academic achievement and social development in their students.

To address the importance of examining "self" the following three objectives guided the first segment of the course: (a) assisting students in becoming aware of their own histories and the root of their personal attitudes and behaviors; (b) developing students' awareness of their culture, attitudes, beliefs, and motivations as they relate to diverse populations; and (c) raising students' consciousness about the need for and benefit of equitable educational opportunities and social justice for all learners.

Another important purpose, in this segment of the course, was the development of a supportive class community. In this environment, students are more willing to openly share culturally sensitive and emotionally ladened histories, attitudes, and behaviors. To this end, students were required to develop, for the second class, a "cultural puzzle" that introduced them to the class and depicted how they became who they are. The only direction given, was that they review the text (Gollnick & Chinn, 2002) and add or subtract from that model. They were allowed to depict themselves any way they choose. During the following class, students used the puzzle to visually introduce themselves and give a three-minute presentation explaining why they chose the visual representation, and how it relates to their personal histories. The visuals ranged from collages, wooden puzzles, home made miniature quilts and posters to cars, cartoons, and action figures. (Figure 1).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

After class, the students were required to summarize the four most important points they shared. Digital pictures of the puzzles and the four summarized points were loaded onto the website, in Blackboard. Now peers could touch the picture of a classmate and it would "rollover" to the cultural puzzle with the four comments. Prior to incorporating technology into the course, the puzzles and student pictures were only available to the second class, and no summary of the puzzle was available to the class. This new strategy laid the foundation for peer relationship building, pre and postclass peer support, inclass sense of community, and further self-exploration. This exercise raises the students' consciousness about the effect of heritage, prior experiences, and the perceptions of family and others on one's own self-concepts. The following excerpts have been gleaned from student reflective journals following the first class and the puzzle exercises.

"I had to think about myself, and how I define 'me.' ... It was a neat way to picture ourselves and see what makes us who we are. Each presentation was unique ..."

"I have been toying with the idea of starting a journal to document my feelings ... I feel as if my intra-personal intelligence is lacking a little which is kind of funny because I am talking about myself and shouldn't I know more about myself then any one else?"

"I really enjoyed meeting my classmates in such a unique manner,... I never really considered all the cultural components that make up 'me.'"

"... listening to everyone else share their cultural puzzles makes each individual seem more real to me. They are people with backgrounds instead of just classmates ... helps me ... share information with them."

"... often-times people remark 'well obviously I'm____' ... So clearly many of us take for granted that our culture, however we define it, should be obvious to others even when it isn't, which could engender misunderstandings, ambiguities ..."

Developing a Multicultural World-View

The second strand of the course focused on cultivating cross-cultural awareness by examining the influence of one's perceptions and behaviors on others, validating the relevance of "other" cultural groups, and nurturing respect for the lifestyles, values, and communication patterns of others.

Teacher educators agree that the lenses through which classroom teachers view the world influence their students' willingness to participate in the educational process and ultimately their future decisions and competence to become productive citizens of this society. Gay (2000), Pang (2001) and others connoted that only teachers who possess cross-cultural awareness will be effective educators, because multicultural awareness empowers teachers to respect, validate, and exhibit compassion for the diversity their students bring to the classroom and enriches their personal lives through the development of long-term inter-cultural relationships (McDiarmid & Price, 1993; Sleeter, 1995b). One of the primary functions of teacher education is to raise the cross-cultural consciousness of future teachers while bridging the gap between multicultural theory and practice (Banks, C., 2001; Bennett, 2003; Nieto, 1999; Sleeter 2001).

To assist students in developing their cross-culture awareness, the following objectives were set for the second segment of the course: Students would: (a) know the values and traditions espoused by diverse groups and how these values influence student academic and social development and performance; (b) know the similarities and differences between the lifestyles and communication patterns of diverse cultural groups; (c) acknowledge and affirm the uniqueness, contributions, and relevance of all cultural groups; and (d) develop a respect for the lifestyles, values, and communication patterns of diverse groups.

