Through the Eyes of Preservice Teachers: Implications for the Multicultural Journey From Teacher Education.

Abstract. This study investigated preservice early childhood education students' a) definitions of multicultural education, b) sources of information from which to construct their definition, c) perceptions of multicultural education in schools, and d) perceptions of the ways that multicultural education should be implemented. The 103 participants at different levels of a four-year undergraduate program completed an open-ended, four-item questionnaire that revealed important findings and insights into students' developmental thinking. Responses indicated that students' definitions illustrated minimal understanding and conceptualizations of multicultural education, which were limited to, mainly, race and ethnicity. A majority of respondents constructed their definitions from college courses, suggesting that universities may have a tremendous influence on student attitudes toward diversity. Participants witnessed multicultural education on a limited basis in school sites and were confronted with incongruencies between the diversity perspective advocated in university course work and the series of discrete events witnessed in the field. This study suggests that students in all levels of professional development continue to struggle with multicultural education. Teacher education programs must assist students in their conceptualization and critical reflection on multicultural education by capitalizing on opportunities throughout the students' experiences for them to critically reflect and examine their own and others' experiences regarding diversity.

As we enter the next millennium and societal demands for incorporating diverse perspectives into nearly all of our interactions increase, teacher educators are confronted with an imperative to prepare preservice teachers for teaching in this diverse world. The multicultural education movement has particular relevance because of the increasing diversity of ethnic, cultural, religious, and socioeconomic groups in public schools (Sleeter, 1996). These changing demographics present challenges that should move university teacher education programs toward the preparation of preservice teachers whose training meets the needs of all children in society. Along with changes in societal demographics, public schools are undergoing a shift that involves a more diverse and increasing proportion of students enrolling in schools from groups previously underrepresented. At the same time, the proportion of Caucasian teachers is increasing (Campbell, 1996; Fox & Gay, 1995; Marshall, 1996; Olmedo, 1997). This phenomenon increase s the likelihood that teachers in the public schools will be teaching students whose cultural backgrounds differ greatly from their own. Yet, the research evidence suggests that there are a number of concerns with preservice teacher preparation and multicultural education.

A survey by the Association of Teacher Educators indicated that "preparing teachers for multiethnic, multicultural settings" was one of the three most critical issues facing universities. The report also suggested that preservice teachers are not being prepared for such settings in teacher education programs (Buttery, Haberman, & Houston, 1990). Most preservice teacher education programs educate undergraduates to work effectively with only one socioeconomic group--the middle class--as well as with only one culture--the mainstream or dominant culture (Cannella & Reiff, 1994a; Gollnick & Chinn, 1998). As Grant (1993) noted, many teacher education programs focus limited or no attention on diversity; and even have faculty who claim that their programs are infused with multicultural education, while in reality, that attention appears to be minimal. Such perceptions foster negative outcomes for multicultural education.

Other research has suggested that multicultural courses in teacher education programs may actually contribute to preservice teachers' stereotyping of minority students (McDiarmid & Price, 1990). Cross (1993) suggested that students are uncomfortable discussing race when teacher educators explicitly try to prepare them to teach in racially diverse schools. Furthermore, students may ultimately formulate conclusions from their field experiences, even in diverse settings, that confirm their initial prejudices and misunderstandings. Additional research has indicated that students have trouble viewing their cooperating teachers as models who embrace a multicultural perspective or utilize multicultural teaching practices (Garcia & Pugh, 1992).

Many preservice teachers' attitudes remain unchanged, because they often do not consider multicultural education to be important (McCall, 1995). Even when teacher preparation programs offer opportunities for teacher educators to become more aware of their backgrounds, explain their conceptions, and articulate their concerns (McCall, 1995), research overwhelmingly suggests that preservice teacher education programs, in general, do not alter students' attitudes and beliefs.

There is some evidence, however, indicating that particular programs may affecct aspects of teacher development (Larkin & Sleeter, 1995; Zeichner, 1991). For example, teacher education programs that infuse a multicultural perspective across the curricula (in the arts and sciences and professional courses) and throughout field experiences will be more effective. There is mounting evidence that teacher preparation programs that incorporate diversity issues from the beginning of the professional sequence of methodology courses are more likely to produce teachers that reflect on their practices (Barry & Lechner, 1995). Self-critique in teacher education programs, as a means to shape students' practice, also warrants attention as an effective means to challenge educators to explore their biases and how those are reflected in classroom practice (Davis, 1995; Olmedo, 1997; Pearson, Neuharth-Pritchett, & Reiff, 1998). Through critical reflection, preservice teachers may "reinvent teacher education programs," although the field must focus on incremental steps toward that goal (McIntyre, 1997). As Liston & Zeichner (1990) state, teacher educators are often conservative, fear alienating their students (who, themselves, frequently support the status quo), fear alienating K-12 school personnel with whom they must work, and fear the tensions that may arise from a critical approach of existing institutions and society. Yet, changing attitudes and behavior is a slow and difficult process, and teacher education programs are only one source of information from which students formulate their perspectives. Moreover, this responsibility must also be shared by society (Deering & Stanutz, 1995).

