A Reader of Narrative and Critical Lenses on Intercultural Teaching and Learning [1 ed.] 9781681236698, 9781681236674

Citation preview

A Reader of Narrative and Critical Lenses on Intercultural Teaching and Learning

A volume in Research for Social Justice: Personal~Passionate~Participatory Inquiry Ming Fang He and JoAnn Phillion, Series Editors

This page intentionally left blank.

A Reader of Narrative and Critical Lenses on Intercultural Teaching and Learning edited by

Candace Schlein University of Missouri–Kansas City

Barbara Garii St. Joseph’s College–Brooklyn

INFORMATION AGE PUBLISHING, INC. Charlotte, NC • www.infoagepub.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data   A CIP record for this book is available from the Library of Congress   http://www.loc.gov ISBN: 978-1-68123-667-4 (Paperback) 978-1-68123-668-1 (Hardcover) 978-1-68123-669-8 (ebook)

Copyright © 2017 Information Age Publishing Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the publisher. Printed in the United States of America

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements............................................................................... vii 1 Foreword: Shaping Intercultural Narrative and Critical Lenses................................................................................. 1 Candace Schlein and Barbara Garii

SECT I O N I INTERNATIONALIZATION OF TEACHER PREPARATION 2 Study Abroad and Coloniality: Postglobal Teacher Educator Reflections............................................................................................ 15 Jubin Rahatzad, Hannah L. Dockrill, and JoAnn Phillion 3 Intercultural Teaching and Learning Through Study Abroad: Pedagogies of Discomfort, Oppositional Consciousness and Bridgework for Equity and Social Justice in Education............. 33 Suniti Sharma 4 It Takes a Global Village: The Design of an Internship-Based Teacher Education Study Abroad Program....................................... 53 Helen A. Marx and David M. Moss



v

vi   Contents

SECT I O N I I EXPANDED INTERCULTURAL UNDERSTANDINGS OF PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND ACCREDITATION STANDARDS 5 Advancing the Internationalization of Teacher Education and Social Justice: The Critical Role of Professional Associations and Their Members.................................................................................. 75 Jennifer Mahon 6 Where Do We Go From Here?: Unintended Consequences of the Educational Reform Agenda and the Diminution of Global Opportunities in Teacher Preparation Programs............. 91 Barbara Garii

SECT I O N I I I EDUCATORS’ AND TEACHER EDUCATORS’ INTERCULTURAL EXPERIENCES 7 Finding Their Voice: Immigrant Teacher Experiences in the U.S. Classroom................................................................................... 109 Supriya Baily, Dawn Hathaway, Margo E. Isabel, and Maria Katradis 8 Understanding the Global in Teacher Education and Curriculum: Teaching and Learning Across Cultural Boundaries.......................................................................................... 129 David M. Callejo Pérez and Ervin F. Sparapani 9 Transnational Adoption and the Implications of Social-Political History: Connection to Education and Social Justice........................ 149 Kimberly J. Langrehr 10 Narrative and Critical Explorations of Voice in Intercultural Experiences......................................................................................... 165 Elaine Chan and Candace Schlein

SECT I O N I V TECHNOLOGY AS A TOOL FOR INTERNATIONAL AND INTERCULTURAL TEACHER PREPARATION 11 Shaping a Global Perspective: Digital Storytelling and Intercultural Teaching and Learning....................................... 185 Martha R. Green, Lynne Masel Walters, and Tim Walters

Contents    vii

12 “Inside People Are All the Same”: A Narrative Study of an Intercultural Project With UAE and U.S. Preservice Teachers.........209 Patience A. Sowa and Cynthia Schmidt

This page intentionally left blank.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS As editors of the book, we would like to thank the series editors, Ming Fang He and JoAnn Phillion, for all of your careful advice and guidance. You always made sure that we were supported throughout every stage of this project. We are also very grateful for all of the authors who contributed chapters to this volume. Your work has added much thoughtful discussion to the field of intercultural education and social justice teaching. Each chapter provides exciting facets and vantages of intercultural teaching and learning through unique and thoughtful narrative and critical lenses. We are also indebted to our evolving AERA group for our ongoing communication about teaching and learning across and through cultures. We would further like to thank our colleagues and friends for stimulating and fostering our inquiries. On a personal note, Candace Schlein would like to thank Ida Lewis for reinforcing the value of education and social justice, and to thank Ilan Raikles for reminding her to reach for her dreams. She would additionally like to thank Jim Chiu for holding her proverbial hand for every page of writing and editing. A tremendous thank you as well goes out to Neile Schlein, Joe Schlein, Stacey Schlein, Marlene Lewis, and Jocelyn Allard. Barbara Garii would like to thank Barbara Beyerbach, Tania Ramalho, and Anne Fairbrother for expansive and insightful conversations about the ways in which we think about and incorporate social justice into the fabric of our professional identities. She would also like to thank Mae Waldron for her insightful questions that spurred thoughtful answers.

A Reader of Narrative and Critical Lenses on Intercultural Teaching and Learning, page ix Copyright © 2017 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

ix

This page intentionally left blank.

CHAPTER 1

FOREWORD Shaping Intercultural Narrative and Critical Lenses Candace Schlein and Barbara Garii

Schools are increasingly becoming sites of cultural negotiation, as teachers and students learn how to live alongside one another in culturally diverse settings. Stated goals for diversity in education, such as those set forth by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) (2010–2012) and those proposed by the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP, 2012), highlight the need to acknowledge, support, and understand the multiple facets of culture and schooling that shape and are shaped by educators, students, and community members inside and outside of classrooms. There has been increased attention to diversity in teacher education (Ball & Tyson, 2011; King & Butler, 2015; Stoddart, Bravo, Mosqueda, & Solis, 2013), to the internationalization of teacher education (Harford, Hudson, & Miemi, 2012; Shaklee & Baily, 2012), and to the cultural imagination and identity within teacher education (Fleer, 2012; Florio-Ruane, 2001). This movement in teacher education is significant for developing cultural empathy (Nussbaum, 1997; Salmona, Partlo,

A Reader of Narrative and Critical Lenses on Intercultural Teaching and Learning, pages 1–12 Copyright © 2017 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

1

2    C. SCHLEIN & B. GARII

& Kaczynski, 2015), and for cultivating passion for pluralism (Basbay, 2014; Greene, 1995; Halbert & Chigeza, 2015) and social justice in national (Ayers, Hunt, & Quinn, 1998; Ayers, Quinn, & Stovall, 2009; Darling-Hammond, French, & Garcia-Lopez, 2002) and international teacher education (Pantic, 2015; Sharma, Phillion, Rahatzad, & Sasser, 2014) as new teachers develop culturally relevant pedagogy (Basbay, 2014; Gay, 2000; Ladson-Billings, 1994) that aims for equal and equitable opportunities for all. In response to such a challenge, many schools of education have established teacher preparation programs that include enhanced consideration of diversity. Such programs often include practical components that enable preservice teachers to participate in hands-on experiences in schools around the world in multicultural environments. A further response has been to establish local intranational intercultural experiences for student teachers, whereby prospective educators engage in educative or professional interactions with students from different cultural backgrounds. Several exchange opportunities have also been organized to provide preservice teachers with international professional practice and/or service learning opportunities (Davison & McCain, 2008; Phillion, Malewski, Rodriguez, Shirley, Kulago, & Bulington, 2008; Salmona, Partlo, & Kaczynski, 2015; Weiley, 2008), such as those offered through the Consortium for Overseas Student Teaching (COST) (Consortium for Overseas Student Teaching, 2013). Intercultural communication is recognized as an important area of study and, perhaps more importantly, such communication skills are understood as necessary precursors to successful participation across professions (Sorrells, 2013). Intercultural strategies shape the establishment of a variety of professional relationships. Simultaneously, preparing students and soonto-be professionals to be sensitive to and aware of the intercultural challenges associated with such communication is a delicate task (Rimmington & Alagic, 2008; Sorrells, 2013). Within the field of teacher preparation, much of the research on intercultural teaching relates the impact of such experiences in terms of the acquisition of intercultural competence (Deardorff, 2009; Fleer, 2012; Stoddart, Bravo, Mosqueda, & Solis, 2013). It is assumed that the attainment of intercultural competence is associated with increases to educators’ abilities to engage in teaching within culturally diverse classrooms (Cushner & Mahon, 2009; Garii, 2009; Schlein, 2010; Walters, Garii, & Walters, 2009). As well, intercultural competence is viewed as a set of skills and dispositions that can only be properly gained through formal training (Cushner & Mahon, 2009; King & Butler, 2015; Stoddart, Bravo, Mosqueda, & Solis, 2013), and Byrd Clark (2009) asserted a socially constructed connection between culture, language, and identity as situated in a globalized world and across discourses.

Foreword    3

It has become increasingly critical for both novice and experienced educators to bring to their diverse classrooms a set of dispositions, skills, and experiences that will enhance learning for all students, especially pupils from diverse cultural and language backgrounds. Intercultural teaching experiences offer opportunities for teachers and student teachers to learn about cultures and cultures of schooling via firsthand interactions. In this way, intercultural teaching enables educators to intertwine the personal, political, cultural, social, theoretical, and practical as a means of making important changes in school and classroom life (Huber, 2010). Intercultural teaching and learning is further seen as connected to ongoing identity development (Eng, 2008; Fleer, 2012; He, Chan, & Phillion, 2008; Warring, 2008). ORGANIZING A READER ON INTERCULTURAL TEACHING AND LEARNING A Reader on Narrative and Critical Lenses of Intercultural Teaching and Learning offers readers a set of chapters that highlight the work of researchers, educators, and teacher educators that display new possibilities for ongoing teacher development and positive social and educational changes. This text is an edited volume on experiences and orientations toward equity, equality, and social justice through intercultural education. In this book, intercultural education is broadly defined as professional and pre-professional opportunities in which educators have engaged internationally and intraculturally. This book engages in critical and narrative exploration of intercultural teaching, intercultural competence, and the relationship between the work of educators in different countries and teaching for diversity. This text also accounts for international, intracultural, and intercultural teaching beyond early field experiences and student teaching programs by including the viewpoints of educators with these experiences. This book enhances the current dialogue on intercultural teaching and on intercultural competence with firsthand narrative accounts of life, teaching, and research in intercultural professional settings in order to bring to light intricate understandings of this form of educator professional development. In addition, this text critically unpacks aspects of intercultural teacher development and programs supporting such endeavors as they explicitly enhance educators’ capacities for personal, passionate, and participatory teaching and inquiry. The set of chapters included in this work makes use of narrative and/or critical lenses to analyze and discuss the experiences, research, development of, and responses to intercultural teaching interactions with respect to ameliorating the education of diverse youth in schools nationally and internationally. Similar texts have addressed the ways in which the use of critical intercultural

4    C. SCHLEIN & B. GARII

voice extends one’s capacity to structure formal and informal learning environments (King & Butler, 2015; Rimmington & Alagic, 2008) and deepen understanding of social justice as both a method for identifying loci of needed change and a tool for making those changes (Basbay, 2014; Halbert & Chigeza, 2015; Solinger, Fox, & Irani, 2008). However, in our text, each chapter approaches facets of intercultural teaching and learning as situated in increasingly interconnected societies through four general themes. These themes address the internationalization of teacher preparation, expanded intercultural understandings of professional organizations and accreditation standards, educators’ and teacher educators’ intercultural experiences, and technology as a tool for international and intercultural teacher preparation. This text includes the perspectives of educational researchers with intercultural experiences and teachers across various contexts in order to draw together global insights into this phenomenon and with respect to the applications of intercultural teaching for a variety of countries and cultures. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE BOOK This text offers educators, teacher educators, and educational researchers a unique view on intercultural teaching and learning that supports their work in increasingly diverse schools nationally and internationally. This text explicitly addresses equality, equity, and social justice through the perspective of personal, passionate, and participatory inquiries. While previous work in allied fields have offered deep discussions of the power of the narrative as a tool for implementing critical intercultural dialogue and enhancing community growth (Rimmington & Alagic, 2008; Solinger et al., 2008; Sorrells, 2013), few works in the field of teacher preparation provide in-depth analysis of experiential narratives of teaching in international school settings and little research offers critiques of intercultural teaching. This book engages in critical and narrative exploration of intercultural teaching, intercultural competence, and the relationship between work in different countries and teaching for diversity. This text also accounts for intercultural teaching beyond student teaching programs by including the viewpoints of experienced educators with intercultural experience. All chapters further include a reflection section in which authors raise insights gained from engaging in intercultural teaching and learning or working alongside intercultural educators and chapters also include a set of critical questions for further consideration by readers. This book is especially timely as schools of education continue to look for innovative ways to expand upon the preparation of student teachers for work in diverse schools and for the professional development of veteran educators and teacher educators aimed at improving the academic success

Foreword    5

of diverse students. As a result, there has been increased attention to establishing or increasing existing exchange programs in order to provide opportunities for teachers to learn from practicing their profession across cultural borders. This text offers nuanced views of intercultural teaching while posing questions to stimulate the continuous examination of the purposes, scopes, and achievements of intercultural teaching and learning. Unique highlights of this edited volume include: • author reflection sections on experiences with intercultural teaching and/or research, and the influence of such experiences on their understanding and implementation of equality, equity, and social justice in their classrooms; • critical question sections for stimulating the examination of intercultural teaching among readers, thereby enhancing the personal, passionate, and participatory nature of this text; • narrative and/or critical analyses of intercultural teaching, intercultural competence, and the development of programs for intercultural teacher development; • the compilation of perspectives from multiple countries regarding the effects and the application of intercultural teaching; • the inclusion of insights from preservice, novice, and experienced educators, teacher educators, and educational researchers; and • focused consideration of technology as a shaping force in contemporary intercultural teaching interactions. VOLUME OVERVIEW In this section we outline the chapters for this edited text. We provide a brief description of each chapter as organized according to the four different book sections of: “Internationalization of Teacher Preparation,” “Expanded Intercultural Understandings of Professional Organizations and Accreditation Standards,” “Educators’ and Teacher Educators’ Intercultural Experiences,” and “Technology as a Tool for International and Intercultural Teacher Preparation.” The chapters might be read in the provided order, or reading selected chapters across sections of the book might prove to engage readers in theoretical and pragmatic stimulation. Internationalization of Teacher Preparation Rahatzad, Dockrill, and Phillion argued for the critical need to attend to the “darker side” of international intercultural experiences in “Study

6    C. SCHLEIN & B. GARII

Abroad and Coloniality: Postglobal Teacher Educator Reflections.” In this chapter the authors engage in narrative and critical explorations of preservice teachers learning about equity, equality, and social justice through a study abroad experience in Honduras. The focus of the chapter is on narratives of preservice teachers’ developing understanding of social justice as they participate in a three-week field experience in a Honduran community school that has an explicit social justice mission, service learning projects in rural schools and orphanages, coursework dedicated to exploring equity issues in education locally and globally, and immersion in cultural experiences. They underscore how a concentration on readings and discussions pertaining to critical perspectives, such as a postglobal perspective, might enable students to engage in more meaningful ways in a host country and a host school, while providing tools to scaffold the developing intercultural competence of student teachers enrolled in teacher education programs with a study abroad component. This chapter extends the current dialogue on study abroad with firsthand narrative accounts of life, teaching, and research in early field experiences in international settings and the significant inclusion of a critical perspective on these experiences in order to bring to light intricate understandings of this form of preservice teacher professional development. In “Intercultural Teaching and Learning Through Study Abroad: Pedagogies of Discomfort, Oppositional Consciousness and Bridgework for Equity and Social Justice in Education,” Sharma examines the use of pedagogies of discomfort for enabling teacher educators and preservice students to reflect deeply on their cultural backgrounds and perspectives. Sharma highlights important sites of intercultural competence development as student teachers engage in a study abroad program, as they interact with a teacher who originates from a different culture, and as students participate in classroom activities that are aimed at reflective critical exploration. The author thus presents the interplay between “self” and “other” that is stimulated through these various intercultural teaching and learning encounters. Moreover, Sharma emphasizes teacher educators’ roles in guiding their students to construct oppositional consciousness and intercultural bridgework within such varied intercultural experiences as a means of preparing preservice students for teaching, and life, in diverse contexts. Marx and Moss reveal the magic behind the preservice study abroad program curtain in “It Takes a Global Village: The Design of an Internship-Based Teacher Education Study Abroad Program.” The authors emphasize that a successful internship study abroad program for student teachers requires thoughtful consideration of all aspects of such programs. For example, Marx and Moss consider how seminars and program

Foreword    7

activities or assignments surrounding foreign cultural immersion in the predeparture and re-entry phases are as significant as those taking place when students are located in a foreign setting. Moreover, the authors argue that all content in such a program must be focused on developing students’ critical cultural questioning and engagement, enjoining reflection with experience, if program participants are to become interculturally competent educators and people following a study abroad experience, who possess the capacity to develop socially just and globally oriented classroom environments. Expanded Intercultural Understandings of Professional Organizations and Accreditation Standards Mahon challenges readers to become active members of the teacher education community as a means of shaping socially just teaching environments via the internationalization of teacher education in “Advancing the Internationalization of Teacher Education and Social Justice: The Critical Role of Professional Associations and Their Members.” She highlights the role that associations play in advocating for internationalization efforts for teacher education. Moreover, the author reminds readers that all teacher educators, as members comprising such professional associations, have a responsibility to participate in and further such efforts. Mahon makes this point salient in relating how her own personal narratives of experience underscore her professional efforts to shape teacher education that is intercultural in orientation. “Where Do We Go From Here?: Unintended Consequences of the Educational Reform Agenda and the Diminution of Global Opportunities in Teacher Preparation Programs” by Garii is comprised of a thoughtprovoking examination of preservice teacher education programs. In particular, the author questions current reforms in teacher preparation aimed at quantifying and testing teacher candidates. Significantly, Garii underscores how such assessments aim to standardize, and therefore to potentially limit, the kinds of programs and experiences that are available or accepted for student teachers. As a result, she highlights how such new directions in teacher education might serve to indirectly narrow the potential for global student teaching experiences or to encourage teacher educators to overlook the significance of intercultural teaching experiences for educator professional development for work in diverse classrooms. This essay thus explores how to articulate the balance between evidence that supports broadening teacher preparation to more fully explore global diversities and narrowing the expectations associated with teacher preparation.

8    C. SCHLEIN & B. GARII

Educators’ and Teacher Educators’ Intercultural Experiences “Finding Their Voice: Immigrant Teacher Experiences in the U.S. Classroom” by Baily, Hathaway, Isabel, and Katradis offers an insightful investigation into the lived experiences of teachers from foreign countries who immigrate to the United States, attain state licensure for teaching, and continue their career path in the context of U.S. schools. The authors highlight a critical narrative of how immigrant teachers might have much to offer their students and their colleagues in terms of perspectives on curricular interactions and regarding diversity. However, Baily et al. underscored how such funds of knowledge of culture and cultures of schooling might often be subjugated. As such, the authors poignantly argue for a socially just education in U.S. schools that incorporates the intercultural knowledge of immigrant teachers. Callejo Pérez and Sparapani urge readers to understand the intercultural spaces that teachers and students might create and sustain in classrooms in “Understanding the Global in Teacher Education and Curriculum: Teaching and Learning Across Cultural Boundaries.” The authors bring to light key narratives that outline their own cultural identities and their teacher identities while showcasing their interactions with students through cultural knowledge and experience. The authors consider how reforms focused on education alone come up short unless they are tied to changes in economic and social policies that lessen gaps children face outside the classroom. These reforms must initiate changes in teacher preparation programs, curriculum design, and instructional practices for the classroom teacher, assessments of student learning, and international and national debates. This chapter illuminates thoughtful possibilities for engaging with students in socially just education through interculturally based experiential narratives. In “Transnational Adoption and the Implications of Social-Political History: Connection to Education and Social Justice,” Langrehr considers the intercultural experiences of transnational adoptees in terms of social justice in education. The author explores the ways in which transnational adoptees might possess unique vantages on intercultural interactions, given their potentially multiple cultural and ethnic identities and their encounters with possible assimilation efforts. Significantly, Langrehr highlights how she makes use of her own experiences as a basis for examining identity, privilege, and worldviews among graduate students in a counseling psychology program. Her work offers significant deliberative questions of value for all educators in diverse contexts, and as positioned within an intercultural and global world society.

Foreword    9

“Narrative and Critical Explorations of Voice in Intercultural Experiences” by Chan and Schlein provides an intricate examination of the interconnection between intercultural teaching and social justice in education. The authors discuss the findings of a study of how teachers make curricular decisions regarding including culture in the curriculum in highly diverse schools. Importantly, they highlight how teachers who have attained intercultural experiences might have new approaches to and perspectives on culturally rich and socially just schooling as compared to culturally responsive educators without intercultural experiences. Moreover, this chapter is significant since Chan and Schlein pose questions regarding the impact of intercultural experiences on qualitative research into diversity and social justice in education. Notably, the authors display how their own stance as intercultural educational researchers might direct their research lenses toward narratives of intercultural experiences. As a result, they shed light on intercultural professional interactions as a useful tool for preparing researchers for sensitive educational research into diversity and social justice. Technology as a Tool for International and Intercultural Teacher Preparation In their book chapter “Shaping a Global Perspective: Digital Storytelling and Intercultural Teaching and Learning,” Green, Masel Walters, and Walters display the ways in which various international and intranational crosscultural and intercultural experiences might be showcased within digital media. The authors consider how within this digital age, digital storytelling is aligned with how teachers and their students might be telling, retelling, and reliving their stories of experience. Moreover, their work serves as food for thought about connections between lived experiences, reflections on experiences, the act of storytelling, and reflexive effects of intercultural interactions for socially just education. In “‘Inside People Are All the Same’: A Narrative Study of an Intercultural Project With UAE and U.S. Preservice Teachers,” Sowa and Schmidt showcase how teacher educators might make use of digital learning tools and digital media, such as online discussion groups about multicultural children’s literature, to forge intercultural communication and intercultural competence among preservice and in-service teachers across the United States and the United Arab Emirates. The authors explore the experiences of two teacher educators and their preservice teachers using online discussions to promote intercultural communication. The authors noted how such opportunities were valuable for their students, but they also served to further their own intercultural understanding as teacher educators.

10    C. SCHLEIN & B. GARII

Importantly, this work indicates ways for students and teachers to both learn about culture and to share knowledge through culture while making use of educational technologies and online communication venues TARGET AUDIENCE AND TEXT USAGE This book is recommended as a prime companion text for a variety of courses and programs in comparative and international development in education. For example, such courses as introduction to comparative education or comparative and cross-cultural perspectives in education will find this text a useful addition. This book might be of specific interest to a general audience of novice and experienced educators who have engaged in intercultural teaching opportunities or for those who wish to participate in such experiences. More specifically, this book might be a useful and an insightful primary text for preparatory courses within student teaching exchange programs and as a reference for researchers of intercultural education. For example, this text can be used for a course preparing students for a practicum or other field experience involving international and comparative education. Additionally, this book might also be used as a companion text for a variety of courses in programs for initial and advanced certification degrees within schools of education. For example, this text can be used in introduction to curriculum, teaching and learning in the urban classroom, and foundations of education courses aimed at supporting students in multicultural school settings. We further anticipate that this edited volume constitutes a significant contribution to the literature on intercultural teaching and social justice education, generating further discussion, debate, and research to further related fields. REFERENCES Ayers, W. C., Hunt, J. A., & Quinn, T. (Eds.). (1998). Teaching for social justice: A democracy and education reader. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Ayers, W. C., Quinn, T., & Stovall, D. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of social justice in education. New York, NY: Routledge. Ball, A. F., & Tyson, C. A. (Eds.). (2011). Studying diversity in teacher education. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield. Basbay, A. (2014). Investigation of multicultural education courses: The case of Georgia State University. Educational Studies: Theory and Practice, 14(2), 602–608. Byrd Clark, J. (2009). Multilingualism, citizenship, and identity: Voices of youth and symbolic investments in an urban, globalized world. London, England: Continuum.

Foreword    11 Consortium for Overseas Student Teaching. (2013). International & intercultural education: Consortium for overseas student teaching (COST). Retrieved from http:// www.kent.edu/ehhs/ciie/studyabroad/consortium-for-overseas-studentteaching-cost.cfm Council for Accreditation of Educator Preparation. (2012). Content and pedagogical knowledge: Standard 1. Retrieved from http://caepnet.org/commission/ standards/standard1 Cushner, K., & Mahon, J. (2009). Intercultural competence in teacher education: Developing the intercultural competence of educators and their students. In D. K. Deardorff (Ed.), The Sage handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 304– 320). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Darling-Hammond, L., French, J., & Garcia-Lopez, S. P. (2002). Learning to teach for social justice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Davison, J. C., & McCain, T. K. (2008). Developing multicultural sensitivity through international student teaching: The challenges faced by a southern university. In T. Huber-Warring (Ed.), Growing a soul for social change: Building the knowledge base for social justice (pp. 163–176). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Deardorff, D. K. (2009). Synthesizing conceptualizations of intercultural competence. In D. K. Deardorff (Ed.), The Sage handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 264–269). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Eng, B. C. (2008). Narratives of experience: Crossing cultures, crossing identities. In T. Huber-Warring (Ed.), Growing a soul for social change: Building the knowledge base for social justice (pp. 27–43). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Fleer, M. (2012). Imagination, emotions, and scientific thinking: What matters in the being and becoming of a teacher of elementary science. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 7(1), 31–39. Florio-Ruane, S. (2001). Teacher education and the cultural imagination: Autobiography, conversation, and narrative. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Garii, B. (2009). Interpreting the unfamiliar: Early career international teaching experiences and the creation of the professional self. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 25(3), 84–103. Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination: Essays on education, the arts, and social change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Halbert, K., & Chigeza, P. (2015). Navigating discourses of cultural literacy in teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(11), Article 9. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1083396 Harford, J., Hudson, B., & Niemi, H. (Eds.) (2012). Quality assurance and teacher education: International challenges and expectations. Rethinking education (Vol. 6). Oxford, England: Peter Lang. He, M. F., Chan, E., & Phillion, J. (2008). Language, culture, identity, and power: Immigrant students’ experience of schooling. In T. Huber-Warring (Ed.), Growing a soul for social change: Building the knowledge base for social justice (pp. 119–144). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Huber, T. (Ed.) (2010). Storied inquiries in international landscapes: An anthology of educational research. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

12    C. SCHLEIN & B. GARII King, E., & Butler, B. R. (2015). Who cares about diversity? A preliminary investigation of diversity exposure in teacher preparation programs. Multicultural Perspectives, 17(1), 46–52. Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dream keepers: Successful teachers of African American children. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2010–2012). Unit standards in effect 2008. Retrieved from http://www.ncate.org/Standards/NCATEUnitStandards/UnitStandardsEffect2008/tabid/476/Default.aspx Nussbaum, M. (1997). Cultivating humanity: A classical defense of reform in liberal education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Pantic, N. (2015). A model for study of teacher agency for social justice. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 21(6), 759–778. Phillion, J., Malewski, E., Rodriguez, E., Shirley, V., Kulago, H., & Bulington, J. (2008). Promise and perils of study abroad: White privilege revival. In T. Huber-Warring (Ed.), Growing a soul for social change: Building the knowledge base for social justice (pp. 365–382). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Rimmington, G. M., & Alagic, M. (2008). Third place learning: Reflective inquiry into intercultural and global cage painting. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Salmona, M., Partlo, M., & Kaczynski, D. (2015). Developing culturally competent teachers: An international student teaching field experience. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(4), Article 3. Retrieved from http://eric. ed.gov/?id=EJ1057914 Schlein, C. (2010). Resonating effects of cross-cultural teaching. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 12(2), 153–175. Shaklee, B. D., & Baily, S. (Eds.). (2012). Internationalizing teacher education in the United States. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield. Sharma, S., Phillion, J., Rahatzad, J., & Sasser, H. L. (Eds.). (2014). Internationalizing teacher education for social justice: Theory, research, and practice. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Solinger, R., Fox, M., & Irani, K. (Eds.). (2008). Telling stories to change the world: Global voices on the power of narrative to build community and make social justice claims. New York, NY: Routledge. Sorrells, K. (2013). Intercultural communication: Globalization and social justice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stoddart, T., Bravo, M., Mosqueda, E., & Solis, J. (2013). Restructuring pre-service education to respond to increasing student diversity. Research in Higher Education Journal, 19, 1–19. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ EJ1064646.pdf Walters, L. M., Garii, B., & Walters, T. (2009). Learning globally, teaching locally: Incorporating international exchange and intercultural learning into preservice teacher training. Intercultural Education, 20(1/2), 151–158. Warring, D. F. (2008). Identity development for holistic global interconnectedness. In T. Huber-Warring (Ed.), Growing a soul for social change: Building the knowledge base for social justice (pp. 225–246). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Weiley, K. C. (2008). Seeking solidarity through global and indigenous service. In T. Huber-Warring (Ed.), Growing a soul for social change: Building the knowledge base for social justice (pp. 295–344). Charlotte, NC: Information Age

SECTION I INTERNATIONALIZATION OF TEACHER PREPARATION

This page intentionally left blank.

CHAPTER 2

STUDY ABROAD AND COLONIALITY Postglobal Teacher Educator Reflections Jubin Rahatzad, Hannah L. Dockrill, and JoAnn Phillion

The purpose of this chapter is to contribute to the process of internationalizing U.S. teacher education (O’Connor & Zeichner, 2011), with an emphasis on study abroad, through the authors’ reflections as U.S. teacher educators. Two of the authors, as educators within teacher education, have approached research on preservice teachers’ international intercultural experiences through a postcolonial lens. International intercultural experience in the context of this research is defined as an international cross-cultural experience in a study abroad program to Honduras. Preservice teachers’ international intercultural experiences during the Honduras study abroad program can be situated within the context of coloniality. This approach recognizes the colonial context of the contemporary world system in the design of study abroad programs that seek to cultivate international intercultural experiences (Martin & Griffiths, 2012; Ogden, 20072008; Zemach-Bersin, 2007).

A Reader of Narrative and Critical Lenses on Intercultural Teaching and Learning, pages 15–31 Copyright © 2017 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 15

16    J. RAHATZAD, H. L. DOCKRILL, and J. PHILLION

This critical perspective emerged through an investigation of teacher education study abroad literature and through data collected about the intercultural experiences of preservice teacher participants of the Honduras study abroad program. Contemporary literature that focuses on multicultural education often falls short of recognizing the influence of neoliberal ideology on international intercultural understandings (Cushner, 2007). In fact, it cannot be assumed that international intercultural experiences through study abroad are noncoercive in nature (Wilson, 1982), or that they are inherently beneficial for working toward more equitable social relations (Kinginger, 2010). The intensity of U.S. exceptionalism expressed by U.S. study abroad students belies the multicultural aims of study abroad objectives. Among the aims frequently cited in study abroad literature are to appreciate difference and embrace cultural heterogeneity (Zemach-Bersin, 2007), yet these aims are incongruous with the ideals of neoliberal ideology, which aims to “flatten” (Friedman, 2005) the world by universalizing culture and knowledge under the homogenizing project known as globalization. As researchers, we cannot ignore the hegemonic nature of neoliberalism when the multicultural goals of study abroad operate within it. In recognition of this, a shift in teacher education study abroad research has begun to emerge in order to address the colonial underpinnings of neoliberalism (Martin & Griffiths, 2012; Martin & Wyness, 2013). The darker side of study abroad must be recognized in earnest if research is to inform how teacher education may contribute to the cultivation of equitable social relations. In this chapter, we critically explore, through a postcolonial lens (Mignolo, 2012), the context in which U.S. preservice teachers engage in international intercultural experiences through the Honduras study abroad program. Our reflections will focus on the Honduran school, Esperanza School (pseudonym), where program participants spend the vast majority of their field experiences, and the curriculum of the Honduras study abroad program. The reflections offered are based on a critical hope (Duncan-Andrade, 2009) that recognizes how study abroad programs often fall short of the educative potential of international intercultural experiences when understood systemically. We suggest a continuation of emergent postcolonial examinations of teacher education study abroad programs. BACKGROUND The Honduras study abroad program is a three-week, short-term opportunity for U.S.-based preservice teachers to gain field experience at a private, bilingual (English and Spanish) elementary school in rural Honduras called Esperanza School. The program began in 2002 and is conducted

Study Abroad and Coloniality     17

annually. The formal academic components of the program fulfill foundational course requirements of a teacher education program at a midwestern university that is classified as “very high research activity” (RU/ VH). The informal academic components provide opportunities for international intercultural experiences with teachers and students at the bilingual elementary school, engagement with underfunded rural public school communities, visits to an orphanage where some of the private bilingual school students live, interactions with local university college students, and cultural and historical learning experiences through travel within Honduras, including a visit to the Mayan Copán ruins. Research has been approved by the IRB, and data are collected in the form of pretrip group interviews, on-site informal interviews, researcher field notes and observations, participant journals, reflection and assignments, and post-trip interviews. Since 2002, the program structure/itinerary, formal curriculum, and community interactions within the Honduras study abroad program have been changed. However, the private bilingual school where the preservice teachers spend the majority of their field experience has remained a central component of the program since the beginning. We reflect here on how the Honduras study abroad program in its early years was incorporated as an option for earning foundational credits in a teacher education program, how the program has changed within the constraints of a teacher education program and based on the relationships built with the Esperanza School and partner rural public schools, and then consider what the Honduras study abroad program can be in the future. These contemplations are intended to inform how teacher education that includes an international component might be conceived of in the United States, and how teacher educators can engage international social relations for the purpose of epistemic border crossing, which can foster critical perspectives among preservice teachers. The authors of this chapter include the Honduras study abroad program researchers, educators, a program assistant, and the program founder and leader. Each author has multiple years of experience conducting the program and/or conducting research around preservice teacher program participants. LITERATURE REVIEW: STUDY ABROAD RESEARCH IN TEACHER EDUCATION AND NEOLIBERAL BLINDERS Wilson (1982) addressed U.S. preservice teachers’ international intercultural experience through study abroad programs at the time when neoliberal policies were beginning to shape material and ideological realities,

18    J. RAHATZAD, H. L. DOCKRILL, and J. PHILLION

particularly in the United States (Harvey, 2007). Reflection is an integral part of the learning process of study abroad programs for U.S. preservice teachers at a moment when the financialization of global social relations has begun to occur through the liberalization of economic and trade policies. The liberalization of economic and trade policies has promoted the rights of global economic elites at the expense of workers across the world. This impacts the quality of life to which worker populations have access, and impacts the goal of equity within education. Furthermore, Wilson (1982) pointed to the nature of international intercultural experiences and cites Said (1981) in differentiating between noncoercive and coercive international intercultural experiences. Wilson (1982) elaborated, “that if one is engaged in a job, teaching for example, one must also see oneself as learner” (p. 185). Seeing oneself as both teacher and learner simultaneously necessitates an openness in pedagogical approach, similar to a dialogical understanding of social relations (Freire, 2000). Wilson (1982) questioned the educative nature of U.S. preservice teachers’ international intercultural experiences by pointing out the significance of power dynamics within international intercultural interactions. Power differentials between nationstates, and among home and host communities influence the experience of U.S. preservice teachers’ international intercultural experiences. When U.S. preservice teachers possess the ability to dictate the premise of international intercultural experiences, it is questionable whether study abroad programs offer different experiences than military and missionary international intercultural experiences. Fanon (1963/2005) highlighted the importance of the nature of international intercultural experiences in discussing the additional difficulty that citizens of a settler society (e.g., United States, Canada, South Africa, Australia) have in contemplating epistemological boundaries: “Let us admit it, the settler knows perfectly well that no phraseology can be a substitute for reality” (Fanon, 1963/2005, p. 45). Fanon’s assertion can be read at least two ways. One reading is that settler citizens are aware of the oppressive nature that their reality necessitates, and understand that the colonial world system is constructed through dialectical social and material relations. This may be true of some of the elite planners of the colonial world system, including the drafters and administrators of neoliberal policies. However, in its contemporary form, the colonial world system is concealed, especially after the political decolonization in much of Africa and Asia in the mid20th century. The majority of settler citizens believe the “free market” to be beneficial for all, and believe in the superiority of capitalist ideology. This second possible reading of Fanon demonstrates the self-justifying logic of settler citizens that operates to maintain comfort in a constructed reality (Tuck & Yang, 2012). Therefore, the settler who travels or studies abroad will seek the maintenance of a constructed reality that does not threaten

Study Abroad and Coloniality     19

the settler country context (Kincaid, 2000). This can be understood as control over international intercultural experiences. Thirty years after Wilson’s work (1982), we, as teacher educators and researchers of this study abroad program, continue to encounter colonial U.S. study abroad students (Ogden, 2007–2008) who choose to remain on the veranda during their international intercultural experiences. Ogden’s metaphor of the veranda within study abroad refers to the desire of U.S. study abroad students to remain above the transformative messiness of international intercultural experiences. Instead, the veranda offers a safe, voyeuristic view of the intended experience. POSTGLOBAL FRAMEWORK: POSTCOLONIAL THOUGHT AND NEOLIBERALISM As teacher educators and researchers within a study abroad program, we do not assume that international exposure routinely furnishes an automatic benefit. Rather, the nature of the international exposure, determined by the participant, is significant in the development process of critical perspectives. Within the colonial/modern world system, where neoliberal capitalist knowledge embraces superficial cultural differences (Rahatzad, Ware, & Haugen, 2013), we are interested in epistemic travel alongside physical travel (Rahatzad, Ware, et al., 2013). Border thinking intends to decolonize social relations through transformation of rigid epistemic frontiers (Mignolo, 2012). The transformation of epistemic borders builds upon Said’s argument (1993) that our histories—oppressed and oppressor—are intertwined. Such a postglobal understanding challenges the systemically hegemonic nature of neoliberal capitalist globalization, just as a postcolonial perspective resists and imagines alternatives to coloniality (López, 2007). A postglobal perspective specifically addresses the neoliberal contemporary context of global social relations and acknowledges that cultural difference is not sufficient to address colonial difference, as created by the past 500 years of colonial modernity and modern coloniality (Mignolo, 2012). As Martin and Griffiths (2012) have demonstrated, international intercultural experiences are infused with neoliberal discourse; a postcolonial examination is necessary to fully grasp the global power dynamics at work. The systemic focus of a postglobal perspective might be misconstrued as deficit thinking with regard to preservice teachers by multiculturalists with a superficial focus. A postglobal perspective incorporates systemic understanding alongside an individual-level examination. The influence of systemic forces shapes the perspectives of individuals. Nevertheless, we are always encouraged by the individual growth of the Honduras study abroad program preservice teacher participants and the emergence of critical

20    J. RAHATZAD, H. L. DOCKRILL, and J. PHILLION

perspectives (Malewski & Phillion, 2009; Phillion & Malewski, 2011; Rahatzad, Sasser, et al., 2013; Sharma, Rahatzad, & Phillion, 2013). However, we are also aware that study abroad research around teacher education often paints a rosier picture than is evident if systemic considerations are considered (e.g., Cushner, 2011). Many academic dialogues have a dominant emphasis on the individual level at the expense of recognizing systemic influences on international intercultural experiences. Through a postcolonial approach, we are not arguing for a remedy to individual deficits, but rather advocating for recognition of patterns among individuals that are indicative of larger epistemological systems. Within teacher education, Zemach-Bersin (2007) and Phillion et al. (2008) have demonstrated the importance of Wilson’s (1982) identification of the nature of international intercultural perspectives as being significant in the learning process of preservice teachers. Zemach-Bersin (2007) has outlined the place of U.S. study abroad within the colonial/modern world system. The discourse of study abroad surreptitiously reproduces the logic of colonialism, legitimizes American imperialist desires, and allows for the interests of U.S. foreign policy to be articulated through the specious rhetoric of global universality. Though presented with an appealing veneer of multicultural understanding and progressive global responsibility, the current discourse of study abroad is nationalistic, imperialist, and political in nature. (p. 17)

In the United States, the history and current economic dependencies of Central American states like Honduras are absent from White1 colonial understandings. This constructed ignorance denies the existence of coloniality, despite it being constitutive of modernity. Phraseology is preferred over the acknowledgement of coloniality because phraseology, as an assimilatory process within the logic of capital, does not risk changing the constructed realities of White, female, self-identified, middle-class preservice teachers. The embrace of superficial cultural differences may be an unconscious strategic tool that reinforces White privilege (Phillion et al., 2008). This is further indicative of the co-optive logic of capitalism that subsumes alternative epistemologies under a universalizing ethos. Our postglobal lens seeks to counter this co-optive logic, which acknowledges difference for the purpose of “flattening” (Friedman, 2005) into epistemic singularity. In this sense, we are interested in the fraying edges of neoliberal singularity where othered “otherness” cultivates alternatives to globalization (López, 2007; Mignolo, 2012; Said, 1978). Difference within dominant global understandings, understated by neoliberal capitalism, limits the scope of education and the pedagogical development of preservice teachers. Instead, we seek difference outside the epistemic boundary of globalization through preservice teachers’ international intercultural experiences.