Two important components of cultural awareness are field experiences and debriefings. Field experiences, specifically those in diverse communities, can be dynamic elements in raising the cultural consciousness of teacher education students (Cooper-Shaw, 1993; Mahan, 1992; Wiest, 1998). The research of Banks (1997), Boyle-Baise and Sleeter (1996), and Brown (2004) further indicated that field experiences should consist of cross-cultural interactions where a marginalized culture controls the environment and the students are perceived, by themselves and others, as the minority culture within that environment. This activity compels students to experience minority culture status, re-examine their own cultural subjectivity, view culture from the perspective of "other" and recognize their own cultural biases. Students are given a list of questions to reflect on both before and after their field experience. The questions must be answered online prior to the class following the field experience and are incorporated into the class discussion. (Figure 2). Banks, J. (2001) and Haberman and Post (1992) advocated that, to minimize students' propensity toward selective perceptions and the reinforcement of stereotype biases, all field experiences should be followed by guided reflections and planned debriefings.

There were four interactive field experiences required during the course. The students developed an inquiry focus, sought out their own interactions (no observations or one way interviews), submitted individual and group reflections on each experience, and shared those experiences, during designated classes, with peers. Each field experience had a set of questions that students must address in their reflections. Online (Blackboard), the instructor reviewed each step of the process providing suggestions to enhance the experience, and gave final approval for the field experienced.

Having online access to the students' experience reflections prior to class enabled the instructor to better prepare for the debriefing process and anticipate questions that might arise during class. All field experience group reflections remained on line for future review by class members. The following are excerpts from the first two field experiences:

"I did not expect to feel out of place because I usually fit in with everyone ... From the beginning I felt different, I have never been the minority to that extent.... I was out of my comfort zone. For the first time in my life, I felt like I was without any power. It made me think about ... being a white male and not doing anything against minorities does not mean that the minorities can forget that they are minority."

"I went thinking this would be a great experience. I left feeling like a foreigner ... I didn't belong there ... Even during the potluck, I was uncomfortable ... I felt invisible ... people ignored me ... They weren't hostile, but their looks and actions made me felt like I could never belong. I wondered if that's how Black students feel on campus."

"... I thought that doing my field experience at a neighborhood center would be a safe, 'Not.' ... I am a friendly, self confident, outgoing guy, who enjoys meeting all kinds of people ... but, I became guarded, even in a seemingly friendly environment, I was out of my own element. Playing basketball with a group of Black teens intimidated me. What self-realization.... Maybe that's why Black kids act different in school."

Addressing Cultural Biases that Affect Educational Equity

The third strand of the course explored the roles of media, politics, and the community in promoting and sustaining cultural biases and disparities in educational access. This strand also examined the relationship between educational equity and the biases of administrators, classroom teachers, parents, and the community. During this phase, students began to make the connections between societal roles, educational practices, and student performance.

Effective classroom teachers have the cross-cultural skills, attitudes, and behaviors to appropriately respond to issues of student diversity, political influences, and the acceptance and validation of diverse cultural groups (Banks, C., 2001; Bennett, 1999; Gay, 2000; Pang, 2001). Additionally, multicultural theorists espouse that educators must possess the skills to recognize and thwart biases, and have the desire to advocate for social justice (Banks, 1995; Pai, 1990; Pang, 2001). However, it is not enough that educators possess the skills and desires; they must also possess the fortitude to equitably interpret and execute societal, educational, and political directives to insure the just treatment of all students.

The objectives in this segment of the course included: (a) developing an understanding of how the teacher's beliefs, perceptions, and behaviors influence the classroom environment and the academic, social, and emotional development of students; (b) understanding the relationship between the perceptions and behaviors of teachers and parent involvement in the academic process; and (c) knowing how the political and societal "hidden curriculum" influences the school environment and effects student/teacher and parent/teacher relationships.

Students investigated the power of the media to shape culture by shaping public opinion through the characterization of various cultural groups. The class first developed a list of current topics in the news (e.g., gender, ethnicity, religion, race, dialect). They were subsequently divided into groups of four and as a group selected one topic to investigate. They were required to use a variety of public media sources (e.g., internet sites, newspaper articles, radio, magazines, television). To facilitate the inclass discussions, several questions were posted online during the week. This format provided more inclass time to discuss the students' findings of how the media depicted issues, what tactics were used to sway public opinion, why the tactics effect various segments of the population in differing ways, and how the students' perceptions were influenced by their research.