American society was founded on democratic principles that explicitly respect and value individual differences and equality. Schools are institutions that either can inhibit or promote the strengths of citizens in a democratic society (Banks, 1994; Gollnick & Chinn, 1998). Educators need to cultivate in their preservice students a respect for diversity and an understanding of their responsibilities as members of a pluralistic democracy (Campbell, 1996; Larkin & Sleeter, 1995). Multicultural education must include the social, political, and economic realities related to schooling and, consequently, to teacher preparation (Campbell, 1996; Canella & Reiff, 1994a, 1994b; Reiff& Canella, 1992). Therefore, teachers should be educated to promote the principles of equality and justice by creating a learning environment for all students, regardless of ethnic group, racial identity, or socioeconomic status (Banks, 1994, 1999; Sleeter & Grant, 1999).

Rationale. Given the issues presented in the literature on multicultural education and the increasing need for teachers who are trained to work with diverse populations of students, it is imperative that university preparation programs identify preservice teacher education students' beliefs, so that they may design effective programs that enable teachers to increase their understanding of diversity.

Purpose. The research literature indicates that preservice teachers often develop a narrow definition of diversity. The inability of students to extract from university coursework a reflection of themselves and their relation to diversity, coupled with the lack of quality models of multicultural education in field settings, suggests that pre service education programs need to recognize these limits and evaluate their emphasis on diversity accordingly. This paper presents the analysis of one teacher education program and the perceptions that students have regarding diversity. Such data, we hope, will assist other teacher education programs in training students to initiate actions that will benefit not only their classrooms, but also their community and society. Specifically, this paper examines the extent to which preservice teacher education students at different levels of a four-year undergraduate program a) defined multicultural education, b) identified the sources of information for constructing their defi nition, c) witnessed multicultural education in schools, and d) perceived ways in which multicultural education should be implemented. Implications for teacher education programs are highlighted.

Method

Participants

Participants in this study ranged in age from 20 to 35 years. The mean age for the group was 22.04 years (Sd=1.85). Of the 103 participants who completed the survey, 102 were female and one was male. With regard to ethnicity, the composition of the group included 93 Caucasian/White, 5 African-American/Black, 1 Hispanic/Latino-American, 3 Asian-American, and 1 student who did not supply any data. Students were asked to indicate their socioeconomic information; most classified themselves as middle-class.

The mean grade point average for the participants was 3.35 (Sd=.26), and it ranged from 2.76 to 4.0. Fifty-five of the 103 participants reported that a member of the family was involved in the education profession (e.g., as teachers or administrators), while 48 reported that no member of the family was involved in the education process.

The students were enrolled in their professional sequence of course work in an undergraduate early childhood education program (pre-K- 5) that proceeded through four levels. It should be noted that most often, the instructors for the students' classes were white, middle-class females who exhibited varying levels of commitment to the ideals of multiculturalism. These students accepted into the early childhood education program began their education coursework in Level I as juniors. Level I coursework focused on the students as teacher-learners, with reflections on preprofessional experiences and emerging teaching philosophy. Students also were introduced to the concepts of developmentally appropriate practices. In Level II, students discussed diversity and concentrated on multicultural issues and teaching strategies. Level III exposed students to the planning and assessment aspects of teaching, student-teacher relationships, and management and organization of classrooms. The Level IV experience was a 10-week s tudent teaching internship.

Students participated in field experiences before entrance into the program. Acceptance into the program required 40 hours of preprofessional experiences, including tutoring, after-school care, camp counseling, and volunteering at schools. Upon acceptance into the program, formal field experiences began in Level III, where students were responsible for the design and implementation of a five-day integrated unit. Students received feedback about their teaching with the classroom cooperating teacher and a university supervisor. Concurrently, students attended weekly seminars at the university. The undergraduate program culminates in a 10-week field placement in which students gradually assume all teaching responsibilities, eventually leading to a solo-teaching period. Weekly seminars are conducted in the field by university supervisors and teachers at the elementary schools.

During the field placements, preservice teachers gain experiences in both urban and rural settings in a variety of grade levels (pre-K-5, Kindergarten, grades 1-2, and grades 3-5). Urban settings closer to the university generally afford experiences with more culturally, ethnically, and economically diverse populations. Rural settings, outside of the university area, are typically less diverse ethnically and are generally populated by Caucasian students. However, socioeconomic status, as well as differing family configurations, are elements of diversity in the rural placements. Although attempts have been made to vary the field placement settings, many of the undergraduates spend a significant portion of their field work in homogeneous classrooms.

During Levels I, II, and III, in addition to their early childhood education classes, the students were enrolled in content-area classes, including language education, math education, reading education, science education, and social science education. Because of the departmentalized structure of the college, communication among instructors was limited, posing particular challenges in addressing such issues as the inclusion of multiculturalism. Each instructor was, therefore, relatively unaware of how other instructors discussed multicultural issues in their courses. In addition, it is difficult to make conclusions about each instructor's commitment to multiculturalism and its ultimate impact on the outcome of the results of this study.

Participants in this study came from all four levels of the program. The number of students in Levels I, II, III, and IV were 15, 33, 21, and 34, respectively. Data were collected in January and February of 1998.