Study Abroad and Coloniality     21

We offer candid reflections as leaders and researchers of a Honduras study abroad program for preservice teachers with the hope that study abroad research in teacher education will recognize coloniality as a systemic influence on the individual development of preservice teachers through international cross-cultural differences. Our postglobal lens aims to provide an analytical tool for researchers of study abroad around the cultivation of international intercultural experiences. DISCUSSION The Honduras study abroad program began in 2002 with the goal of providing opportunities for preservice teachers to gain field experience through international intercultural experiences. The first 7 years incorporated homestays, field experiences in private bilingual high schools in Tegucigalpa, and service learning experiences with local public rural schools. Not all of these components lasted as the program continued and changes occurred. Furthermore, the program has recently come under increasing pressure from the university study abroad office because of the U.S. Department of State’s (2013) travel warning for Honduras (based on statistical levels of “crime and violence”) and the program has to be justified to university officials in terms of safety. Such pragmatic issues and experiential outcomes from program components have necessitated changes as the program continued. The beginnings, continuation, and possible future directions of the study abroad program are discussed in what follows. Internationalizing Teacher Education: Beginnings of a Study Abroad Program The Honduras study abroad program was conceived after university faculty, including the program founder, of an RU/VH midwestern university engaged in curricular development at Esperanza School, a private, bilingual elementary school in rural Honduras. The program founder developed the Honduras study abroad program with the help of a Honduran doctoral student studying at the midwestern university and the principal of Esperanza School. Partnerships with underfunded public rural schools have been developed over time. In the past, the Honduras study abroad program has also included field experience placements for U.S. preservice teachers at private, bilingual middle schools and high schools in Tegucigalpa, and homestay experiences with Honduran families. The program involves trips to cultural and tourist sites on weekends and an end-of-program trip to Lago Yojoa and Copán. As with any study abroad program, the first

22    J. RAHATZAD, H. L. DOCKRILL, and J. PHILLION

few years involved determining what worked well and what did not in fulfilling the initial multiculturalist purpose of the program (Mukherjee, 2012). The inclusion of homestays for preservice teachers is an example of the pedagogical considerations enacted based on experiences from previous years. The idea was to provide an opportunity for participants, predominantly preservice teachers, to experience a more intimate relationality with the community around Esperanza School. Volunteer host families were compensated for all expenses (e.g., meals and utilities) and were advised not to make any special accommodations in order to provide the opportunity for preservice teachers to observe families’ daily lives. The socioeconomic status of the host families differed greatly; therefore, the homestay experiences of the preservice teachers were also varied. For example, contrary to specific program suggestions, some upper-class host families provided more expensive “American style” food specifically for the preservice teachers staying with them, which was food that was not normally consumed by the family. This type of accommodation to the superficial cultural preferences of U.S. preservice teachers discouraged an intersectional exploration of social class and culture. There was a stark absence on the part of preservice teachers, despite curricular attention, of social class analysis across geopolitical borders that would have opened possible spaces for epistemic border thinking. On the other hand, students complained about host families of lower socioeconomic status because of the living conditions, such as homes with dirt floors. Again, an analysis of class was absent, but in this case it was a result of experiencing unanticipated discomfort. Both experiences demonstrated a desire to remain on the colonial veranda throughout the Honduras study abroad program, despite claims of having “learned from experiencing difference.” The boundaries that delineate difference within this example are interior to the colonial world system. There is a necessity for preservice teachers to extend their reflections to the epistemological borders that flirt with knowledge and ways of being outside the boundaries of the colonial world system. Esperanza School represents a continual navigation of what is pedagogically beneficial for preservice teachers’ field experiences. As a bilingual school that emphasizes English language instruction, Esperanza School represents hierarchical values domestically in Honduras and internationally. The school was chosen as an appropriate site for U.S. preservice teacher field experiences because it does not require Spanish language ability (a consequence of a short-term program), and a relationship already existed between Esperanza School and the college of education at the RU/VH midwestern university. Throughout the years, it has become evident that Esperanza School is a place of comfort for U.S. preservice teachers. It embraces the same middleclass, White values of many public and private schools in the United States.

Study Abroad and Coloniality     23

Esperanza School is accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools and more than half of the teachers, including the principal, are White, native English speakers from English-speaking nation-states. Teaching materials and resources are abundant, including the well-stocked music, art, and physical education supplies. In posttrip interviews, preservice teachers have often reflected that Esperanza School did not fit their preconceptions of what a Honduran school would look like, based on an understanding that Honduras is an economically poor nation-state. The underfunded, public, rural schools they visited were much more in line with the “expected” state of schools in Honduras, while Esperanza School was typically likened to a “normal” elementary school in the United States. This reinforces an idea that development based on the U.S. model is desirable, and disregards the existence of underfunded schools in the United States. Field experiences at Esperanza School represent flirtations with superficial cultural difference without recognizing the coloniality of how standards are constructed within Honduras, the United States’ policy toward Central and Latin America since the Monroe Doctrine, Honduran resistance to U.S. imperialism, and Spanish colonization. For example, the term Catracho refers to the Honduran general Florencio Xatruch, who led Central American forces against the occupation of Nicaragua by U.S. businessman William Walker and his forces in the mid-19th century. The name Xatruch was converted into Catracho in popular terminology and signifies the Honduran nationality and spirit (Sanchez, 2013). Therefore, to be Honduran (Catracho) comes from a space and place of resistance against exploitative forces. As program educators, we contemplate: How do the various Mayan heritages within present-day Honduras apply to a consideration of epistemic difference(s)? What is the pedagogical and curricular influence of the differences in the political decolonization of Latin America in the 19th century compared to the experience of Africa and Asia a century later? These geopolitical experiences and memories of coloniality (Mignolo, 2012) speak of an understanding that Esperanza School is complicit in concealing. Nevertheless, Esperanza School offers a field experience for preservice teachers that provides opportunities for the development of a postglobal perspective. Dynamic Globalities and Static Multiculturalisms: Continuing a Study Abroad Program While Esperanza School is not a public school, its social justice mission provides spaces for both White preservice teachers and the upper-class

24    J. RAHATZAD, H. L. DOCKRILL, and J. PHILLION

students at the school to engage with colonial difference. For example, through his instruction and personal life philosophy, the music and art teacher at Esperanza School provides an angle that allows for coloniality to enter the conversation. This particular teacher, who is Honduran, introduces students to two of the five main Mayan languages in Honduras, discusses the history of Honduras, and his own experiences of living in the United States. He does not simply valorize a “superior” concept of North America, but engages students in discussions around how Honduras is impacted by North American states, like the large economic disparities within Honduran society. This sets aside the Spanish-English binary, and recalls a different space outside normalized conceptualizations. For example, he supports discussions of what it means to be Honduran within the context of liberalized global economic relations; what it means to be Honduran based on the European notion of nation-state as opposed to Mayan heritage; and how the Spanish language is the language of the colonizer, but also acts as a language of resistance within contemporary international relations that vilify Central American migrants to the north (Mexico, United States, and Canada), especially in English-speaking states. The mainstream curriculum at Esperanza School does not connect Spanish colonization with U.S. imperialism and capitalism, failing to demonstrate colonial continuity and the contemporary manifestation of colonialism and capitalism: neoliberal globalization. Thus, the nuances of nation-state borders and the (in)significance of international boundaries to various people of differing social positions are not discussed with a student body, which is indicative of how social stratification internationally is maintained through the normalization of domestic social stratification. As part of their coursework, preservice teachers read the testimonial of Elvia Alvarado (1989), which details her work as an activist campesina (rural laborer or peasant) and provides a critique of U.S. foreign policy toward Honduras. Set in the context of the United States’ war against the Contras in Nicaragua in the 1980s, Alvarado critically examines the impact of U.S. military presence in Honduras and the increase in socioeconomic disparities as a result of the policies and programs of the United States Agency for International Development. Preservice teachers often become defensive of Alvarado’s critiques of the United States, and they have difficulty imagining how their idealized home could warrant such an “attack.” From a postglobal perspective, this response is a reaction against acknowledging that capitalism extends the oppressions of colonialism. The history between the United States and Central America is conveniently separated from the majority of missionary trips, service learning endeavors, and USAID (United States Agency for International Development) by those who organize and engage in these activities. Business partnerships and economic development spearheaded by U.S.-based organizations are

Study Abroad and Coloniality     25

presented as benevolent in intent through the news media. The stated aims of USAID (USAID, 2013) include the creation of markets and trade partners for the United States. Many preservice teachers take statements such as this at face value and as apolitical, with a belief that more markets for U.S. businesses are beneficial for all. Preservice teachers are often unwilling to acknowledge the neoliberal waters in which they swim. The naturalized system in which they exist prevents the consideration of alternative perspectives. Furthermore, it has been our experience that in contrast to being challenged through formal and informal educational experiences, the Honduras study abroad program participants often expect to be served. The 2012 and 2013 program trips involved participants demanding to know why dinner was almost half an hour late, why the internet Wi-Fi signal was down, and audibly craving “normal” food from their favorite U.S. chain restaurants. Class discussions also revealed the beliefs that paved roads, more private businesses, fewer trees and open spaces, and more human development were key to the “betterment” of Honduran society, without including the historical experience of Honduras as dependent on richer nation-states through colonial maintenance. The majority of preservice teachers who participate in the Honduras study abroad program seek a relatively safe and predictable experience that can then be marketed for professional and personal gain. The challenge that such a discrepancy between the preservice teachers’ desires and our desires as teacher educators is what we attempt to address continuously. The program curriculum directly addresses the historical context in which Honduras was shaped by outside forces (more powerful, imperially motivated nation-states, and multinational corporations motivated by profit) as a poor nation-state that is economically dependent. The readings, class discussions, informal conversations, and framing of historical and cultural trips explicitly connect the historical context to the contemporary situation of Honduras internationally. However, neoliberal discourse pervades preservice teachers’ engagement with new ideas and information, such that other knowledges are either incongruent with preconceived ideas, or there exists an unassailable belief that world circumstances are the result of “natural” realities and therefore the current world system is inevitable and preferable from their understandings. Posttrip interviews reveal how many of the preservice teachers feel “bad” for their students at Esperanza School. A recent posttrip interview revealed one program participant’s thinking behind this feeling. Sarah believed that the students from Esperanza School “probably go home after school and sit in darkness and loneliness.” Sarah had also articulated an assumption prior to the Honduras study abroad trip that parents in Honduras do not care about their children. When asked what she was basing her assumptions on, Sarah searched

26    J. RAHATZAD, H. L. DOCKRILL, and J. PHILLION

for an example—something she had seen or heard in Honduras that would confirm her belief that the students returned from school to an empty house and sat bored, neglected, and alone, until their parents came home. When she was unable to locate the origin of her assumption, Sarah recognized that her belief was unfounded and acknowledged that this was not the reality of Honduran students’ lives, even the students from the orphanage. She also admitted that the belief, embedded in her thinking, persisted. As researchers, program leaders, and instructors, we struggle with engaging preservice teachers to recognize that the colonial/modern world system is based on their neoliberal identities, which are constructed in imperialist nationalistic spaces. While a few students have begun the process of explicitly recognizing the foundations of the modern world system, it is a long term process that the vast majority do not initiate through this international intercultural experience. We believe there is much work needed prior to international intercultural experiences. In the case of the Honduras study abroad program, a historical understanding through a critical viewpoint, such as postglobality, that builds from alternatives to the hegemonic world ideology is necessary to place Alvarado’s (1989) testimony within a broader context than the limited life experiences of most preservice teachers. A historical ahistoricity (Baker, 2009) may be beneficial for preservice teachers so that entrenched historical understandings can be challenged. This work may be possible through predeparture courses and/or program design in thinking about how international intercultural experiences are framed during and after the program. Posttrip courses could relate to preservice teachers’ experiences directly as a means to continually (re)examine the meaning of their experiences. Recognizing Coloniality: Future Directions of a Study Abroad Program As we engage in a modern endeavor such as study abroad with colonial origins and operation within the colonial world system, it can be understood that the cultural and epistemological “other” is geographically near and far. International intercultural experiences can be engaged through a postglobal lens for the purpose of recognizing that the world is ordered intentionally, with epistemic boundaries that cross geopolitical boundaries. It is possible to employ the colonial present as a place of common understanding to engage in border thinking, or jump to different spaces of knowledge. An example of another space of knowing is Garii’s (2013) comparison of Martí’s philosophy as the basis of education in Cuba, as epistemically distinct from Dewey’s influence on education in the United States. This comparison points to the significance of geopolitical experiences and colonial memories in

Study Abroad and Coloniality     27

knowledge construction (Gaztambide-Fernández & Thiessen, 2012; Mignolo, 2012). What constitutes a Latin American educational philosophy originates from different sectors of society than the sectors that shape an Anglo/western European educational philosophy. Khatibi (1990) provided an example of “an other thinking” through an embrace of the sources of philosophy of the Maghreb. The geopolitical experience of the Maghreb can represent a collective identity, like Latin American, that occupies a space unto itself, separate from Eurocentric thought. This is not to negate the influence of colonialism in Latin America or the Maghreb, but rather to acknowledge the epistemological differences between European ways of knowing and knowledge production from different societal sources in different geopolitical locations. Engaging preservice teachers in alternative thought processes leads toward the deconstruction of dominant narratives, and the reconstruction of histories from an “other” thinking about what has been. Through the Honduras study abroad program, there can be learning potential within doubts about the well-intentioned mission of Esperanza School. The exploration of fissures in the constructed certainties of preservice teachers’ perceptions can open up epistemological spaces separate from Eurocentric philosophy. As program leaders we can explore “unknowns,” or spaces outside known criticalities, with preservice teachers through a pedagogy of discomfort. Hutchison and Rea (2011) highlighted the potentiality in discomfort as a pedagogical tool for transformational learning within a one-week study abroad program. Trilokekar and Kukar (2011) asserted a similar notion through the utilization of disorienting experiences as a pedagogical approach for preservice teachers. However, even research that asserts discomfort and disorientation as an approach to study abroad does not make the colonial world system explicit. COLONIZING THE WORLD THROUGH FOOD FAIRS After experiencing just a sliver of Honduras for a short time, the dominant outcome we have seen expressed by preservice teachers in posttrip interviews is an essentialization of Honduras and the United States by comparison. General statements made describing Honduras by participants in posttrip interviews include: “There is no sense of Honduran identity in Honduras,” “Hondurans should create more business opportunities like we have here,” and “They need to do something about corruption.” The journals and written reflections that program participants submit after returning home abound with vague platitudes about Honduran and U.S. society, yet the belief of having gained awareness and “global competence” permeates participants’ self-descriptions. These emergent themes and patterns require us to call into consideration a postglobal lens and a postcolonial sensibility. There is much rethinking that needs to be done in order to move away from stale multicultural understandings that

28    J. RAHATZAD, H. L. DOCKRILL, and J. PHILLION

assume any international intercultural experience is ipso facto beneficial. By stale multicultural understandings we mean superficial multiculturalism that does not move beyond food fairs and festivals, multiculturalism that works to hide, rather than examine, prejudices, a colorblind multiculturalism (Rahatzad, Ware, et al., 2013). Neoliberalism as a transnational ideology breaks down nation-state boundaries, making national identities irrelevant for the beneficiaries of globalization, who pledge loyalty to a universalizing philosophy that seeks to eradicate difference. Such a hegemonic influence systemically limits the international intercultural experiences of study abroad participants. Thus, while study abroad has great potential for teacher education, the darker side where epistemic boundaries are reinforced must also be acknowledged. This reality negates the transformative ideals of study abroad. Moving forward, it is our intention to shift the aim of the Honduras study abroad program away from the relatively simplistic multicultural understandings, which often revert to self/other dichotomies. Instead, we seek ways to recognize and teach about colonial legacies and the propagation of coloniality through globalization in order to complexify our understanding of global social relations. For example, we can ask: What does it mean to relate to another person through the global price fluctuations of coffee? CRITICAL QUESTIONS The consideration of how teacher educators should engage study abroad as an educative experience that cultivates critical perspectives can be explored through dialogue regarding the construction of the modern/colonial world system, and how a postglobal perspective cultivates questions about normalized assumptions about differences and international relations. Systemic constructions influence how educators engage in intercultural learning. This is of import within the design of study abroad programs when considering the level of personal development, especially the pedagogical development of preservice teachers. This is a move toward questions and uncertainties. For teacher educators of international intercultural experiences, some questions to consider for future practice are: • How does a lack of epistemological and ontological conceptualization based on program educators’ self-reflections produce cycles of self-fulfilling prophecies in study abroad? • How might the irreconcilable ideals of neoliberalism and the purported aims of study abroad influence the potential construction of ignorance by participants? • In what ways might a pedagogy of struggle and resistance inform explorations of coloniality through study abroad?

Study Abroad and Coloniality     29

AUTHORS’ REFLECTIONS As intercultural educators and researchers, all of the authors have had experience teaching and researching intercultural issues within education and various experiences working with preservice teachers. We believe that planetary awareness is essential for the cultivation of self-awareness within preservice teachers. Planetary awareness is distinct from a global competency in that it takes up epistemic considerations. This is based on the interconnections between global systemic decision-making structures and processes (neoliberal globalization) and lived personal experiences of the world’s various populations. We often feel restricted by institutional constraints and the academic background of the preservice teachers we work with through teacher education courses, mentoring relationships, and study abroad programs. However, we believe that there are ways to subvert constraints on our work with preservice teachers by exploring the contradictions within the certainties of modernity. Within foundational teacher education courses—multicultural education and exploring teaching as a career—we seek to focus on the inequities present in society and the impact on disparate schooling experiences. Through the Honduras study abroad program, the same courses are engaged in a manner that emphasizes international relations and the impact on local communities. Our aim is to allow space for preservice teachers to question and possibly reconsider the myth of equal opportunity and assumption of equitable social relations. This is a long term process that we as teacher educators aim to work on with preservice teachers at the early stages of development. NOTE 1. Whiteness is understood as a sociopolitical construct, a racial polity, where various social identities (e.g., class, gender) are raced into a hierarchical organization and determine the organization of knowledge. People can be raced based on other social identities, just as racial groups or social classes can be gendered. Critical Race Theory, among other theories, explores this type of thought.

REFERENCES Alvarado, E. (1989). Don’t be afraid, gringo: A Honduran woman speaks from the heart. (M. Benjamin, Trans.). New York, NY: Harper Perennial. Baker, B. (Ed.). (2009). New curriculum history. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense. Cushner, K. (2007). The role of experience in the making of internationally-minded teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34(1), 27–39.

30    J. RAHATZAD, H. L. DOCKRILL, and J. PHILLION Cushner, K. (2011). International intercultural research in teacher education: An essential intersection in the preparation of globally competent teachers. Action in Teacher Education, 33(5/6), 601–614. Duncan-Andrade, J. (2009). Note to educators: Hope required when growing roses in concrete. Harvard Educational Review, 79(2), 181–194. Fanon, F. (2005). The wretched of the earth. (Original work published in 1963.) New York, NY: Grove Press. Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. (M. B. Ramos, Trans.; 30th ed.). New York, NY: Continuum. (Original work published in 1970.) Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. Garii, B. (2013, April/May). The poverty of knowledge: How can we learn if we don’t know what we’re all talking about? Paper presented at the 2013 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Gaztambide-Fernández, R, & Thiessen, D. (2012). Fomenting flows and internationalizing curriculum studies. Curriculum Inquiry, 42(1), 1–11. Harvey, D. (2007). A brief history of neoliberalism. New York, NY: Oxford University. Hutchinson, A., & Rea, T. (2011). Transformative learning and identity formation on the ‘smiling coast’ of West Africa. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(3), 552–559. Khatibi, A. (1990). Love in two languages. (R. Howard, Trans.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. Kincaid, J. (2000). A small place. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. Kinginger, C. (2010). American students abroad: Negotiation of difference? Language Teaching, 43(2), 216–227. López, A. J. (2007). Introduction: The (post)global south. The Global South, 1(1), 1–11. Malewski, E., & Phillion, J. (2009). International field experiences: The impact of class, gender and race on the perceptions and experiences of preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(1), 52–60. Martin, F., & Griffiths, H. (2012). Power and representation: A postcolonial reading of global partnerships and teacher development through north-south study visits. British Educational Research Journal, 38(6), 907–927. Martin, F., & Wyness, L. (2013, Spring). Global partnerships as sites for mutual learning. Policy & Practice: A Development Education Review, 16, 13–40. Mignolo, W. D. (2012). Local histories/global designs: Coloniality, subaltern knowledges, and border thinking. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Mukherjee, M. (2012). U.S. study abroad from the periphery to the center of the global curriculum in the information age. Policy Futures in Education, 10(1), 81–89. O’ Connor, K., & Zeichner, K. (2011). Preparing U.S. teachers for critical global education. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9(3), 521–536. Ogden, A. (2007–2008, Fall/Winter). The view from the veranda: Understanding today’s colonial student. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 15, 35–55. Phillion, J., & Malewski, E. (2011). Study abroad in teacher education: Delving into cultural diversity and developing cultural competence. Action in Teacher Education, 33(5/6), 643–657.

Study Abroad and Coloniality     31 Phillion, J., Malewski, E., Rodriguez, E., Shirley, V., Kulago, H., & Bulington, J. (2008). Promise and perils of study abroad: White privilege revival. In T. Huber (Ed.), Teaching and learning diversity: International perspectives on social justice and human rights (pp. 365–382). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Rahatzad, J., Sasser, H. L., Phillion, J., Karimi, N., Deng, Y., Akiyama, R., & Sharma, S. (2013). Postglobal teacher preparation: Border thinking along the global South through international cross-cultural experiences. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 15(3), 76–95. Rahatzad, J., Ware, J., & Haugen, M. (2013). Chocolate covered Twinkies: Social justice and superficial aims in teacher education. In L. C. de Oliveira (Ed.), Teacher education for social justice: Perspectives and lessons learned (pp. 35–52). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Said, E. W. (1978). Orientalism. New York, NY: Pantheon. Said, E. W. (1981). Covering Islam. New York, NY: Pantheon. Said, E. W. (1993). Culture and imperialism. New York, NY: Vintage. Sanchez, L. (2013). Hondureños: ¿Por Qué Catrachos? Retrieved from http://luissanchezhh101.wordpress.com/2013/02/14/hondurenos-por-que-catrachos Sharma, S., Rahatzad, J., & Phillion, J. (2013). How preservice teachers engage in the process of (de)colonization: Findings from an international field experience in Honduras. Interchange, 43(4), 363–377. Trilokekar, R. D., & Kukar, P. (2011). Disorienting experiences during study abroad: Reflections of pre-service teacher candidates. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(7), 1141–1150. Tuck, E., & Yang, K.W. (2012). Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education, and Society, 1(1), 1–40. USAID. (2013). Who we are. Retrieved from http://www.usaid.gov/who-we-are U.S. Department of State. (2013). Honduras travel warning. Retrieved from http:// travel.state.gov/content/passports/english/alertswarnings/honduras-travelwarning.html Wilson, A. (1982). Cross-cultural experiential learning for teachers. Theory into Practice, 21(3), 184–192. Zemach-Bersin, T. (2007). Global citizenship and study abroad: It’s all about U.S. Critical Literacies: Theories and Practice 1(2), 16–28.

This page intentionally left blank.

CHAPTER 3

INTERCULTURAL TEACHING AND LEARNING THROUGH STUDY ABROAD Pedagogies of Discomfort, Oppositional Consciousness and Bridgework for Equity and Social Justice in Education Suniti Sharma

Intercultural teaching and learning through study abroad is not a new concept and operates on many registers in educational theory, research, and practice: at the political level in response to national security issues and international peace keeping post-9/11 (Stewart, 2007); at the economic level in response to market forces of globalization and technology (Cushner, 2012); in professional development as a response to growing global competition in teaching, research, and development (Darling-Hammond, 2010); and in response to immigration and diversity (Malewski, Sharma, & Phillion, 2012). In recent years, there has been growing awareness among multicultural teacher educators in the United States that along with the

A Reader of Narrative and Critical Lenses on Intercultural Teaching and Learning, pages 33–52 Copyright © 2017 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 33

34    S. SHARMA

political, economic, and academic, a social and cultural positioning of internationalizing teacher education through study abroad frames discourses on multiculturalism in education (Keengwe, 2010), cross-cultural experiential development of educators (Kambutu & Nganga, 2008), and intercultural teaching and learning for promoting equity and social justice in education (Cushner, McClelland, & Safford, 2012). My own orientation to intercultural teaching and learning through pedagogies of discomfort is heavily influenced by my cultural background and professional experiences navigating diverse cross-cultural and international contexts. In 2003 I moved from India to the United States to assume the position of a certified English teacher at an alternative high school in Indiana. In 2005, I also enrolled in the doctoral program in curriculum studies at Purdue University, where I served as a teaching and research assistant for the Honduras Study Abroad program for preservice teachers from 2008 to 2009. Upon graduation, I taught in the teacher education program from 2009 to 2012 at the University of Texas, Brownsville, a United States-Mexico border university where 85% of the student population self-identified as Hispanic, Mexican, or of Latin American descent. Since 2012 I have been teaching at a mid-Atlantic urban, private university in Philadelphia preparing K–12 teachers for high-need schools serving mostly African American and Hispanic communities. As a nonresident Indian (a classification by the government of India for Indian citizens living abroad), educated in India and the United States, combined with research and teaching experiences in diverse U.S. settings, my professional journey has been shaped and continues to shape my perspectives on the meaning of intercultural teaching and learning as an ongoing and dynamic process of experiential learning combined with self-reflection. With my professional journey in mind, in this chapter I reflect on my teaching and scholarship to expand on intercultural teaching and learning in relation to my participation in Purdue University’s Honduras Study Abroad program in 2008. Participation in the study abroad program has been critical to my ongoing personal and professional growth as a teacher educator, academic researcher, and advocate-practitioner for intercultural teaching and learning. In 2008 I travelled to Honduras as a teaching and research assistant for a study abroad program aimed at developing preservice teachers’ multicultural competencies for equity and social justice in education. As a teaching assistant, I taught an undergraduate course to preservice teachers who participated in the study abroad program. As a research assistant, I collected data on a research project focused on exploring how international field experiences promote multicultural competencies in undergraduate preservice teachers who participated in the Honduras Study Abroad program.