Next students examined the role of politics in promoting and sustaining society's educational agenda. Students, in groups of four, select a current topic (e.g., ESL, standardized testing, school desegregation, distribution of education funds, the education of undocumented students). They researched the topics by investigating the web sites of politicians, lobbyists, political actions groups, and community activists and by communicating with these groups through e-mail. The instructor then facilitated the dialogue, on the discussion board, by providing students with additional web sites and posing directed questions. Class time could then be used for data dissemination, group discussion on various position statements, and the sharing of individual personal experiences.

This segment concluded with students using one of their field experiences to interview and observe administrators, parents, and community leaders. Their charge was to ascertain how politics and the media influence the local education decision-making process, how administrators execute political mandates, how the media colors the perceptions of teachers, and how educational mandates and teacher perceptions affect student performance. Students investigated issues such as: inclusion, professional development, tracking, ability grouping, cooperative learning, home/school cultural conflict, and parental role in the educational process. Their field experiences included investigating school building environments, programs offered, staff, faculty, administrative diversity, and student self-segregation. The following are reflections of their research and discussions.

Developing Multicultural Teaching Strategies

The course concludes by bringing the strands together to connect multicultural precepts to classroom management and subject area instruction. During this segment, the students conduct their final field experience. Each observes and interviews a classroom teacher of their choice and develops content area multicultural resources for future use. Additionally, students review and discuss authentic case studies of practicing K-12 teachers. Howey (1992), Ladson-Billings (1995), and Shulman and Mesa-Banes (1994) suggested that examining the practices of successful classroom teachers and using teacher case studies can be a very enlightening experience for novice teachers. These culminating activities assist students in bringing together the course materials and experiences, reinforcing multicultural frames-of-reference, making the long term commitment toward multicultural tenets, and developing the classroom presence to transfer their commitment to social justice to the lives of the students they will teach.

Finally, the increasing diversity of K-12 students makes it imperative that classroom teachers develop strategies to continue to examine, incorporate, and demonstrate best practices after exiting this course. They must be able to exhibit the willingness and competence to provide a safe, consistent, and unbiased classroom environment and the knowledge base to modify instructional strategies to meet the achievement and self-efficacy needs of all students (Banks, J., 2001; Bennett, 2003; Gay, 2000, Gollnick & Chinn, 2002; Ladson-Billings, 1996; Pang, 2001). Further, a multicultural purview empowers classroom teachers to acknowledge and validate the diversity of their students and enriches their personal lives through their commitment to lasting inter-cultural relationships (Gay, 2000; Irvine, 1992).

The objectives for this final segment of the course include the development of multicultural teaching strategies that demonstrate the student's ability to: make culturally appropriate curricular decisions for diverse learners; communicate effectively with diverse students, their families, and communities; continuously evaluate and modify their personal attitudes and behaviors to maintain a socially conscious culturally responsive environment for students; create a positive classroom environment that meets the needs of all learners; select culturally relevant instructional materials, employ appropriate instructional and assessment techniques, and exercise prudent classroom management strategies.

Students examine strategies to: create an inclusive classroom environment, understand the verbal and nonverbal communication cues of diverse cultures, resolve home/school cultural conflicts, build parent/teacher collaborations, address textbook bias, develop multicultural instructional strategies, and use technology to enhance the learning experiences of their students. Weekly, students, in groups of two, select a topic from the list to research and present the following week. The topics are discussed online, between the group and an experienced teacher, parent, or administrator of their choice, usually the one they previously interviewed. During the inclass discussions, students share and compare their strategies. The investigator found that some students post questions on the discussion board to solicit input and support prior to class. They called this "jump-starting" the class discussions. This appeared to be a very effective strategy, because students would come to class prepared to take a position and defend it with expert corroboration and research. (Figure 3).

OTHER TECHNOLOGY STRATEGIES INFUSED THROUGHOUT THE COURSE

To acclimate students to the technology requirements of the course, the first class is spent assessing student technology competence, providing technology instruction, and using a computer lab to have students practice technology skills using "Blackboard." At the conclusion of the first class, each student is photographed and the pictures uploaded onto the class website prior to the next class. This begins the informal class introduction process and prompts students to begin accessing the website and associating faces with names.