Measure

In order to elicit the greatest number, as well as depth, of responses, the measure constructed for this investigation comprised four open-ended questions that were designed to assess students' understanding and interpretations of multicultural education. These questions were:

1. There are many definitions of multicultural education and diversity. In your own words, please provide a description or definition of what you consider multicultural education to be.

2. How did you construct your definition of multicultural education? (Please include formal training and school-related experiences that have helped you mold your definition.)

3. If you have seen ways that multiculturalism has been used in schools, please provide at least three examples of how this was done or what you observed.

4. What is your perception of how multiculturalism should be promoted in school settings?

Students completed the questionnaire in January and February of 1998. The surveys were distributed to the students while they attended their early childhood education methodology classes, at which time informed consent procedures were explained to the participants. The students voluntarily completed the questionnaires toward the beginning of the term. The questionnaire was not part of the course requirements, because the authors feared the students may have provided socially desirable answers to please the university instructors, rather than offering a more valid representation of their beliefs. The questions were provided on four sheets of paper, with ample room for the students to independently compose their answers. There was no discussion among the students while they completed the survey.

One limitation of this method is that the length of the participants' responses could have been affected as a result of having to write their responses, instead of answering the questions on a computer (although sufficient time was provided to complete the survey). Once the surveys were coded and analyzed, a random group of students from each of the levels was selected to participate in follow-up focus group interviews that entailed a more extensive set of questions. We only report the questionnaire data here because: a) the written comments were perceived to be explicit enough on which to judge the preservice teachers' beliefs and make some conclusions, and b) the comments from the participants in the focus groups could not be connected directly to the survey responses, as the surveys were conducted anonymously.

Analysis Strategy

Data were categorized for the defining multicultural education question into three distinct a priori levels. A specific description of these levels is presented in the discussion of the results for that question. For the three remaining questions, data were open-coded for themes. Overarching themes and categories were created and data were reevaluated for their placement in these categories. Two individuals coded the data independently (interrater agreement for those ratings was 95-98%). Any discrepancy between the ratings of the two independent raters was discussed and ultimately coded into one specific theme. Data were tallied and reported in relation to the number of students from each level with a given response. Selected quotes that exemplify responses for a given category are provided for the reader to judge the evidentiary value of the responses.

Findings and Conclusions

Defining Multicultural Education

Participants responded to an open-ended question that required them to supply a brief summary of how they defined multicultural education. These responses differed in their depth and breadth and suggested that there was a continuum on which a given student's response could be found. These data were then coded into three categories that included minimal demonstration of understanding, moderate demonstration of understanding, and strong demonstration of understanding of multicultural education. These data are represented in Table 1.

Students whose responses were categorized as a minimal definition of multicultural education provided definitions that: a) focused on a surface-level understanding, b) suggested few components or examples, c) illustrated little or no developmental thought on the role of diversity, and d) suggested a response that could be mimicked or memorized. This response category also pictured the idea of "culture" in general terms.

Moderate demonstrations of understanding were categorized by responses that included: a) more illustrations of elements of diversity, b) some developmental thought on the role of diversity, and c) a more personalized tone that indicated a level of critical self-analysis. Strong definitions of diversity included a) a recognition of many elements of diversity; b) an internalization of the role of, and a responsibility to incorporate, multicultural education in classroom practices; and c) development of thought on the role of diversity that suggested integration of such perspectives into classroom practice.

Of the students whose responses were coded as demonstrating a minimal understanding of multicultural education, approximately 39% of the total participants provided definitions and were placed in this category. Examining the proportion of students from across the four levels indicates that a large number of students from each of the four levels provided a minimal understanding of multicultural education. It may be expected that students in the lower levels, who have not had significant exposure to course work and limited related field experiences, would present minimally understood definitions. It is unexpected, however, to note the proportion of students from Levels III and IV whose responses indicated such minimal understandings.

Given the fact that the Level III curriculum contains a four-week field experience occurring in the quarter prior to the student teaching experience, and that the Level IV student teaching experience is a 10-week field experience, it would be expected that students should be able to provide a more comprehensive definition than their peers enrolled in classes at the start of the program. The participants' responses indicated that slightly over 33% of Level III students and slightly over 35% of Level IV students (student teachers) provided minimal definitions. One possible explanation for this phenomenon may be that the students' beliefs are so entrenched that neither the university course work nor the field experience can influence a more comprehensive perspective on multicultural education. In addition, given the homogeneity of the students in the study, it might be concluded that the course work and field experiences are truly the first time that students' assumptions about diversity were challenged.

Those students whose responses demonstrated a moderate level of understanding of multicultural education represented the largest proportion of students, and it is the only category that may suggest that there is developmental growth over the course of program study for students. Specifically, more students in levels III and IV, who are in the sequence of course work where there is an accompanying field experience, supplied answers that illustrated more comprehensive definitions of multicultural education. Slightly over half of the students in Levels III and IV had responses that were categorized as moderate, while only 33% and 39% of students in Levels I and II, respectively, demonstrated such understanding.