Intercultural Teaching and Learning Through Study Abroad    35

Six years after first participating in the Honduras Study Abroad program and 5 years as a faculty member in a teacher education program has given me experiential insights into negotiating diverse cultural settings. Transformations continue to occur as evidenced in my continuous intellectual growth and development in relation to equity and social justice through intercultural teaching and learning (Malewski, Sharma, & Phillion, 2012; Phillion, Malewski, Wang, & Sharma, 2010; Sharma, 2009; Sharma, Phillion, & Malewski, 2011; Sharma, Rahatzad, & Phillion, 2013). In what follows, I posit how my study abroad experience continues to serve as a catalyst for shifts in my teaching; how the experience positions me as a teacher educator in relation to cultural difference and the construction of knowledge that counts in the classroom; and how pedagogies of discomfort (Zembylas, 2010) offer a framework for developing an oppositional consciousness, bridging across cultural differences (Sandoval, 2000), and fostering intercultural teaching and learning. PEDAGOGIES OF DISCOMFORT: A FRAMEWORK By pedagogies of discomfort I refer to instructional strategies that use the experience of cultural dissonance to incite preservice teachers to reflect on their own background knowledge, cultural assumptions, beliefs, and perspectives toward diversity (Zembylas, 2010). Pedagogical strategies that use the experience of dissonance to incite critical reflection leading to analyses of power, privilege, inequity, and discrimination in educational and institutional contexts have implications for classroom practice (Trilokekar & Kukar, 2011). As a powerful teaching tool, pedagogies of discomfort consist of curricula experiences for engaging preservice teachers in developing an oppositional consciousness toward all forms of oppression (Sandoval, 2000). According to Sandoval, developing an oppositional consciousness includes confronting assumptions about one’s own cultural identity, challenging taken-for-granted assumptions about cultural difference, and building bridges across cultural differences. Expanding upon the role that discomfort plays in challenging racism, oppression, and social injustice, the pedagogies of discomfort in the form of teacher preparation coursework are positioned as the starting points for developing teacher educators’ and their students’ intercultural knowledge, skills, and dispositions for equity in educational practice (Zembylas, 2010). The planning, scaffolding, timing, and implementation of coursework and field experiences play a critical role in teacher preparation especially when most preservice teachers are socialized within the mainstream or dominant culture of society with few opportunities to identify, reflect upon, or confront their biases when it comes to teaching diverse student

36    S. SHARMA

populations (Darling-Hammond, 2010). Darling-Hammond recommends designing coursework that takes preservice teachers outside their comfort zones; engages them directly with interlocking systems of oppression such as social class, race, and language and their relationship to equity in education; and prompts preservice teacher educators and their students to examine their own locations within networks of power and privilege. Accordingly, all teacher education courses that I teach are designed to provoke preservice teachers to critically analyze their beliefs and assumptions and (re)consider their orientations toward cultural diversity for promoting intercultural teaching and learning. Intercultural teaching and learning includes consciousness of our own cultural values, beliefs, and assumptions and how they influence and impact our actions and interactions with people from cultures different from our own (Walters, Garii, & Walters, 2009); acquisition of experiential knowledge of other cultures, histories, and value systems (Trilokekar & Kukar, 2011); and development of pedagogies for engaging in diverse forms of cultural knowledge to bring about educational change (Marx & Moss, 2011; Schlein, 2014). My pedagogical knowledge and how I implement instruction is informed by my cross-cultural experiences in Honduras and the United States. It continues to shape how I understand intercultural teaching and learning, providing evidential consequences of my students’ and my transformations toward an emerging intercultural consciousness. PEDAGOGIES OF DISCOMFORT: COURSEWORK As the planning and implementation of coursework was critical to effecting a shift in preservice teachers’ deficit orientations, this section consists of a detailed account of the experiential opportunities, content supports, and curricula outcomes embedded in the coursework. Coursework consisted of: (a) reading and responding to scholarship on research, policy, and practice on multicultural education and culturally and linguistically responsive teaching; (b) viewing and responding to contemporary films on the politics of race, ethnicity, gender, and language; (c) working directly with students in culturally and linguistically diverse schools through field placements; (d) participating in class discussions and critical analyses of course readings, films viewed, field experiences, preservice teachers’ own locations in relation to social class, race, language and educational equity; (e) role-playing and simulations of shifting power dynamics; and (f) critical reflection on preservice teachers’ own growth and development as future teachers. Coursework, class interactions, and field experiences were positioned to incite future teachers to move outside their comfort zones, leading to (a) understanding intercultural teaching and learning, (b) examining own

Intercultural Teaching and Learning Through Study Abroad    37

beliefs that underlie their curricular choices, (c) developing an oppositional consciousness toward all forms of oppression, and (d) building bridges across differences by viewing diverse students’ knowledge as a pedagogical resource and forming their own classroom pedagogies that validate all students’ background knowledge. Course Readings Pedagogies of discomfort include course readings introducing a historical overview of K–12 curriculum trends, theories, and principles that have dominated the curriculum juxtaposed with current debates, challenges, and opportunities for developing culturally and linguistically responsive pedagogies. For example, when teaching a course to preservice teachers, Multiculturalism in Education, which is part of the Honduras Study Abroad program, one of the texts preservice teachers are asked to read is Of Borders and Dreams: A Mexican-American Experience of Urban Education (Liska Carger, 1996). Set in a Mexican community on the west side of Chicago, Liska Carger chronicled the struggles of Alejandro, a Mexican American youth, to succeed in a school environment that does not value his language or culture. Liska Carger discussed the cultural differences between herself, a middle-class White ESL teacher, and Alejandro’s background and life. Speaking from experience, Liska Carger noted that teachers who lack understanding of cultural difference contribute to students like Alejandro’s literacy difficulties. According to Liska Carger, many middle-class White teachers when faced with students like Alejandro delineate “a clear sense of “them” and “us,” that is, “those” who need to be educated and “we” who possess the knowledge, the brains, the right way of doing things” (1996, p. 29). As a pedagogy of discomfort, readings such as Of Borders and Dreams: A Mexican-American Experience of Urban Education bring critical debates into teacher education classrooms on current issues such as immigration, language learning, and what it means to be a culturally and linguistically responsive teacher. Films A pedagogical strategy for unsettling preservice teachers’ taken-forgranted beliefs and assumptions about cultural difference is the use of films. Films can be used to prompt preservice teachers to debate, analyze, and ask critical questions of dominant and accepted forms of knowledge, as well as raise preservice teachers’ awareness of the politics of difference and its impact on the educational experiences of diverse students. For example,

38    S. SHARMA

in a course I currently teach, Instructional Strategies for Social Studies, the documentary film Precious Knowledge (Palos & McGinnis, 2011) has been particularly useful in unsettling preservice teachers’ assumptions about the politics of knowledge that counts in the classroom. The film chronicles four high school seniors as they resist the banning of their Tucson high school ethnic studies program by the Arizona legislature. It has provoked debate, discussion, and reflection on what knowledge counts in the classroom, who has the power to decide what knowledge counts in the classroom, and whose knowledge is excluded from such curricula decisions. As pedagogies of discomfort, the film not only brings current debates on immigration and education into the classroom, but it also serves as an example of how an oppositional consciousness to all forms of oppression can lead to bridgework between diverse students and teachers in developing a curriculum that values students’ histories and knowledge. Field Experience Teacher education research supports field experiences in diverse K–12 settings as one of the critical factors in teacher development (Phillion & Malewski, 2011). When working with predominantly White preservice teachers with little exposure to racial, ethnic, and language diversity, I have found placing preservice teachers in schools serving students from high poverty urban communities with a high population of bilingual students a particularly useful pedagogical strategy. As most preservice teachers who I currently teach self-identify as White, monolingual speakers of English who have attended suburban or Catholic schools, urban placement as part of the course design is targeted to move preservice teachers out of their comfort zones and gain intercultural experience in high minority and bilingual school settings. Class Discussions Class discussions serve as a participatory and democratic format for pedagogies of discomfort useful in sharing and critiquing forms of knowledge established in school practice and policy and working inclusively toward the emergence of new alternative forms of knowledge. Preservice teachers are encouraged to discuss how teachers’ backgrounds and cultural knowledge shape classroom interactions and how classroom interactions relate to broader social, cultural, and economic relations. The discussion format engages preservice teachers in sharing their own educational philosophies, experiences, and changes in perspectives. Discussions offer preservice

Intercultural Teaching and Learning Through Study Abroad    39

teachers opportunities for broadening their own perspectives and bringing in examples from their everyday lives to relate to the issue under discussion in a safe and supportive environment. Role-Play and Simulations As pedagogies of discomfort, role-playing and simulations offer opportunities for experiential learning (Russell & Shepherd, 2010) in which preservice teachers take on different roles, assume a profile of a character, and participate in class activities under the assumed profile. The aim of role-play and simulations is to change the power dynamics in the classroom as preservice teachers learn through their active role-play the viewpoints of the profile they are enacting as well as experience how social, cultural, academic, and institutional norms and practices privilege or oppress certain groups of students based on their group identity. As an effective pedagogy, role-play and simulation prompts preservice teachers to articulate a position in dissonance with their real-life experiences and worldviews as they collaboratively learn to apply theory to practice, develop critical skills, understand power dynamics, and see points of views different from their own. Critical Reflections Critical reflection is key to pedagogies of discomfort as it offers time and space for processing complex thoughts and feelings about the course content, field experiences, class discussions, role-play, and simulations. Reflection provided a learning space to preservice teachers for extending the ideas of the course readings to their own experiences, raising questions, and thinking about their own developing teaching philosophies. Articulating their thoughts and feelings through writing opened spaces for documenting the process of learning to become intercultural teachers and to be able to see evidence of their own growth and development in continuum. Drawing from my experience with the Honduras Study Abroad program and subsequent classroom practice, I use pedagogies of discomfort (Zembylas, 2010) to delineate intercultural teaching competencies for promoting equity and social justice in classroom practice. Beginning with a description of the Honduras Study Abroad program to contextualize my experience, I present two vignettes to position my study abroad experiences and engage in critical questions that arose to exemplify how pedagogies of discomfort challenge preservice teachers’ consciousness to open spaces for bridgework leading to intercultural teaching and learning for equity and social justice in education. The first vignette, set in Honduras, provokes a

40    S. SHARMA

nuanced discussion on pedagogies of discomfort for developing an oppositional consciousness that challenges all forms of oppression perpetuating racism, classism, sexism and inequities in education classrooms. The second vignette, set in the United States, captures bridgework between teacher educators and their students as they work together across differences to connect oppositional consciousness to intercultural teaching and learning for equity and social justice. The Honduras Study Abroad program at Purdue University is designed for preservice teachers and focuses on developing their intercultural competencies through three weeks of international field experiences in an elementary school in Zamorano, Honduras. As part of the program, preservice teachers are enrolled in two undergraduate courses in teacher education (EDCI 205 Exploring Teaching as a Career, and EDCI 285 Multiculturalism in Education) and attend class each evening onsite in Honduras. Although participation is open to all teacher education students, the program is designed specifically for undergraduate preservice teachers during the summer between their freshman and sophomore years. Occasionally, graduate students enrolled in the teacher certification master’s program participate in the program and complete their field placements along with the undergraduate students. However, their course readings differ and they are not included in this research. The program begins with three course meetings on the home campus prior to departure providing travel information, course expectations, documentaries on everyday life in Honduras, and presentations given by previous participants. For the next three weeks after arrival in the capital city of Tegucigalpa, preservice teachers stay at the Zamorano Agricultural University guesthouse, attend to coursework that includes field placement in a local school, and tour cultural heritage sites such as the archaeological remains of an ancient Mayan civilization in Copán. The two required courses involve extensive reading, although the primary emphasis is on experiential learning and critical reflection, drawing out relationships among course readings, field experiences, and intercultural interactions in formal and informal settings. For example, in field placements preservice teachers observe and assist teachers with lessons. Then they analyze the cultural context of the school; student-teacher interactions; race, class, and gender issues in the classroom; and reflect on their own experiences negotiating an unfamiliar language and culture. Coursework based on pedagogies of discomfort includes role-play and simulations, reflective journaling, and critical analyses of curricula and cultural issues. My participation in the study abroad program was twofold: First, in 2008 I served as a teaching assistant and cotaught both courses (Exploring Teaching as a Career and Multiculturalism in Education) onsite in

Intercultural Teaching and Learning Through Study Abroad    41

Honduras to preservice teachers who participated in the Honduras Study Abroad program. Second, from 2008 to 2009, I served as a research assistant for an IRB-approved longitudinal study examining how international field experiences promote multicultural competencies in preservice teachers. In the summer of 2008, I travelled to Honduras with the specific task of collecting data in Honduras by observing 18 undergraduate preservice teachers in their international field placements in Honduran classrooms, recording formal and informal conversations, conducting individual and focus interviews, documenting my own observations as a researcher, and disseminating the research findings. All 18 preservice teachers self-identified as White U.S. Americans; were in the age group of 18–24 years; 16 were female, two male; two had travelled outside the United States; and all were monolingual speakers of English. In keeping with IRB-approved protocol, pseudonyms were used for all participants. The vignette that follows is taken from data collected onsite in 2008 during my participation in the research project that is part of the Honduras Study Abroad program. In the vignette, I revisit recorded data exemplifying pedagogies of discomfort for developing an oppositional consciousness to capture the complexity of the study abroad experience and its critical place in my continuing intellectual growth and development as a teacher educator and practitioner of intercultural teaching and learning. Vignette One: Pedagogies of Discomfort and Oppositional Consciousness Zamorano, Honduras 2008: As part of the study abroad program, Juanita and I are co-teaching Multiculturalism in Education, a required course for all preservice teachers. Juanita is a doctoral student at Purdue University and resident of Honduras, while I am a doctoral student from India. In the classroom, excited to hear what the preservice teachers make of Honduras, Juanita asks them to speak about their first impression of Honduras. Amy, a preservice teacher volunteers, “We landed in Tegucigalpa two days ago and the drive from the airport was quite traumatic for me as all I could see is poverty on either side of the hills. Children running dangerously up the hill, parents sitting idly.” Gina, another preservice teacher, adds, “Why aren’t the parents at work? And shouldn’t these kids be in school?” Rick, another preservice teacher, whispers in a low voice, showing his discomfort when speaking about poverty and prefers to speak about his own good fortune, “That’s the best part of living in America. The government makes sure no one is poor and everyone has a decent house to live in, free education, and food to eat, not surprising, everyone wants to come to America.” I quickly observe that most preservice teachers are focused on the poverty in Honduras. Amy responds to Rick, “So much trash everywhere. Their [Hon-

42    S. SHARMA duran] culture doesn’t believe in cleanliness. Yes, no wonder everyone wants to come to America. I enjoy other cultures, but would never leave mine for another.” The conversation tapers off with most preservice teachers acknowledging their “blessings” for being “American” and for living “in a country where we value kids and education and the government watches out for you.” Juanita graciously smiles and accepts their commentary on Honduras, a country they have spent 48 hours in, and knew little of until they entered the study abroad program. As coinstructor, I attempt to follow Juanita and frame a polite response; however, I challenge the class. In keeping with pedagogies of discomfort as the framework for the course, I inform preservice teachers to think about poverty and homelessness within the United States and its relation to inequities in educational opportunities in complex ways rather than as fixed categories. I also urge students to rethink their use of American, encouraging them to rethink America beyond the borders of the United States, to America, a continent of culturally diverse Americans. The discomforting silence in the room is palpable as my students and I struggle to understand and communicate with each other on either side of the classroom. Although we are seated in a circle, I am conscious of a power struggle with me on one side, the students on the opposite, and Juanita caught between the two sides. I am intensely conscious of the political markers of cultural difference that separate me from the preservice teachers—ethnicity, race, nationality, language, beliefs, and experiences. The silence is heavy with those cultural differences between us, made more complex by the authority invested in me as their instructor. I know I have made my students reconsider their Americanness; unsettled their understanding of poverty; forced them to examine how ethnicity, race, and class have shaped their privileged status; and shed light on the social and cultural dynamics that shape inequity in the world and across educational systems—markers of oppositional consciousness. I also know that there are many gaps in my own understanding of how to negotiate discomforting pedagogies in the classroom and mobilize an oppositional consciousness before I engage the “self” and “other” in intercultural teaching and learning for equity and social justice.

This experiential analysis illustrates the lived experience of intercultural teaching and learning, discomforting and unsettling our thoughts beyond “self” and “other” to the mediation in everyday acts that constitute individual identity and history; negotiation of cultural differences such as race, ethnicity, and language; and the production of classroom knowledge in relation to the self and “other.” Prior to the study abroad experience, I assumed a self-righteous position of being the other resistant to a culture I defined as the dominant culture of whiteness. In defining whiteness, I borrow from Kincheloe (1999) to refer to a body of knowledge, ideologies, norms, and particular practices that have been constructed within the cultural history of the United States, referring to persons with historical roots in Western Europe. According to Kincheloe, in educational contexts

Intercultural Teaching and Learning Through Study Abroad    43

the system and ideology of White dominance and superiority marginalizes groups identified as non-White, and ensures privileges for White people in the United States. As a social, cultural, and legal construct, whiteness is rooted in colonization; and the knowledge, ideologies, norms, and practices of whiteness are sustained through categorical binaries and hierarchies separating persons who are White from non-White (Stanfield, 1985). According to Kincheloe (1999), ideologies, norms and practices, including the construct of whiteness, affect how educators think about cultural difference, how they build their own racial identities, and how they interact with cultural difference in the classroom. Therefore, scholars suggest teacher educators prepare critical multicultural teachers who challenge whiteness representative of the superiority of Anglo-Saxon cultural identity as self and their ways of living as the norm, in relation to cultural difference as the inferior other, as the real consequences of such ideologies and norms play out as racism and exclusions in the classroom (Clarke, 2008; Kincheloe & Steinberg, 2000). Based on the notion of whiteness as the norm and non-whiteness as the cultural other, my assumptions were manifold. I assumed my minority status as a nonresident Indian working in the United States was a marginalized status in relation to U.S. preservice teachers participating in the study abroad program who self-identified as White and as part of the dominant culture. Being from India, I assumed a third-world status of powerlessness in relation to U.S. preservice teachers. Raised in India within a rigid hierarchical social system, I was afforded the privilege of a top-tier education by Indian standards, which opened a world of professional opportunities for me. Moving from this position of advantage and power in India to a status of “powerlessness” has colored my understanding(s) and thinking and given me critical insights into the changing and contextual dynamics of power that play out within the politics of difference. Upon reflection, I realized categorical thinking is a construct that is neither fixed nor static, rather, the interplay of context and identity revealed complex power dynamics that are critical to understanding intercultural relations. The experience of negotiating shifting power dynamics highlighted the critical need for ongoing intercultural bridge building across differences. The study abroad experience exemplified in the vignette turned categorical thinking such as self and other—or margins and center—on its head as margins had created their own center to redistribute power and privilege according to shifting relations and contexts. When categories and identities are shifting, pedagogies of discomfort constitute a political stand that speaks to broader cultural, historical, and academic contexts that shape the construction of identities and the production of knowledge. My own experiences with pedagogies of discomfort emerged and offered a space from

44    S. SHARMA

which to renegotiate the meaning of intercultural teaching and learning. The experience of my cultural introspection transferred into classroom practice provided epistemological, methodological, and political tools for examining and critiquing oppressive structures that perpetuate centers and margins of power, privilege, and educational inequity. Thus, pedagogies of discomfort leading to the development of an oppositional consciousness toward all forms of oppression serves as a curricula strategy for moving preservice teachers outside their comfort zones, situating them in unfamiliar cross-cultural environments, and providing opportunities for critical selfreflection and classroom discussion. In the previous vignette, my study abroad experience is positioned as an exemplar to illustrate that the concept of pedagogies of discomfort supports and constitutes the first step toward intercultural teaching and learning in several ways. First, pedagogies of discomfort during study abroad incite educators to rethink their own positions in the production of identity/ies and difference/s in relation to intercultural teaching and learning. Second, pedagogies of discomfort as an epistemological, methodological, and political space intervenes in dominant discourses of power, knowledge, and domination that perpetuate oppressive systems of exploitation, marginalization, and exclusion of the cultural other. Third, pedagogies of discomfort for developing oppositional consciousness offer possibilities for reclaiming history/ies, creating transformative forms of knowledge that count in the classroom, and continue the project of creating opportunities for intercultural teaching and learning. Vignette Two: Bridgework and Intercultural Teaching and Learning The second vignette, 6 years after my participation in the Honduras Study Abroad program, is contextualized in a teacher education classroom at an urban private university where I currently teach. In this capacity since January 2013, I have been conducting an IRB-approved study on how teacher education coursework contributes to shifting preservice teachers’ deficit perceptions of culturally and linguistically diverse students in urban K–12 classrooms. Data collected from this study comprised recorded class discussions, interviews with participants, and reflective journals after participants’ weekly secondary school visits in their field placements. The vignette that follows is taken from data collected during this period extracted from audio recordings of a social studies methods course I taught in the fall of 2013 to 15 preservice teachers who were participants in the study. All 15 participants self-identified as White monolingual speakers of English, were between 18 and 21 years of age, 11 were women and 4 men. According to preservice

Intercultural Teaching and Learning Through Study Abroad    45

teachers’ demographic data provided in their reflective journals, 10 preservice teachers self-reported graduating from “a private Catholic school that lacked diversity” (which they understood as racial and ethnic diversity) comprising “mostly of White students,” while two students reported going to a “private school” in New York. All participants stated their “friends in high school were from the same cultural background” and though “interested in teaching in urban public schools,” they “did not know much” about urban public schools. In keeping with the social justice mission of the teacher education program, the focus of the course was to prepare social studies teachers with intercultural knowledge, skills, and dispositions for teaching in diverse urban public school settings. In my classrooms, I actively revisit my study abroad experience to design curricula grounded in pedagogies of discomfort engaging preservice teachers in developing an oppositional consciousness for analyzing inequities in urban classrooms and to acquire competencies for intercultural teaching and learning. Philadelphia, PA 2013: I am settling into my faculty position at [my new] University as a secondary education methodologist. Located in Northeastern United States, I understand my goal as teacher education faculty is to prepare White monolingual teachers to teach in urban schools with high drop-out rates and serving predominantly African American and Hispanic students from low-income neighborhoods. It is 6 years since I participated in the study abroad program and the experience contributes to the comfort level I experience in a university campus, where almost 85% of students are identified in institutional records as White. On the first day of the fall semester, I ask students to tell me about themselves, share their educational experiences, and talk about their professional plans. I learn that none of my students hope to teach in an urban school. During a focus interview, I asked participants to explain their choice of the school they wish to teach after graduating. Participants respond saying: “schools [in this urban area] are very poor, kids don’t really come with any books or pencils or anything”; “Most schools in the city have kids who are used to violence”; “I went to a Catholic school and Catholic schools don’t have discipline problems;” “Kids are on free lunch which means their parents are too poor and can’t focus on schoolwork;” “I would love to teach African American students, but I want to be an English teacher, and they [African American] have too many language issues.” I also hear: “When you grow up in the suburbs you don’t want to teach in urban schools” as students in urban schools “can be scary” and “because of them [students], schools have to have metal detectors,” which can be “stressful.” Reality stares me in the face—my students’ construction of their teacher identities and the language used to describe themselves in relation to their othering of students in urban schools represent their possible sense of privilege, power, and entitlement on the one hand, and assumptions about K–12 students in urban schools, on the other.

46    S. SHARMA I call upon my study abroad experience to go beyond classroom conversations on diversity and teaching and offer my students real world opportunities for experiential learning. In real world educational environments, mobilizing pedagogies of discomfort as a framework positions bridgework for connecting oppositional consciousness to ongoing intercultural teaching and learning. I request the field experience office to place half the class in an urban school facing closure. After 16 weeks of bridging oppositional consciousness, transformations are evidenced. On the last day of class, students who were placed in urban schools passionately respond to a three-part presentation and discussion on National Public Radio’s (NPR) All Things Considered. Students listened to the presentation entitled, “Unrelenting Poverty Leads To “Desperation” In Philly Schools” (Westervelt, 2013), as part of their coursework. The discussion on NPR described Philadelphia schools as failing; child poverty in Philadelphia at 40%; many of the students being raised by single mothers, who are overwhelmed without social and academic support; and neighborhood and school violence exacerbates the challenges parents, students, and teachers encounter each day. The preservice teachers are outraged and Olivia wants to know, “How can we sit back and call ourselves teachers if we can’t fight for our children?” Lisa evokes the historical marginalization of students from low-income families, “How can we expect children to do well when they come to school hungry and see their parents struggling to make ends meet?” Kathy shares her experience: “In my field placement, I saw how hard it was for students and teachers because so many kids didn’t come to school as they take care of their siblings. They are smart kids but the system fails them. I am going to teach in an urban school where I can really make a difference in a child’s life by fighting for them. I am so glad I was placed in [a] low-income urban school even though I hated it at first.” As preservice teachers express their outrage at what they perceive as educational inequity and call for collective action, I am a witness to my students’ engagement with pedagogies of discomfort and their oppositional consciousness leading to bridgework for intercultural teaching and learning.

After 16 weeks of discomforting pedagogies for developing oppositional consciousness leading to active bridgework across cultural differences, transformations denote an epistemological and political shift in preservice teachers’ thinking on many registers. Firstly, preservice teachers used the experiential opportunity of their field placement in urban schools to move outside their comfort zones and mobilize an oppositional consciousness by reflecting on their own privilege in relation to the inequities experienced by students historically marginalized from school knowledge. Secondly, drawing from coursework and their discomfiting experiences, preservice teachers demonstrated bridgework in action as they connected their oppositional consciousness to intercultural teaching and learning by validating the lived experience of students whose cultures differed from their own.

Intercultural Teaching and Learning Through Study Abroad    47

Thirdly, preservice teachers evidenced the processing of concepts—such as discomfiting pedagogies, oppositional consciousness, and bridgework—as a safe space for articulating the experience of intercultural teaching and learning for promoting equity and social justice in education. DISCUSSION: INTERCULTURAL TEACHING AND LEARNING As the two vignettes previously discussed demonstrate, teacher educators and their students who develop a self-reflective approach to their teaching recognize intercultural teaching and learning as a dynamic, ongoing process of understanding difference inside and outside the classroom. For effective intercultural teaching and learning, teacher educators and their students will benefit from recognizing the role of cultural knowledge in classroom interactions and practices and how it relates to K–12 students’ educational experiences and academic outcomes. Intercultural competencies include a recognition that culture and language are deeply connected to teaching and learning and emphasizes a deeper awareness of one’s own cultural knowledge; awareness of the culture of students who are racially, ethnically, and linguistically diverse; and understanding the dynamic interplay between them. When designing coursework, the context of field experiences, implementation of classroom activities, and instructional content and pedagogy play a critical role in preparing future teachers by offering several opportunities to identify, reflect upon, or confront their assumptions about teaching diverse student populations. Content, pedagogy, and experiences that take preservice teachers outside their comfort zones, engage them directly with issues, such as social class, race, and language that impact classroom interactions and academic outcomes of students. Pedagogies of discomfort that engage teacher educators and their students to reflect on their dispositions toward cultural difference and how they construct their own racial and ethnic identities in relation to cultural difference has the potential for deepening their understanding of their own classroom practice. Developing an oppositional consciousness toward all forms of exclusion, bridging differences in the classroom, and implementing inclusive pedagogies that value the culture of all students in the classroom is evidence of intercultural teaching and learning. A critical awareness of how categories such as whiteness, self, and other are constructed, the ideologies that support hierarchical and binary constructs are key to opposing marginalization and exclusions in classroom practice. Teacher educators and their students who examine their own locations within networks of power and privilege recognize cultural difference and work toward constructing culturally and

48    S. SHARMA

linguistically responsive pedagogies that build upon the knowledge and practices of diverse students. AUTHOR’S REFLECTIONS My personal and passionate drive to critically explore and theorize intercultural teaching and learning for equity and social justice expands my teaching and research with continual questioning of knowledge. The experience of studying and working outside the familiarity of my home country, India, has opened spaces for understanding cultural difference and developing a philosophy of intercultural teaching and learning that has emerged from experiential learning. As a student and educator, my own experience of the disparities of power and privilege have given me a nuanced understanding of how power differentials affect the lives of students and teachers and the challenges they face with implications for classroom practice. Participating in the Honduras Study Abroad program complicated my understanding of the politics of difference to challenge self and other as constructs that are not static, but subject to dismantling. As a teacher educator in the United States, confronting my own assumptions and discussing the politics of difference, especially in a classroom where students’ race, ethnic, and national identity differ from my own has been a challenging process. At the same time, the experience has opened opportunities for working across cultural difference to work toward educational change. Navigating multiple and diverse cultural contexts continue to contribute to my understanding of intercultural teaching and learning in several ways. My professional classroom experience of intercultural teaching and learning provoked by pedagogies of discomfort through studying abroad began the process of developing a critical consciousness. Critical consciousness continues to inform my classroom practice prompting me to question dominant epistemologies, theories, and methodologies built around categories, binaries, and hierarchies that privilege and exclude. Ongoing critical self-reflection, the questioning of my own position of privilege and power, and confronting my own role in sustaining exclusion, on the one hand, and experiential learning and building bridges across cultural differences toward intercultural teaching and learning, on the other, continue to play a significant role in my professional growth and development as a teacher educator. CRITICAL QUESTIONS The following research questions provide the reader a space to engage in intercultural teaching and learning for equity and social justice, and to understand its role in transforming educational environments.

Intercultural Teaching and Learning Through Study Abroad    49

• How might pedagogies of discomfort in my classroom open additional spaces for examining and challenging power relations?   On one level of consciousness, drawing from pedagogies of discomfort is transformative as it gives teacher educators and their students a complex understanding of power relations among groups; on another level, challenging power relations is a significant part of developing an oppositional consciousness (Jankie, 2004). In a discussion of the development of oppositional consciousness, Sandoval (2000) argued that traditional forms of activism against historical exclusions and conventional categories of analysis such as victim and oppressor do not work under present conditions of systematic exclusion of certain forms of marginalized knowledge in the classroom. Therefore, teacher educators and researchers have the responsibility of promoting intercultural teaching and learning competencies in future teachers articulated and operationalized through new concepts such as pedagogies of discomfort, oppositional consciousness, and bridgework. • How might curricula at all levels of preservice teacher preparation and in-service professional development serve as bridgework to connect oppositional consciousness to intercultural teaching and learning for equity and social justice in education?   Creating oppositional spaces where teacher educators and their students question received knowledge from dominant epistemologies has the power to effect educational change. Scholars such as Freire (1998) and Sandoval (2000) advocated for all educators to engage students as activists in developing an oppositional consciousness toward traditional forms of knowledge that count in the classroom. They also bridge building alliances across differences in race, ethnicity, class, and gender in the larger project of working toward equity in educational theory and practice. In my classroom, oppositional consciousness incited students into the political act of talking back to social and academic exclusion; deconstructing power, privilege, and educational inequity; and reconstructing knowledge that counts in the classroom voiced in the transformative language of bridgework for intercultural teaching and learning. • How does the processing of concepts such as pedagogies of discomfort, oppositional consciousness, and bridgework give teachers and students a language to engage in intercultural teaching and learning?   An inclusive vision of education for equity and social justice engages teacher educators and future teachers in pedagogies of discomfort leading to bridgework connecting oppositional consciousness to intercultural competencies and explicates a critical dimension to all teaching and learning. Ongoing commitment to deconstructing

50    S. SHARMA

educational, social, and political power differentials through an oppositional consciousness, reaching across communities to act against educational inequity and oppression through bridgework, and teaching about oppression using the conceptual frames of pedagogies of discomfort, raising consciousness, and intercultural teaching and learning for equity and social justice support the political transformation from teacher to intercultural teacher. EDUCATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE The epistemological, theoretical, and critical contribution of the study abroad experience to intercultural teaching and learning in teacher development is evident in the ways teacher educators and their students continue to expand, question, and complicate the range of their knowledge forms and classroom practices to mobilize social justice not limited to state or national lines of privilege and oppression. Intercultural teaching and learning through study abroad programs offers teacher educators long-term resonating experiences for transformative engagement and ongoing application in the classroom that empowers and galvanizes on many registers. First, contributing to existing teacher education programs preparing future teachers for intercultural teaching and learning, the study abroad experience is empowering as experiential learning provokes teacher educators and their students to reflect on the spaces they occupy in the matrix of power, knowledge, and educational inequity, cautioning against all forms of exclusion. Second, as the framework for course design, pedagogies of discomfort have possibilities for unsettling taken-for-granted assumptions about self and other and developing an oppositional consciousness against oppressive practices. Coursework framed by pedagogies of discomfort suggest that ongoing critique and resistance are preconditions for engaging teacher educators and their students in bridgework across cultural difference. Third, coursework and field experiences with opportunities for bridgework across cultural differences is a transformative path to intercultural teaching and learning that validates diverse students’ educational experiences and recognizes multiple forms of knowledge in the classroom. Fourth, pedagogies of discomfort, oppositional consciousness, and bridgework are critical theoretical and methodological tools for building intercultural teaching not meant to override the importance of cultural differences in envisioning a transformative political project of dismantling oppression. Rather, they underscore the significance of teacher educators and their students developing a critical consciousness and bridging differences for equity and social justice by co-constructing a curricula space for articulating multiplicity and inclusion in an intercultural classroom.

Intercultural Teaching and Learning Through Study Abroad    51

REFERENCES Clarke, S. (2008). Culture and identity. In T. Bennette & J. Frow (Eds.), The Sage handbook of cultural analysis (pp. 510–528). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cushner, K. (2012). Intercultural competence for teaching and learning. In B. D. Shaklee & S. Baily (Eds.), Internationalizing teacher education in the United States (pp. 41–58). Lanham, MA: Rowman and Littlefield. Cushner, K., McClelland, A., & Safford, P. (2012). Human diversity in education: An intercultural approach (7th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education. How America’s commitment to equity will determine our future. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Freire, P. (1998). Teachers as cultural workers: Letters to those who dare teach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Jankie, D. (2004). “Tell me who you are”: Problematizing the construction and positionalities of “insider”/”outsider” of a “native” ethnographer in a postcolonial context. In K. Mutua & B. B. Swadener (Eds.), Decolonizing research in cross-cultural contexts (pp. 87–105). Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Kambutu, J., & Nganga, L. (2008). In these uncertain times: Educators build cultural awareness through planned international experiences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(4), 939–951. Keengwe, J. (2010). Fostering cross-cultural competence in preservice teachers through multicultural education experiences. Early Childhood Education Journal, 38(3), 197–204. Kincheloe. J. L. (1999). The struggle to define and reinvent whiteness: A pedagogical analysis. College Literature, 26(3), 162–194. Kincheloe, J., & Steinberg, S. (2000). Addressing the crisis of whiteness: Reconfiguring White identity in a pedagogy of whiteness. In J. Kincheloe, S. Steinberg, & N. M. Rodriguez (Eds.), White reign: Deploying whiteness in America (pp. 3–30). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Liska Carger, C. (1996). Of borders and dreams: A Mexican-American experience of urban education. New York, NY: Teachers College. Malewski, E., Sharma, S., & Phillion, J. (2012). How international field experiences promote cross-cultural awareness in preservice teachers through experiential learning: Findings from a six-year collective case study. Teachers College Record, 114(8), 1–44. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/library ID Number: 16530, Date Accessed: 9/28/2016 8:10:54 AM Marx, H., & Moss, D.M. (2011). Please mind the culture gap: Intercultural development during a teacher education study abroad program. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(1), 35–47. Palos, A. L. (Producer), & McGinnis, E. I. (Director). (2015). Precious knowledge [Film]. San Francisco, CA: Kanopy Streaming. Phillion, J., & Malewski, E. (2011). International field experiences: The impact of class, gender and race on the perceptions and experiences of preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education 25(1), 52–60. Phillion, J., Malewski, E., Wang, Y., & Sharma, S. (2010). Rethinking poverty, inequality, and social justice: Enhancing preservice teachers’ awareness and

52    S. SHARMA perceptions through study abroad. Journal of International Society for Teacher Education, 14(2), 17–24. Russell, C., & Shepherd, J. (2010; Special issue). Online role-play environments for higher education: Learning objects in progress. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(6), 992–1002. Sandoval, C. (2000). Methodology of the oppressed. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Schlein, C. (2014). The possibilities of intercultural teaching for teaching for social justice. In S. Sharma, J. Rahatzad, & J. Phillion (Eds.), Internationalizing teacher education for social justice: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 119–136). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Sharma, S. (2009). From the red-dot-Indian woman to jet-set-mangoes and all the hyphens in-between: Studying abroad and discovering myself. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 25(3), 119–136. Sharma, S., Phillion, J., & Malewski, E. (2011). Examining the practice of critical reflection for developing pre-service teachers’ multicultural competencies: Findings from a study abroad program in Honduras. Issues in Teacher Education, 20(2), 9–22. Sharma, S., Rahatzad, J., & Phillion, J. (2013). How preservice teachers engage in the process of (de)colonization: Findings from an international field experience in Honduras. Interchange, 43(4), 363–377. Stanfield, J. H. (1985). Theoretical and ideological barriers to the study of racemaking. Research in Race and Ethnic Relations 4, 161–181. Stewart, V. (2007). Becoming citizens of the world. Educational Leadership, 64(7), 8–14. Trilokekar, R.D., & Kukar, P. (2011). Disorienting experiences during study abroad: Reflections of pre-service teacher candidates. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(7), 1141–1150. Walters, L. M., Garii, B., & Walters, T. (2009). Learning globally, teaching locally: Incorporating international exchange and intercultural learning into preservice teacher training. Intercultural Education, 20(1/2), 151–158. Westervelt, E. (2013, November 21). Unrelenting poverty leads to ‘desperation’ in Philly schools [Audio File]. In M. Block & R. Siegal’s All things considered. Washington, DC: National Public Radio. Zembylas, M. (2010). Teachers’ emotional experiences of growing diversity and multiculturalism in schools and the prospects of an ethic of discomfort. Teaching and Teachers: Theory and Practice, 16(6), 703–716.

CHAPTER 4

IT TAKES A GLOBAL VILLAGE The Design of an Internship-Based Teacher Education Study Abroad Program Helen A. Marx and David M. Moss

Within the literature on teacher education, there has been a consistent call to prepare preservice teachers who are culturally responsive, socially just, and global-minded (Apple, 2011; Darling-Hammond, 2006). Research suggests that many preservice teachers, the majority of whom are White, European American, middle-class women, have been raised in culturally encapsulated communities. The literature also asserts that they are often unaware of their own cultural identities, they have limited intercultural experiences, and they lack knowledge about the role culture, ethnicity, and race play in schooling, teaching, and learning (Hodgkinson, 2002; Howard & Aleman, 2008; Nieto, 2004). Teacher educators have sought ways to help preservice teachers increase their intercultural competence and their commitment to providing equitable educational experiences for all students (Gay, 2000; McAllister & Irvine, 2000). To that end, there is a growing body of research on teacher education study abroad experiences (Mahon & Cushner, 2002, 2007; Malewski & Phillion, 2009; Marx & Moss, 2011). We contend that

A Reader of Narrative and Critical Lenses on Intercultural Teaching and Learning, pages 53–72 Copyright © 2017 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 53

54    H. A. MARX and D. M. MOSS

internship-based teacher education study abroad programs may be a powerful vehicle in promoting preservice teachers’ intercultural competence and commitment to providing equitable educational experiences for all students (Cushner & Brennan, 2007; Marx & Moss, 2011; Marx, in press). We present in this chapter a description of a semester-long, internshipbased teacher education study abroad program, which we call the London Program, with the goal of sharing what we have learned over the past 10  years about the design of such a program. There are many different types of study abroad programs, each with different learning goals (Moss & Marcus, 2015). The London Program seeks to influence students’ intercultural development, particularly to improve their capacity and commitment to effectively communicate and work within domestic intercultural educational contexts. As we will describe, this type of international program relies on the involvement of many professionals, both domestically and abroad, who understand and are committed to providing the types of challenges and support needed to help foster students’ intercultural learning (Marx & Moss, 2011). Indeed, we will argue that it takes a village—a global village—to facilitate an international experiential program with the goal of preparing culturally responsive, socially just, and global-minded teachers. We have spent the past 15 years trying to understand how to best engage preservice teachers in intercultural learning through international experiences. We come from different disciplines: Helen from social studies education and David from environmental education. Yet we share a passion for global education and experiential learning. David’s work as director of a teacher education study abroad program was the catalyst for this work. When David first began to work on the London Program, he had already designed, researched, and taught in experiential learning programs domestically and had participated in international research field experiences. However, he found the task of designing and facilitating a semester-long international teaching internship program dedicated to developing students’ cultural competence a new challenge. David was new to the position, and he searched for a clearer understanding of the aims of the program and the ways he might use his knowledge of experiential learning within the design and development of this study abroad program. At the time Helen was a doctoral student in David’s department, who was looking for research opportunities that would allow her to explore intercultural development. The London Program became the focus of her doctoral research, and we have continued to work together in both the research and design of the program for 10 years. Our professional research collaboration has enabled us to continually improve the design and implementation of the London Program over the years, gaining insight along the way about how the design of study abroad programs might support preservice student teachers’ intercultural development.