Beginning with the second class, students are required to submit online reflective journals. The class meets every Wednesday and the journals are due by Friday midnight. The instructor found that all journals are usually posted by Thursday. Many go directly from class to the computer lab to write and submit their reflections. This process eliminates the proclivity of students to wait until the day or hour before the next class to write a nonreflective review of the preceding class. The students' perception of the class and the dynamics of the discussions are still vivid in their minds when they write the reflections immediately following or within a few days of the class. This significantly improves the breadth and depth of the reflections, and allows the instructor to evaluate the class from the students' perspectives and modify the following class as needed.

Quizzes were posted online the day after each class and covers material that students must read for the following class. The short essay quizzes, contained between five and eight questions, and had be completed online by the Monday preceding the next class. However, students were allowed to review and retake all or components of the quiz as many times as they choose prior to the Monday deadline. This format insured that students were prepared for class. Many indicated that after taking a quiz, they reread the text, and returned to the computer to make corrections and additions to their responses. Often, when students were unsure of their response or believed that there was a conflict between the text and the lecture; rather than seek the instructor's view, they prefer to solicit opinions and information from their peers, through the discussion board and links to other web sites. This continued the student/student dialogue, encouraged students to conduct outside inquiry using other resources, and helped them internalize the concepts, work through differences, and come to a consensus prior to class. For the instructor, the benefits of the quizzes were two-fold: the activity allowed the instructor to monitor student comprehension, ascertain what information needed clarification, and allowed the majority of inclass time to be devoted to discussion and experience sharing.

The Monday before each class, the inclass discussion topics were posted online (see Figure 3). Students could download the topics and review their resources to form knowledgeable opinions, provide personal experiences, and anticipate the side of the discussion they were inclined to agree with or challenge. During class, the instructor often took one or two of the topics for debate and randomly assigned students to a position pro/con. Since instituting this format, students were better informed and prepared for class and often brought in their own resources to support their positions. Students were internalizing the information and supporting their stances with more than just the information provided in the text. This preclass preparation provided for a more indepth discussion and facilitated the long-term retention of information.

The course format included a diverse panel of experts, during one class, midway through the course. Their professions ranged from school administrators, classroom teachers, and parents to politicians, media personalities, and community organizers. Students developed questions for each panelist, according to their area of expertise, two weeks prior to the class. The questions were condensed into three major issues and sent to each panelist with their invitation and the questions that the other panelists would address. The panelists were given 10 minutes each to address their three questions to the entire class. Then the students rotate, in groups of three, to each panelist for a 10-minute small group discussion. The rotation provided each student with individual access to all of the panelists. These interactions were enhanced with the infusion of technology. To continue the dialogue, each panelist was given access to the class online discussion board (Blackboard) for one week. This provided students with an opportunity to expand the conversation and open the discussion to others who were not in their small group. The instructor found that students would take this opportunity to pose additional questions, conduct further inquiry, and establish a rapport with some of the panelists for future contact.

The instructor found it impossible to provide students with a comprehensive overview of the various diverse populations in public schools, during a one-semester course. To overcome this obstacle, the students were divided into small groups to conduct an indepth study on one culture and educate the class to that cultural group. During the second class, students are divided into groups of four. Each group was randomly assigned to research a marginalized cultural group (e.g., Appalachian, African American, Refugees, the Poor). The research requirements included: compiling brief histories of the culture, identifying impediments to the academic and social success of the culture's youth, conducting a literature review to determine previous strategies used to address the issues, developing plans to overcome the identified obstacles, and preparing an evaluation and modification strategy for their final plan. The grade for this project represented one half of the total course points. Each group submitted a 15-20 page paper and made a 20-25 minute PowerPoint presentation. Most groups tended to exceed the page requirement and needed additional time for the inclass presentations. To this end, each student had a comprehensive knowledge base on one marginalized group, had researched and developed strategies to address some of the educational impediments facing that group, had provided the rest of the class with valuable information about the group, and had furnished an online study for others to access.