Some interesting findings emerged regarding students' definitions of multicultural education. Only 16% of the entire population of students in the study demonstrated a strong understanding of multicultural education. Within the category, there is an expectation that the number of responses of strong demonstrations of understanding would be associated with the students who were completing their formal student teaching. However, this group represents the smallest proportion of students at all levels of understanding. While we did not expect all of the students who were completing their student teaching to articulate a strong definition of multicultural education, we are surprised at the low number of responses at this level. This result is difficult to explain and may be attributed to many factors, such as a discrepancy between students' formative understandings and realizations after field-based experiences, the mirroring of their cooperating teacher's perspective on multicultural education, or students' relia nce on their own limited lived experiences with diversity.

Sources for Constructing Definition

Data for this question are found in Table 2. Students overwhelmingly credited college course work--including texts and instructors--for their knowledge of multicultural education. One particular class, a children's literature class, was identified most often as a source of information for their definition of multicultural education. It suggests that the students positively perceive the university course work as an important source of information on diversity issues.

The college course work, in all of the levels, has an underlying focus on incorporating diverse perspectives. Specifically, the Level I and Level III courses have direct instruction in diversity. In Level I, the students are introduced to individual differences, stressors of childhood, and the rationale for reflecting on their perspectives of diverse populations. In the Level III course, students focus on children's learning styles, multiple intelligences, and practical applications of incorporating diversity in classroom planning and instruction. It is significant that such large proportions of students stated that college course work was a major source of information for constructing their definition. Indeed, it may suggest the tremendous influence that the university has on students' attitudes toward diversity.

A smaller proportion of students cited self-reflection or lived experiences as a source of information for the construction of their definition of multicultural education. The data are consistent with the focus of the course work as well. For example, the Level I course content includes presenting students with the importance of reflecting on their practice. The data from Level I students indicated that self-reflection is an activity that assists the students in constructing their definition.

The data from the students in the other three levels suggest that students have had limited experiences with diversity issues, or that they fail to see their own lived experiences as relevant sources of information in their classroom practice. Most of the quotes provided by the students who suggested that beliefs or lived experiences were important did not provide adequate description of exactly how the lived experiences were incorporated in their definitions. However, students who did rely heavily on their beliefs or lived experiences did provide the depth of explanation as to why this element was important in their definition construction. It is interesting to note that of the students who cited lived experiences as being important, the majority of this group were from diverse ethnic backgrounds. Two examples of quotes from these students are provided:

I am from South Africa and I am Jewish so I have very different experiences than many Americans. I feel that Americans need to be more open and less ignorant about other cultures.

I constructed my definition through my own personal experience. I grew up as the only Asian student in my elementary school. Although I was never excluded, my culture was never included. I wish the teachers would have taken the time to explore my culture.

Relatively few students (only 10 out of 103) cited the construction of their definition as stemming from their parents or other significant mentors in their lives. These individuals cited the direct teaching of moral values and a basic belief in equality of all people. Some examples of their responses included:

I have developed my definition. . . from a moral obligation stemming from being taught to treat all people fairly.

From the time I was old enough to see and talk, my parents never acted differently when exposed to "other" people. This did not matter if they were black, white, green, or purple!! Other people were simply respected and this is the way that life is supposed to be.

The fact that so few preservice teachers cited the influence of their parents and other significant individuals in their lives should alert those who educate preservice teachers to the difficulty that some teacher education graduates will have in fostering a diverse perspective in their classroom practices. Moreover, the internalization of beliefs--whether they foster appreciation for diverse groups or whether they inhibit preservice teachers from accepting others--may ultimately translate into the graduates' formal practices.

The final category in which preservice teachers derived their definition of multicultural education was from their experiences in the classroom or other field-based settings. Eighteen of the 103 preservice teachers commented that the classroom experiences from their methodology classes influenced their definition. Students appeared to place relatively little importance on the extent to which their field experiences affected their perceptions of diversity issues. This may be a reflection of the field settings in which students are placed. Specifically, students may have been placed in very homogeneous classrooms in which natural opportunities for developing a multicultural perspective were minimized. The opposite extreme also may be true, as students may have been placed in diverse settings, but did not observe nor witness environments that illustrated a strong commitment to multicultural education.

Observed Implementation of Multicultural Education

Five general categories emerged with regard to the way that preservice teachers observed implementation of multicultural education in the schools. These first four categories were materials, isolated events, curriculum, and inclusion. The fifth category indicated that a number of students did not observe implementation of multicultural education in school settings. These data are represented in Table 3.

Participants who cited materials as a means to incorporate diversity in the classroom noted such things as children's literature representing diversity, bulletin boards (specifically those addressing multicultural issues or illustrating other cultures or races), maps, pictures, and posters. The percentages of students in the four levels who noted that materials were a way to incorporate diversity ranged from 27% to 52%.

Students also indicated that isolated events in the school were utilized to incorporate diversity. These events included Black History Month, Famous Black Americans, cultural fairs, sharing time in the classroom, food tasting parties and activities, assemblies, and holiday celebrations. Of the 103 participants, slightly over 62% indicated that these events were a way to incorporate diversity in the classroom. These data may indicate that participants perceived multicultural education as an "add-on" to the curriculum and not an educational approach that integrates diversity into all elements of the curriculum. This perspective may contribute to the students' perceptions of promoting "the exotic nature" of varying cultures, as opposed to promoting the meaningful contributions of all cultures. Moreover, the use of isolated events serves to teach young children that diversity issues are composed of extraneous events, instead of being represented in daily practice.