It Takes a Global Village    55

We begin this chapter with a description of the London Program, focusing on the design elements that span the predeparture, in-country immersion, and re-entry phases of the program. In this section we detail the coursework that crosses all three phases of the program and discuss the program personnel that are crucial to sustaining the program. Then, drawing on our decade of work designing and researching this program, we offer insights into key aspects of the design of such programs. We end by suggesting critical questions that might guide further inquiry into such programs and considering the significance of international experiences within teacher education. THE DESIGN OF A TEACHER EDUCATION STUDY ABROAD PROGRAM Overview of the London Program The London Program is a semester-long international internship experience that takes place in the fifth and final year of an integrated bachelor’s/ master’s (IB/M) teacher education program. The students complete their student teaching in their fourth year of the program and this international field experience occurs during the fall term of their master’s year. The cohort of students who are engaged in the London Program commit to a year-long experience that begins with coursework prior to the international experience and continues for a semester after they return. During the semester abroad, the students complete a 20-hour-a-week internship in a London school and conduct a graduate-level research project (known as the inquiry project), both of which are supported by coursework and seminars. The internship, seminar, and inquiry project in the fifth year of the IB/M program are designed to provide the preservice teachers with opportunities to develop leadership skills, critically reflect upon the sociocultural and political dimensions of schooling to a depth that may not have been possible before their student teaching experience, understand how research and inquiry can be used to promote positive change and reflective decisionmaking, and increase students’ intercultural communication competence. The London Program’s sequence of courses is detailed in Table 4.1. The London Program includes a number of components that are cited as important characteristics of study abroad program design: a) experiential learning situations that provide opportunities for intensive immersion into the local culture, b) credit-bearing coursework related to cross-cultural issues, and c) support for guided cultural reflection (Engle & Engle, 2003). The London Program would be classified as an “island program” (Norris & Dwyer, 2005), where students stay together as a cohort for classes and living

56    H. A. MARX and D. M. MOSS TABLE 4.1  London Program Course Sequence Summer Session: Home Campus–Pre-Program • Introduction to Culture and Research Course (3 credits) Instructor: Faculty Program Director (David), with quest speaker (Helen). The course is an introduction to global education, culture, and culturally responsive teaching, research design and methodology. It also includes background information on the British education system, work on the inquiry project, and a pre-departure orientation. This is a hybrid course that takes place over the summer and in the first days of the fall semester. The course begins on-campus a four-day long seminar and workshop class sessions at the beginning of the summer term (24 hours of class meeting time). The students then work independently and collaboratively work over the duration of the summer, focusing on research related to their inquiry topic and British culture. The class reconvenes at the start of the fall semester immediately prior to departure for two more full days of coursework (16 hours). Fall Semester: London Program Study Abroad • Seminar and Internship (6 credits) Instructor: Faculty Program Director (David). The students engage in a 20 hour, three day a week internship in an urban London school. The focus of the seminar is on facilitating the inquiry project and exploring contemporary issues in British schooling. The seminar is student-led in London with the faculty member supervising remotely using synchronous technology. Intensive seminar-related work occurs with the faculty member during his weeklong visit to London mid-semester. • History of Educational Thought (3 credits) Instructor: Taught by an instructor in London hired by the home university. Typically the instructor has been a teacher at one of the internship schools. The focus of this course is on curriculum and history of the British Education system. • Comparative International Education (3 credit) Instructor: Taught by an instructor in London hired by the home university. The instructor has been, most often, the head teacher at one of the internship sites. The course is a comparative cultures course. The focus in the course was both on critical cultural reflection through discussion and journal writing as well as on reflection and support related to the internship experiences. Spring Semester: Home Campus–Re-Entry • Seminar and Internship (6 credits) Instructor: Faculty Program Director (David). The students engage in a 20-hour per week internship in a professional development school. The seminar focuses on the inquiry project, reflection on the recent intercultural experience and the transition back into U.S. schools, issues underpinning critical race theory, and preparation for the upcoming inservice induction period. • Multicultural Education Course (3 credits) Selected from courses offered within Education School • Educational Leadership Course (3 credits) Selected from courses offered within Educational School • Elective (3 credit) Students take any advisor-approved graduate level course within University

It Takes a Global Village    57

accommodations while abroad, and where they are not affiliated with a host country institution. In the London Program, students remain together as a cohort through the initial summer class, their study abroad in London, and during the seminar in the re-entry spring semester back on their home campus. Similar to their home university peers, the fifth-year students in the London Program used their school-based internship as the context of their inquiry project. However, for the London Program students, internships take place in London in the fall and then in a U.S. school in the spring. These internships, both international and domestic, become the catalyst for the student’s year-long inquiry into the intersection of schooling and culture. The core of the program is a 15-week semester in London, where students complete 20-hour-a-week internship in city schools. London was chosen as the international site for this program because it affords ample opportunity for the student interns to engage in a multicultural and urban cultural context, while being able to quickly overcome linguistic barriers; the students enrolled in the teacher education program are almost exclusively speakers of English. Given the scale of the primary and secondary education system in London, partner schools have been selected that consistently perform at the highest level according to the league tables (published rankings of schools). Thus, within their internships, the London Program participants have experienced many best practices of education in a culturally complex urban setting. The London Program students speak the language of instruction of their internship schools, and therefore they are able to take on the responsibilities of a teacher rather quickly. While facility with the language is one of the benefits of placing students in internships in English-speaking countries, there is concern that the lack of a language barrier might allow students to not notice cultural differences or experience the cultural dissonance that is thought to be important in intercultural growth (Edwards, 2000). As we will describe later, the London Program intentionally tries to create opportunities for students to experience cultural dissonance during their immersion experiences. The London Program coursework makes the study of culture explicit, with a clear focus on unpacking cultural differences that might otherwise go unnoticed by students. For example, students explore the role of mandated religion education in London schools, and are encouraged to consider the cultural norms and realities that make such a course possible—even desirable—in London and fraught with challenges back in the United States.

58    H. A. MARX and D. M. MOSS

Pre-Departure Course: Making Cultural Learning the Focus Although students are abroad for just one academic semester, the London Program spans more than a full calendar year. Our experiences in running the program over the years is that the program components that take place before and after the international experience are as important to students’ intercultural learning as the design of the international experience. Research has found that predeparture and re-entry experiences provide students with the support that they need to enter into a challenging international experience and to make sense of international experience in ways that support their intercultural learning (Martin & Harrell, 2004; Marx & Moss, 2014; Wilson & Flournoy, 2007). Thus, intentionally planning for cultural learning across all the three phases of any international experience—predeparture, international experience, and re-entry—is vital. We begin with a discussion of the predeparture and re-entry phases of the London Program. Our students’ experiences in the program begin when they apply to the program during January of their senior year (immediately before they begin student teaching) and eight months prior to heading to London. Selection for this program is competitive. Unfortunately, there are more students who want to participate in the program than can be accommodated. In a program with about 100 teacher candidates, a cohort of 12–16 students is accepted into the London Program. The number of participants in the London Program has intentionally been kept small; as will become clear, the intensive nature of the collaborative inquiry project and the critical cultural reflection that occurs in the seminar necessitates this cohort size. Students are notified of their admission status in February, and they begin to work closely with David in May as their student teaching experience comes to a close. This work begins with a handoff meeting, where the outgoing London Program cohort meets with the newly admitted cohort. The outgoing cohort formally presents their inquiry project to the new group and shares information about navigating many of the cultural aspects of the program, including living, interning, and studying in London. The inquiry project research question of the new cohort has often (but has not always) built upon the work of the previous group. This handoff meeting has proven to be an important event in the learning of both groups, helping the outgoing group bring closure to their year of cultural work, and allowing the new cohort of students to imagine themselves as successful researchers and intercultural learners. In May, the students officially begin their course of study in the London Program as they begin their Introduction to Culture and Research course, which is taught by David and joined by Helen as a guest teacher in the first section of the course. Student work for this course spans the entire summer.

It Takes a Global Village    59

The first part of the course is comprised of a multiday workshop in the first week of summer term. During this section of the course, students engage in activities and discussions related to the construct of culture and theories of intercultural development (Bennett, 2004; Gay, 2000). Through presentations, readings, and videos they explore aspects of the English school system as a comparative context for the consideration of school cultural and professional norms. The students also begin the process of developing a focus for their collaborative inquiry project, which will dominate their individual and cooperative group work that takes place across the rest of the summer. In recent years inquiry projects have explored aspects of culturally responsive teaching, globalization and the British national curriculum, and issues underpinning English language learning in London schools. For the balance of the summer session, students work together electronically (occasionally meeting in person with each other and/or David) on refining their research questions and completing the introductory section of their inquiry project. This assignment encourages them to dig deeply into the literature and generate a group product that includes a substantial literature review and discussion of the context of their pending research project. In the first days of the fall semester, the group reconvenes on campus for a two-day workshop immediately prior to departing for London. Students review the status of their inquiry project, continue their intercultural learning with a focus on considering ethnographic methods for learning about culture within a field placement, and prepare for their imminent departure in terms of program logistics. At this point the students have been intensively working toward this departure date for more than four months. Following this predeparture course, the students board a plane together and head to London. A description of their experiences while in London will be presented later in the chapter, but we turn now to a description of the re-entry semester. The Re-Entry Semester: Continuing the Learning Once Home The re-entry process starts in the last weeks of the students’ time in London, as they begin to think about returning home and to their internships in U.S. schools. Students return home in December, during the winter holidays, and come to campus in January ready for their final semester of the IB/M program. The cohort remains together in a seminar during the reentry semester. This provides a dedicated space during their re-entry semester for the cohort to make sense of their international experience. It also allows them to focus their cultural reflection within their internship in a

60    H. A. MARX and D. M. MOSS

U.S. school as a vehicle for cultural comparison and intercultural learning (Marx & Moss, 2014). They begin the spring semester already having completed a first draft of the inquiry project. During their semester in London, they had refined their research questions, honed their research methodology, and collected and analyzed data. In the spring, they finish writing their project and consider the implications of their research for their own practice and for teaching and learning. In the re-entry seminar, then, they once more use their internships and inquiry projects to engage in critical reflection and intercultural learning, supported in seminar and other coursework by readings related to issues of culture, race, and equity. The cohort ends the re-entry semester by presenting their inquiry project to the newly forming London program cohort. This handoff meeting is, as stated previously, an important point of closure for the group. The cohort participants take this meeting very seriously, and they have long discussions about what they should talk about with the new cohort, clearly beginning to think about the process of intercultural learning and how they, as more experienced intercultural learners, might facilitate the process for others. By the time of the handoff meeting, the London Program cohort has been engaged in explicit intercultural learning for one calendar year. While it is the international experience that receives that most attention from many teacher educators and researchers, as we stated earlier, we contend that equal attention must be paid to the design and research of learning experiences within the predeparture and re-entry phase of a program. These phases are vital to the success of a program and should not be overlooked. The importance of the sustained attention to intercultural learning and development, spanning predeparture and re-entry, allows for students to leverage their international experiences toward growth in their professional and personal lives once they return home (Martin & Harrell, 2004; Marx & Moss, 2014; Wilson & Flournoy, 2007). The International Immersion Experience: Focus on the Internship The hallmark of the London Program is the semester students spend abroad, and we turn to a description of that now (Marx & Moss, 2011). An international immersion experience can be a unique catalyst for intercultural development, moving students forward in ways not easily possible in intercultural programs that take place within a domestic setting (Cushner & Brennan, 2007; Mahon & Cushner, 2002, 2007; Malewski & Phillion, 2009; Marx, in press; Marx & Moss, 2011). We maintain that the international internship is vital to students’ learning in the London Program, providing the

It Takes a Global Village    61

London Program students with an immersion experience where they have the opportunity to experience a culturally different educational context (Marx & Moss, 2011). The students’ internships in London schools are one of the central features of this program. Students are placed in a number of schools throughout the city in small groups, typically two to four interns per site, though the number of school sites has fluctuated from year to year. Having at least two students interning in a school is important, as it provides students with a peer to discuss what they are experiencing on an ongoing basis. Indeed, David has observed that commuting time from their housing to their internships often become important times of unpacking cultural experiences. David has intentionally not sought to make these commutes shorter; students typically are housed within the center of London and the school sites are at least a 30-minute commute by bus or the underground train system. In consultation with his colleagues at the partner internship schools, David decides on the internship site for each student, with careful consideration of the schools’ strengths and needs and with the student’s interests and designated areas for professional growth. David purposefully partners with state schools that are recognized for their excellence in working with student populations who are ethnically and linguistically diverse, and recent immigrant populations. Additionally, these schools are high achieving schools as measured by the Office of Standards in Education (OFSTED), including schools that rank among the very top of London league tables. Thus, the internships provide the London Program cohort the opportunity to be immersed in the professional culture of high performing urban schools, both supporting their growing skills as teachers and providing a different educational cultural context that serves as the vehicle for cultural reflection. David has developed relationships with these partner schools over the years, and he travels to London each spring to meet with his colleagues at these schools and discuss their work together. The spring meeting is important to the program’s success, as it provides David with an opportunity to work cooperatively with the personnel in the school. The focus of this meeting is to discuss the program’s intercultural and professional goals and engage in discussions about how to support and challenge students within these experiences. Students take on a number of professional roles within these internships and engage in countless roles decided upon mutually by interns and school personnel. In addition to working directly with teachers in classrooms, interns in the past have done the following: run after school programs, support emergent English language learners (often political refugees), develop and implemented cross-cultural lessons (e.g., comparative U.S. and British perspectives on historical topics), and support students with special

62    H. A. MARX and D. M. MOSS

needs. In addition to these leadership-focused internship activities, the cohort as graduate students, is also engaged in their inquiry project research within the schools. As they conduct research (using a variety of methodologies over the years, but most often using ethnographic techniques), the inquiry project affords them as much a reason to be in schools as the various internship activities. In addition to the intensely challenging professional experience of interning in an out-of-culture school, the students also live together in London in shared flats, take graduate level courses as a cohort, and often travel outside England together on both program-planned and individual excursions. David plays many roles within the program, directing their collaborative inquiry project and teaching their seminars, coordinating and overseeing the internship placements, and working with study abroad personnel to facilitate the logistics of the program. He is careful to strike a balance in the design of the program between proactively supporting the needs of the interns, while also intentionally designing the experience to ensure a level of dissonance necessary in their intercultural and professional learning. For example, although safety is of paramount importance in any study abroad program and secure housing is sought for the interns, the London Program housing is strategically located in flats in a London neighborhood that encourages interns to live as Londoners and interact as locals would to meet their basic needs. This is different than many study abroad programs where students stay in dormitory-style housing, which often are one-stop shops for sleeping, recreation, and dining. In this way, the program is purposefully designed to immerse students in cultural learning opportunities in as many contexts as possible across the duration of their in-country stay. Seminar and Coursework: Supporting Intercultural Learning Our research suggests that planned cultural dissonance within the immersion internship experience combined with strategic support for reflection is the key to intercultural learning in an international immersive experience (Marx & Moss, 2011; Marx, in press). In the design of the program, David does not seek to make students’ work within the internships or their lives in London culturally “easy” and does not seek to reduce what is often referred to as culture shock. Rather, he and the other instructors intentionally leverage the situations that cause students cultural dissonance as learning opportunities, framing them as intercultural puzzles and problems to be understood. For example, as students come face to face with different norms regarding issues underpinning classroom organization and management within London state schools, David and the London-based instructors

It Takes a Global Village    63

do not seek to explain away these often stark differences with U.S. schools. Rather, students are supported as they examine these experiences through a cultural lens and come to understand these observed behaviors as deeply tied to value systems within each culture. The evolution of the types of courses offered as part of the London Program over the years offers an illustrative example of how the nature of this international experience has changed over time. In the very early years of the program, it included an internship in a school supported by a seminar. However, the additional coursework that students took was general British history and literature courses; for example, students took a course on Shakespeare. Although these courses offered rigorous intellectual content, students viewed them as an ancillary component of the program, as they did not directly support their internship work, inquiry project, or other professional activity. David began to view these courses as a lens on “jolly old England” and quickly came to realize that students would be better served by a curriculum that explicitly supported their professional work and helped them navigate contemporary London and the ethnic and linguistic diversity they experienced within their internships. David developed the two courses currently offered within the program that have a clear focus on supporting the students’ examination of the intersection of culture and schooling. Providing support for cultural reflection during an immersion experience is important (King, 2000). In the London Program, the seminar, coursework, and the students’ collaborative work on the inquiry project provide this support allowing students to engage students in critical reflection, helping students to name their confusions and conflicts, and challenging them to see the way culture is often at the heart of the dissonance they are experiencing (Marx & Moss, 2011). Through discourse regarding their internship experiences and strategically selected reading assignments, the students are supported as they develop the intercultural skills needed to successfully navigate these cross-cultural situations. That is, within this experiential model of learning, cultural learning is grounded in the very experiences interns experience, as they are afforded the intellectual space to reflect upon the various professional and day-to-day living happenings that occur across the program. Program Personnel Vital to the London Program David plays a significant role in the London program; however the program relies on a team of professionals. David works closely with the study abroad office at his home university on the logistics of the program, including student safety, housing, and travel details. The study abroad

64    H. A. MARX and D. M. MOSS

professionals, based in the Office of Global Affairs on campus, include a dozen directors and administrators. The London courses themselves meet once a week in a designated instructional space at the offices of the UConn London Study Abroad Program. These in-country offices support the overall London program for the university, including several undergraduate program tracks running across the entire academic year. Personnel at these offices include a program director, program assistants, and a residential assistant. This office is responsible for a host of essential activities supporting the in-country academic programming, especially the initiation of the travel documentation essential for students studying and interning in London. David works closely with this staff across the year, meeting with them during both yearly visits to London. David has also cultivated a team of educators that work to support and challenge students in their intercultural learning. The London Program students interact with a number of educators, both from England and the United States, who are essential to the students’ learning. As noted previously, while in London the cohort participants’ take two courses: History of Educational Thought and Comparative International Education. These courses are specifically designed to complement each other and to support students’ work on their inquiry project and intercultural learning taking place in the internship schools. The instructors for these courses have varied over the years, though English school administrators or college-level faculty have always taught them. David selects and oversees these instructors, working with them closely on course design prior to the semester and meeting with them during his two yearly visits to London. David, as both program director and seminar instructor, also works closely with the internship mentors. David visits all London-based school sites and meets with school-based personnel in the spring and fall of each year during his visits to London. DISCUSSION Thus far in this chapter we have described the London Program. Over the past 15 years, through a process of ongoing program revision, research, and reflection we have sought to understand how the London Program influences students’ intercultural growth (Marx & Moss, 2011; Marx & Moss, 2014). Our practice and research have been influenced by theories of experiential education (Kolb, Boyatzis, & Mainemelis, 2001) and intercultural communication (Bennett, 2004). We turn now to a discussion of the key concepts our experience indicates should inform the design of international teacher education programs.

It Takes a Global Village    65

We propose that avenues for continual support of critical cultural reflection must be included within any international immersion experience (Marx, in press; Marx & Moss, 2011). Critical cultural reflection does not come easily. Students are being asked to reconsider deeply held understandings, to be critical of existing systems within which they live, and to struggle with the notion that there may be multiple ways of understanding and making sense of an experience, depending on one’s position within that experience. These are essential, yet complex and difficult tasks that require learning environments where students feel supported and safe (King, 2000; Parks Daloz, 2000). We have learned that intercultural guides are essential to a successful international program, as they are the key to facilitating reflection grounded in experience (Marx & Moss, 2011). As we have researched, designed, and run the London Program over the past 15 years, it has become clear to us that it takes a village of intercultural guides from both cultures to support students as they engage in critical cultural reflection within their international immersion experience. David is an essential intercultural guide for the students throughout the year. However, others support him throughout the process. The London school personnel at the internships sites and the London-based faculty are crucial guides in their uncovering of British schooling culture. The London-based faculty promote constant comparative reflection across U.S. and British cultures, affording students the opportunity to reflect upon the dissonance they are feeling, consider cultural explanations for what they are experiencing, and compare their emerging thinking in contrast with their established worldviews. Also, it has become clear over the years that within this international experience it is essential to promote a safe learning environment, where students are encouraged to explore in an honest and deep fashion the sometimes challenging and difficult beliefs and understandings of cultural norms. Substantial effort is required by intercultural guides to ensure that through classroom discourse, journaling, response to prompts, and other activities students are not merely parroting the ideas and perspectives of their guides, but are struggling to make sense for themselves of the cultural context they are finding themselves in and learning to think ethnographically as they encounter difference. Further, intercultural learning takes significant support and requires adequate time to process such elemental learning experiences. Our experiences and research indicate that the full year dedicated to this program, and the careful design across predeparture, international experience, and re-entry, provides the time and space necessary, both internationally and domestically, to help young teachers begin to walk down the path toward culturally responsive teaching (Marx & Moss, 2011; Marx & Moss, 2014). Additionally, such safe intellectual space is fostered over this

66    H. A. MARX and D. M. MOSS

period, and thus the year-long program affords ample opportunity to come to know students as people and learners and to build mutual trust. This is perhaps the most important element of establishing and maintaining such an environment. AUTHOR REFLECTIONS In our experiences, we have found that it is rare to meet a student who does not count an international study abroad program as one of the more powerful experiences of their lives. Over the years, our collaboration on the design and research of the London program has shaped us both personally and professionally. In the world of academia, one’s personal thinking and passion for the subject under study is often not talked about. This is ironic, for scholarship and inquiry are nothing if not driven by passion and fueled by intense, and at times obsessive, interest in the phenomenon under study. Each of the authors has been drawn to qualitative research methods because of the acknowledgement within the field that researchers must make our personhood—our thoughts, passions, and biases—explicitly part of the research process. The notion that we must be reflexive and reflective grounds both of our understandings of scholarship and teaching. Parker Palmer (1998) eloquently expressed the importance of self-knowledge in both teaching and research: In fact, knowing my students and my subject depends heavily on self-knowledge. When I do not know myself, I cannot know who my students are. I will see them through a glass darkly, in the shadows of my unexamined life. . . . When I do not know myself, I cannot know my subject—not at the deepest levels of embodied, personal meaning. I will know it only abstractly, from a distance, a congeries of concepts as far removed from the world as I am from personal truth. (p. 2)

We have used our collaboration together to support each other’s continual self-exploration, particularly as we each have grown in our understanding of our own cultural complexities and learned to respect and honor the difficult and challenging task we are asking of students as we design experiences meant to influence their cultural consciousness. A large part of our work together has included honest and often difficult conversations about our own intercultural trajectories. In the following both of us offer our reflections from a first person singular vantage. For me, Helen, my work within the field of intercultural competence changed the way I work with preservice teachers. Prior to my work in this field, I struggled in my teaching, not clear how to move students who were “culturally unresponsive” forward in their understandings of diversity and

It Takes a Global Village    67

culturally responsive teaching. I now realize that I lacked the theoretical understanding of intercultural development. My research and teaching was dramatically changed by my study of Bennett’s (1998) developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. This work has provided me with a conceptual understanding—a mindset—that allows me to see my students’ cultural development as a process of growth, and importantly as something that can be learned and taught. I approach students now with a deeper ability to openheartedly meet them where they are. I have a renewed understanding that my role as a teacher is to create experiences that are appropriately matched to their level of readiness, and to challenge and support their growth. At the same time, I have come to challenge myself in this area. Although I was raised Irish American, I have spent the past 10 years studying Balkan music and dance. My own personal process of cultural learning and my need to negotiate intercultural relationships with my teachers has been humbling and exciting, requiring me to increase my intercultural skills through a constant process of negotiation, missteps, and mutual respect. I am always reminded, in my personal and professional life, that cultural learning is a lifelong, complex, and transformative process. For me, David, my current role as intercultural guide for students in our international programs has been among the most satisfying work of my career. I approach this role recognizing that it is firmly grounded in my roots as an experiential educator and presently affords me the opportunity to facilitate transformational, impactful learning opportunities for my students. Helping individuals learn to “see culture” through participation in study abroad was not a skillset I brought to the early years of my professional work, but one that I have cultivated purposefully over time. Such ongoing professional learning has set the stage for me to facilitate similar experiences for others by directly combating the notion that cultural learning merely happens when we visit new places. Moving forward, a key challenge that remains for me as a cultural guide is regarding the assessment of intercultural learning for students, which is often contextual and nonlinear. Helen and I have developed a suite of resources called myCAP (my cultural awareness profile) to nudge this aspect of the field forward (Moss, Marx, & Helms, in press). Providing teacher education candidates clear perspectives underpinning their own intercultural journey and guidance regarding next steps keeps me engaged in the field as a scholar and teacher. We have learned so much working together on our research. One of our strongest conclusions, as we argue here and elsewhere (Marx & Moss, 2011, 2014; Marx, in press; Moss & Marcus, 2015), is that it is not enough to just send students on an international experience. Instead, we firmly believe that teacher educators must intentionally design international experiences that employ best practices of experiential and transformational learning.

68    H. A. MARX and D. M. MOSS

Over the years we have increased our understanding about the design of international experiences that foster intercultural development, yet so many questions remain to be explored. CRITICAL QUESTIONS As we seek to improve our practice, we continually return to questions regarding the nature of the educative experiences in intercultural settings. We further seek to examine the ways that we can intentionally design such programs to support intercultural development, and how and if such programs influence participants’ long-term commitments to culturally responsive teaching and social justice. Advancing teacher educators’ work designing intercultural, international field experiences for preservice teachers, the following critical questions can guide scholarly inquiry: 1. Supporting preservice teachers’ intercultural development within international programs requires professionals that understand intercultural learning and who have the capacities to deftly balance the cultural challenge and reflective support needed to move students forward. What skills and mindsets do teacher educators responsible for designing and sustaining such programs need? How are teacher educators prepared for their roles as intercultural guides? 2. International experiential programs rely heavily on partnerships with local schools, but little scholarly attention has been paid to the reciprocal intercultural impact that such partnerships inevitably evoke. How do teacher education study abroad programs impact host country collaborators, including the teaching staff, host country school children, and communities and homestay families? What are U.S. teacher educators’ responsibilities to host country communities? As we design and seek to sustain such programs, how do we create structures that allow us to responsibly address the needs, concerns, and potential negative impacts of our programs on host country schools and communities? 3. International programs have been proposed as an avenue to support preservice teachers’ commitments to culturally responsive teaching practices. As discussed in this chapter, there is some evidence that participants in such programs learn to see culture in new ways, often becoming more culturally conscious and able to consider the ways schooling is embedded within larger cultural contexts. However, it is not clear how or if participation in international programs supports participant’s long-term commitments to social justice. In what ways can teacher educators leverage the

It Takes a Global Village    69

emerging intercultural capacities of students within these intensive international experiences once they return home to their own culture, with an eye toward continued intercultural development and a deepening commitment to equity and social justice? International experiences, like study abroad programs, are often offered as a powerful way to prepare teachers who are committed to social justice and capable of working effectively within ethnically diverse communities. These questions about how to design such experiences so that they influence students’ intercultural development are vital for educators. It is imperative that we pay close attention to the aims of our efforts to ensure that these experiences are truly educational. It is further imperative that we have to continue to struggle to understand how best to design these programs toward clear intercultural and socially just goals, grounded in a commitment to preparing students to be effective teachers within domestically diverse schools. EDUCATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE In the design of international immersion experiences for preservice teachers with the intent of influencing intercultural development, it is important not to assume that all (or just any) experience will lead to intercultural learning. Over 70 years ago John Dewey (1938) set out a theory of education that articulated the vital role experience plays in the learning process. His words continue to ring true and should remain the foundation for how educators approach experiential learning design. Cautioning educators to attend to the types of experiences students engage in, Dewey (1938) warned that the “belief that all genuine education comes about through experience does not mean that all experiences are genuinely or equally educative. Experience and education cannot be directly equated to each other” (p. 25). His writing should be a reminder to those interested in intercultural experiential education that there is a need to pay careful attention to the nature and design of the experiences we offer to students, stating: “It is not enough to insist upon the necessity of experience, nor even of activity in experience. Everything depends upon the quality of the experience which is had” (p. 27). Further, Dewey called attention to the need to consider how the experience had today will play a role in a student’s learning in the future, warning that “the central problem of an education based upon experience is to select the kind of present experiences that live fruitfully and creatively in subsequent experiences” (p. 28). We propose that Dewey’s clear focus on both the nature of an experience and the role an experience

70    H. A. MARX and D. M. MOSS

plays in future development must be a guiding principle in work related to the design of the international teacher education experience. Dewey also reminds us that it is the interplay between experience and reflection that is the focus of experiential learning theory, and it must be a vital component of any international learning experience. Schön (1987) has influenced the design of teacher education programs where there has been an increased emphasis on ways to foster reflection within well-designed and supported field experiences. As teacher educators work to prepare culturally responsive and global-minded teachers, sensitive to their responsibilities as socially just educators, we must ensure that our preservice teachers not only reflect on the more technical aspects of the teaching craft, but that they also attend to the cultural aspects of teaching and learning. Calling attention to the need to reflect on culture, race, and context in learning to teach, Gay and Kirkland (2003) recommended that “teachers knowing who they are as people, understanding the contexts in which they teach, and questioning their knowledge and assumptions are as important as the mastery of techniques for instructional effectiveness” (p. 181). Further, Howard (2003) proposed that a crucial step in developing culturally relevant teaching practices is preservice teachers’ ability to “critically reflect on their own racial and cultural identities and to recognize how these identities coexist with the cultural compositions of their students” (p. 19). Teacher educators have sought ways to prepare preservice teachers who are culturally responsive, socially just, and global minded (Apple, 2011; Darling-Hammond, 2006). There is a growing body of research on teacher education study abroad experiences that highlight the potential of such programs to impact preservice teachers’ intercultural development (Mahon & Cushner, 2002, 2007; Malewski & Phillion, 2009; Marx & Moss, 2011). In this chapter we have proposed that internship-based teacher education study abroad programs are a powerful vehicle in promoting preservice teachers’ intercultural competence. In the years to come, teacher education will continue to face pressure from external forces that may hinder innovative program models. Scholars and teachers committed to preservice teachers’ intercultural development must actively resist such efforts, deepening research bases on the design and influence of international experiential programs, and advocating policies and practices that offer transformative intercultural learning experiences within their teacher education programs. REFERENCES Apple, M. (2011). Global crises, social justice, and teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(2), 222–234.

It Takes a Global Village    71 Bennett, M. J. (1998). Intercultural communication: A current perspective. In M. J. Bennett (Ed.), Basic concepts of intercultural communication (pp. 1–34). Boston, MA: Intercultural Press. Bennett, M. J. (2004). Becoming interculturally competent. In J. Wurzel (Ed.), Toward multiculturalism: A reader in multicultural education (pp. 62–77). Newton, MA: Intercultural Resource Corporation. Cushner, K., & Brennan, S. (2007). The value of learning to teach in another culture. In K. Cushner & S. Brennan (Eds.), Intercultural student teaching: A bridge to global competence (pp. 1–12). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 300–314. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan. Edwards, J. (2000). The “other Eden”: Thoughts on American study abroad in Britain. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 6, 83–98. Engle, L., & Engle, J. (2003). Study abroad levels: Toward a classification of program types. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 9, 1–20. Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Gay, G., & Kirkland, K. (2003). Developing cultural critical consciousness and selfreflection in preservice teacher education. Theory into Practice, 42(3), 181–187. Hodgkinson, H. (2002). Demographics and teacher education: An overview. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 102–105. Howard, T. C. (2003). Culturally relevant pedagogy: Ingredients for critical teacher reflection. Theory into Practice, 42(3), 195–202. Howard, T. C., & Aleman, G. R. (2008). Teacher capacity for diverse learners: What do teachers need to know? In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feinman-Nemser, J. McIntyre, & K. Demers (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts (pp. 155–174). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. King, P. M. (2000). Learning to make reflective judgments. In M. Baxter Magolda (Ed.), Teaching to promote intellectual and personal maturing: Incorporating students’ worldviews and identities into the learning process: New directions for teaching and learning (pp. 15–26). New York, NY: Jossey-Bass. Kolb, D., Boyatzis, R., & Mainemelis, C. (2001). Experiential learning theory: Previous research and new directions. In R. Sternberg & L. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning and cognitive styles (pp. 227–247). New York, NY: Routledge. Mahon, J., & Cushner, K. (2002). The overseas student teaching experience: Creating optimal cultural learning. Multicultural Perspectives, 4(3), 3–8. Mahon, J., & Cushner, K. (2007). The impact of overseas student teaching on personal and professional development. In K. Cushner & S. Brennan (Eds.), Intercultural student teaching: A bridge to global competence (pp. 57–87). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Malewski, E., & Phillion, J. (2009). International field experiences: The impact of class, gender and race on the perceptions and experiences of preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education 25(1), 52–60.

72    H. A. MARX and D. M. MOSS Martin, J. N., & Harrell, T. (2004). Intercultural re-entry of students and professionals: Theory and practice. In D. Landis, J. M. Bennett, & M. J. Bennett (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (3rd ed.; pp. 309–336). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Marx, H. (in press). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: An intercultural developmental approach. In M. Fang He & J. Phillion (Eds.), Internationalizing teaching and teacher education for equity: Engaging alternative knowledges across ideological borders. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Marx, H., & Moss, D. M. (2011). Please mind the culture gap: Intercultural development during a teacher education study abroad program. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(1), 35–47. Marx, H., & Moss, D. M. (2014). Coming home: Continuing intercultural learning upon re-entry from a teacher education study abroad program. [Manuscript submitted for publication]. McAllister, G., & Irvine, J. J. (2000). Cross-cultural competency and multicultural teacher education. Review of Educational Research, 70(1), 3–24. Moss, D. M., & Marcus, A. (2015). Over there: Exploring a World War II themed short duration study abroad program. In D. Schwarzer & B. L. Bridglall (Eds.), Promoting global competence and social justice in teacher education. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Moss, D. M., Marx, H., & Helms, B. (in press). MyCAP assessment instrument. Washington, DC: NAFSA, Association of International Educators. Nieto, S. (2004). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education (4th ed.). New York, NY: Allyn & Bacon. Norris, E., & Dwyer, M. (2005). Testing assumptions: The impact of two study abroad program models. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad. 11, 121–142. Parker Palmer, P. J. (1998). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s life (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Parks Daloz, L. (2000). Transformative learning for the common good. In J. Mezirow (Ed.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on theory in progress (pp. 103–124). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Wilson, A., & Flournoy, M. A., (2007). Preparatory courses for student teaching abroad. In K. Cushner & S. Brennan (Eds.), Intercultural student teaching: A bridge to global competence (pp. 34–56). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

SECTION II EXPANDED INTERCULTURAL UNDERSTANDINGS OF PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND ACCREDITATION STANDARDS

This page intentionally left blank.