Though most students are enthusiastic about their projects, some indicated a reluctance to commit to long-term out-of-class group assignments. They cite differences in employment schedules, family responsibilities, and the driving distances from campus (many over two hours) as obstacles to group meetings. However, the transition to online meetings resolved most of the problems. Each group is provided with their own site. This enables them to communicate, divide the workload among the group, respond to questions within the group, share information and research, submit individual drafts, and compile a final cohesive paper for submission. Additionally, each group can, through digital attachments, collaborate and submit slides, music, and video for the PowerPoint presentation. Without infringing on class time, the instructor periodically reviews each group's progress and offers suggestions for improvement, or resolves concerns using the group discussion board. The papers and PowerPoint presentations remain online, and are ultimately downloaded to a CD.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of stand-alone cultural diversity courses, in teacher education programs, is to raise the ethical consciousness of future teachers, provide them with the competencies to meet the academic and social needs of diverse K-12 student populations, and assist them in becoming transformation agents who cultivate the precepts of social justice in their personal and professional lives (Banks, C., 2001; Sleeter & Grant, 1999; Zeichner, 1993). Though the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) now requires that teacher education programs meet prescribed diversity standards, many of these courses are still faced with the challenges of institutional constraints and student resistance (Brown, 2004; Gollnick, 1995). However, the findings in this article indicate that these obstacles are significantly reduced when multicultural courses are restructured to incorporate technology as an integral component of the teaching/learning process.

The article examined the effects of infusing technology into a successful well-established cultural diversity course. The course evaluations of both the instructor and students, indicated that the issues of providing students with sufficient time to connect multicultural theory to classroom practices and to incorporate some social justice pedagogy into their cognitive structures had a positive influence on the multicultural sensitivity and cognizance of those that took the class. However, the infusion of technology into the instruction, assessment, and monitoring strategies was labor intensive and created problems of time constraints for the instructor.

Though this course was modified to address the issue of providing future teachers with a sufficient knowledge base, skills, and commitment to be able and willing to transfer social justice and equity pedagogy to their K-12 students, it cannot be confirmed that the modified course resolved this issue. This can only be determined after the students have been in the classrooms as student teachers, interns, and second year teachers. However, student participation and course evaluations indicated that the incorporation of technology did increase the depth and breadth of the course, facilitate the engagement of students, and provided the instructor with a valuable resource.

The beginning course challenges included providing students with sufficient: (a) connections to make a long term commitment to multicultural advocacy and social justice practices; (b) support to preclude students from reverting to their incoming cultural frames-of-reference and justifying the rejection of some crucial components of multicultural doctrine; (c) awareness to comprehend that the responsibility for change, often generalized to "society," "government," or "the system" rests with self, associates, and colleagues; (d) time to make the necessary connections between multicultural theory and classroom practices; and (e) skills and emotional fortitude to transfer their social justice commitment to the current and future lives of K-12 students and others they encounter in their professional and personal associations.

The infusion of technology brought many benefits to both the students and the instructor. The student gained a vehicle to: (a) continue class discussions from home at convenient times; develop and sustain a supportive sense of community both in and out of class; (b) discuss current issues of their choosing and share information in an online format; (c) augment guest visits by maintaining online communication that included other experts; clarify lecture, text, and research information; (d) locate and conduct pertinent and current multicultural research on their personal identities and other cultures; contact national and local politicians, lobbyists, and activists to ascertain their positions on educational issues; (e) retrieve relevant multicultural teaching and learning strategies for their future classrooms; and (f) link content and foundational curricula with multicultural pedagogy.

The benefits gleaned by the instructor included: (a) the ability to monitor the students' class preparation and comprehension with weekly quizzes (students did not object); (b) access group pages and e-mail for individual reflective dialogue, small group debriefings, and guidance on projects; (c) use the discussion board to stimulate guided inquiry, engage those who were reluctant to participate; (d) provide pertinent information and resources to all students; and (e) evaluate, modify, and manage course instruction. An unanticipated benefit was the ability to download and store all course information, communication, student work, and resources onto one CD and store by year and semester, a significant reduction in copying and storage requirements.