With regard to curriculum, only a third of all participants mentioned the inclusion of curriculum-driven approaches in their description of how they see diversity incorporated in schools. Curriculum citations included the use of diversity in the context of a lesson or unit of study, integrated curriculum that included diverse perspectives, and the use of studies that included more than the Euro-American point of view. It is apparent from these data that students did not have sufficient modeling of how to effectively include multicultural perspectives in their instruction. The evidence also suggests that isolated events were more common than a deeper commitment to teaching with a multicultural world view.

A few students also cited inclusion as a method of multicultural education implementation. While inclusion represents the deepest level of understanding on diversity, few students actually experienced a classroom environment permeated by a multicultural perspective. Although students had extensive field placements, it is evident that they were placed in settings where diversity issues were not included. This presents the preservice teacher with a dissonant outlook on what university instructors are endorsing and what actually occurs in practice. With only slightly over 11% of the students observing inclusion models of diversity, it may be hypothesized that the large majority of the students would develop perspectives that reflect their experiences in the field. The data present a bleak picture in that while so few students have seen diversity issues included in the classroom, a similar percentage of students indicated that they had never witnessed multiculturalism in their schooling experiences.

In summary, the way that multicultural education is perceived in school settings tends to foster a superficial understanding of how diversity should be included as a focus of the curriculum. These perspectives impede the preservice teacher's development, in terms of obtaining a diverse outlook on the delivery and appropriateness of instruction and practice. Indeed, preservice teachers are being confronted with the incongruence between the diversity perspective advocated in university course work and their diversity experiences in the field.

Ideal Implementation of Multicultural Education

Seven general categories of responses emerged from the data with regard to the perceptions of how multicultural education should be integrated in the school setting (see Table 4). One-quarter of the students suggested that the ideal way to implement multicultural education should be through exposure to or knowledge of other cultures. Unfortunately, this means that the students would be exposed to diversity concepts, yet still lack the comprehensiveness of full integration in classroom practices. As one student commented, I think that multiculturalism should be used in school settings to further educate the students. It is important that students know what else is in the world other than their city. Students need to know other countries, where they are, and what is occurring around them. Current events deal with other countries and we hear about them daily. Students should be familiar with these places and they should have some idea of what these places are like and [have] an idea of their customs.

Another approach that the students advocated was to implement an anti-bias curriculum. Only 12 students advanced this as an option. Anti-bias curriculum was defined by the respondents as approaching curriculum from a variety of perspectives, and not always from a Euro-American point of view. Fifty percent of the students recommended inclusion or integration of diversity concepts in classroom instruction. This curriculum would be fully integrated in classroom practices and speaks to the content, as well as to the method, of instruction. One student remarked,

Multiculturalism should pervade our school setting. We must incorporate [it] into every activity. It should not be something that is recognized or celebrated only at certain times of the year. Everyone must take an active part and put forth effort if this type of education is going to occur. From principals to custodians, everyone can participate in making it a reality.

Thirty-nine students suggested that certain attitudes or ways of interacting be taught to the students. These attitudes included respect, tolerance, awareness, appreciation, recognition of similarities and differences, and acceptance. This suggestion, however, seemed to be expressed more as a passive approach that required little more than an attitude change. In addition, no concrete strategies were offered as to how to facilitate these attitudes, only that children should somehow adopt them. Eight students also mentioned that instruction in negating stereotypes would be a viable way to integrate a multicultural perspective in the classroom.

Another strategy offered by students was to segregate units of instruction, similar to the idea of isolated events, such as cultural fairs. For example, students suggested that special units on holidays or guest speakers alone would foster a multicultural environment. Fifteen students perceived that the focus of diversity in classrooms should be given minor consideration as a part of the curriculum, or indicated that it was of no importance, because multicultural education has been "overemphasized." Both responses suggest that the ideal implementation would be of minor importance, or should be a segregated, rather than inclusive, element of classroom practice. One student noted,

I feel it is important for this to be used; however, it does not need to be run into the ground.

Regardless of the strategy promoted, relatively few students made the connection between the importance of the university course work's focus on multicultural education and that of the field. Moreover, it is difficult to ascertain whether the students are reflecting on the observable models in schools, or whether they revert to the most comfortable tendencies of instruction that are similar to their own experiences as learners.

Discussion and Implications

Defining Multicultural Education

By asking students to define multicultural education, the participants in this study have provided useful information about preservice teachers' conceptualizations on that topic. While the approach cannot fully capture students' thinking or how multicultural education is viewed in schools, the answers to the questions provide valuable insights into the students' developmental thinking.