CHAPTER 5

ADVANCING THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF TEACHER EDUCATION AND SOCIAL JUSTICE The Critical Role of Professional Associations and Their Members Jennifer Mahon

If, in some distant time, time travelers were to visit a museum of the United States in the 21st century, they would likely see diverse and creative samples of art, sculpture, film, photography, and architecture representing many traditions, perspectives, and cultural backgrounds. It would be a dramatic collection of artifacts drawing upon brilliant hues, an array of artistic styles, and a range of media all displayed in an installation designed to create wonder— wonder about the people those images captured and the lives they led. Imagine one display these visitors would see, that of the United States and its classrooms. They might even recognize some familiar stories or ideas in the

A Reader of Narrative and Critical Lenses on Intercultural Teaching and Learning, pages 75–90 Copyright © 2017 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 75

76    J. MAHON .

books displayed. They might see a banner hung on a wall of little figures of all colors smiling in the same language and successfully joining hands for learning—just like an expansion bridge connected cable by cable. They would see pictures and posters of joyful children, of inspirational sayings, of starred and stickered proofs of learning. Initially such a display might leave an impression of a harmonious utopia, an Oz-like place with a panoply of cultures successfully sitting and learning together engaged in a democratic process of teaching and learning. Upon closer inspection, however, they might notice something of the students and teachers. In drawing, painting, photo, or film clip they would see educators at the head of the class who look remarkably alike, as if the teachers were all in uniform. But oddly the students share no such sameness. If the students could talk to our time-traveling friends, would they concur with the image this artistic installation conveyed—a place successfully bridging old and new, similar and different? Would they say that school was indeed a place where they learned, where they felt valued, where they felt safe, and where their voices were heard? Or, placing an ear closer, might our visitors hear a low, aching chorus of lessons which did not quite connect to their experiences, of fearful glances cast on them by teacher and classmates, of language barriers, and of expectations that seemed to be lower for some than others? Ironically, what they would hear might be the lack of any voice at all, in a place where the bridge had never been erected in the first place, and which differed greatly from the image conveyed. (Mahon, 2003, pp.1–3)

It has been more than a decade since I wrote those words, and yet they still ring so true. We know so much about our place of learning, and about learners in their place. We know so much less about the world as a place of learning. The curriculum of international education is dominated by the never-ending rhetoric of the imperative for global, 21st century workplace skills—that is, do well on the international standardized math tests, and graduate more engineers. Since the advent of A Nation at Risk in 1983, No Child Left Behind in 2001, and Race to the Top in 2007, there has been rampant criticism of the education profession for its failure to produce graduates with skills for the global economy (Spring, 2014). In 2013, the secretary of education, Arne Duncan, emphasized the importance of this as he opened International Education Week with a speech, entitled “Building a Stronger Pipeline of Globally-Competent Citizens:” Today, a nation’s prosperity depends on its people’s ability to thrive in the global marketplace. This is true for the U.S. and for our neighbors across the globe. What’s more, in a nation as diverse as ours, the ability to interact comfortably and confidently with people of all backgrounds and points of view is

Advancing the Internationalization of Teacher Education and Social Justice     77 critical. And that makes it more important than ever to provide all students with a well-rounded, world-class education—including opportunities to gain global competencies and world language skills, to understand other cultures, and to study abroad. President Obama and I clearly understand that we live in an age where jobs know no borders, and where education is the new currency. These new realities have helped shape our federal education agenda. We’re working to ensure that all students are academically prepared, globally competent and internationally successful. To help keep America safe, partner effectively with our allies, and collaborate with other nations in solving global challenges, we need professionals with solid cultural knowledge and language skills that cover all parts of the globe. . . .  These programs also help America’s higher education institutions, including community colleges, to build the nation’s capacity in foreign languages and area and international studies. But, we need to start thinking even more broadly than those students who’ll go on to work in key fields like national security, diplomacy, and global commerce. We need to give all students the kind of well-rounded education that equips them with an understanding an openness to the world, and rich experiences with other cultures and languages. These 21st century skills are just as important to help preserve a rich, multicultural society, and a thriving democracy, right here at home. (U.S. Department of Education, 2013)

It is teachers who are charged with ensuring students achieve such world class competencies. Consequently, it follows that teacher education programs would shift toward globalizing or internationalizing the preparation of teachers. Yet those of us engaged in this work know that there is so much more to the picture than that painted for us by the secretary, politicians, or the media. We believe that internationalization is a both/and. That is, it is not just about what can be gained for Americans, rather we ask how can our efforts be mutually beneficial? How can we change the world through this education? We believe we can bridge cultural differences. We want global skills to include intercultural understanding; critical thinking about world, events; and skills to communicate across cultures. However, to achieve our vision we must engage in the kind of struggle advocated by Freire (1970). As a community of educational professionals, we must ask critical and difficult questions, and we must also become actively involved. Ironically, Horton and Freire (1990) asserted that we make the road by walking. Our road wraps around the world! We need to work together much harder to direct the agenda of the internationalization of our field, because right now our voice is muted, our ideas are on the periphery. In fact they just seem like pictures on the wall.

78    J. MAHON

TRAVELING BACK IN TIME My commitment to international education is long and deep. In this chapter, I argue for the internationalization of teacher education, not only because I have researched it, but because I have lived it. I have witnessed its effects on my own students—and their students. I know the power of such an education. It was a high school history teacher, naturally, that ignited my fire to see the world. I perhaps owe much of my career to that man, Dr. K. As I wrote in 2003: It strikes me to call Dr. K’s widow, to find out his favorite quote, since it was he who taught me the intoxication of teaching, and of international issues, by opening up the world with history. I realize now, just now, how full circle I’ve come. It was through his stories and his life that the world was created in my mind. (Mahon, p. 404)

I had finally “made it out” when I earned a Rotary International Scholarship to begin an Australian graduate studies program in multicultural education. This was my introduction to a global world. I distinctly remember walking into the student union for the first time where I saw faces of so many colors. At my sheltered U.S. university I rarely came in contact with anyone who was not White. Attending the large Australian university as an international graduate student was a life-changing moment, an awakening of sorts 22 years ago that would direct the trajectory of my career. Research has shown that international experiences have the potential for contributing to cultural competence (Mahon & Cushner, 2002) and unpacking issues pertaining to social justice (Sharma, Phillion, Rahatzad, & Sasser, 2014). I started the unpacking of my suitcase of White privilege in Australia. As an international student from the United States, I was given special status. Within about two weeks of my arrival, I was being welcomed by other Australians. I was, as they say, “sussed out” to ensure I was not the stereotypical loud, rude, brash American. Once that test was passed, friendship was imminent. We hung out in their rooms in the dorms, we drove to campus together, we went to the pubs together. Eventually they took me to their homes; the huge stations of vast land. We traveled together as they introduced me to some of their favorite spots in the country. In some cases, during school breaks, I lived with their families. I also noticed that the international students I had met upon my arrival were not included in many of these experiences. The darker skinned ones from Indonesia, the Samoan Islands, South Africa—they lived together and stayed together. I do not recall them ever being invited along as quickly or easily as I was. Again, from 2003 I wrote:

Advancing the Internationalization of Teacher Education and Social Justice     79 Noted Bridges (2001), one can come to a transition in life, but until one comprehends that the transition is all about the process, not the outcome, and further understands the self as the essential ingredient in the process, growth will not occur. (Mahon, 2003)

My international experience in Australia (commonly nicknamed Oz) served as my personal yellow brick road, where I began in earnest an exploration of intercultural issues. I was awed and inspired by the typical excitements of foreign travel—new sights to see, pictures to take, and people to meet. The first thing I remember seeing, being struck by, was the awesome expanse of Sydney Harbour. It was my literal and figurative gateway to the world. I had finally achieved my goal of getting out of the United States. I remember the exact spot where I stood pinching myself in a reality check, a newly certified English teacher hovering above the Jack London writer’s plaque on the Writer’s Walk of Fame. Yet somehow, I was also oddly aware of a feeling that the door to learning more about myself had also been opened. I learned so, so much about myself during my time abroad, but I learned even more about what it meant to the development of myself and my career upon reflection of it many years later, as I started to embrace my identity as an international teacher educator. Perhaps it is hyperbolic to assert, but this was like a volcanic eruption for me at the time. It was the interplay between self and very different other, that illuminated both/and. Again, from 2003 (Mahon): It’s too simple, but do we ever stop to acknowledge others in their search and expression of individuality? As children yes, but as children we live life embracing individuality to seek identity. Once that identity is established in the context of others, when again do we seek to celebrate others’ search and expression without questioning our own? Do we ever stop to congratulate ourselves on celebrating that individuality for them? And trying to understand that their individuality makes us even more free, helps us grow as people? When they are free to be and explore who they are, there is less of a concern that they will be fearful, that they will find the need to impose their will on others, or us. Zig Ziglar. You can get everything you want if only you help others get what they want. Somewhere it’s still too simple, but is it overlooked? Can simple be just that good? At any rate, it provides the connection between my two interests—self-development and international. By contributing to individuals knowing themselves, I can contribute to individuals knowing others. (pp. 378–379)

I have come through the back door of the heuristic approach to research. I was not bothered so much by my own progression, but it seemed darn important to me to illuminate that process in others. Obliviously, egotistically, I never really considered that it would illuminate so much in me.

80    J. MAHON

The international experience made me open my eyes! I did not process it all at the time, but my senses were happily overwhelmed by it all. Nearly 20 years later, I can literally still see the moment in my mind’s eye at my new Australian university student center—the black turtlenecks, the guitars, the beers and all the different faces—a world completely unlike my very White undergraduate experience. It still strikes me how I remember that. How struck I was by that moment, as if someone had just finally opened up the doors to the world and said, “Oh yeah, by the way, here it is.” WHERE AM I—WHERE ARE WE—TODAY? I do not expect every student teacher or practicing teacher in the United States to travel abroad. While I was incredibly lucky to earn a scholarship, I realize my experience springs from educational opportunities I had that others did not. As teacher educators, I believe we must widen those opportunities for our students. We must learn to operationalize international and global knowledge and skills, just as we wish to operationalize teacher skillsets that indicate understanding and a demonstration of assessment capabilities. Such a goal requires a paradigmatic shift. Knight (2004) defines internationalization of a university general education curriculum as “the process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimensions into the purpose, functions or delivery of post-secondary education (p. 6).” This definition, whether applied to a university-wide curriculum or specifically to teacher education, emphasizes the importance of “integration.” Examination of various articulations of internationalization in education (e.g., Goodwin, 2012; Mahon, 2012; Moss, Manise, & Soppelasa, 2012; Olmedo & Harbon, 2012; Shaklee & Baily, 2012) reveal similar themes. Such work must move well beyond simply the creation of citizens ready for global jobs to enhance the competitiveness of the U.S. economy. It must include a much broader and stronger knowledge base, such as cultural differences, languages, and global issues. It must include cognitive awareness of self in the broader world context as well as within the classroom, and invite students to explore their own places in the world. It must include a strong skillset, where teachers not only can teach global content and develop 21st century skills, but they can also alter their behavior and their pedagogy to communicate and operate across cultures. However, there is ample evidence that such efforts might be rare. In their report for the Asia Society, authors Mansilla and Jackson (2012) noted resistance to the internationalization of education, especially in the United States. Perhaps most perniciously in the United States—but, alas, not only in the United States—there is a deep distrust of education that attempts to transcend borders and to take seriously the customs, values, and priorities

Advancing the Internationalization of Teacher Education and Social Justice     81

of nations and regions very different from one’s own. Such provincialism and exceptionalism might grow more fervent in times of crisis. Cosmopolitanism, internationalism, and globalism are often considered dangerous concepts or even “fighting words” (p. x). Taking on the Fight: Institutional Entrepreneurship From a Social Justice Perspective In this chapter, I call on teacher educators to start replying to those fighting words and asserting our positions as experts in education, who not only recognize the value of internationalization, but who also have the data to back it up. I assert a position that educational associations and its members should engage in institutional entrepreneurship, which Garud, Hardy, and McGuire (2007) define as a concept that introduces agency, interests, and power into the institutional analyses of organizations. Furthermore, I argue here that such entrepreneurship must be from a social justice perspective. Can entrepreneurship and social justice exist in the same sentence? It is hard to imagine balancing calls for university graduates (and high school students) to exit with the skills necessary to live and work in a globalized world and also engage the tools of critical social justice all the while maintaining our (capitalist) prosperity. In the United States, this is further embedded within the blessings of liberty. According to Solinger, Fox, and Irani, (2008) social justice is both a method for identifying loci of needed change and a tool for making those changes. Ayers (1998) argued further that teaching for social justice is a way to identify and move obstacles in order for people to achieve “full humanity,” and the fundamental message is, “You can change the world” (p. xvi). In the next section, I suggest some ways we might begin to move those obstacles. AGENCY: WHO IS DOING THE WORK? WHO NEEDS TO BE DOING THE WORK? My own overseas education was financed by the Rotary International Foundation. The purpose of the aforementioned secretary of education’s speech was not just to open International Education Week, it was also to introduce a new tool and data reporting system that was developed through the Mapping the Nation Project (Asia Society, 2015). The project was a joint effort between nonprofit granting organizations, including the Asia Society and the Longview Foundation, as well as the data corporation SAS. No information was found indicating the project was funded by any federal dollars. Certainly the efforts of these organizations, as well as the secretary’s words,

82    J. MAHON

indicate clear acknowledgement of the importance of the internationalization of teacher education. These organizations, however, are generally on the periphery of education. Where are the organizations and the individuals who are central to internationalizing the curriculum and pedagogy of the profession? A more concerted and systematic effort is needed by the community of teacher education. Research indicated (Gumport & Sporn, 2000; Longview Foundation, 2008: Schneider, 2007) that for institutional internationalization to be effective, it is imperative for leaders at the highest levels to endorse, require, and enable the change. In prior work (Mahon, 2012), I have discussed barriers erected by teacher educators and administrators. There is still much to do in that area; however, as the paradigmatic gap between the current reality and the stated goal is so vast, there is a need for systematic help to become institutional entrepreneurs from a social justice perspective. Thus, for this chapter, I concentrate on calling for engagement by professional organizations and accreditation agencies in the field of teaching and teacher education that advocate for or against policy and also ensure its implementation. I found no research specific to the profession of education regarding the roles and responsibilities of associations to advocate for paradigmatic change. In order to investigate the questions at hand, I draw heavily from research and frameworks completed in the field of business, notably that of Greenwood, Suddaby, and Hinings (2002). The authors defined organizational field as “sets of organizations that, in the aggregate, constitute an area of institutional life; key suppliers, resource and product consumers, regulatory agencies and other organizations that produce similar services or products” (p. 59, citing DiMaggio & Powell, 1983, pp. 148–149). Professional associations, like state or national bodies, are considered important regulatory bodies within this aggregate. For example in the field of teacher education, the constituencies would thus involve numerous bodies: the university writ large; the surrounding school districts and boards; state agencies; unions; professional and accrediting associations; teacher development and training organizations (for profit and non-profit); and the federal, national, and international organizations involved in conversations of teacher quality. Combining the work of other scholars, (e.g., Berger & Luckman, 1967; Deephouse, 1999; Elsbach, 1994; Lawrence, 1999; Porac, Thomas, & Baden-Fuller, 1989; Scott, 1994), Greenwood et al., (2002) emphasize the interaction and influence of the various constituencies that contribute to a shared culture, socially constructed with mutually defined boundaries, values, and behaviors. There is a need to consider the current coded prescriptions regarding the internationalization of teacher education. For example, in 2006 the accreditation body for teacher education programs, the National Council for

Advancing the Internationalization of Teacher Education and Social Justice     83

Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), had a standard addressing globalization. Standard 4 stated: One of the goals of this standard is the development of educators who can help all students learn and who can teach from multicultural and global perspectives that draw on the histories, experiences, and presentations of students from diverse cultural backgrounds. (NCATE, 2006)

In the 2008 standards (NCATE, 2008), the reference to global perspectives was removed. There might be several explanations for this change in verbiage. The most expedient might be to acknowledge the contributing role of the discourse of accountability. Have our professional organizations become so immersed in channeling this discourse regarding common core alignment and data-driven everything that they have acquired tunnel vision disabling them from themselves to critically advocate for a stronger role of internationalization in not just the conceptualization of an excellent teacher but the development of one? Professional associations are important to discourse. Greenwood et al. posited that, “First they are arenas through which organizations interact and collectively represent themselves to themselves” (2002, p. 62). Associations, for example in the case of meetings and conferences, constitute the physical space as well as the opportunities for this interaction. Secondly, they noted, that the associations are negotiating mechanisms that shape the limits of the culture. Finally, associations are involved with training, certifying, and hiring individuals; and thereby, they are involved in sustaining certain practices and belief patterns. It is thus important to question whether professional organizations do more than respond to the actions of constituencies who impose changes on the profession. Can professional organizations assist in driving the development of a new policy that reflects the best practices that are recommended by the scholars and practitioners of teacher education? Can such organizations only be reactionary or can they be revolutionary? Can they “read the world” (Wink, 2011) to decode messages embedded in the people, communities, and the world around us in order to empower the profession to achieve internationalization? Drawing from Lipman (2009), I would argue for our professional bodies to present a counterhegemonic discourse. Hegemony is oppression by the powerful which is tacitly agreed upon by those who are oppressed. Challenge matters in organizations. Greenwood et al. (2002) contended that moments of change provide opportunities to move away from the normative, socially constructed world of professional associations. In their research on the role of the accounting profession, they explored how the boundaries and

84    J. MAHON

intersections of a community of organizations contributed to deinstitutionalization during times of change, reinstitutionalization, and the validation of change. Horton and Freire (1990) argued that individuals need a deep understanding of the systemic forces affecting their lives and actions. By doing so they can affect the course of human events and work toward more equitable conditions. Likewise, there are many examples of advocacy by associations. For example, the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) has recently proposed new requirements that tie teacher education program ratings to the student outcomes of the teachers that they educate (Teacher Preparation Issues, 2014). The American Educational Research Association (AERA) attempted to affect the decision by urging its members to send comments to the DOE. According to the mission of AERA, they see themselves as advocates for educational research in order to influence policy development. The Teacher Education Division of AERA sent regular emails or “action alerts” to members providing them with the link directly to the space for public comment. Regardless of the outcome, the association took a leadership role, and it attempted to be a change agent in the development of federal policy (AERA, 2015). CHANGING THE R(X) AERA, for its part, while active in many areas, has no information on its website related to international activities or education. Yet the DOE has made it clear that internationalization in education and globalization are important subjects of research and data. Teachers, and ideally those whom they teach who graduate with an international understanding, would have spent time examining the global society, its inequities, the oppression that exists around the globe, and could consider how they might challenge global hierarchies. Moreover, NAFSA, the Association of International Educators, attempted to influence NCATE/CAEP’s new standards as they were being formed in 2012. Their website includes the following release: NAFSA CEO and Executive Director Marlene Johnson joined several leaders from education associations in sending a letter to the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (CAEP) to request the integration of global perspective building into the standards for teacher education accreditation. To prepare globally competent students, teachers must be taught methods to inspire students to gain a global perspective, and NAFSA hopes that this becomes a standard consideration in the process of evaluating teacher education. (NAFSA, Association of International Educators, 2013)

Advancing the Internationalization of Teacher Education and Social Justice     85

According to one of the contributors to the letter, CAEP (formerly NCATE) never responded. In the CAEP standards (2013), a search of the entire document for the words “global,” “globalization,” “international,” or “internationalization” yielded only one reference to globalization. That reference is in Standard 5: Application of Content: “The teacher understands how to connect concepts and use differing perspectives to engage learners in critical thinking, creativity, and collaborative problem solving related to authentic local and global issues” (2013, p. 4). Information on CAEP advocacy initiatives did not include any reference to internationalization; however, the organization has hired a special assistant to the president for equity and global issues. The announcement highlighted their new position as focusing on accreditation of teacher programs overseas, among other global issues. Along with NAFSA, other authors of the letter included the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education (AACTE), the Longview Foundation and the Asia Society, Teachers for Global Education, and the American Association of Colleges and Universities. Of these, AACTE is the largest organization devoted to issues specific to teacher education. It does have a special interest group on the internationalization of teacher education. It also gives a Best Practice Award in Globalization. Unfortunately, from all of the resources available on its website, only one internationalization forum in 2013 was available. No information was found on policy advocacy. Greenwood et al. (2002) argued that institutional change must be a both/and endeavor. That is, it must engage in the duality of maintaining the status quo while also pushing the boundaries to extend and create new institutional practices. They also found that because the associations hosted opportunities for discourse, there were “a key agency in the process of clarifying and endorsing change in boundaries and format” (p. 73). These are opportunities to socially reconstruct the prevailing organization. AUTHOR REFLECTIONS: BE THE CHANGE How might professionals theorize about the internationalization of teacher education? One effective means of constructing and deliberating over theories in teacher education pertaining to internationalization might be by beginning with questioning teacher educators’ involvement and commitment to it in producing a counterhegemonic discourse. There is a need to recognize the importance of accountability, assessment, and sound standards that do not need to be overthrown in favor of the prioritization of internationalizing teacher education. At the same time, teacher educators might continually push those organizations to get beyond the status quo and externally impose discourse to enable the deliberation that leads to action. There is further a

86    J. MAHON

need to work with bodies of accreditation to illustrate that internationalization is not just on the margins of our programs, but a core mission. Teacher educators, along with teachers, must become part of what Lipman referred to as “kernels of organized resistance” (2009, p. 380). At the beginning of this piece, I spoke about a museum—a place people will someday gaze upon as the snapshot of our educational system. What will they see there? I hope they see the world, not just the United States Museum of Education. I hope they see that teachers and teacher educators from around the world joined their voices, introduced students to the world (and not just their part of it), and found a way to help them experience it, not just regurgitate rhetoric about needing 21st century competitive skills. Mostly, I hope they see that we never ever stopped planting and nurturing those “kernels of resistance” (Lipman, 2009, p. 380) to enable students to live their Deweyan good lives, as defined by the students themselves. CRITICAL QUESTIONS The critical questions I advocate have a personal and professional bent. We need to have a base of knowledge, awareness, and skills; but we also need to metalevel to these questions since the international experience is so interpersonal and intrapersonal. I would ask readers to consider the following: • What is your knowledge base regarding the internationalization of teacher education, and have you examined your personal experience of internationalization? Are you familiar with any internationalization efforts within your professional community, such as your department, college, university, or professional associations? What scholar could you talk to in your field who is from another nation? And perhaps most importantly, when was the last time you made your voice heard regarding internationalization? And if you have not made your voice heard, why not? • Secondly, I would ask readers to consider their beliefs and activities related to the place of internationalization in the profession. For example, how important do you rank internationalization as a priority for the profession? Do you think the accrediting bodies make this a priority in their evaluation of teacher education programs? I would ask you to think about the forces outside of our profession continually pressing down upon us and our “kernels” of organized “resistance” (Lipman, 2009, p. 380) by asking, if you think the efforts by teacher education programs and by other constituents in the organizational field of teacher education are enough to match the federal calls to produce globally competent citizens?

Advancing the Internationalization of Teacher Education and Social Justice     87

• Finally, I would ask readers to examine their beliefs and activities related to their professional associations. For example, should professional associations advocate for increased internationalization of teacher education? Should faculty play a role in enabling organizations and bodies to look beyond the dominant discourses? If so, what would that role look like? CONCLUDING THOUGHTS Teacher educators are citizens of our professional nation. In Curriculum Leadership, White, Van Scotter, Haroonian, and Davis (2010) described the role of citizens. They must be loyal to the nation, but also hold those above them accountable—to be part of the checks and balances: “The role of citizen is simultaneously to be loyal to the state and to criticize its actions— to both love and discipline government—because the people are both the government and the governed” (p. 26). This dialectic must be translated to the goal of internationalizing teacher education. Bradbeer (1998) offered the observation of curriculum theorist Joseph Schwab: “Practical problems arise in conditions that we wish were different” (p. 26). He contended that two ways can be chosen to deal with them: by changing the conditions or by changing ourselves. No matter the choice one factor remains constant, and that is change. It will occur as a consequence of either indecisive inertia or active choice, but it will occur. Teacher educators are part of these organizations; our ranks not only make up the membership, but the leadership. We must not just condemn the capitalist overtones of the globalization of education and ignore the opportunity to join in the conversation of internationalization. However, we must do more than examine TIMSS data and compare ourselves to Finland and Singapore. We must join those professional special interest groups. We most vote for those association leaders. We need to consider what internationalization would look like, what we as teacher educators need to know and be able to do to ensure our students can teach their students. We need to examine the impact of internationalization on our disciplines, whether it be math, science, or special education. We really, really need to read work from scholars who live on different shores. We need to present papers at conferences, both international and domestic, that show our associations that we see internationalization as important to our central mission of educating excellent educators. When we go to those international conferences, we must seek out scholars from other nations to converse about their best practices. We must realize that it can be done differently and well. We must ask our deans, presidents, and provosts (especially candidates for those positions) what their vision of internationalization is. If they have no vision,

88    J. MAHON

it is our job to continually advocate for its importance. We can do research across countries and cultures, we can bring in grants that emphasize internationalization. We can make our voices be heard. The borders of Oz are everywhere, although the price of passage to the other side is often nothing less than your life—at least your life as you have known it. And the yellow brick road that they point out to you is little more than an excuse to get you walking, and an encouragement for those times when it’s getting dark and cold and no emerald towers are in sight. And the Wizard is what is called a “helpful fiction,” for no one else can really tell you the path you must follow. (Bridges, 2001, p.126)

REFERENCES American Educational Research Association. (2015). Policy and advocacy. Retrieved from http://www.area.net/Research-Policy-Advocacy/AERA-Government -Relations Asia Society. (2015). Mapping the nation. Retrieved from http://asiasociety.org/ education/mapping-nation Ayers, W. (1998). Popular education: Teaching for social justice. In W. Ayers, J. A. Hunt, & T. Quinn (Eds.), Teaching for social justice (pp. xvi-xxv). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Berger, T., & Luckmann, P. (1967). The social construction of reality. New York, NY: Doubleday Anchor. Bradbeer, J. (1998). Imagining curriculum: Practical intelligence in teaching. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Bridges, W. (2001). The way of transition: Embracing life’s most difficult moments. Cambridge, MA: Perseus. Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation. (2013). CAEP accreditation standards. Retrieved from www.caepnet.org/standards Deephouse, D. (1999). To be different or to be the same? It’s a question (and theory) of strategic balance. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 147–166. DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160. Elsbach, K. (1994). Managing organizational legitimacy in the California cattle industry: The construction and effectiveness of verbal accounts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(1), 57–88. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Seabury. Garud, R., Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. (2007). Institutional entrepreneurship as embedded agency: An introduction to the special issue. Organization Studies, 28(7), 957–969. Goodwin, A. L. (2012). Teaching as a profession: Are we there yet? In C. Day (Ed.), The Routledge international handbook of teacher and school development (pp. 44– 56). Abingdon, England: Taylor & Francis.

Advancing the Internationalization of Teacher Education and Social Justice     89 Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R. & Hinings, C.R. (2002). Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 58–80. Gumport, P. J., & Sporn, B. (2000). Institutional adaptation: Demands for management reform and university administration. In J. C. Smart & W. G. Tierney (Eds.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 103–145). New York, NY: Springer. Horton, M., & Freire, P. (1990). We make the road by walking. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5–31. doi: 10.1177/1028315303260832 Lawrence, T. B. (1999). Institutional strategy. Journal of Management, 25(2), 161–187. Lipman, P. (2009). Beyond accountability: Towards schools that create new people for a new way of life. In A. Darder, M. P. Baltodano, & R. D. Torres (Eds.), The critical pedagogy reader (2nd ed.; pp. 364–383). New York, NY: Routledge. Longview Foundation. (2008). Teacher preparation for the global age: The imperative for change. Silver Spring, MD. Retrieved from http://www.longviewfdn.org Mahon, J. (2003). Intercultural sensitivity development among practicing teachers: Life history perspectives. Dissertation Abstracts International (No. 3097199). Mahon, J. (2012). Fact or fiction? Analyzing institutional barriers and individual responsibility to advance the internationalization of teacher education. In R. Quezada (Ed.), Internationalization of teacher education: Creating globally competent teachers and teacher educators for the 21st century (pp. 23–32). New York, NY: Routledge. Mahon, J., & Cushner, K. (2002). The overseas student teaching experience: Creating optimal culture learning. Multicultural Perspectives, 4(3), 3–8 Mansilla, V. B., & Jackson A. (2012). Educating for global competence: Preparing our youth to engage the world. Council of Chief State school officers’ edSteps Initiative & Asia Society Partnership for Global Learning. New York: Asia Society. Moss, D. M., Manise, J., & Soppelsa, B. (2012). Preparing globally competent teachers: Background paper for CAEP commissioners. Washington, DC: NAFSA, Association of International Educators. NAFSA, Association of International Educators. (2013). NAFSA joins other education associations in sending letter to CAEP. Retrieved from https://www.nafsa. org/Professional_Resources/Browse_by_Interest/Internationalizing_Higher_Education/Network_Resources/Teaching,_Learning,_and_Scholarship/ NAFSA_Joins_Other_Education_Associations_in_Sending_Letter_to_CAEP/ National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). (2006). NCATE: Professional standards for the accreditation of schools and colleges and departments of education. Retrieved from http://www.ncate.org/Standards/Unit_stdns_ch2. htm§nd4 National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). (2008). Standards in effect 2008. Retrieved from http://www.ncate.org/Standards/UnitStandards/UnitStandardsinEffect2008/tabid/476/Default.aspx Olmedo, I., & Harbon, L. (2012). Broadening our sights: Internationalizing teacher education for a global arena. In R. Quezada (Ed.), Internationalization of

90    J. MAHON teacher education: Creating globally competent teachers and teacher educators for the 21st century (pp. 75–88). New York, NY: Routledge. Porac, J., Thomas, H., & Baden-Fuller, G. (1989). Competitive groups as cognitive communities: The case of the Scottish knitwear manufacturers. Journal of Management Studies, 26, 397–415. Schneider, A. I. (2007). Internationalizing teacher education: What can be done? A research report on the undergraduate training of secondary school teachers. ERIC database. (ED480869) Scott, W. R. (1994). Conceptualizing organizational fields: Linking organizations and societal systems. In H. U. Derlien, U. Gerhardt, & F. W. Scharpf (Eds.), Systems rationality and partial interests (pp. 203–221). Baden Baden, Germany: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft. Shaklee, B., & Baily, S. (2012). Introduction: A framework for internationalizing teacher preparation. In B. Shaklee & S. Baily (Eds.), Internationalizing U.S. Teacher education, (pp. 1–13). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Sharma, S., Phillion, J., Rahatzad, J., & Sasser, H. (2014). Internationalizing teacher education for social justice: Theory, research and practice. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Solinger, R., Fox, M., & Irani, K. (2008). Telling stories to change the world. New York, NY: Routledge. Spring, J. (2014). American education (16th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Teacher Preparation Issues. (2014). 79 Fed. Reg. 71,819 (proposed Dec. 13, 2014; to be codified at 34 C.F.R. pt. 612, 686). Retrieved from https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/12/03/2014-28218/teacher-preparation-issues U.S. Department of Education (2013, November 18). Building a stronger pipeline of globally–competent citizens: Remarks of U.S. secretary of education Arne Duncan at the international education week “mapping the nation: Making the case for global competency” launch event. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/ building-stronger-pipeline-globally-competent-citizens White, W. E., Van Scotter, R., Haroonian, M. H., & Davis, J. E. (2010). Democracy at risk. In F. W. Parkay, G. Hass, & E. J. Anctil (Eds.), Curriculum leadership: Readings for developing quality educational programs (9th ed.; pp. 25–29). New York, NY: Allyn & Bacon. Wink, J. (2011). Critical pedagogy: Notes from the real world (4th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.