Though the magic of technology has supplied many benefits to both the students who enroll in this course and the instructor, there are several weaknesses that must be pointed out here: (a) students enter the course with a wide rang of technology skills from computer illiterate to skilled in both software and hardware. With this diversity in skill levels, the first class must be devoted to assessing skills, easing anxieties, and providing some computer training. Even so, the instructor had approximately four students drop the course after the first class; (b) one or two students will not have off campus access to a technologically current computer, the internet, and/or did not have a campus computer account. To compensate, the course is modified to provide these students with additional time and/or alternative resources and assessments; (c) as with inclass discussions, a few students will dominate discussions (submitting several responses to a discussion topic) while others remain passive (reading without responding or submitting single phrase responses). This requires constant monitoring of the online discussions to: prompt all students to participate, check for appropriate respectful dialogue, maintain relevant ontask discussions, and verify the accurateness of information being transmitted; (d) the weekly student reflections, formally returned with individual instructor comments, are now submitted online. Though the instructor still reads each reflection, providing individual feedback would be overwhelming. To this end, the instructor addresses concerns, issues, and topics for the entire class. However, this makes some students feel that their reflections are insignificant and are in the "great computer abyss," and (e) the course is very labor intensive and therefore, without a graduate assistant, is too cumbersome to accommodate more than 20 graduate students per class or more than one class per semester.

After employing the modified course for three semesters, the instructor found that the benefits of technology far outweigh the limitations. The students are more actively engaged in the learning process and tend to establish a sense of community early. This provides a forum where more honest and frank discussions take place. Students are able and willing to meet online to research topics, share information, and provide a supportive environment. This increases their knowledge base while minimizing concerns of face-to-face out of class meetings. Additionally, class time can be devoted to self-examination and personal connections, relating multicultural theory to relevant student classroom observations and teaching practices, and toward developing individual social reconstructionist plans-of-action.

With the inclusion of technology, the course has become more dynamic and rewarding for both the instructor and the students. Especially when students report that they are incorporating some of the activities and strategies into their own instructional techniques and classroom management methods.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Future studies should be conducted to examine: the influence of technology on the engagement of future teachers in multicultural consciousness pedagogy, the short and long term benefits to diverse K-12 students who are taught by teachers enrolled in these courses, and the long term commitment to social justice and equity pedagogy that these teachers should demonstrate in their professional lives.

Because the course is labor intensive and can accommodate a maximum of 20 graduate students per semester, additional strategies should be explored to reduce the instructor's time commitment, raise the number of students that could effectively benefit from technology infused multicultural courses, and investigate how the course could be modified to accommodate the diverse needs of undergraduate teacher education students.

Though a research study is underway to determine if the instructional and management strategies of classroom teachers, who took this course are significantly different from those who did not, it is imperative that other teacher education researchers investigate the long-term effects of stand-along cultural diversity courses.

1. Prior to field interaction, what did you expect?
2. How did you prepare (contact, self, activities)?
3. Describe your experience,
4. Describe your comfort level when you arrived, during your activities,
   when you left?
5. What was your interaction with others during your stay?
6. What were your perceptions of the environment and people before you
   went?
7. Did your perceptions change? How? Why?

Figure 2. Sample of questions for first field experience

1. How does your ethnic and/or racial identity influence your
   interaction with and perceptions of other cultural groups? How? 1.
   How often, during the day, do you think about your racial identity?
2. Does the dominant culture influence your interaction with public/
   private/government institutions and organizations? Examples from your
   cultural perspective (dominant/subordinate/other)
3. How do stereotyping, prejudice and racism impact your daily life?
   Examples of yours and others
4. How does your cultural status ("dominant", "Subordinate") influence
   your attitudes and behaviors?

Figure 3. Sample of inclass discussion topics on Blackboard. Class 3

References

Ahlquist, R. (1991). Manifestations of inequality: Overcoming resistance in a multicultural foundations course. In C.A. Grant (Ed.), Research & multicultural education. (pp. 59-105). Bristol, PA: The Falmer Press.

Allinder, R. M. (1994). The relationship between efficacy and the instructional practices of special education teachers and consultants. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17, 86-95.