The findings of this study suggest that teacher education programs must move toward helping students acquire more complex definitions or constructions of multicultural education through their experiences in the university classroom and field-based settings. These conceptualizations should be formulated to help students examine their personal experiences, and recognize that diversity is not limited to race and ethnicity, as indicated by these participants, but that natural diversity is a component of seemingly homogeneous groups. Specifically, instruction in critical reflection and examination of one's individual perspectives may foster receptiveness to including all elements of diversity (e.g., socio-economic status, religion, gender). Moreover, such critical reflection may help students gain a "personal stake" in diversity; that is, a personal connection to the importance and complexity of diversity.

The participants' responses indicated that the field settings provided limited explicit experiences for promoting student reflection on multicultural education as it applies to classroom practices. In some situations, students noted that their cooperating classroom teachers exhibited ambiguity and even defiance toward multicultural education. These powerful experiences may go a long way in shaping the students' early thoughts on multicultural education, which will, ultimately, affect their subsequent interactions with children and within classroom settings. One student summarized these sentiments:

It seems that many teachers resent multicultural emphasis or at least it is not a priority. I have heard, "Kwanzaa, I don't think so! I have enough to do," and other similar things. There is a notable racist undertone, at least with the teachers I have spent time with here. There is little respect for behaviors that result from different cultural upbringings.

It is important to acknowledge the different viewpoints that exist in classrooms in which students are placed for their field experiences. Specifically, students are sometimes placed in classrooms where diversity issues are not fully recognized. This result is similar to other empirical findings in this area (Liston & Zeichner, 1990; McIntyre, 1997). Therefore, we advocate critical analysis of these experiences. Indeed, opportunities for students to compare and contrast teachers' differing styles may be a vehicle for discourse on diversity issues. Students may then have a stronger foundation and knowledge from which to construct their own perspectives and internalize their commitment to multicultural education.

Sources for Constructing Definition

Students suggested a number of sources from which they constructed their definition of multicultural education. The data indicated that students relied heavily on university course instruction. One unexpected finding was the students' low reliance on their personal background and experiences as sources for constructing their definition. It may be that the students considered themselves as part of the dominant culture and that this perspective, in conjunction with a view of multicultural education as only constituting race or culture, did not challenge the students to consider alternative perspectives. Students may perceive their own experiences as the norm and not as a rich source of information from which to draw opinions about diversity. Ultimately, this belief fostered a "diversity as them" attitude, rather than viewing "self" as a source for constructing the definition of diversity. It appeared that students did not understand the roles that their own upbringing and biases played in constructing their def inition. Given this assumption, it proved difficult for students to accept challenges to their viewpoints, and thus their personal perspectives became further solidified. Coupled with experiences in university classrooms where they were confronted with viewpoints unlike their own, students were unable to contend with the disequilibrium and, therefore, relied on their previous constructions of multiculturalism.

While college course work was cited as a source of information for constructing the students' definitions, the students did not acquire the skills with which to reflect upon the discrepancies between university emphases and some of their field experiences. Therefore, the authors believe that university personnel should consistently equip students with strategies to effectively contend with such incongruencies. Even though the university makes significant attempts to help students get comfortable with diversity, these practices are limited by the schools in which students work. These schools are affected by community views, as well as by society as a whole. This finding parallels that of Deering and Stanutz (1995). Furthermore, the suggestion that the university assist students with beginning the journey of critically and consistently reflecting on their experiences in diverse settings also is consistent with the findings of other researchers (Campbell, 1996; Larkin & Sleeter, 1995). In addition, working with classroom cooperating teachers should be a mission of the university, in order to provide a comprehensive approach to preservice teacher education. An ideal approach would be to complement preservice teachers' university course work with enriched perspectives on cooperating with classroom teachers in the field.

Observed versus Ideal Implementation

Students' responses to how multicultural education was incorporated in schools indicated that the students saw diversity as a series of discrete events, rather than an integral part of a teacher's or school's philosophy and practice. Some of these discrete events included cultural fairs, celebrations of holidays or Black History Month, and guest speakers. In addition, students' suggestions for appropriate, comprehensive multicultural materials included bulletin boards and children's literature books. Taken together, both isolated events and use of materials seemed to indicate that the approach used by many of the cooperating teachers did not fully integrate multicultural materials or events into the curriculum. Therefore, university programs should foster approaches that assist preservice students in developing a repertoire of culturally responsive or learner-sensitive strategies that focus on integration of events and materials.

Such strategies may include placing preservice students in diverse settings and preparing them more effectively to critically reflect on the observations and techniques used by the cooperating teacher. This critical reflection should extend to comparing and contrasting models of teacher behavior from the students' field experiences. Even settings that have narrowly defined multicultural education may benefit students' formulation of their perceptions of multicultural education. Students who witness a variety of models have more opportunities from which to foster their beliefs and attitudes toward multicultural education. University- and school-based personnel should continuously provide opportunities for preservice teachers to examine and critique their own and others' experiences regarding diversity.