CHAPTER 6

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? Unintended Consequences of the Educational Reform Agenda and the Diminution of Global Opportunities in Teacher Preparation Programs Barbara Garii

When teacher preparation programs clearly articulate the role of social justice as a key element of sound pedagogical practice, new teachers enter the classroom understanding that their primary role is to ensure student learning. Student learning, in a socially just context, includes “teaching much of the traditional canon . . . [and] teaching pupils to think critically about and challenge the universality of that knowledge” (Cochran-Smith, Shakman, Jong, Terrell, Barnatt, & McQuillan, 2009, p 372). At the same time, equitable practice in classroom pedagogy suggests that academic success for all students requires that teachers understand individual student differences and respond according to those differences. In other words, equal exposure to the academic material (e.g., the canon) is not equitable A Reader of Narrative and Critical Lenses on Intercultural Teaching and Learning, pages 91–106 Copyright © 2017 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 91

92    B. GARII

unless all students are able to access the material, given the students’ backgrounds, needs, and capacity (Kornhaber, Griffith, & Tyler, 2014). Ultimately, an equitable socially just education ensures that teachers recognize and implement their responsibility to “enhance students’ . . . life chances” (Cochran-Smith et al., 2009, p. 249) in order for the students to succeed in U.S. society. Additionally, social justice pedagogies ensure a world class education to all students in U.S. schools (Milner, 2007; Schleicher & Stewart, 2008) by enhancing teachers’ capacity to recognize and teach to students’ individual strengths and differences. The demographics of the teacher workforce, including new teachers entering the field, do not reflect the demographics of students being served in most public schools (Boser, 2014). Teachers continue to represent the White, primarily English-speaking middle-class community that reflects the hegemonic curricula and values taught in K–12 schools; while the students are more likely to be members of nonhegemonic, often marginalized communities (e.g., non-English speaking, immigrant, poor). Thus, the teacher population does not resemble the students being taught. While school attendance and academic capacity are understood as portals to the American middle class, nonhegemonic students have less access to the power of education unless teachers are well-prepared to flexibly respond to classroom diversity and are able to bring students to an understanding and acceptance of American culture and educational expectations (Cochran-Smith, Piazza, & Power, 2013; Cochran-Smith et al., 2009). Similarly, evidence suggests (Dorman, 2012) that unless teacher preparation programs explicitly prepare new teachers to work with these “different” student populations, new teachers are unable to recognize and empathize with academic challenges associated with these differences. In other words, to ensure that public education continues to be socially just and equitable, teacher candidates must be sensitive to student differences. They also must both understand how those differences limit student learning in educational environments and be able to minimize those differences to ensure student success (Dorman, 2012; Garii, 2009; Lee, Eckrich, Lackey, & Showalter, 2010). When teacher candidates have opportunities to complete some of their professional preparation outside of the United States, these experiences (e.g., early field experiences, student teaching) challenge them to reevaluate their professional capacity. Candidates must re-evaluate their own understanding of themselves as members of a hegemonic group. When participating in global experiences, they are (often) no longer members of the hegemony. During such experiences, they often do not understand the language of instruction and/or the country, they are unfamiliar with the culture, and they are unable to fully participate in the life of the school because they are clearly outsiders to the community (Garii, 2009; Malewski,

Where Do We Go From Here?     93

Sharma, & Phillion, 2012). Upon entering their own classrooms as teachers of record, they are therefore more aware of the disconnects that their own nonhegemonic students experience. Rather than simply empathizing with their students’ challenges, they have themselves struggled with similar questions and limitations. These new teachers are better able to flexibly support their students (i.e., assure equitable educational opportunities) while enabling the students to successfully participate in the classroom learning activities (i.e., ensure a socially just learning environment). However, as the specter of educational reform continues to influence teacher preparation policy, global opportunities for teacher candidates are diminishing. This limits new teachers’ capacity to work successfully with diverse students in their classrooms. In this chapter, I discuss the ways in which educational reform narrows the likelihood that new teachers will have global opportunities that ensure that they are well-prepared to work with the increasingly diverse student body represented in U.S. classrooms. THE DILEMMA There is a phrase, apocryphally associated with Albert Einstein, which reminds us that not everything that counts can be counted and not everything that can be counted counts (Cameron, 1963, p. 13). The dichotomy suggested by this phrase leads to an interesting tension associated with teacher preparation, especially in terms of creating and supporting global/international opportunities for teacher candidates, such as early field experiences in classrooms in host countries that enable teacher candidates to observe classroom practice and work with small groups of students, or student teaching opportunities in host country schools and overseas international schools. There is much evidence illustrating the role that global opportunities have in helping new teachers reconsider their classroom personae and enhance their capacities to work in contexts that support diverse sociopolitical and cultural educational expectations (Garii, 2009; Malewski & Phillion, 2009; Malewski, Sharma, & Phillion, 2012). Other work indicates that global experiences in and of themselves are not enough (Rahatzad, Sasser, & Phillion, in press). Instead, these experiences are initial, but perhaps flawed opportunities for teacher candidates and teacher preparation faculty to begin a dialogue about diversity, hegemony, and the place of difference in the microcosm of the classroom and the macrosphere of U.S. society. In either case, global experiences offer candidates initial opportunities to recognize and work with students, schools, and curricula that encourage or challenge them to expand their understanding of what it means to be a teacher in the 21st century. The ongoing conversation in the public

94    B. GARII

marketplace about teacher professionalization and teacher preparation practices has placed the locus of those conversations in political and business realms, rather than within the context of specific and targeted professional organizations (Tobin, 2012). These discussions that are not educationally aligned suggest that teacher preparation is a mechanistic set of skills and practices that should lead to consistent classroom outcomes (e.g., teacher accountability) as long as teachers follow a set of predesigned steps (Cochran-Smith, Piazza, & Power, 2013; edTPA, n.d.; Eisenbach, 2012; Hamilton, 2013; Tienken, 2013). The current set of discussions regarding the quality of primary and secondary education in the United States (e.g., Schmidt, 2012) has sparked a series of reform efforts, allegedly associated with improving the preparation of teachers and ensuring teacher accountability (Cochran-Smith, Piazza, & Power, 2013; Hamilton, 2013). These efforts recognize that primary and secondary schools and classrooms are increasingly racially, culturally, socioeconomically and linguistically diverse while the teaching force remains predominantly White and middle-class (Boser, 2014). However, these reforms, which are often couched in the language of educational nonprofessionals (Berliner, 2014), include an increased emphasis on “routinizing the ways” in which teachers present the curriculum, work with diverse students, and prepare students for an increasing array of assessments across grade levels (Eisenbach, 2012; National Coalition on School Diversity, 2012; National Council on Teacher Quality, 2013; Tienken 2013). This language of reform, which envisions school environments as inhabited by “controllable variables” (e.g., students, parents/guardians, school rules), limits teachers’ and schools’ abilities to be sensitive and flexible in light of the realities of specific classroom issues (Hamilton, 2013), and it constrains teacher preparation to a measurable array of behaviors, practices, and skills (National Council on Teacher Quality, 2013). While many teacher preparation programs publically decry the standardization of preparation practices and recognize that teaching occurs in fluid environments that change daily if not hourly (Kennedy, 2005), accreditation standards that govern teacher preparation and are often influenced by noneducation “watchdog” agencies that increasingly require uniformity and homogenization, while limiting programmatic nuances (Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation, 2013a; National Council on Teacher Quality, 2013). For example, clinically rich teacher preparation programs are touted as one of the most effective ways to ensure that new teachers enter the profession classroom ready (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, 2010). In such programs, teacher candidates spend at least a semester and often a full year working full time in K-12 classrooms under the tutelage of both a mentor teacher and a university supervisor, while allied coursework focuses on practical aspects of teacher

Where Do We Go From Here?     95

practice, with minimal exploration of broader theoretical possibilities that would enhance teacher performance (Alter, Coggshall, & National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality, 2009; Drake, Moran, Sachs, Angelov, & Wheeler, 2011). However, little research-based evidence suggests that such programs are a significant improvement over traditional teacher preparation programs. Additionally, due to the lessened emphasis on theoretical understandings and possibilities, such programs limit candidates’ capacities to consider aspects of practice that they have not actually seen in the classroom in which they have worked (Alter, Coggshall, & National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality, 2009; Drake et al., 2011). Thus, if the clinical residency occurs in a homogenous school environment, new teachers are at risk for having a limited capacity to work effectively in classrooms with increased diversity, thereby limiting new teachers’ mindsets toward equitable, socially just pedagogy. THE CHALLENGE In response to increasing expectations for programmatic standardization, anecdotal reports indicate that teacher preparation programs are beginning to limit international opportunities for teacher candidates because such opportunities reduce faculty oversight of candidates’ preparation for high-stakes assessment and certification exams. For example, mandated video-based teacher performance assessments (e.g., edTPA, n.d.; Missouri Educator Gateway Assessments, 2014) and clinically rich residence programs (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, 2010) require active buy-in from, participation of, and collaboration with primary and secondary school communities, including parents, guardians, teachers, other classroom support personnel, students, and school administrators as well as teacher candidates and teacher educators. The paperwork associated with video-based assessments (e.g., required written consent from students’ parents/guardians, all adults in the classroom, and the school leadership) and the high level of university oversight associated with clinically rich residency programs precludes seamless candidate participation in international student teaching opportunities. Intertwined national accreditation standards, state-specific certification requirements, and external arbiters of the viability of teacher preparation all point to assurances that teacher candidates completing teacher preparation programs fulfill the expectations of mandated assessments (both video-based and traditional paper-and-pencil exams) that measure a certain subset of skills and knowledge associated with basic teacher competency (Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation, 2013b; edTPA, n.d.; Educational Testing Service, 2013; Marx, 2014; National Council on

96    B. GARII

Teacher Quality, 2013; Rinaldo, Denig, Sheeran, Cramer-Benjamin, Vermette, Foote, & Smith, 2009; U.S. Department of Education, n.d.). Yet relying on a limited set of measures to evaluate new teacher performance, by definition ignores other perhaps more important but less measureable aspects associated with teacher excellence and student growth (Harris & Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2012). Standardized assessments evaluate “a fixed set of test items designed to measure a clearly defined . . . domain” (Miller, Linn, & Gronlund, 2009, p 398). Whether norm-referenced, such as Praxis tests (Educational Testing Service, 2013), or standards-based, such as edTPA (edTPA, n.d.), candidate performance on such required standardized assessments are evaluated against a predefined set of criteria that allegedly address the full range of student and classroom possibilities in which a new teacher might work. Yet holistic elements of teacher efficacy that are associated with student growth are not easily evaluated in any standardized assessment, even if the assessment incorporates a video-based portfolio and allied commentary discussing elements of the videotape, such as context of learning, instructional aspects, student assessment, and teacher self-assessment (edTPA, n.d.). In order for teacher preparation programs to remain competitive and attract teacher candidates into their programs, they must—at least to some degree—ensure that their candidates’ capacities as teachers can be “counted” in a test-taking environment. As a case in point, CAEP requires that at least 80% of candidates in a teacher preparation program routinely pass the state teacher licensure exams (Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation, 2013a). Thus, while the role of accreditation is becoming increasingly important, evidence that supports the association between teacher quality and test performance is nebulous at best (Lavigne, 2014), suggesting indeed that what can be counted does not always count. Evidence does exist that student academic growth, and therefore teacher effectiveness, is associated with intangible, holistic teacher qualities such as personal sense of agency, imagination, compassion, and the ability to work in a constantly changing environment (Berliner, 2014; Collie, Shapka, & Perry, 2012; Denham, Bassett, Mincic, Kalb, Way, Wyatt, & Segal, 2012; Henry, Purtell, Bastian, Fortner, Thompson, Campbell, & Patterson, 2014; Kennedy, 2005; Rinaldo, et al., 2009). Dress (2012) articulated it well when she suggested that “the root of teaching lies . . . in the messy business of human relationships” (p. 28). Such intangibles cannot be counted—or, perhaps more precisely they cannot be measured, weighed, and described as a specific recipe that always leads to immediate student academic growth. As both Berliner (2014) and Kennedy (2005) indicated, individual students and individual classrooms create fluid teaching environments that require unique, flexible, and creative responses to support student learning in the ever-changing moment. These ideas and ideals articulate the integral

Where Do We Go From Here?     97

elements of effective pedagogy as reflected in both social justice and equity practices (Cochran-Smith et al., 2009; Kornhaber, Griffith, & Tyler, 2014) and further suggest that global elements of teacher preparation can only enhance these capacities. This is where the tension lies: Teachers whose experiences fall well within their comfort zones—based in their own countries, able to work within a set of cultural norms that are not easily challenged or challenging—are less likely to recognize, acknowledge, and/or empathize with the increasing number of students in their own classrooms who bring nonhegemonic understandings into the learning environment (Boser, 2014). Increasingly, what this means in practice is that teacher preparation program requirements, including especially the preparation of teacher candidates for high-stakes assessments associated with state certification, limit opportunities for those very experiences that are most associated with holistic teacher efficacy. In other words, the overemphasis on teacher standardization and the associated homogeneity of teacher preparation programs limit the programs’ ability to ensure that new teachers are comfortable with the flexibility and fluidity needed to teach effectively in the changing demographics of the U.S. classroom (U.S Department of Education, Office of Post-Secondary Education, 2011). The emphasis on teachers’ disciplinespecific knowledge and classroom pedagogies and practices, as measured by such assessments as the edTPA and MoPTA (edTPA, n.d.; Missouri Educator Gateway Assessments, 2014), effectively prevents soon-to-be teachers from developing a broader understanding of schools and schooling across the cultures represented in and beyond U.S. classrooms (Garii, 2014). This is important because as the face of the U.S. classroom changes, including more nonhegemonic students born and bred in the United States and increasing numbers of immigrant students (Boser, 2014), teachers need to have a wider recognition of sociopolitical and cultural structures of schooling and education. Teachers must have the ability to recognize the challenges of being nonhegemonic in U.S. classrooms and have internalized tools to support students facing those challenges (Schlein, 2014). Many teacher preparation programs include an “urban experience” as a required element of teacher preparation (Burbank, Ramirez, & Bates, 2012; Dorman, 2012; Lee, et al., 2010) to support new teachers’ cultural awareness and equity stance. Even when teacher-candidates have had such urban experiences (such as experiences that place candidates in high-need schools serving racially, ethnically, and linguistically diverse students in urban environments) these experiences are still grounded in the political and cultural realities that resonate with and are generally supported by the teacher candidates themselves and the teacher preparation programs that host such programs (Garii, 2014). The candidates go home at night to the comfort of their own communities. They do not have to experience the wider world or the

98    B. GARII

local community through the lens of the nonhegemonic “other” and they do not have to establish relationships within an unfamiliar community context. Rahatzad, Sasser, and Phillion, (in press) argued that early field experiences, during which candidates who are members of U.S. hegemonic communities are placed into positions where they are no longer of the dominant community, are not enough. The authors suggested that such short-term experiences are still grounded in the candidates’ cultures of home, comfort, and hegemony; these types of experiences do not give candidates enough time or opportunity to question the role of their own hegemonic expectations. While they are correct to some degree (Garii, 2009; Malewski & Phillion, 2009; Malewski, Sharma, & Phillion 2012; Schlein, 2014) we as teacher educators might also need to recognize that such short-term experiences for teachercandidates are a start, a first opportunity for many of them to confront difference and to consider what it means to be different. While long-term impacts of such short-term global experiences may be difficult to observe, we know that these experiences are associated with teachers’ increased flexibility, autonomy, and nimbleness in classroom practice. These practices are associated with increased sensitivity to the needs of the nonhegemonic students and their families (Garii, 2009). Professional educators, including teacher educators and educational researchers, know that global experiences are positively associated with the holistic skills and abilities that allow teachers to work effectively in the realities of the classroom (Berliner 2014; Dress, 2012; Garii, 2009). Global experiences also offer teacher candidates the opportunity to experience “otherness,” which sensitizes them to the experiences of the nonhegemonic students in their classrooms (Batey & Lupi, 2012; Garii, 2009) in ways that urban placements do not support. This suggests that global experiences, by dint of taking candidates out of their comfort zones, are powerful elements supporting increased teacher capacity when working with diverse student populations (Garii, 2009). Yet teacher educators also know that the increased emphasis on standardization of teacher preparation, as evidenced by accreditation standards and nationally recognized certification expectations (Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation, 2013b; edTPA, n.d.), focuses on what can be easily measured rather than the subtle nuances that may hold greater associations with student growth and teacher excellence. Although educational watchdog organizations continue to reflect on the association between student learning and teacher development, they continue to articulate aspects of teaching that are easily observed and therefore measurable, rather than addressing pedagogical capacities that hold promise for long-term academic success for students who may be experiencing classroom challenges due to hegemonic differences. This standardization of practice might bode poorly for the continuance and/

Where Do We Go From Here?     99

or growth of global opportunities associated with teacher preparation (Berliner, 2014; Marx, 2014). Thus, teacher preparation programs across campuses, while suggesting that there are a variety of global opportunities for preservice teachers, are limiting the varieties and timeframes associated with field experiences and student teaching possibilities (Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation, 2013a; National Council on Teacher Quality, 2013). This narrowing of global opportunities appears to be associated with concerns that accreditation expectations and state regulations focus on easily measurable outcomes. Few states limit global student teaching placements through the regulatory process, relying on teacher preparation programs to determine if placements, local or otherwise, are appropriate (Mahon, 2010). Yet increasing numbers of programs are reducing such opportunities citing the need for stronger oversight of student teachers in response to accreditation mandates (Fry, 2008). This suggests that the focus on short-term immediately measureable outcomes trumps longerterm professional gains that are associated with global placements (Batey & Lupi, 2012; Garii, 2009; Mahon, 2010). SCHOLARLY SIGNIFICANCE Global field experiences associated with teacher preparation provide candidates with valuable opportunities to confront the limits of their own comfort zones and the realities of their hegemonic expectations. Therefore, such experiences offer candidates the opportunity to rethink and reevaluate the ways in which they will work with the diverse students in their classrooms, thereby increasing opportunities for presenting and implementing equitable, socially just pedagogy and practices to ensure content mastery. However, such global field experiences have two major strikes against them. First, the outcomes associated with such opportunities are not easily measured by the assessment tools associated with teacher certification. In fact, the outcomes associated with these global experiences may take years to manifest in ways that the candidates can articulate, suggesting that certification exams completed at the culmination of the teacher preparation program may not capture the important learnings associated with these global opportunities. Second, due to increased accreditation requirements, bureaucratic expectations, and specific learning outcomes associated with performance assessments and clinically rich residency models, global field experiences run the risk of being de-emphasized. Bureaucratic realities can make global field experiences a paperwork nightmare and hinder a faculty’s capacity to fully utilize these experiences to support candidate growth in terms of candidate recognition of teaching and learning in discomforting

100    B. GARII

situations. Yet the changes in student demographics and the lack of change in teacher demographics suggest that global field experiences would help ensure that new teachers better understand how the hegemony of the classroom and the U.S. educational system do not meet the needs of many of the students in their classrooms. More specifically, the capacity to ensure a socially just, equitable classroom presence requires that teachers recognize and empathize with the challenges faced by their nonhegemonic students. We know that global experiences jump-start teachers’ abilities in this area (Garii, 2009) In an attempt to define and therefore measure teacher effectiveness, “good teaching” has been reduced to only elements of teaching that can be captured in standardized measures of performance (Berliner, 2014; edTPA, n.d.; Lavigne, 2014; Marx, 2014; Missouri Educator Gateway Assessments, 2014). Simultaneously, accreditation standards associated with teacher preparation programs explicitly mirror these measurable elements. There is professional recognition that much of what is associated with good teaching is, indeed, not measurable. Therefore, in response to this unfortunate recognition, the current truth is that those elements of teacher preparation that are not directly associated with measurable outcomes are at risk for being devalued. This likely devaluation occurs because those not-easilymeasurable outcomes do not increase a program’s likelihood of obtaining accreditation nor are they associated with increases in candidate performance on teacher certification assessments. It is imperative that educational policy reflects exemplary teacher preparation practices. Allowing the assessment tool to mandate the ways in which teacher preparation is enacted inhibits the development and implementation of opportunities that support teacher excellence in nontraditional ways. Yet reform efforts appear to have limited the implementation of some practices, most especially global field experiences in teacher preparation programs that are known to be effective mechanisms to increase new teachers’ capacities to engage effectively with diverse students. While this result may be an unintended consequence of the broad educational reform efforts, the limitation of global opportunities has a variety of curricular and pedagogical implications. If teachers have fewer opportunities to engage in professional education opportunities in global settings, then not only are they less likely to understand and be sensitive to the needs of their diverse students, but teachers are also less likely to be able to articulate and understand U.S. educational practices within the wider frame of educational practices, strengths, and challenges in a global environment (Dorman, 2012; Garii, 2014; Schlein, 2014). Thus, this work opens up a space for a dialogue to occur that can lead to a more nuanced understanding of educational reform that better ensures teacher excellence while simultaneously expanding teacher preparation practices.

Where Do We Go From Here?     101

CRITICAL QUESTIONS I am left with two large questions in the face of these increasing limits on global opportunities in teacher preparation. First, as we continue to move toward standardization of teacher preparation through narrower accreditation standards and scaling-up boutique programs, thereby ensuring that their unique characteristics are homogenized, I wonder if we have considered the long-term unintended consequences of these actions. Berliner (2014) reminds us that the lack of attention to school-specific details ensures that unique programmatic elements are ignored. In other words, teacher attention to classroom nuances that support socially just pedagogies is minimized. Global opportunities in teacher preparation programs enhance a teacher’s capacity to recognize nonhegemonic students’ classroom challenges and respond to them in socially just manners. Yet, increased standardization of teacher preparation, which is associated with fewer global opportunities, reduces new teachers’ sensitivity to decreases in socially just pedagogical practices. Second, as a nation we want our schools to be world-class (Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation, 2013a; National Council on Teacher Quality, 2013). A requirement of world-class schools is the assurance of equitable access to classroom content and sensitivity to the academic, cultural, social, and linguistic needs of individual students (Schleicher & Stewart, 2008). There are consequences associated with limiting teacher candidates’ exposure to cultural, linguistic, and education differences as experienced outside of their U.S. comfort zones (Milner, 2008). Even short-term global opportunities in professional education environments allow new teachers to explore unfamiliar educational practices and processes while also exposing them to discomforting experiences in a controlled environment, which are not dissimilar to the experiences of our nonhegemonic student body (Batey & Lupi, 2012; Garii, 2009). Thus, I wonder how limiting teacher candidates’ opportunities to explore global classrooms will ultimately impact the United States’ capacity to create and support world-class schools. The push toward standardizing, and thereby homogenizing, of teacher preparation program requirements to focus on the fulfillment of external criteria and accreditation standards falsely assumes that only those programmatic elements that have immediately measurable outcomes are important. As has been discussed here, long-term outcomes that are associated with global opportunities during teacher preparation benefit teachers’ abilities to work with diverse students in diverse communities. Additional benefits include teachers’ enhanced flexibility in the face of constant change and regulatory mandates, and teachers’ increased sensitivity to the nuanced support needs of nonhegemonic students. Often, what cannot be easily or immediately measured is associated with long-term value; this is especially

102    B. GARII

true given the association between global field experiences during teacher preparation and teachers’ professional classroom practice. Thus, we must continue to explore ways in which to include global opportunities in teacher preparation in the face of regulatory diminishment of teacher preparation programming. AUTHOR’S REFLECTION Political pressures have exacerbated an on-going challenge in teacher preparation, as highlighted in this chapter. Federal and state guidelines, as well as national accreditation standards, suggest that successful preparation of new teachers for increasingly diverse classrooms can be easily assessed and evaluated prior to the new teachers’ entrance into their own classrooms. The assumption is that there are straightforward solutions to complex educational issues. However, simple solutions to complicated issues tend to reduce the range of options that educators are able or allowed to use to support their students (Berliner, 2014; Dorman, 2012; Kennedy, 2005). However, in order to maintain accreditation, many teacher preparation programs are revamping their curricula to ensure that their candidates “pass” the myriad of tests required to become certified or licensed teachers. Since teacher preparation programs must maintain stricter oversight of coursework and candidates’ field experiences (Fry, 2008), this targeted curriculum narrows opportunities for candidates to experience diversity outside of very controlled environments. Ultimately, this limits the new teachers’ capacity to work effectively with diverse students, diverse families, and diverse understandings of the role of school in U.S. society (Tienken, 2013; Tobin, 2013). Global opportunities in teacher preparation are known to be valuable training grounds for understanding and working with classroom diversities. However, the impact of such opportunities often occurs several years after the fact (Garii, 2009), when teachers have acclimated to their classrooms and are able to expand and extend their capacities (Kennedy, 2005). This does not diminish the importance of such global opportunities, but it does suggest that current policies may be shortsighted (Tienken, 2013; Tobin, 2013). As we move through this time of instability and rapid change associated with teacher preparation, it behooves us to remember that encouraging our candidates to move out of their comfort zones and participate in global experiences enhances candidates’ classroom sensitivities and pedagogical practices. The immediate outcomes of such global opportunities cannot be easily measured by standardized tests that address short-term capabilities. However, the long-term outcomes of such global opportunities enhance teachers’ practices, student learning, and educational communities.

Where Do We Go From Here?     103

REFERENCES Alter, J., Coggshall, J. G., & National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. (2009). Teaching as a clinical practice: Implication for teacher preparation and state policy. [Issue brief.] Washington, DC; National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. Batey, J. J., & Lupi, M. H. (2012). Reflections on student interns’ cultural awareness developed through a short-term international internship. Teacher Education Quarterly, 39(3), 25–44. Berliner, D. (2014). Exogenous variables and value-added assessments: A fatal flaw (No. 17293). Teachers College Record, 116(1). Retrieved January 16, 2014, from http://www.tcrecord.org/library Boser, U. (2014). Teacher diversity revised: A state-by-state analysis. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress. Retrieved July 6, 2014, from http:// www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/report/2014/05/04/88962/ teacher-diversity-revisited/ Burbank, M., Ramirez, L., & Bates, A. (2012). Critically reflective thinking in urban teacher education: A comparative case study of two participants’ experiences as content area teachers. Professional Educator, 36(2), 1–17. Cameron, B. (1963). Informal sociology: A casual introduction. New York, NY: Random House. Cochran-Smith, M., Piazza, P., & Power, C. (2013). The politics of accountability: Assessing teacher education in the United States. Educational Forum, 77(1), 6–27. Cochran-Smith, M., Shakman, K., Jong, C., Terrell, D. G., Barnatt, J., & McQuillan, P. (2009). Good and just teaching: The case for social justice in teacher education. American Journal of Education, 115, 347–377. Collie, R. J., Shapka, J. D., & Perry, N. E. (2012). School climate and social-emotional learning: Predicting teacher stress, job satisfaction, and teacher efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 1189–1204. Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation. (2013a). CAEP accreditation standards as approved by the CAEP board of directors, August 29, 2013. Washington, DC: Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation. Retrieved January 14, 2014, from www.caepnet.org/~/media/.../caep/standards/caep2013-accreditation-standards.pdf? Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation. (2013b). CAEP accreditation standards and evidence: Aspirations for educator preparation. Washington, DC: Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation. Retrieved July 18, 2013, from caepnet.org/~/media/Files/caep/standards/commrpt.pdf?la=en Denham, S. A., Bassett, H., Mincic, M., Kalb, S., Way, E., Wyatt, T., & Segal, Y. (2012). Social-emotional learning profiles of preschoolers’ early school success: A person-centered approach. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(2), 178–189. Dorman, E. (2012). “Everything that’s challenging in my school makes me a better teacher”: Negotiating tensions in learning to teach for equity. Journal of Urban Learning, Teaching, and Research, 8, 83–92. Drake, J., Moran, K., Sachs, D., Angelov, A. D. S., & Wheeler, L. (2011). The University of Indianapolis Woodrow Wilson Indiana Teaching Fellowship program:

104    B. GARII Reviewing the policy implications of university-based urban clinical residency programs in STEM teacher preparation. Planning and Changing, 42(3/4), 316–333. Dress, A. (2012). Reimagining teacher development: Cultivating spirit. Exchange: The Early Childhood Leaders’ Magazine, 203, 28–31. edTPA. (n.d.). Welcome to the edTPA [Homepage]. Washington, DC: AACTE. Retrieved May 23, 2013, from http://edtpa.aacte.org/ Educational Testing Service. (2013). The Praxis series information bulletin. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Retrieved January 14, 2014, from http:// www.ets.org/s/praxis/pdf/praxis_information_bulletin.pdf Eisenbach, B. B. (2012). Teacher belief and practice in a scripted curriculum. Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 85(4), 153–156. Fry, P. (2008). Identifying challenges faced by teacher education in an increasing global society. Teacher Education and Practice, 21(4), 476–478. Garii, B. (2009). Interpreting the unfamiliar: Early career international teaching experiences and the creation of the professional self. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 25(3), 84–103. Garii, B. (2014). Cuban/U.S. educational boundaries: The unspoken political-cultural contexts of research agendas. In S. Sharma, J. Phillion, & H. L. Sasser (Eds.), Internationalizing teacher education for social justice: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 163–177). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Hamilton, E. R, (2013) Finding creativity and flow in a high-stakes assessment context. Irish Educational Studies, 32(1), 109–117. doi: 10.1080/03323315.2013.773232 Harris, D. N., & Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2012). How do value-added indicators compare to other measures of teacher effectiveness? What we know series: Value-added methods and applications. Knowledge brief no. 5. Retrieved January 14, 2014, from CarnegieKnowledgeNetwork.org Henry, G. T., Purtell, K. M., Bastian, K. C., Fortner, C. K., Thompson, C. L., Campbell, S. L., & Patterson, K. M. (2014). The effects of teacher entry portals on student achievement. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(1), 7–23. Kennedy, M. (2005). Inside teaching: How classroom life undermines reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kornhaber, M. L., Griffith, K., & Tyler, A. (2014). It’s not education by zip code anymore—but what is it? Conceptions of equity under the Common Core. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(4). Retrieved January 14, 2014, from http:// dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v22n4.2014 Lavigne, A. L. (2014). Exploring the intended and unintended consequences of high-stakes teacher evaluation on schools, teachers, and students. Teachers College Record, 116(1). Retrieved January 14, 2014, from http://www.tcrecord. org/library Lee, R. E., Eckrich, L. T., Lackey, C., & Showalter, B. D. (2010). Pre-service teacher pathways to urban teaching: A partnership model for nurturing communitybased urban teacher preparation. Teacher Education Quarterly, 37(3), 101–122. Mahon, J. (2010). Fact or fiction? Analyzing institutional barriers and individual responsibility to advance the internationalization of teacher education. Teaching Education, 21(1), 7–18.

Where Do We Go From Here?     105 Malewski, E., & Phillion, J. (2009). International field experiences: The impact of class, gender and race on the perceptions and experiences of preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(1), 52–60. Malewski, E., Sharma, S., & Phillion, J. (2012). How international field experiences promote cross-cultural awareness in preservice teachers through experiential learning: Findings from a six-year collective case study. Teachers College Record, 114(8). Marx, R.W. (2014). Reforming again: Now teachers. Teachers College Record, 116(1). Miller, M. D., Linn, R. L., & Gronlund, N. E. (2009). Measurement and assessment in teaching (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. Milner, J. O. (2007). Globalization and world-class schools. Educational Horizons, 86(1), 45–52. Missouri Educator Gateway Assessments. (2014). The Missouri pre-service teacher assessment (MoPTA). Jefferson City, MO: Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Retrieved January 14, 2014, from http://www. mega.ets.org/test-takers/mopta/about National Coalition on School Diversity. (2012). Federally funded charter schools should foster diversity (Issue brief no. 2). Washington, DC: National Coalition on School Diversity. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/ servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED535440 National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2010). Transforming teacher education through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective teachers. Report of the blue ribbon panel on clinical preparation and partnerships for improved student learning. Washington, DC: National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. National Council on Teacher Quality. (2013). NCTQ standards and indicators for teacher prep review 2014. Washington, DC: National Council for Teacher Quality. Retrieved January 14, 2014, from http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/ Standards_and_Indicators_Full Rahatzad, J., Sasser, H. L., & Phillion, J. (in press). Study abroad and coloniality: Postglobal teacher educator reflections. In C. Schlein, & B. Garii (Eds.), A reader on narrative and critical lenses of intercultural teaching and learning. Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Rinaldo, V. J., Denig, S. J., Sheeran, T. J., Cramer-Benjamin, R., Vermette, P. J., Foote, C. J., & Smith, R. M. (2009). Developing the intangible qualities of good teaching: A self-study. Education, 130(1), 42–52. Schleicher, A., & Stewart, V. (2008). Learning from world-class schools. Education Leadership, 66(2), 44–51. Schlein, C. (2014). The possibilities of intercultural teaching experiences. In S. Sharma, J. Rahatzad, & J. Phillion (Eds.), Internationalizing teacher education for social justice: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 119–136). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Schmidt, W. H. (2012). At the precipice: The story of mathematics education in the United States. Peabody Journal of Education, 87(1), 133–156. Tienken, C. H. (2013). Neoliberalism, social Darwinism, and consumerism masquerading as school reform. Interchange: A Quarterly Review of Education, 43(4), 295–316.

106    B. GARII Tobin, K. (2012). Control of teacher certification in the United States. Peabody Journal of Education, 87(4), 485–499. doi: 10.1080/0161956X.2012.705150 U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Certification requirements by state. Washington, DC: USDOE. Retrieved January 14, 2014 from http://www2.ed.gov/teachers/jobs/reqs/edpicks.jhtml U.S. Department of Education, Office of Post-Secondary Education. (2011). Preparing and credentialing the nation’s teachers: The secretary’s eighth report on teacher quality based on data provided for 2008, 2009, and 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

SECTION III EDUCATORS’ AND TEACHER EDUCATORS’ INTERCULTURAL EXPERIENCES

This page intentionally left blank.

CHAPTER 7

FINDING THEIR VOICE Immigrant Teacher Experiences in the U.S. Classroom Supriya Baily, Dawn Hathaway, Margo E. Isabel, and Maria Katradis

Research on social justice in education has taken a variety of directions over the past decade, but a few influential thinkers such as Sleeter (2001, 2005), Cochran-Smith (2004), and Zeichner (2003) have pushed for teacher educators to take a more robust role in preparing teachers for a social justice curriculum, which includes dimensions of equity, activism, and social literacy (Ayers, Quinn, & Stovall, 2009). While we believe that “teacher education constitutes the foundation of efforts to build a strong teaching force that is prepared to teach diverse learners and equipped to teach for social justice” (Westheimer & Suurtamm, 2009, p. 590), we are often dismayed to see the focus remains on the relationship of the teacher with the student or the curriculum. Limited research explores the ways in which teacher preparation programs relate to social justice education both through the development of a professional stance, as well as in the use of pedagogical tools (Bieler, 2012), by investigating the role of school districts and educational

A Reader of Narrative and Critical Lenses on Intercultural Teaching and Learning, pages 109–128 Copyright © 2017 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 109

110    S. BAILY et al.

structures in supporting or dismantling social injustice (Philip, 2012), or understanding the perspectives of hegemonic teachers on social justice issues (Lee, 2011). While initial work around intercultural teaching and learning exists (Cushner, 1998, 2011; Deardorff, 2006), the importance of understanding diverse perspectives requires researchers to engage different populations in the conversation on intercultural understanding. The qualitative study described in what follows is grounded in the notion that teachers who have immigrated to the United States as adults and have become teachers in U.S. classrooms might tell a different story about the ways in which social justice is professionally enacted. This study highlights how issues of social justice and equity are complicated on an individual level. It is possible that issues of social justice and equity are difficult to relate to on a personal level because social justice is understood more broadly as a group phenomenon. The definition of social justice from Adams, Bell, and Griffin (2007) describes social justice in terms of a society. For many researchers (Bascia, 1996; Marshall, 2004) the concept of social justice and equity carries a level of abstraction and complexity that can only be understood on a societal level. This study sought to frame social justice more locally and offer immigrant teacher voices as one important domain of social justice research. These teachers’ personal narratives and the passion we, as researchers, brought to this study presents the ways in which a group of teachers perceive the existence of social injustice within their relationships, creating the very inequities we are hoping to teach students to dismantle. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT U.S. classrooms have undergone tremendous changes over the last 50 years where the demands on schools to meet the needs of both individual students and society as a whole have given rise to changes in policy, curricula, infrastructure, and resource allocation. Desegregation, language rights of students, school choice, increased access to higher education, outmigration from ethnic and/or racial enclaves, and an increase of immigration from non-Western countries, to name a few, have spurred these changes. The most visible shift has been the nature of the school populations where greater diversity of race, class, ethnicity, nationality, language, and culture permeate classrooms as well as a need for an interculturally competent teaching force (DeJaeghere & Cao, 2009). In the United States, 21% of the population comes from homes where a language other than English is the primary spoken language (Hernandez, Denton, & Macartney, 2009; Ryan, 2013). The Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) found that “given current trends in immigration and birth rates,

Finding Their Voice    111

these numbers will grow . . . [projecting] that, by 2021 the proportion of students of color will exceed 52 percent of enrollments . . . [while] the education workforce is far less diverse, with fewer than 20 percent of teachers being teachers of color” (CAEP, 2013, p. 20). Yet the demographics of U.S. teachers have not shifted as dramatically, with the majority of teachers still White, middle class and female (Cushner, 2008). While a number of studies address the experiences of immigrant students in U.S. schools (Byrnes, Kiger, & Lee Manning, 1997; Jiménez & Rose, 2010), limited research has documented the voices of immigrant teachers in U.S. classrooms, whose presence in U.S. classrooms has been on the rise (American Federation of Teachers, 2009). In our capacity as researchers, teacher educators, and school administrators, we believe that the ways in which we look at intercultural teaching must extend beyond the student-teacher relationships to encompass the colleague-colleague relationship. Therefore, the present study sought to reach into the lives of a group of immigrant teachers and explore how their stories allow us to better understand the concerns and challenges teachers face as professionals in education in the United States. This study began as an exploration of how immigrant teachers perceived social justice issues in schools, but what emerged was a deeper understanding of immigrant teachers’ experiences in U.S. classrooms. For the purpose of this study, immigrant teachers are defined as individuals who immigrated to the United States as adults, with teaching credentials from their respective home countries. These teachers then sought local (i.e., state specific) certification and/or reciprocity and are now teaching in schools in the United States. All seven teachers were purposefully selected from the metropolitan region of Washington, DC, to explore their constructions of social justice and education as immigrant teachers in U.S. classrooms. The initial project sought to offer space for these teachers to define their own understandings of the terms of social justice and equity. What emerged were structural issues of injustice that these participants lived through. This study offers a clearer view of how to move beyond the rhetoric of social justice in education in an effort to create an awareness of the ways in which certain injustices are still manifested in U.S. classrooms. The immigrant experience cannot be framed universally. What is evident is that in spite of shifts in student populations, teacher populations remain strikingly homogenous (CAEP, 2013). Through our experiences we often found ourselves engaged in conversations with teachers who had immigrated to the United States as adults who were now teaching in U.S. classrooms, having completed their teacher preparation programs in their home counties. Seeing the large gap between the philosophies and practices of social justice education, we constructed this study to learn more about what social justice education means to such teachers. As we progressed, we