Allport, G.W. (1979). The nature of prejudice, 25th anniversary ed. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Ashante, D.A. (1987). The Afrocentric idea, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy, mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), pp. 122-147.

Banks, C.M. (2001). Becoming a cross-cultural teacher. In C.F. Diaz (Ed.), Multicultural education in the 21st century (pp. 171-183). New York: Addison-Wesley.

Banks, J.A. (1995). Multicultural education: Historical development, dimensions, and practice. In J.A. Banks & C.A. McGee Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 3-24). New York: Simon and Schuster Macmillan.

Banks, J.A. (1997). Teaching strategies for ethnic studies (6th ed.). In F. Helland (Series Ed.), Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Banks, J.A. (2001). Cultural diversity and education: Foundations, curriculum, and teaching (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Bennett, C. (2003). Comprehensive multicultural education: Theory and practice (5th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Boyle-Baise, M., & Sleeter, C.E. (1996). Field experiences: Planting seeds and pulling weeds. In C. Grant & M. Gomez (Eds.), Making schooling multicultural: Campus and classroom (pp. 371-388). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Brown, E.L. (2000). Developing the ethical multicultural classroom tenets of preservice teachers: A social cognitive instructional model. Journal on Excellence in Teacher Education, 9(3), 81-108.

Brown, E.L. (2002). Mrs. Boyd's fifth-grade inclusive classroom: A study of multicultural teaching strategies, Urban Education, 37, 1126-141.

Brown, E.L. (2004). What precipitates change in cultural diversity awareness during a multicultural course: The message or the method. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(4), 325-340.

Brown, E.L. (2004). Relationship of self-concepts to changes in cultural diversity awareness: Implications for teacher educators. Urban Review.

Cooper-Shaw, C. (1993). Multicultural teacher education: A call for conceptual change. Multicultural Education, 1(2), 22-24.

Cochran-Smith, M. (1995). Color blindness and basket making are not the answers: Confronting the dilemmas of race, culture, and language diversity in teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 493-522.

Fordham, S. (1996). Blacked out: Dilemmas of race, identity and success at capital high. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research and practice. New York and London: Teachers College Press.

Giroux, H. (1991). Border crossings: Cultural workers and the politics of education. New York: Routledge.

Gollnick, D. (1995). National and state initiatives for multicultural education. In J.A. Banks & C.A. McGee Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 44-64). New York: Simon and Schuster Macmillan.

Gollnick, D.M. & Chinn, P.C. (2002). Multicultural education in a pluralistic society, (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Gordon, B.M., (1995). Knowledge construction, competing critical theories, and education. In J.A. Banks & C.A. McGee Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 184-199). New York: Simon and Schuster Macmillan.

Haberman, M. (1989). More minority teachers. Phi Delta Kappan, 70(10), 771-776.

Haberman, M., & Post, L. (1992). Does direct experience change education students' perceptions of low-income minority children? Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 5(2), 29-31.

Harrington, H.L. (2002). Using computer conferencing to foster and assess prospective teachers' moral sensitivity. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(3), 323-342.

Hilliard, A. (2001). "Race," identity, hegemony, and education: What do we need to know now? In W.H. Watkins, J.H. Lewis, & V. Chou (Eds.), Race and education: The roles of history and society in educating African American students (pp. 7-22). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Hodgkinson, H.L. (1992). A demographic look at tomorrow. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED359087)

Hodgkinson, H.L. (2002). Educational demographics: What teachers should know. Educational Leadership, 58(4), 6-11.

Howard, G.R. (1999). We can't teach what we don't know: White teachers, multiracial schools. New York: Teacher's College Press.

Howard, J. (2002). Technology-enhanced project-based learning in teacher education: Addressing the goals of transfer. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 10(3). 343-364.

Howey, K.R. (1992). Teacher education in the United States: Trends and issues. Teacher Educator, 27, 3-11.