Teacher educator programs should foster an understanding of inclusion as a natural product of classroom environments. Specifically, a number of students in this study mentioned or highlighted racial or ethnic definitions of diversity alone, while other students expressed concerns about this narrow focus. This limited view, also shared by cooperating teachers and schools, did not include diversity issues that relate to socioeconomic status, gender, children with special needs, or underrepresented cultures (e.g., Hispanic families or Native Americans). Therefore, teacher educators should enable students to become critical consumers of information by examining curriculum for its representative nature, fostering positive perspectives of individual differences, and selecting anti-bias textbooks and resource materials for their classrooms. The analysis of multicultural case studies is an excellent strategy for assisting students in understanding their own beliefs and attitudes, as well as for developing skills in w orking with diverse students (Metcalf-Turner, 1997). Along with being critical consumers of information preservice teachers need opportunities to develop an anti-bias or democratic focus, and to wrestle with the discrepancies between university perspectives and school-based practices (Banks, 1999; Campbell, 1996).

Summary

All of these culturally responsive strategies may lead preservice teachers to view multicultural education as more of a discipline rather than a list of isolated components. By deconstructing their own beliefs and critically analyzing their practices, students and faculty, alike, may begin the journey toward reconceptualizing schooling so that it values the uniqueness and contributions of all individuals. Teacher education programs must influence the reform of schools to more adequately reflect the complexity of American society. This study suggests that students in all levels of their professional development continue to struggle with multicultural education. There are a number of factors that, despite students' tenure in a teacher education program, continue to hinder internalization of multicultural education. Although one may expect to see a developmental trend in students' ability to define and incorporate multicultural education into their classroom practice, this study illustrated that this, in fact, w as not the case. Therefore, teacher education programs must capitalize on opportunities throughout students' formative experiences, from course work to field placements, to assist students in their conceptualization of and continued reflection on multicultural education.

By planting the initial seeds and providing opportunities for development, teacher education programs can assist preservice teachers with this growth process. Continuing on the path that reflects a multicultural view and fosters and incorporates diversity, teacher education programs may promote students who will initiate actions that will benefit not only their classrooms, but also the community and society.

The authors wish to acknowledge funding support for this project was provided by the University of Georgia College of Education.

References

Banks, J. A. (1994). Multicultural education: Theory and practice. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Banks, J. A. (1999). An introduction to multicultural education (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Barry, N. H., & Lechner, J. V. (1995). Preservice teachers' attitudes about and awareness of multicultural teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(2), 149-161.

Buttery, T., Haberman, M., & Houston, R. (1990). ATE: First annual survey of critical issues in teacher education. Reston, VA: Association of Teacher Educators.

Campbell, D. (1996). Choosing democracy: A practical guide to multicultural education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Canella, G. A., & Reiff, J. C. (1994a). Preparing teachers for cultural diversity: Constructivist orientations. Action in Teacher Education, 16(3), 37-45.

Canella, G. A., & Reiff, J. C. (1994b). Teacher preparation for diversity. Equity and Excellence in Education, 27(3), 28-33.

Cross, B. E. (1993). How do we prepare teachers to improve race relations? Educational Leadership, 50(8), 64-65.

Davis, K. A. (1995). Multicultural classrooms and cultural communities of teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(6), 553-563.

Deering, T. E., & Stanutz, A. (1995). Preservice field experience as a multicultural component of a teacher education program. Journal of Teacher Education, 46(5), 390-394.

Fox, W., & Gay, G. (1995). Integrating multicultural and curriculum principles in teacher education. Peabody Journal of Education, 70(3), 64-82.

Garcia, J., & Pugh, S. L. (1992). Multicultural education in teacher education programs: A political or an educational concept? Phi Delta Kappan, 74(3), 214-219.

Gollnick, D., & Chinn, P. (1998). Multicultural education in a pluralistic society. Columbus, OH: Charles Merrill.

Grant, C. A. (1993). The multiculural preparation of U.S. teachers: Some hard truths. In G. K. Verma (Ed.), Inequality in teacher education: An international perspective (pp. 41-57). Washington, DC: Falmer.

Larkin, J. M., & Sleeter, C. E. (1995). Developing multicultural teacher education curricula. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Liston, D. P., & Zeichner, K. M. (1990). Teacher education and the social conditions of schooling. New York: Routledge.

Marshall, P. L. (1996). Multicultural teaching concerns: New dimensions in the area of teacher education research? The Journal of Educational Research, 89(6), 371-379.

McCall, A. L. (1995). Constructing conceptions of multicultural teaching: Preservice teachers' life experiences and teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 46(5), 340-350.

McDiarmid, G., & Price, J. (1990). Prospective teachers' views of diverse learners: A study of the participants in the ABCD project (Research Report 90-6). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, the National Center for Research on Teacher Education.

McIntyre, A. (1997). Constructing an image of a white teacher. Teachers College Record, 98(4), 653-681.

Metcalf-Turner, P. (1997). Literacy learning and cultural difference: Case method instruction. In J. Q. Adams & J. R. Welch (Eds.), Multicultural prism: Voices from the field, volume 3 (pp. 79-92). Macomb, IL: Western Illinois University.

Olmedo, I. M. (1997). Challenging old assumptions: Preparing teachers for inner city schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(3), 245-258.

Pearson, C., Neuharth-Pritchett, S., & Reiff, J. C. (1998, May). Preservice teachers' perceptions of multicultural education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the University of Georgia, College of Education Multicultural Education Conference, Athens, GA.

Reiff, J. C., & Cannella, G. S. (1992, February). Preparing teachers for cultural diversity: Rhetorie or reality. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators, Orlando, FL.