112    S. BAILY et al.

discovered that we needed to step back and untangle the challenges and constraints such teachers felt affected their professional identity on a daily basis because of their important yet absent voices in U.S. schools. LITERATURE REVIEW The voices of immigrants in schools have predominantly focused on students and parents and have often highlighted the ways in which these populations have remained in the shadows of public education for long periods of time (Hernandez et al., 2009). Educational institutions are not only purveyors of academic knowledge, but also spaces where social and collegial interactions have the potential to unveil cultures, values, and traditions of the diverse community. Yet there is limited literature providing greater clarity on the experiences of teachers from other countries. To explore our research question, we reviewed literature that covered topics related to the experiences of immigrant teachers around the world and found a number of qualitative studies that explore the lived experiences of teaching in intercultural contexts. Elbaz-Luwisch (2004) conducted a qualitative study of immigrant teachers practicing in Israel, finding that immigrant teachers frequently made comparisons between their Israeli teaching environment and the teaching environment in their homeland. They often could only refer to their homeland experience for so long before they would be categorized professionally as chronic complainers. As outsiders, the immigrant teachers believed they had information to critique the system (by comparing with their homeland system and experiences from other places), but often felt that no one in the new system cared to hear about their ideas (Elbaz-Luwisch, 2004). This lack of voice and development of a professional identity becomes especially important when one looks at the literature on immigrants in other environments that may have an indirect effect on U.S. classrooms (Sue, 2011). Another challenge for immigrant teachers is the discrimination faced within school communities. Bascia (1996) conducted a life history project with a Black Indian Asian teacher raised in the Caribbean and who taught in Canada, concluding “Race, gender or any other categories that differentiate teachers socially from one another can produce systematic patterns of organizational advantage and disadvantage, differentiated access to knowledge, different decision making authority, and different legitimacy and status” (p. 166). Discrimination occurs for many reasons between many immigrant groups when linguistic and cultural differences in social histories constrain even the most informal of socializing (Ben-Peretz & Lotan, 2010; Fee, 2011). For instance, differential treatment was perceived as exclusion from networks outside their own circles, and deficiencies in language led

Finding Their Voice    113

to the inability to progress professionally (Woo, 1994). Such treatment is not often positive and findings relating to teacher experiences indicate immigrant teachers often feel stuck between their cultural knowledge and pedagogical knowledge, even while teaching students of similar ethnic backgrounds (Adair, Tobin, & Arzubiaga, 2012). In Seah and Bishop’s (2002) exploration into the value differences and conflicts encountered by two immigrant mathematics teachers, responsive strategies used by the teachers to approach these differences in their practice were also identified. Using two immigrants, one from Romania and the other from Fiji (of Indian descent), the findings showed that there was a clear acknowledgement of difference in the conceptual and sequential mathematical concepts from their home countries to their new classrooms. Though they adapted their strategies, there was an acceptance of value differences and engagement in a process that enabled them to effectively carry out instruction. They did not seek ways to eliminate difference, but used strategies to interact with the culture of the classroom and country and arrive at a personal consensus between two sets of values. The ability of immigrant teachers to negotiate value differences in their practice is a positive sign for both the educational communities receiving these teachers as well as for the teachers themselves (Seah & Bishop, 2002). Seah’s (2003) qualitative study of immigrant secondary mathematics teachers in Australia identified the interplay of personal and cultural values in the transition immigrant teachers make from their professional practice in their home culture to their new practice in Australia. Developing a detailed structure of values, Seah’s findings indicate that Australia is supportive of immigrants’ values and does not demand conformity to the local culture in the environment of immigrant mathematics teachers. The data indicated that teachers received minimal professional support, specifically in the area of mathematical development and practice and that support was solely management related. This suggests that teachers relied heavily on their personal and professional value systems to compensate for differences as well as to strengthen their practice. Seah concluded that this ability to successfully transition across cultural-educational borders may be transferable to other settings where differences play a role. However, it is unclear how this ability is developed in the absence of an institutionalized or programmatic response to immigrant teachers entering Australian classrooms, thus placing the emphasis on the individual immigrant teacher’s beliefs, values, and perceptions of the broader culture. While there is more talk of an interdependent world where people are “connected and unified in multiple ways” (Ahmed, 2010, p. 529), in the United States the dominance of English has created conditions that place a premium on English fluency (Fee, 2011) creating visible and invisible power structures. Within schools, language plays a critical role in curriculum

114    S. BAILY et al.

development, developing student relationships, building collaborative environments, taking on leadership responsibilities, and supporting the dayto-day professional identity of teachers among a plethora of other roles (Fee, 2011; Flores, 2011). Such dependence and overreliance on a common language is not unique to the United States. Remennick (2002) found that in Israel, immigrant Russian teachers who had mastered Hebrew reported more successful experiences. Teachers who had a less sophisticated grasp of the language were found to be predisposed to leave the profession due to a perceived lack of student discipline. Similar to students combating stereotype threats in student-teacher relationships (Steele & Aronson, 1995), immigrant teachers also believed that they had to resist negative stereotyping by their colleagues, highlighting the increased responsibility placed on the shoulders of immigrant teachers that is often not expected of native teachers (Remennick, 2002). Finally, feelings of isolation and language issues are not limited to teachers who are newly arrived in a country; non-White teachers or teachers with hyphenated identities may also have similar experiences of othering. For instance, Pailliotet (1997) studied one Asian American teacher, Vivian, in a preservice teacher education program who was the only identified non-White student in a class of 23 students. Issues of language permeated Vivian’s experiences, where cultural and language differences between herself, her peers, and professors in her teacher education program made her feel isolated and led to anxiety and an overall lack of confidence in her teaching abilities in spite of a strong record in the program. Pailliotet’s study highlights that even teachers who are non-White and U.S. born feel isolated in schools. These issues of language, culture, and equity play a vital role in teachers’ overall experiences and make it an area that is important for teacher educators to address in their preparation of new teachers. RESEARCH METHODS Observing a void in the literature on immigrant teachers’ experiences, this study initially sought to explore immigrant teachers’ perceptions on what equity and justice meant in their educational context. In order to capture the complexity of individuals’ experiences and perceptions, the researchers used qualitative methods. Thus through a qualitative design, the researchers were able to delve deeply into the participants’ understandings.

Finding Their Voice    115

CONTEXT The study was framed on an exploratory, multicase design. An exploratory design was justified by the fact there exists little prior research on immigrant teachers’ experiences in U.S. schools and a need to promote inquiry on the topic (McMillan & Schumacher, 2001). A multicase design was warranted to increase the opportunity for the emergence of replicated voices (Yin, 2003) and to demonstrate that these voices are not unique to just one or two immigrant teachers. The study was set in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, a region of varied communities and cultures. PARTICIPANTS Seven immigrant teachers were chosen purposefully to guarantee that diversity was represented in terms of gender, country of origin, and professional practice. Participants were asked to provide specific demographic information and were asked to self-describe their country of origin. The demographics of the participants are summarized in Table 7.1. While the country of origin was the specific question, one of our participants, Sarah, was very aware that the White South African experience was very different from the non-White South African experience, and she wanted to highlight her racial identity as well as her country of origin. Unfortunately we did not collect language related data; while that might be a limitation of the study, we were more curious about the movement from their home country to the United States as adults and as professionals in the school building.

TABLE 7.1  Demographics of Participants

*

Name*

Gender

Country of Origin

Subject Area

Pedro

Male

Spain

Spanish

Sarah

Female

South Africa

All Subjects

Grade Taught

School Type

5–6

Private

4

Private

Thea

Female

Vietnam

ESOL

9–12

Public

Alberto

Male

El Salvador

Spanish

9–12

Private

Lily

Female

Philippines

ESOL

Kindergarten

Public

Jackie

Female

Lebanon

Chemistry/ French

9–12

Public

Lucia

Female

Mexico

Spanish

K–3

Public

All names are pseudonyms

116    S. BAILY et al.

DATA COLLECTION A semistructured interview protocol was developed and one interview per participant was conducted in settings of our participants’ choice. Each interview lasted 60 to 90 minutes and follow-up phone calls were conducted for some of the participants to clarify their responses as needed. Each participant was interviewed by one of the researchers (Baily, Hathaway, or Isabel). All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. This study was reviewed and approved by the institutional Human Subjects Review Board. DATA ANALYSIS Through several cyclical phases (McMillan & Schumacher, 2001), we synthesized data, discussed plausible interpretations, identified similarities and patterns across the data, refined interpretations, and finally identified themes through a coding and recoding process (Patton, 2002). Each researcher read the transcripts closely, highlighted key words and phrases, and presented their interpretations to each other at weekly meetings for six weeks. After we emerged with a common understanding of ideas and interpretations, we reviewed the transcripts to identify those words and phrases to select the most descriptive quotes that captured many personal reflections of practicing immigrant teachers. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION The themes and ideas found within our data provided us with insight into the limited role the immigrant teachers felt their voices played in educational research. Drawing from their voices, we sought to shed light on the challenges and issues they are presented within a professional capacity. The agency exhibited by immigrant teachers to vocalize their experiences in U.S. classrooms highlighted their investment in their school communities and illustrated three main issues of structural injustice: professional treatment in schools by others, comfort with language, and a willingness to speak and teach. Professional Treatment Identity can be formed in both a voluntary or involuntary fashion, where one begins to act in accordance to how one adapts to the identity they are believed to have (Brantlinger, 2009). Immigrant teachers in this study were

Finding Their Voice    117

seemingly aware of their perceptions of how they were viewed by the members of their school community, and made concurrent assumptions about people’s beliefs that reflected and justified their perceptions. For instance Lucia said: For me it’s how we are perceived and accepted here . . . what people think about immigrants and how they treat us. For me it is hard to define because they treat you how they see you. Like lower income immigrants are very different to the middle class.

Recognizing that there were unstated classifications of how people viewed both income and immigrants allowed Lucia to point out that she could feel those differences clearly. This is articulated by what Jackie said as well: “I think about [how] people from another country are treated in . . . jobs, employment . . . to get advancement . . . treated equally.” Alberto took this one step further in that he felt it was not enough for him to recognize how he might be viewed as a professional by nonimmigrant colleagues. Rather, he had to actively work to establish his identity as a qualified professional among his colleagues: “Here, how I see, you know . . . is that you as an immigrant you have to really, you have to prove everything that you are capable, it’s like you got to demonstrate.” Understanding and acknowledging the validity of different cultural behaviors and beliefs can present challenges for some teachers. In centers and schools, many teachers find themselves working with colleagues who have similar life, educational, and professional experiences (Colombo, 2005), and as such are embedded in the dominant culture. U.S. teacher educators may spend time working with preservice and inservice teachers on locating and naming their biases in terms of students, but understanding this kind of interaction is still neglected in understanding our relationships with other adult colleagues (Fee, 2011). While the demographics in U.S. schools are changing, there still exist moments of insensitivity as highlighted earlier (Adair et al., 2012; DeJaeghere & Cao, 2009; Fee, 2011; Flores, 2011; Sue, 2011). This insensitivity is clearly illustrated in the conversation with Lily, as she described an event at her school: And then the little comments, like this morning someone at the office said, “Today is Bookfair, and watch all our little Latino friends dressed up as Superman,” with a smirk in her face. It was [supposed to be a] book character [day] . . . I thought that was a little nasty, because then she whistled and signaled her hand over her head mean[ing] to say it flew over their heads; they didn’t understand.

This was a powerful moment for Lily, where her identity as a teacher seemed to precede her identity as an immigrant. However, her story might

118    S. BAILY et al.

clarify the need for greater interaction among immigrant teachers and school colleagues, and the opportunity to understand their viewpoints to increase the sensitivity and cultural awareness of colleagues, parents, and students. Finally, Jackie’s interview responses indicated that she felt as though her professional identity was threatened due to her accented English. She was motivated to adapt her accent not by losing her native accent, but by focusing on improving her teaching practice: The principal called me in his office, and complained about that [accent]. He goes, “Jackie, some parents have been calling me . . . their children are having problems understanding you.” . . . I just felt like I wanted to try to improve, to get better . . . not my accent, but be a better teacher . . . I took a lot of classes [in the United States].

The stories related to us by our participants highlighted that they believed they experienced a different reality and that they felt a palpable difference in their treatment by their colleagues. Witnessing the comments of colleagues toward students allowed the teachers in this study to recognize the potentially inherent biases of their colleagues. This also seemed to lead to the overall necessity to blend in more adeptly, which included recognizing the ways in which their discomfort with language played a part in their professional roles. Comfort With Language Language served as both a handicap and a solution for our immigrant teacher participants. The teaching profession relies on awareness and understanding of the cultural context and backgrounds of students (Richert, Donahue, & LaBoskey, 2009). In the cases of immigrant teachers, the presence of an accent was often enough to allow them to feel their professional credentials were being questioned. Jackie raised the issue when she stated, “The problem I had was the language, the accent barrier,” which often hindered the sharing of ideas among colleagues and parents. Lucia also said, “[With] my accent they [colleagues] didn’t understand so they would start talking to someone else [i.e., a colleague without an accent].” Pedro echoed issues of belonging related to how U.S. colleagues viewed him: “You feel out of the loop or on the periphery . . . because you are not born here and they assume that you do not know what is going on.” Oftentimes the lack of self-assurance over language seemed to have a spillover effect on teachers’ confidence in other areas. For example Lucia said,

Finding Their Voice    119 I don’t feel that I have the power, or how you want to call it, to say the ideas of everyone in the group, like I won’t have the vocabulary to tell what everyone wants to say. Like I would never say, “Okay, I’ll share.”

It appears that the lack of cultural sensitivity of U.S. colleagues, parents, and students increased their feelings of being misunderstood more so than the actual accent or the occasional misused English word. Alberto says: Sometimes people don’t feel comfortable with my accent, for example in English, the way people, in certain areas of my school, they assume or they believe that I should act exactly like them, all the protocols, even the sense of humor is different.

In a bilingual immersion school, even though relatively privileged parents were proud of the program their children were participating in, our immigrant teacher participants felt a barrier between their expertise and those of their native English-speaking colleagues. Lucia said: They [parents] talk to the English teacher every time. Even when you tell them in the meeting “ . . . English is not my first language, but I can talk to you whenever you need.” But they always prefer going with the English teacher.

Sometimes language seemed to work in favor of the immigrant teachers. Our participants highlighted how they sometimes did feel as though language issues and their positioning as native speakers of languages other than English did not present a potential barrier. The international language of science worked in Jackie’s favor: “They just welcomed me with big arms and they helped me right away. . . . We are science people and I think we are different than the other people in the school.” The quotation gives new meaning to the need for people to communicate across language barriers and develop a sense of collective identity, which happened with Jackie because of her science background, but was not as evident with the other teachers. Willingness to Speak and Teach Using one’s voice to counter the effects of marginalization and oppression is a facet of empowerment and agency (Baily, 2011). In the interviews, a key point that emerged was an interest in starting to speak up, oftentimes challenging the views or the perspectives our participants faced. One example from this study challenges the belief held by many in the United States is that being fluent in English is more than being proficient in a societal language, but also characterizes an ideological stance of being American (Wong Fillmore, 2000). Lily, from the Philippines where English is the “favored”

120    S. BAILY et al.

language due to the U.S. influence (Sugbo, 2002), challenged this belief when she said: “American Whites, the Caucasians, they still have their biases about foreigners, like sometimes they are amazed. The other day they were asking me, ‘Why do you speak English so well?’ and I said, ‘Why not?’” Additionally, empowerment and voice became important to our immigrant teacher participants and the challenge for them was to engage more closely with their immigrant students. Thea’s experience in learning the English language defined her purpose and identity as a teacher of immigrant students: It is my job to make them see what they need to do and accept their priorities. I ask them about what they want in life, what they want to do, and they don’t know; we talk about to achieve anything what do you want or need. You need the language to communicate, you have to know English.

The challenges they faced, especially as they related to language, motivated the immigrant teachers to give great effort to becoming “better.” Lucia’s comment exemplified this motivation: “I think it was more like a challenge for me ‘cause if I wouldn’t practice my English, they [U.S. colleagues] didn’t care. I was the one that would have to fight to be here.” There is also evidence that highlights the privileges that people give to one accent or another (Fee, 2011). While Lucia spoke with an accent, her belief was that she was facing higher levels of prejudice versus one of true incomprehension. Such declarations highlight the participation of immigrant teachers in universities and other professional development programs reminding us that their experiences and insights can have a profound effect on their fellow students. Alberto and the other teachers demonstrated the stages of acculturation (Fee, 2011) in his responses, moving from being aware of differences to being angered by the differences or expectations of his assimilation. Alberto internalized this anger and evolved his perception of immigrants in the United States from his own experiences: Issues of social injustice exist in El Salvador, and I realized that what is actually [different] here [in America] is that in the beginning you become a second-class citizen. You can be a naturalized American citizen, but you will never be an American.

This statement also demonstrates how Alberto’s perception of the immigrant experience is not necessarily informed by the racial frames of the United States, but by social acceptance and justice directly related to their identities as immigrants in the United States. For Sarah, who witnessed apartheid in South Africa, being able to discuss issues related to race was a cleansing experience: Coming here and being able to reflect with the children on the American Whites against the native Americans or African Americans has been so excit-

Finding Their Voice    121 ing, because I can share the heartaches that I had from living in a segregated environment . . . to think about atrocities of the past and move on.

Sarah felt compelled to discuss these issues with her students based on her own experience; however, we did not find that the other teachers who came from countries that did not have the same racial frame were as open to or even aware of these discussions. For the other participants, their status as immigrants and teachers came first in their classrooms. It is critical that teacher educators understand the ways in which they can tap into and be aware of the issues immigrant teachers face through their own identity as immigrants and their experiences in U.S. classrooms. EDUCATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE As immigrant teachers in a country with changing demographics, our group of immigrant teacher participants had options available in the U.S. educational system. Choices and opportunities gave them a sense of freedom and allowed them to be immune from some of the constraints facing their peers who might have needed other forms of documentation to practice their professions or those who were less educated. The immigrant teachers in this study clearly viewed themselves as privileged or different from nonteacher immigrants in an attempt to distinguish themselves from the rhetoric currently surrounding immigration in the United States. Lucia best supported this notion when asked to identify some issues that social justice immigrants might face when she asked for clarification, “Like me as a teacher or for any other immigrants?” The presence of immigrant teachers brings the issue of cultural awareness among colleagues, parents, and students to the forefront. More interaction with immigrant teachers and the opportunity to understand their viewpoints may increase the sensitivity and cultural awareness of colleagues, parents, and students. We uncovered how the teachers in this study felt rather isolated in their professional spaces—in some ways—speaking into mirrors when it came to their experiences in their classrooms. What teacher educators might do is better prepare teachers for a conversation through a window, if not opening the door altogether. Living on the boundaries of both society and school can have troubling effects, not only on the individuals, but also on how the growing numbers of immigrant students are viewing the roles of power and voice in the classroom as a manifestation of the broader society in which they live. These teacher experiences have implications for multiple layers of social and school relationships. To isolate what it means for teacher educators to be aware of the voices of immigrant teachers means that there must be a greater understanding of

122    S. BAILY et al.

the impact on their roles in school culture, administration, and teaching. As teacher educators work with new teachers, administrators, and other professionals within schools, there has to be increased clarity on how to bring out the voices of immigrant teachers who may have much to offer for the growth and development of their students. We have seen a strong focus on recognizing the needs of a diverse student body. For instance, Wubbels (2010) cited a strong rationale for teacher education to equip the “pedagogy . . . [toward] developing and using curriculum materials and methods that support the achievement of students from diverse . . . groups” (p. 522). We would argue that such knowledge might also be gleaned in schools from the immigrant teachers working with them, yet our lack of clarity on how to tap into these resources prevents us from better utilizing them. Further inquiry is necessary in understanding how immigrant teachers conceptualize diversity in their home contexts and how they apply those conceptualizations to their teaching of diverse student bodies in the United States. Additionally, although we as the researchers have reflected on how this experience with the immigrant teachers has influenced our own practice, described in the next section, we have not yet investigated the potential bidirectional learning possible between and among U.S. and immigrant teacher colleagues in the school buildings. Sleeter (2009) discussed three themes that connect social justice work in teacher education including the recruitment of diverse teacher candidates, preparation of teachers to support democratic engagement among students, and to support teachers in advocacy work with students. While these are important goals, we still have a large population of White teachers who “bring deficitoriented stereotypes and very little cross-cultural background, knowledge, and experience” (Sleeter, 2009, p. 616). Unfortunately, while we continue to try to prepare teacher candidates to work with different types of students, in our experience we have found that few if any teacher preparation programs support the capacity of new teachers to work with different types of colleagues. As long as teachers feel a sense of separation, stereotyping, and disconnect between colleagues, we will not see the true modeling that is necessary for social justice education to take deep root in schools. This chapter highlights the fears and the uncertainties that are found just under the surface of a group of teachers who see themselves as immigrant teachers in U.S. classrooms. It would be important for teacher educators to recognize that one component of their work is to support collaboration and exchange between teachers. FROM RESEARCH TO PRACTICE: AUTHOR REFLECTIONS As researchers, we did not seek each other out to study immigrant teachers. We were brought together during our doctoral studies in a course about social justice, forming an intercultural trio of learners. We represented

Finding Their Voice    123

diversity in background, experience, research interests, and professional practice and were challenged in the course to find a common interest related to social justice and equity. This journey began with a conversation in which we examined our respective lenses influenced by our upbringing, professional experiences in teacher education, and K–12 school administration. While our individual and diverse experiences in intercultural teaching served to influence our professional lives in various ways, we speak with one voice as to how this particular journey as an intercultural trio has influenced our practice. By designing and modeling opportunities for that voice to be heard among U.S. preservice and in-service teachers, it is our hope that these potential colleagues might too hear the voice and be more responsive to bidirectional learning among colleagues and enhance education for all stakeholders whether native or foreign born. What we can share is that each of us has applied this experience in different ways in our professional practice. For Isabel, as an administrator she has been able to ensure that her building is more cognizant of the experiences of different types of teachers and their professional identities as colleagues to and among each other. For Hathaway and Baily, as teacher educators we have developed curriculum that helps our students navigate a deeper understanding of the international experiences of diverse lived experiences. From field trips, to films and books we as teacher educators seek to ensure that we provide our students a wider variety of experiences to ensure a deeper and more robust understanding of intercultural teaching and learning. CRITICAL QUESTIONS In proposing critical questions, we return to our original premise regarding the importance of understanding diversity in the U.S. classroom and its applicability to the broader educational context. In this study, we entered the world of immigrant teachers, unpacked their understandings of diversity in the U.S. classroom, and delved into their experiences and views as teachers and immigrants in the United States. Participants described their interactions with U.S. colleagues, parents, and students. We found that they perceived their positions as being less than exemplar, complicated by race, origin, language, and class power dynamics in the United States. Thus, we present other questions that still trouble us. 1. Although the United States is growing as a multicultural, multiethnic, and multilingual society, how do U.S. teachers, students, and parents perceive non-White, nonnative English-speaking teachers? 2. What role do teacher educators have to enhance the diversity of the teaching force and what can we do beyond race, class, and

124    S. BAILY et al.

ethnicity? What other populations remain on the margins of the profession of teaching? Our questions may not be researchable in their current structure, but the story of school in the United States is one that holds myths, tropes, legends, mores, and truths. Speaking with and learning from immigrant teachers are reminders that there remains a belief that the exemplary teacher is still often based on identity, language, and power. As stated at the onset of this chapter, social justice and equity are complicated on an individual level; and while it is possible that issues of social justice and equity are difficult to relate to on a personal level, we did not see the same abstractions carry over in our data. The immigrant teachers in almost all cases approached the themes of social justice and equity as experiential and related directly to their actions as teachers and employees in U.S. bureaucracies. The teachers in our study provided real-life examples, incidents, and memories of how social justice translated itself into various other concepts such as fairness, bias, discrimination, and intercultural relationships. This information can be helpful, as mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, to combat some of the discomfort around “defining” social justice and equity by educators and teaching institutions. Recognizing that teachers do not take the same abstract approach in looking at social justice and equity may also open the discussion to how real-life experiences affect these issues as well. The definition of social justice and equity may also depend on an individual’s experience in their homeland and events that shape the views of injustice and inequities in that particular country. In the United States, issues of social justice and equity may be viewed through the lens of slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, women’s right to vote, or visible differences relating to race and gender. In South Africa, it is viewed through the lens of apartheid. With this in mind, it is possible that as researchers we were not able to extract certain information about social justice and equity because our interview questions may have been asked through the lens of what social justice and equity mean in the United States. Sue (2011) demonstrated how individuals in Mexico maintained racial frames, for example, according to Mexican frameworks and not U.S. racial frames. The same may be true for participants of this study, where a distinction was made between being an immigrant teacher and being an other immigrant. While the participants each represented a different part of the world, our research was limited by the small number of participants interviewed and did not include their U.S. teacher colleagues. We recommend further exploration on this topic to add depth to the dearth of literature on the role of immigrant teachers in U.S. classrooms.

Finding Their Voice    125

REFERENCES Adair, J. K., Tobin, J., & Arzubiaga, A. E. (2012). The dilemma of cultural responsiveness and professionalization: Listening closer to immigrant teachers who teach children of recent immigrants. Teachers College Record, 114(12), 1–37. Adams, M., Bell, L. A., & Griffin, P. (Eds.) (2007). Teaching for diversity and social justice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Ahmed, M. (2010). NGOs and globalization of education. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B. McGaw (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education (pp. 529–535). Oxford, England: Elsevier. American Federation of Teachers (2009). Importing educators: Causes and consequences of international teacher recruitment (Item No. 45-09002). Retrieved from http:// www.aft.org/sites/default/files/importingeducators_2009.pdf Ayers, W., Quinn, T., & Stovall, D. (2009). Handbook of social justice in education. New York, NY: Routledge. Baily, S. (2011). Speaking up: Contextualizing women’s voices and gatekeepers’ reactions in promoting women’s empowerment in rural India. Research in Comparative and International Education, 6(1), 107–118. Bascia, N. (1996). Teacher leadership: Contending with adversity. Canadian Journal of Education, 21(2), 155–169. Ben-Peretz, M., & Lotan, R. (2010). Social and cultural influences in teacher education. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B. McGaw (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (pp. 525–531). Oxford, England: Elsevier. Bieler, D. (2012). Possibilities for achieving social justice ends through standardized means. Teacher Education Quarterly, 39(3), 85–102. Brantlinger, E. (2009). Impediments to social justice: Hierarchy, science, faith and imposed identity (disability classification). In W. Ayers, T. Quinn, & S. Stovall (Eds.), Handbook on social justice in education. (pp. 400–416). New York, NY: Routledge. Byrnes, D. A., Kiger, G., & Lee Manning, M. (1997). Teachers’ attitudes about language diversity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(6), 637–644. CAEP, Commission on Standards and Performance Reporting. (2013). CAEP accreditation standards and evidence. Washington, DC: CAEP. Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). Defining the outcomes of teacher education: What’s social justice got to do with it? Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 32(1), 193–212. doi: 10.1080/1359866042000295370 Colombo, M. (2005, November). Empathy and cultural competence: Reflections from teachers of culturally diverse students. Beyond the Journal: Young Children on the Web, 60, 1–8. Cushner, K. (1998). Intercultural education from an international perspective: An introduction. In K. Cushner (Ed.), International perspectives on intercultural education (pp. 1–14). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Cushner, K. (2008). International socialization of young people: Obstacles and opportunities. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(2), 164–173. Cushner, K. (2011). Intercultural research in teacher education: An essential intersection in the preparation of globally competent teachers. Action in Teacher Education, 33(5/6), 601–614. doi: 10.1080/01626620.2011.627306

126    S. BAILY et al. Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 241–266. doi: 10.1177/1028315306287002 DeJaeghere, J. G., & Cao, Y. (2009). Developing U.S. teachers’ intercultural competence: Does professional development matter? International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33(5), 437–447. doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2009.06.004 Elbaz-Luwisch, F. (2004). Immigrant teachers: Stories of self and place. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 17(3), 387–414. Fee, J. F. (2011). Latino immigrant and guest bilingual teachers: Overcoming personal, professional, and academic culture shock. Urban Education, 46(3), 390–407. Flores, G. M. (2011). Racialized tokens: Latina teachers negotiating, surviving and thriving in a white woman’s profession. Qualitative Sociology, 34(2), 313–335. Hernandez, D. J., Denton, N. A., & Macartney, S. (2009). School-age children in immigrant families: Challenges and opportunities for America’s schools. Teachers College Record, 111(3), 616–658. Jiménez, R. T., & Rose, B. C. (2010). Knowing how to know: Building meaningful relationships through instruction that meets the needs of students learning English. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(5), 403–412. Lee, Y. A. (2011). What does teaching for social justice mean to teacher candidates? Professional Educator, 35(2), 1–20. Marshall, C. (2004). Social justice challenges to educational administration: Introduction to a special issue. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 3–13. McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2001). Research in education: A conceptual introduction (5th ed.). New York, NY: Longman. Pailliotet, A. W. (1997). “I’m really quiet”: A case study of an Asian, language minority preservice teacher’s experiences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(7), 675–690. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Philip, T. M. (2012). Desegregation, the attack on public education and the inadvertent critiques of social justice educators: Implications for teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 39(2), 29–41. Remennick, L. (2002). Survival of the fittest: Russian immigrant teachers speak about their professional adjustment in Israel. International Migration, 40, 101–112. Richert, A., Donahue, D., & Laboskey, V. (2009). Preparing white teachers to teach in a racist nation: What do they need to know and be able to do? In W. Ayers, T. Quinn, & D. Stovall (Eds.), Handbook of social justice in education (pp. 640– 653). New York, NY: Routledge. Ryan, C. (2013). Language use in the United States: 2011 American community survey reports. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureaus. Retrieved from http://www. census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acs-22.pdf Seah, W. T. (2003, November/December). Teachers in transition and the negotiation of value differences in the classroom: Perspectives of immigrant teachers of mathematics in Australia. Paper presented at the 2003 New Zealand

Finding Their Voice    127 Association for Research in Education and the Australian Association for Research in Education Conference, Auckland, New Zealand. Seah, W. T., & Bishop, A. (2002, April). Researching for validity and value: The negotiation of cultural conflicts by immigrant teachers in Australia. Paper presented at the 2002 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Sleeter, C. (2001). Preparing teachers for culturally diverse schools: Research and overwhelming presence of whiteness. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(2), 94– 106. doi: 10.1177/0022487101052002002 Sleeter, C. (2005). Preparing white teachers for diverse students. In M. CochranSmith, S. Feiman-Nemser, D. J. McIntyre, & K. E. Deemers (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (3rd ed.; pp. 559–582). New York, NY: Routledge. Sleeter, C. (2009). Teacher education, neoliberalism and social justice. In W. Ayers, T. Quinn, & S. Stovall (Eds.), Handbook on social justice in education (pp. 611– 624). New York, NY: Routledge. Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797–811. Sue, C. A. (2011). Raceblindness in Mexico: Implications for teacher education in the United States. Race Ethnicity and Education, 14(40), 537–559. Sugbo, V. N. (2002, November). Language policy and local literature in the Philippines. Paper presented at the 2002 International Conference on Language Development and Revitalization of Languages, Bangkok, Thailand. Retrieved from www.sil.org/asia/ldc/parallel_papers/victor_n_sugbo.pdf Westheimer, J., & Suurtamm, K. E. (2009). The politics of social justice meets practice: Teacher education and social change. In W. Ayers, T. Quinn, & D. Stovall (Eds.), Handbook of social justice in education (pp. 589–594). New York, NY: Routledge. Wong Fillmore, L. (2000). Loss of family languages: Should educators be concerned? Theory Into Practice, 39(4), 203–210. Woo, D. (1994). The glass ceiling and Asian Americans: A research monograph. Model Minority. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/ viewcontent.cgi?article=1130&context=key_workplace Wubbels, T. (2010). Diversity in teacher education. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B. McGaw (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (pp. 518–524). Oxford, England: Elsevier. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Zeichner, K. M. (2003). The adequacies and inadequacies of three current strategies to recruit, prepare, and retain the best teachers for all students. Teachers College Record, 105(3), 490–519. doi: 10.1111/1467-9620.00248

This page intentionally left blank.

CHAPTER 8

UNDERSTANDING THE GLOBAL IN TEACHER EDUCATION AND CURRICULUM Teaching and Learning Across Cultural Boundaries David M. Callejo Pérez and Ervin F. Sparapani

In this chapter, we relate a global and responsive comparative discussion of social justice in education through the internationalization of the curriculum by comparative analysis of current educational discourse in the United States evolving from our discussions about the preparation of teachers and lessons that can be learned from diversity. Without being eclectic, or having an epistemology of imagination, we become snarled in labor markets and within a paradigm of efficiencies. Reforms focused on education alone come up short unless they are tied to changes in economic and social policies that lessen gaps children face outside the classroom. These reforms must initiate changes in teacher preparation programs, curriculum design, A Reader of Narrative and Critical Lenses on Intercultural Teaching and Learning, pages 129–147 Copyright © 2017 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 129

130    D. M. CALLEJO PÉREZ and E. F. SPARAPANI

and instructional practices for the classroom teacher, assessments of student learning, and international and national debates. Through narratives of our personal experiences, we make the argument that relating the cultural identity of teachers to their experiences can provide a rich understanding of the importance of having a diverse and international context for teaching and learning in our schools. We hope to capture our ideas through the retelling of our stories as immigrants (when we were children) and how those lessons shaped our approach to working in the United States and Taiwan as teachers many years later. Our focus in this chapter is to present this idea as a method that teachers and teacher-educators should use to effectively cross cultural borders. We tell our ethnographic reflections about “walking around” in a variety of cultures and how those experiences helped us cross social borders to become better teachers. Additionally, our chapter is an attempt to outline, develop, and convey a set of ideas that offer a view into appreciating the complex connections between social justice and identity in educational settings for teachers, learners, and communities. In this chapter, we examine boundaries, inconsistencies, responsibility, anxiety and ambiguity, distinctiveness, and reflection to situate the idea of social justice within human interactions that transcend identity and cultures. Although similar ideas extend beyond national boundaries, there still seems to be the problems with identity, which is bound to our own interpretations, boundaries, and generalizations. These problems are buttressed by American exceptionalism that sometimes leaves out the same complexity of social justice that we seek to explore when interacting across cultures. INTRODUCTION It goes without saying that we live in a global society, and because of recent trends in immigration and other factors, the demographics of the world have changed dramatically (Futrell, Gomez, & Bedden, 2003; Hodgkinson, 2000/2001) and the world landscape is becoming increasingly multicultural and multilingual due to international migration (He, Phillion, Chan, & Xu, 2008). UNESCO reports that approximately 185 million people worldwide live outside their countries of birth, up from 80 million in the 1970s. Further, population data from 2000 to 2010 show that after 2010 the foreignborn population is 27% in Australia, 21% in Canada, 31% in Saudi Arabia, and 12% in the United States, France, and the United Kingdom (He, et al., 2008; United Nations, 2013). The cultural diversity in the United States (Daniel, 2007) further demonstrates this world phenomenon. In 2000, for example, the foreignborn population of the United States was 31.1 million, which as indicated

Understanding the Global in Teacher Education and Curriculum     131

previously represented 12% of the total population and by 2010 it was 14% (U.S. Census, 2010). Of that foreign-born population, Latin Americans represent 52%, Asians 26%, and Europeans 16% (U.S. Census, 2010). Adding to this diversity is the complexity of non-English speakers in the United States. According to the 2011 American Community Survey (ACS), 37.6 million people aged 5-years-old and older speak Spanish at home, followed by Chinese (with 2.8 million speakers), Hindi, Urdu or other Indic languages (2.2 million), French or French Creole (2.1 million), and Tagalog (1.7 million) (Ryan, 2013). Culture is discourse. It is our belief that in order to understand that discourse, teachers have the responsibility of learning how to cross cultural boundaries. If teachers can learn to do that, they will begin to understand the culture of their students, and consequently be more effective as teachers. Because of recent trends in immigration and other factors that have changed the demographics of the country (e.g., racial or ethnic groups, increasing numbers of non-English speakers, shifts in the population), the United States of the 21st century is perhaps more culturally/racially diverse today than ever. This shift in the demographics of the general population (although uneven) has obviously led to an increasing change in the demographics of school populations (Howard, 2007). Demographics are evolving; however, the manner by which school systems design curriculum and teachers function within classrooms may not be changing. Families who are culturally/racially different from mainstream society do not always see that schools are meeting the needs of their children (Monahan, Oesterlie, & Hawkins, 2010; Wadsworth & Remaley, 2007). Teachers need to bridge the gap between home and school. To do this, having a personal connection with people (Manning, 1994; Wegman & Bowen, 2010) and becoming familiar with the lives of students (AbbateVaughn, 2006; Archer-Banks & Behar-Hornstein, 2008) are important first steps (Schlein & Chan, 2012). Classrooms are small samples of societies (Clemmensen, Sparapani, & Booth, 2009). It is imperative for teachers to understand that every person who enters a classroom, whether a teacher, student, parent, or visitor, comes from a unique cultural/racial background. Also, it is essential for teachers to recognize that a person’s cultural/racial background is not checked in at the classroom door. Consequently, students, teachers, and all other classroom visitors carry the attitudes and experiences of their culture/race into the classroom with them. Often attitudes and experiences are different, which can result in a communication disconnect between teachers and students (Daley, Buchanan, Dasch, Eichen, & Lenhart, 2010). Since communication is at the heart of any learning community, teachers must be mindful of their own cultural identities as well as those of their culturally diverse students (Schlein, 2014).