Hudley, C. (2001). Schools as contexts for socialization. In W.H. Watkins, J.H. Lewis, & V. Chou, (Eds.), Race and education: The roles of history and society in educating African American students (pp. 225-232). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Irvine, J.I. (1992). Making teacher education culturally responsive. In M.E. Dilworth (Ed.), Diversity In teacher education (pp. 779-792). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African-American children. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Multicultural teacher education: Research, practice, and policy. In J.A. Banks & C.A. McGee Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 747-759). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1996). Silences as weapons: Challenges of a black professor teaching white students. Theory Into Practice, 35(2), 79-85.

Lehman, P.R. (1993). The emotional challenge of ethnic studies classes. College Teaching, 40(4), 134-137.

Mahan, J. (1992). Native Americans as teacher trainers: Anatomy and outcomes of a cultural immersion project. Journal of Educational Equity and Leadership, 2(2), 100-110.

McDiarmid, G.W., & Price, J. (1993). Preparing teachers for diversity: A study of student teachers in a multicultural program. In M.J. O'Hair & S.J. Odell (Eds.), Diversity and teaching: Teacher education yearbook I (pp. 31-59). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.

McLaren, P. (1998). Reclaiming hope: Teacher education and social justice in the age of globalization. Teacher Education Quarterly, 25(4), 125-133.

Nieto, S. (1998). From claiming hegemony to sharing space: Creating community in multicultural courses. In R. Chavez & J. O'Donnell (Eds.), Speaking the unpleasant: The politics of (non) engagement in the multicultural education terrain (pp. 16-31). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Nieto, S. (1999). The light in their eyes: Creating multicultural learning communities. New York: Teacher's College Press.

Pai, Y. (1990). Cultural foundations of education. New York: Merrill.

Pang, V.O. (2001). Multicultural education: A caring-centered, reflective approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Partington, G. (2000). The universal and the particular in education. International Journal of Social Education 14(2), 72-86.

Ravitch, D. (2000). Left back: A century of battles over school reform. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Sadker, M.P., & Sadker, D.M. (2000). Teachers, schools, society (5th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Schlesinger, A.M. Jr. (1998). The disuniting of America: Reflections on a multicultural society, (3rd ed). New York: W. W. Norton and Company.

Shulman, J., & Mesa-Bains, A. (1994). Facilitator's guide to diversity in the classroom: A casebook for teachers and teacher educators. Hillsdale, NJ: Research for Better Schools & Lawrence Erlbaum.

Sleeter, C.E. (1995a). Reflections on my use of multicultural and critical pedagogy when students are white. In C.E. Sleeter & P.L. McLaren (Eds.), Multicultural education, critical pedagogy, and the politics of difference (pp. 415-437). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Sleeter, C.E. (1995b). White preservice students and multicultural education course work. In J.M. Larkin & C.E. Sleeter (Eds.), Developing multicultural teacher education curriculum (pp. 17-30). Albany, NY: State University of New York.

Sleeter, C.E., (1996). Multicultural education as social activism. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Sleeter, C., (2001). Preparing teachers for culturally diverse schools: Research and the overwhelming presence of whiteness. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(2), 94-106.

Sleeter, C.E. & Grant, C.A. (1999). Making choices for multicultural education: Five approaches to race, class, and gender, (3rd ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Macmillan.

Spencer, M.B., (2001). Identity, achievement orientation, and race: "Lessons learned" about the normative developmental experiences of African American males. In W.H. Watkins, J.H. Lewis, & V. Chou, (Eds.), Race and education: The roles of history and society in educating African American students (pp. 100-127). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Valentine, G. (1997). Get real! Teaching tolerance strategies that work. NEA Today, 15(5), 4-6.

Wiest, L.R. (1998). Using immersion experiences to shake up preservice teachers' views about cultural differences. Journal of Teacher Education, 49(5), 358-365.

Woolfolk, A.E., & Hoy, W.K. (1990). Prospective teachers' sense of efficacy and beliefs about control. Journal of Educational Psychology 82, 81-91.

Zeichner, K. (1993). Connecting genuine teacher development to the struggle for social justice. Journal of Education for Teaching, 19(1), 5-20.

Zong, G. (2002). Can computer mediated communication help to prepare global teachers? An analysis of preservice social studies teacher's experience. Theory & Research in Social Education, 30(4), 589-616.

ELINOR L. BROWN

University of Kentucky 

Lexington, KY

USA

[e-mail]