Sleeter, C. E. (1996). Multicultural education as social activism. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Sleeter, C. E., & Grant, C. A. (1999). Making choices or multicultural education: Five approaches to race, class, and gender. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Zeichner, K. (1991). Contradictions and tensions in the professionalization of teaching and the democratization of schools. Teachers College Record, 92(3), 363-379.

Table 1

Frequency and Proportion of Participant Responses to Definition of
Multicultural Education

                      Minimal Demonstration
                        of Understanding
              Frequency                Proportion
                                         of level

Level I           7                         46.67
Level II (*)     14                         42.42
Level III         7                         33.33
Level IV (*)     12                         35.29

                      Moderate Demonstration
                         of Understanding
               Frequency                Proportion
                                          of level

Level I            5                         33.33
Level II (*)      13                         39.39
Level III         11                         52.38
Level IV (*)      18                         52.94

                      Strong Demonstration
                        of Understanding
               Frequency              Proportion
                                        of level

Level I            3                       20.00
Level II (*)       6                       18.18
Level III          3                       14.29
Level IV (*)       4                       11.76

(*)Row totals may not equal 100 due to rounding
Table 2

Frequency and Percentage of Participant Responses to Sources for
Constructing Multicultural Definition

                    College Classess              Self-Reflections/
                                                Lived Experiences
               Frequency          Percentage         Frequency
                                 of Students
                               with Response
                                     in Level

Level I            12                  80.00             6
Level II           15                  45.45             5
Level III          20                  95.24             4
Level IV           23                  67.65             5

           Self-Reflection           Parents and Other
                 s/
                Lived                     Mentors
             Experiences
              Percentage           Frequency      Percentage
             of Students                         of Students
           with Response                       with Response
                in Level                            in Level

Level I            40.00               3               20.00
Level II           15.15               0                0.00
Level III          19.05               2                9.52
Level IV           14.71               5               14.71

                     Classroom/Field
                       Experiences
                     Frequency     Percentage
                                  of Students
                                with Response
                                     in Level

Level I                  2              13.33
Level II                 2               6.06
Level III                6              28.57
Level IV                 8              23.53
Table 3

Frequency and Percentage of Participant Responses to Perceptions of
Current Implementation of Diverse Perspectives in Schools

                  Materials                Isolated           Curriculum
                                          Events
              Fre-        % of       Fre-       % of        Fre-
             quency     Students    quency    Students     quency
                          with                  with
                        Response              Response
                        in Level              in Level

Level I         7        46.67        12       80.00         3
Level II        9        27.27        14       42.42         14
Level III      11        52.38        15       71.43         6
Level IV       17        50.00        23       67.65         11

           Curriculum         Inclusion                 No Observed
                                                   Implementation
             % of       Fre-        % of          Fre-          % of
           Students    quency     Students       quency       Students
             with                   with                        with
           Response               Response                    Response
           in Level               in Level                    in Level

Level I     20.00         0          0             2           13.33
Level II    42.42         6        18.18           7           21.21
Level III   28.57         1         4.76           3           14.29
Level IV    32.35         5        14.71           1            2.94
Table 4

Frequency and Percentage of Participant Responses to Perceptions of
Ideal Implementation of Diverse Perspectives in Schools

                                         Level I              Level II
                                Frequency           % of  Frequency
                                                Students
                                           with Response
                                                in Level

Exposure to or Knowledge
 of other Cultures                  6              40.00      6
Anti-Bias Curriculum                1               6.67      3
Inclusion/Integration               9              60.00     18
Respect, Tolerance, Awareness,
 Appreciation, Recognition of
 Similarities and Differences,
 Acceptance                         6              40.00     14
Stereotyping                        2              13.33      2
Segregated Enrichment               3              20.00      1
Minor Component of Curriculum
 or of No Importance                2              13.33      3
No Response                         0               0         0

                                   Level II        Level III
                                         % of  Frequency
                                     Students
                                with Response
                                     in Level

Exposure to or Knowledge
 of other Cultures                      18.18       3
Anti-Bias Curriculum                     9.09       1
Inclusion/Integration                   54.55      11
Respect, Tolerance, Awareness,
 Appreciation, Recognition of
 Similarities and Differences,
 Acceptance                             42.42       6
Stereotyping                             6.06       0
Segregated Enrichment                    3.03       0
Minor Component of Curriculum
 or of No Importance                     9.09       2
No Response                              0          1

                                   Level III              Level IV
                                         % of  Frequency            % of
                                     Students                   Students
                                with Response              with Response
                                     in Level                   in Level

Exposure to or Knowledge
 of other Cultures                      14.29     11               32.35
Anti-Bias Curriculum                     4.76      7               20.59
Inclusion/Integration                   52.38     13               38.24
Respect, Tolerance, Awareness,
 Appreciation, Recognition of
 Similarities and Differences,
 Acceptance                             28.57     13               38.24
Stereotyping                             0         4               11.76
Segregated Enrichment                    0         2                5.88
Minor Component of Curriculum
 or of No Importance                     9.52      8               23.53
No Response                              4.76      0                0