132    D. M. CALLEJO PÉREZ and E. F. SPARAPANI

Coupled with the changing cultural/racial demographics in the general population is the relative lack of change in the cultural/racial demographics of the teaching profession (Ross McClain, 2009; Silverman, 2010). According to the National Center of Educational Information (NCEI), there is not a statistically significant change in the teaching force toward more diversity, as the proportion of White K–12 teachers has changed from 91% of the labor force in 1986 to 84% in 2011 (Feistritzer, 2011). The fastest growth in the profession among minorities is Latinos. More importantly is that alternate routes to obtaining teacher certification are bringing more minorities into teaching than are traditional preparation programs. Of teachers who enter the profession through traditional college, campus-based teacher preparation programs, 13% are non-White, while 30% of teachers entering the teaching profession through alternative teacher preparation programs are White (Feistritzer, 2011). As a result, most traditional teacher preparation programs, both undergraduate and graduate, require that courses in their programs speak to cultural diversity and/or provide experiences in a culturally diverse setting (Caspe, Lopez, Chu, & Weiss, 2011) and additional courses that attempt to address the scope of multiculturalism and cultural diversity (Brown, 2010). Such courses and programs provide a good starting point for teachers to learn about and understand culture, but as an issue of educational social justice, educators need to get beyond the basic curriculum in these courses that merely scratch the surface (Gay, 2013; Irby, Bernard Hall, & Hill, 2013; Sleeter, 2001). As an imperative of social justice, in order to fully understand culture and connect to the varieties of culture and race teachers encounter in their classrooms each day, we suggest that teachers must learn to understand that culture is both lived by the individual and within the milieu that is the classroom (Schwab, 1969). As educators, we should be concerned with the role of culture in teaching. We need to understand our students, and “draw from their own personal biographies, struggles, and attempts to understand their own contradictions in the context of the contradictions of schooling and capitalism” (Torres 1998, p. 142). We must acknowledge the “two educational myths of liberalism . . . the notion that education is a neutral activity, and that education is an apolitical activity” (Torres 1998, p. 142). Within this context, teachers must embrace the idea of how to include communities and their histories to integrate the learners into the school environment. If we begin to treat our schools as communities, we need to adopt principles of early outreach to our neighborhoods and children, consider the relationship between scholarship and communities’ needs, and emphasize teachers as community leaders. As Jackson (1969) and McLaren (1998/2002) explored in their groundbreaking studies, school culture is the struggle for identity experienced not in classroom practice,

Understanding the Global in Teacher Education and Curriculum     133

but in everyday moments of fragmented complexity; and these identities are re-imagined and relived alongside the classroom experiences through authentic interactions (Dewey 1916/1997; Freire, 1970). Teachers do not live in a bubble or vacuum. They work with people, e.g., students. They have to understand those students and what those students are like as people outside the classroom. In the most basic form of understanding culture, teachers need to put feet to pavement and purposefully walk around the neighborhoods of their students, much like ethnographers. Ethnographers purposefully interact with persons and their stories that embody culture (Russell, 1999). They pay attention to what people do, why they are doing it, and how they are doing it. In other words, they not only observe the culture, they try to get a sense of what life is like in the culture. Such walking around is not easy—in many cases it is uncomfortable as it creates within us questions about our own identities (Barone 2001; Carini 2001; Craig 2003; Latta 2001). We believe, though, that if teachers do practice walking around it will help them cross cultural boundaries, change stereotypes, and more importantly change how the teachers see their students and how the students see their teachers. CONTEXT FOR THE NARRATIVES In this section of the chapter, we describe our experiences about walking around culture ethnographically (Behar, 2003; Geertz, 1976; Higham, 1992), and how those experiences have helped us see our students and helped our students see us as people (Tiryakian, 1997). There are two sets of interrelated reflections from each of us. The first set of reflections is about our childhoods. The second set of reflections is about our experiences in teaching across cultures. Reflection and interpretation within research needs to contextualize one’s reality to create a community of experiences (Anderson, 1991). Breaking the rules in research requires that we reclaim language and discourse, reevaluate what research is, focus on interpretation, and treat research as more than description of action—to research is to act. Grumet (1988) has described narratives as “masks through which we can be seen” (p. 107), potential fabrications whose retellings are dominated by personal interests. We hope to recapture our retelling and provide a roadmap by which others (especially new teachers in urban areas) can see differences and commonalities that allow us to see ourselves as an imagined community (Anderson 1991) with a common language and culture. We must remember that in narratives human beings are limited by the boundaries of social and linguistic rules/practices. Also, we are victims of our own memories; whether we romanticize the memorable or repress the

134    D. M. CALLEJO PÉREZ and E. F. SPARAPANI

terrible, memory is how we deal with our reality (Barone, 2001; Bowles & Gintis, 1976: Hobsbawm, 2002). Memory plays a critical role in uniting our fractured identities and can build bridges to create common interpretations among groups of people. As academics examining our early careers as teachers, we want to foster this curricular space within the classroom to the voice and thoughts of real people who are living and dealing with real issues in a difficult economy. With the pervading threat of cutbacks and layoffs, we understand that the impact of our words are enhanced by our own desires to see those working within oppressive conditions to become as liberated as we are in our universities. Narratives, in this sense, are windows into the world of teachers who attempt to do the moral part of their work in light of the potentially socially unjust aspects of their schools. As we share our stories, it is our hope that readers can resonate with something we say, and as a result better understand their own selves and their students. CHILDHOOD REFLECTIONS Growing Up in an Italian American Home: Ervin’s Experience My Italian grandparents were immigrants from Northern Italy, and I grew up in my grandparents’ home on my grandparents’ farm. My grandparents had a large, typical Italian family. Being a young person in this environment gave me my first experiences with walking around culture as I listened to my grandparents interact with their friends from the old country and interact with my dad and his siblings, and as I interacted with my cousins. Because it was a large family, there was always a lot happening; for anyone who was interested, there was a lot to watch and a lot to hear. Conversations were typically loud, animated, opinionated, and in Italian. My grandfather and the men discussed coming to America and what their lives would have been like if they had stayed in Italy, and what life was like at that time in Italy; they talked about the Great Depression; they talked about politics; they talked about World War II, Hitler, and Mussolini; they talked about sports, especially baseball. My grandmother and the women discussed (much more quietly and sedately than the men) cooking and sewing, raising kids, and most importantly what was happening with their families who were still back in the old country. The rule of the house (my grandfather’s rule) was that it was alright for him, my grandmother, their friends, and my dad and his siblings to speak Italian to them and to each other. My cousins and I, however, were always expected to speak English to each other, to our aunts and uncles, and most importantly to our grandparents. We were in America and had to be

Understanding the Global in Teacher Education and Curriculum     135

American, which meant we had to speak English. Listening and watching, however, I learned the Italian culture (at least my grandparents’ version of it), and I learned from my grandparents and their friends what it meant to be in America. Speaking of being in America, I remember very vividly coming home from kindergarten after my first day in school. I had a quarter-mile walk from the bus stop to the house, and as a 5-year-old would, I unconsciously wandered home. When I walked into the house, my mother said to me, “How was your first day in school? Fun, I hope.” Then she said, “Grandpa wants to talk to you. He’s in the front room.” I wondered what my grandfather could want with me. I had been in school all day. Usually when Grandpa wanted to talk to someone specifically, he was upset about something. I asked her what Grandpa wanted to talk to me about. She said that she did not know. When I walked into the front room, Grandpa was sitting in his stuffed chair with his pipe in his mouth, obviously waiting for me. In front of him was his hassock, and he motioned to me to sit down on the hassock, in front of him. I sat down, and he said to me, “So, Ervin, what did you learn in school today?” I thought, “What did I learn in school today? How do I know? I’m just 5-years-old and it’s my first day of school,” but I didn’t say that. I mumbled something. He grunted, “Hmmm.” Then he said, quite emphatically, “Ervin, you live in America. You have three rights. You have the right to an education. You have the right to vote. You have the right to own land. Never forget that.” And then he got up and walked out of the room. Every day after that, when I came home from school, he asked me the same question, “So, Ervin, what did you learn in school today?” and I had a quarter-mile walk to think of something to tell him. The Italian and American home in which I was raised, and the experiences with my grandfather about school and education and being an American, have stayed with me throughout my life. The result is that having been raised in a cross-cultural (Italian/American) home, I have always been interested in languages and fascinated by people’s backgrounds, their ethnicities, their heritages, their cultures, their races, and their belief systems. David’s Immigrant Experience Since 1976, after being sent to Angola for what he believed to be a colonial war, my father spoke about leaving Cuba in his letters. He returned from the war in Angola in 1977 after 2 years working in economic development during the Cuban intervention that cost the lives of more than 50,000 Cuban soldiers and civilians. A year later my grandmother passed, and my uncle Ramiro was released from political prison after 18 years, initiating our final steps toward immigration. I remember being in kindergarten,

136    D. M. CALLEJO PÉREZ and E. F. SPARAPANI

getting my red bandana tied around my neck as a pionero (pioneer), and reciting Martí poems and screaming “Viva la Revolución” and “Viva Fidel.” It was part of la educación de compañeros (comrade education). We had been exiled since 1977, but no country would take us; so we remained on the island. When we did receive a visa for Costa Rica, the Defense Committee came to our house and inventoried our possessions— which belong to the state—to auction to other people. We hid my mothers’ jewelry and other possessions in the Costa Rican ambassador’s home (his wife later met us in San Jose, Costa Rica, with our possessions). We traded furniture with our neighbors and our home looked like a collection of junkyard throwaways. At the airport we were stripped of anything on our person except our passport, visa, and clothes. In 1979, our flight left Havana and landed in San Jose, where we received our temporary Costa Rican visas. My father contacted a friend who was CEO of La Gloria, a major department store in Costa Rica, and was able to work as an auditor. I was enrolled in school and was promoted to third grade because of my reading and math test scores. There the teacher proceeded to let me know that I did not deserve to be there because I was an immigrant, specifically a Cuban. I was pulled out of school immediately when I told my mother, and when the principal explained to her that we were not welcomed in their country or school because of our ethnicity. At the same time upon learning of the Communist movements in Salvador and Nicaragua, my mother told my father at the airport that we had to leave this place immediately for the United States. TEACHING REFLECTIONS Ervin’s Experiences Living and Teaching in an Asian Culture Consistent with what I learned growing up in my grandparents’ home, over my career as a teacher I have remained interested in culture and race. I earned a master’s degree and then a PhD. I teach with rigor and have high learning expectations for my students. I have traveled quite extensively. I have traveled throughout the United States and parts of Canada. I have traveled to Europe several times. I have traveled to the Middle East. Until 2011, I had never traveled to Asia. My focus for travel out of the United States had always been on Europe because that is my heritage, and the Middle East for religious reasons. Over the years, friends have suggested to me that I travel to Asia, but I never really considered it because, as I said, my focus for travel was always mainly on Europe. As anyone knows who has lived any length of time, life events have

Understanding the Global in Teacher Education and Curriculum     137

a way of changing things and that is what happened to me. Through circumstances in my life, I was invited to a position at a university in Taiwan for six months as a visiting professor, which I accepted. At that university, since I was a teacher educator, I thought I would be teaching education courses at the university. Instead, I was placed in a department called Applied English, and other than knowing what “applied” English meant (by that I mean I knew it has something to do with teaching English as a foreign or second, language), I knew nothing about applied English. At any rate, off I went to Taiwan, and because I am interested in culture and race I believed my time in Taiwan would provide an excellent opportunity to learn about a culture that was quite unknown to me. Connected with this, I have a story to relate. First of all, I must say that the Taiwanese seem to hold teachers in high esteem, especially professors from outside their country, and in my experience, particularly professors from the West. They always refer to teachers as either “teacher” or “professor” and never use the teacher’s last name. When a student spoke to me, it was never “Mr. . . . ” or “Dr. . . . ” I was always addressed as “teacher” or “professor” or “honored professor,” and my last name was never included. When I asked about this, no one seemed to know why a teacher’s last name was not used, except that when a teacher’s last name was used, it seemed to have something to do with being a sign of disrespect. No one seemed to know why. On the street, people usually noticed me, which was not surprising because obviously I am not Chinese nor am I Asian. Usually, however, people would look at me, and then when I would look at them they immediately would look away. Once in a while, a person on the street would look at me. I would say “hello” and they would say “hello” back, but that was not the typical response. I wondered about this, so I asked about it. I was told that even though people always noticed foreigners, especially Americans, they are nervous about the possibility of being engaged in conversation beyond “hello,” so they quickly avert their eyes and keep on walking. Many of the professors I met and worked with always recounted that the lack of comfort with conversational English was because English in Taiwan is treated as a foreign language, not a second language. There is a great deal of nationalism in Taiwan. The people in Taiwan are proud of their heritage and of their country, and the culture tends to be very influenced by traditional Chinese ways. As with many nations, it seemed to me that technology and globalization have tended to focus the younger generations away from the traditional. For example, when I would meet an older person (and by old I mean in their 50s or 60s) that person would bow to me, not necessarily a full bow but a from-the-waist bow. Younger people (in their teens up to their 30s), on the other hand, would barely nod their heads. It felt to me as if the older person would bow and the younger person just kind of nodded at me.

138    D. M. CALLEJO PÉREZ and E. F. SPARAPANI

As I have already mentioned, some people were seemingly interested in the United States; however, the Taiwanese people with whom I met seemed to know little about the complexities of the United States in terms of poverty, race, and the educational system (Georgakopoulos, 2010; Hsieh & Tsai, 2009). What I experienced as a professor was that many of the students, regardless of their comfort levels with English or the extent of their travel experiences, learned much about the United States based on television and television news (CNN World News), American movies, sports, and Internetbased information. During my teaching experience in Taiwan, my colleagues and students related to me that the Taiwanese education system emphasized the study of the English language beginning in the early grades, but the educational system usually did not include study of the cultural uniqueness of Englishspeaking countries. I asked my students if there was something specific about English-speaking countries that they wanted to study, and they said that they wanted to learn more about the United States. I had divided the class into teams of four. It was February (and in the United States, February is Black History Month). I decided to assign each team a well-known Black person in history and gave each team a list of questions that they had to answer and report to the class the following week. After each team picked a name out of a hat, I gave them some time to develop a plan and ask me questions. All the teams were animatedly discussing their names (in Chinese), but only one group asked me a question. The question had to do with the name they had picked. I looked at the name. It was George Washington Carver. I thought they could not read the name, so I said, “George Washington Carver.” They said to me that they knew it was George Washington Carver. I said, “Okay. Is there a problem?” They said, “We never heard of George Washington Carver. What NBA team does he play for?” Surprised by this, I replied, “NBA team? He’s not a basketball player. He’s a famous Black inventor and educator. He was interested in farming and wanted to find ways for poor farmers to earn a decent living.” They said to me kind of astonished, “You mean in your country Black people farm?” Then the other teams chimed in with questions like “Is our person a singer?” “Is our person an actor?” Based on this experience, it seemed that my students’ picture of Blacks in the United States was that they were singers, actors, or athletes. In a short time, the class ended and off the students went to learn about their person. After that class as I reflected on this, some of the experiences of my youth in an Italian American home (which I addressed above) came to mind. I thought of how engrossed we seemingly are in our own culture, and that we are aware of other cultures/races/nationalities, but do not really know those other cultures/races/nationalities, and that lack of knowledge can ultimately affect social justice. Also, I thought how important it was for

Understanding the Global in Teacher Education and Curriculum     139

teachers to help students understand other cultures/races/nationalities, and how important it was for me to understand myself. Early Life and David’s Impact With Teaching Haitian Students in Miami In 1995, I began to work in the north side of Miami, Florida, in a majority Haitian school as a teacher and baseball coach. I grew up in the affluent city of Coral Gables in southern Miami. When I began teaching, my mind was littered with thoughts of violence, riots, and failing schools. I began in October; on my first day I was assigned surplus students whom other social studies teachers did not want in their classes. Since I was certified as an ESL teacher, most were Haitian students who were fluent in Creole and French. Ironically, most of the students had attended school in Haiti where French was used, but when they arrived in the United States they were only taught in Creole. Although my Haitian Creole was basic, combined with basic conversational French, I was able to connect at multiple levels with the students. I was given two periods of world history and three of U.S. history. Prior to my arrival, the ninth graders in world history were taught in the back of an auditorium that seated 150 students at a time. I was assigned over half the students who were put into two sections that contained 45 students each, not uncommon for an inner city Miami school. The U.S. history 11th graders were a much different story. Each class had 20 students because as one administrator told me, the high dropout rate of freshmen at North High School1 was about 60%, which in his view was a positive sign for reducing violence. She emphasized that it was “Less problems, you know”; she used to assure me that it was a good thing. I quickly figured out we never gave students textbooks or school supplies. The dropout rate was so high that when students left with books it cost the school almost 30% of their book budget. Barely unpacked on the first day, I was asked by a Haitian 11th grader Jean, “If we are the land of liberty and democracy, why is our world full of hate, racism, and injustice?” I remember saying to myself, “Holy s—t, what did I get into!” Instead I told her, “Why do you ask?” “Because you are White and from Mississippi, so you must know about racism,” quickly followed. I interrupted, “I’m actually from here, just went to school at the University of Mississippi.” “But if you’re White . . . ,” she continued. “Well, I’m actually Cuban, and . . . ” Interrupting, she scanned me and said, “Well, you’re not Black like Mr. Ortiz!” I told her Cubans were very diverse, and in fact most Cubans I knew were White. I immediately realized that she had rarely left her neighborhood. She, in fact, had only gone downtown once on the Metro Rail, “To go to court, ‘cause my uncle . . . ”

140    D. M. CALLEJO PÉREZ and E. F. SPARAPANI

What had I stepped into? I remembered social studies as the subject where we learned dates and names of famous Americans. I was taught in graduate school that delving into complex issues of the origins of race constructs, slavery, and historical debates about historiography were not supposed to occur until graduate school, but I was faced with the question and addressed it the only way I knew how. The social studies classroom is the place where we have to critically examine our history in order to make sense of our present. American history is dotted with many interesting debates. However, none is more powerful than the conversation surrounding the topics of race and slavery. The impact of slavery is seen in every aspect of our lives, from the amendments to the U.S. Constitution (13, 14, and 15 specifically deal with slavery and human rights) to the three Supreme Court cases every 11th grader should be able to recite: Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Brown v. Board of Education. The experience that allows a democracy to expand is being able to birth difficult conversations nurtured within the difficult dialogue. On one occasion I asked some nuns from Guatemala to come to class and talk about their experiences with oppression. They were staying at a nearby mission to work with immigrants from Latin America. The stories from the Guatemalan women were very powerful, especially for some of the men in class who believed that this power and defiance in women was very different from their own experiences. Michel, a rather quiet but forceful Haitian student who was a standout American football player who enjoyed history (not because of what was taught but because he always liked military strategy), found parallels in his grandmother and mother who raised and fought for their families, or in their lives in Haiti and the decision to get on a boat and sail to Miami. He went home and interviewed relatives who had faced oppression in Haiti. This was spontaneous and came from a suggestion. Elvis, a young man who had arrived in the United States about 2 years before, said that his 8th-grade teacher made him interview his grandmother to find out about what it was like to live through the Depression (he confessed that it was impossible since his grandmother was only 50 years old and was in Haiti at the time). These kinds of stories from students pointed to disconnects between teachers and learners in urban settings, especially in dealing with immigrant children. In the United States, many traditional definitions of generations are not relevant. Whether a child grows up with a grandparent, aunt or uncle, sister, or even just with their nuclear families, there are still many variations to age differences and familial relations that many of the suburban and college-educated teachers do not grasp. Elvis’ comment gave me an inroad on creating a place for connections on oppression, especially for me. Although we were both immigrants and had experienced political oppression, our lives had been very different because

Understanding the Global in Teacher Education and Curriculum     141

of race, immigration policies toward Cubans and Haitians, and because of differences in access to education and health care in Cuba and Haiti. Erwin, another young man, also interviewed his grandmother who remembered the Depression in Haiti after the collapse of the economy—a parallel similar to what occurred worldwide after WWI. He said that what he learned from her interview was that “even in bondage we can still hold on to the concept of freedom.” I asked where he learned that, and he said that he “got it from that Douglass (he was referring to the Autobiography of Frederick Douglass, [Douglass, 1995]) thing we read; ’cause he sounded a lot like Martin Luther King.” Dominie, a bright young girl whose world was dedicated to her extended family who relied on her for translation with social service providers, asked if they knew each other. We have robbed history of its essence. In teaching things like Black History Month or Hispanic Heritage Month, we teach history around a set of static and unattainable heroes who were the “first to do something,” and ultimately rob the learner of a sense of historical time. In retelling why these men and others did not live concurrently, I embarked on a new journey with the class, an attack on social studies curriculum and its teaching of American history. We rarely question the teaching of history as teachers, parents, or students in public schools. CONCLUSION This chapter is a humble attempt to grapple with complex multiplicities of our paths toward global identities: first as immigrants attempting to understand the place we inhabit, and second as power brokers (teachers) attempting to teach others who are experiencing a similar path. In both cases, a unique conversation emerges about what we believe to be one of the most important aspects of power in schools: access to agency within a hegemonic institution. The focus of this chapter has been a critical examination of the notions of teachers as learners and the role of teachers in both transmitting and being impacted by the evolving cultures within schools, which if fostered can provide sustainable change in our schools. As our world continues to shrink, what was uniquely labeled by regional, national, or international boundaries and cultures is more often than not just normal practices that transcend these boundaries. Our primary goal in education should be to inform public discourse and educational practice by investigating the basis, design, execution, and effects of education problems (Freire, 1970). Those issues should be examined in relation to political, historical and social contexts, with particular concern for problems of equity, diversity and social justice for all learners to understand the broad societal consequences of the

142    D. M. CALLEJO PÉREZ and E. F. SPARAPANI

curriculum and our role in teaching the curriculum. The evolving culture of a school reflects the evolving culture of a nation. If social justice is important to that nation, then social justice must become an important part of the school curriculum and the education of that nation’s young people. It is paramount that teachers, as transmitters of knowledge, incorporate the tenets of social justice into that curriculum. Social justice in our chapter is a value-laden process that needs to address specific issues that dominate the conversation of schools, and we hope to have highlighted the idea of transformation by emphasizing the role of power and empathy in education. The chapter has been organized around conversations between the personal and what we label possibilities for practice. First, we spoke to the basic assumptions behind the role of culture for cohesion and identity. Then, we attempted to contextualize transformation within notions of power and empathy with an eye toward possibilities and sustainability for school curriculum. Finally, we offered approaches for sustainable change in schools by reintegrating culture and narratives, recognizing the idea that given the changes in the United States today, school leaders face critical choices on schooling and emphasizing that we be reflective in decisions on how we lead our schools. As teachers, we have ideals for students’ learning evolving beyond memorizing facts toward understanding and working through complex issues that could lead to social action in reaction to the past that drove change, which ultimately impacted the students’ lives. This view of inquiry curriculum was leading learners to a natural understanding of content; in a sense toward using their lives (and ours too) as foundations to raise awareness and question the perception of “improvement resulting from just raising the standards.” As we discussed our experiences, we thought of several students who wrote insightful poetry about their journeys from Haiti, but still along with peers were entrenched in a tracking system as they move closer to high school graduation. We discussed the concepts of aging, how different our notions are across nations. We further reflected on how Ervin’s experience with higher education students in Taiwan was not so different than the one we experience in higher education students in the United States. Alongside the cultural shifts (and many cases for the better), there is a global shift in education serving an outcome related to economic wealth; as in some of the Taiwanese students’ cases it was an expectation, it was an investment that could assist in taking care of a parent. CRITICAL QUESTIONS The interesting aspect about our chapter is that in writing and discussing our experiences, our conversations were engendered by how our lives outside

Understanding the Global in Teacher Education and Curriculum     143

the class evolved. Our conversation was an attempt to find common ground between two people who had similar immigration experiences with our families, who benefitted from policies that were favorable to our arrival, and who experienced others’ experiences (our students) through our own lenses in uncomfortable and different settings (for us). In a way, our story can be seen as a warning to those who seek to be part of global education. Although we value—and even might experience immigration and diversity—we are victims of our own experiences, and we unwittingly attempt to expand those experiences to those we encounter, especially our students. How do we create spaces that provide opportunities for interpersonal conversations in our classrooms to address these issues? As Grumet (1988) reminds us, narratives are powerful, yet fraught with pitfalls of how we remember. Even though we related powerful experiences for us as immigrants and teachers of immigrants, we were in many cases victims of our memories, wanting to see and create similar experiences for those we interacted with rather than those experiences being more of an awakening for us. In the 21st century, the United States has become one of the most culturally diverse countries in history in terms of foreign-born populations and the diverse number of nations and ethnicities of immigrants (U.S. Census, 2010). How do we address that diversity that brings a variety of learners into classrooms? The responsibility of a teacher is to help students learn and be successful. We believe that all teachers want this. For many teachers, however, helping students learn and be successful means teaching the curriculum and assessing students to make sure they have learned the curriculum at an acceptable level. We maintain that such a practice is just a part of a teacher’s responsibility. In many instances, depending on the circumstances, it may be the smallest part. We believe that in addition to teaching the curriculum, a major responsibility of any teacher, since the United States is becoming so diverse, is to help all students learn how to successfully navigate mainstream culture. To be able to do this well, how do we help teachers understand culture, not only their students’ cultures but their own personal culture as well? When an educator is dealing with curriculum today, they must ask how his or her work will limit or extend freedom. Authenticity is key to creating a curriculum of freedom/space (democratic) that can be taken up by the learners and teachers communally, where curriculum making is constantly evolving moments deliberately seeking out personal and communal intersections. As such, curriculum and teaching are freedom/spaces for speculation, projection, mistakes, disagreement, discomfort, synthesis, and deliberation. Kliebard (2004) sees “curriculum in any time and place becom[ing] the site of a battleground where the fight is over whose values and beliefs will achieve the legitimation and the respect that acceptance into the national discourse provides” (p. 251). As we retell the narratives, we resist creating a space that produces one chosen narrative and resist

144    D. M. CALLEJO PÉREZ and E. F. SPARAPANI

positioning ourselves as research experts, instead asking all readers to risk their beliefs as we embark alongside each other through a conversation of authenticity where the relational energy is a connection between teachers as students and students as teachers (Freire, 1970). In schools, curriculum too often exists in forms wholly divorced from time, place, and people, as self-contained entities that can be captured and represented in prespecified activities, competencies, and indicators (Theobald, 1998). The particularities of individuals and teaching/learning situations are ignored so that “learning is to be somewhat mutated to learning how not to be” (Sidorkin, 2001, p. 49). How do we help educators achieve the goal within the educational dream to make a difference for their students? What ideas can be shared to help spark the social change that will lead to greater personal peace and a more respectful societal awareness? We must provide educational experiences that are endowed with the knowledge to serve each student for a lifetime, definitely beyond the allotted time it takes to complete a standardized exam. Robbing students of a unique view that helps them construct an experiential aesthetic of that freedom is counterproductive. As an imperative for social justice in education, teaching should lie within this state of transformation or transformative existence. Teachers need to make choices where personal experiences become the driving force of what to teach. NOTE 1. North High School is a pseudonym for the school. All names used here are pseudonyms.

REFERENCES Abbatte-Vaughn, J. (2006). ‘Not writing it out but writing it off’: Preparing multicultural teachers for urban classrooms. Multicultural Education, 13(4), 41–48. Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities. New York, NY: Verso. Archer-Banks, D. A. M., & Behar-Hornstein, L. S. (2008). African American parental involvement in their children’s middle school experiences. The Journal of Negro Education, 77(2), 143–156. Barone, T. (2001). Touching eternity: The enduring outcomes of teaching. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Behar, R. (2003). Translated woman: Crossing the border with Esperanza’s story (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Beacon. Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and the contradictions of economic life. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Understanding the Global in Teacher Education and Curriculum     145 Brown, S. C. (2010). Students as cultural beings. In M. Fallon & S. C. Brown (Eds.), Teaching inclusively in higher education. (pp. 17–37). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Carini, P. (2001). Starting strong: A different look at children, schools, and standards. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Caspe, M., Lopez, M. E., Chu, A., & Weiss, H. B. (2011). Teaching the teachers: Preparing educators to engage families for student achievement. Harvard Family Research Project and National PTA. Retrieved January 10, 2014, from http://www.metrostatecue.org/files/mscd//Documents/Community%20Overview/Harvard%20Family%20Research%20Project_Teaching%20the%20Teachers.pdf Clemmensen, K. M., Sparapani, E. F., & Booth, S. B. (2009). The classroom as a democratic place. In E. F. Sparapani (Ed.). Society, the classroom, and instructional practice: Perspectives on issues affecting the secondary classroom in the twentyfirst century (pp. 57–73). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education. Craig, C. (2003). Narrative inquiries of school reform: Storied lives, storied landscapes, storied metaphors. Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Daley, B., Buchanan, C., Dasch, K., Eichen, D. & Lenhart, C. (2010). Promoting school connectedness among urban youth of color: Reducing risk factors while promoting protective factors. The Prevention Researcher, 17(3), 18–20. Daniel, M. C. (2007). Authentic literacy practices for English language learners: A balanced curriculum design. Journal of Reading Education, 32(2), 18–25. Dewey, J. (1916/1997). Democracy and education. New York, NY: Free Press. Douglass, F. (1995). Narrative of the life of Frederick Douglass. New York, NY: Dover Thrift. Feistritzer, C.E. (2011). Profiles of teachers in the U.S. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Information. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum. Futrell, M. H., Gomez, J., & Bedden, D. (2003). Teaching the children of a new America: The challenge of diversity. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(5), 381–385. Gay, G. (2013). Teaching to and through cultural diversity. Curriculum Inquiry, 43(1), 48–70. doi: 10.1111/curi.12002 Geertz, C. (1976). From the native’s point of view. In K. Basso & H. Selby (Eds.), Meaning in anthropology, (pp. 221–237). Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press. Georgakopoulos, A. (2010). Student perceptions of teachers’ nonverbal and verbal communication: A comparison of best and worst professors across six cultures. International Education Studies, 3(2), 3–16. Grumet, M. (1988). Bitter milk: Women and teaching. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press. He, M. F., Phillion, J., Chan, E. & Xu, S. (2008). Immigrant students’ experience of curriculum. In F. M. Connelly (Ed.), Handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 219–239). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Higham, J. (1992). Strangers in the land: Patterns of American nativism, 1860–1925 (2nd ed.). Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Hobsbawm, E. (2002). Interesting times: A twentieth century life. London, England: Pantheon.

146    D. M. CALLEJO PÉREZ and E. F. SPARAPANI Hodgkinson, H. (2000/2001). Educational demographics: What teachers should know. Educational Leadership, 58(4), 6–11. Howard, G. R. (2007). As diversity grows, so must we. Educational Leadership, 65(6), 16–22. Hsieh, A. & Tsai, C. (2009) Does national culture really matter? Hotel service perceptions by Taiwan and American tourists. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 3(1), pp. 54–69. Irby, D. J., Bernard Hall, H., & Hill, M. L. (2013). Schooling teachers, schooling ourselves: Insights and reflections from teaching K–12 teachers how to use hip-hop to educate students. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 15(1). Retrieved January 1, 2014, from http://ijme-journal.org/index.php/ ijme/article/download/527/825 Jackson, P. (1969). Life in classrooms. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Kliebard, H. (2004). The struggle for the American curriculum: 1893–1958 (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Latta, M. (2001). The possibilities of play in the classroom: On the power of aesthetic experience in teaching, learning, and researching. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Manning, M. L. (1994). Celebrating diversity: Multicultural education in middle level schools. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. McLaren, P. (1998/2002). Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of education (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Monahan, K. C., Oesterle, S., & Hawkins, J. D. (2010). Predictors and consequences of school connectedness: The case for prevention. The Prevention Researcher, 17(3), 3–6. Ross McClain, P. L. (2009). TBK 101: Teaching black kids for beginners. In E. F. Sparapani (Ed.), Society, the classroom, and instructional practice: Perspectives on issues affecting the secondary classroom in the twenty-first century, (pp. 15–25). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education. Russell, C. (1999). Experimental ethnography: The work of film in the age of video. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Ryan, C. (2013). Language use in the United States: 2011: American community survey reports. Retrieved May 25, 2014, from http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/ acs-22.pdf Schlein, C. (2014). The possibilities of intercultural teaching experiences for teaching for social justice. In S. Sharma, J. Rahatzad, J. Phillion & H. Sasser (Eds.), Internationalizing teacher education for social justice: Theory, research, and practice, (pp. 119–136). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Schlein, C., & Chan, E. (2012). Examining students’ experiences as a foundation for multicultural curriculum development. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 28(2), 126–139. Schwab, J. J. (1969). The practical: A language for curriculum. School Review, 78(1), 1–24. Sidorkin, A. (2001). Learning relations. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Silverman, S. A. (2010). What is diversity? An inquiry into preservice teacher beliefs. American Educational Research Journal, 47(2), 292–329.

Understanding the Global in Teacher Education and Curriculum     147 Sleeter, C. (2001). Preparing teachers for culturally diverse schools research and the overwhelming presence of whiteness. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(2), 94–106. Theobald, P. (1998). Teaching the commons. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Tiryakian, E. (1997). The wild cards of modernity. Dædalus, 126(2), 147–182. Torres, C. (1998). Education, power, and personal biography: Dialogues with critical educators. New York, NY: Routledge. United Nations (2013). Trends in international migrant stock: The 2013 revision. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/migration/migrant-stock-age-2013.pdf U.S. Census (2010). The foreign-born population in the United States: 2010. Retrieved January 14, 2014, from https://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/acs-19.pdf Wadsworth, D. & Remaley, M. H. (2007). What families want. Educational Leadership, 65(6), 23–27. Wegman, K. M., & Bowen, G. L. (2010). Strengthening connections between schools and diverse families: A cultural capital perspective. The Prevention Researcher, 17(3), 7–10.

This page intentionally left blank.

CHAPTER 9

TRANSNATIONAL ADOPTION AND THE IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIAL-POLITICAL HISTORY Connection to Education and Social Justice Kimberly J. Langrehr

Like many other underrepresented groups in the United States, transnational individuals are rarely included in the discourse on pluralistic education, intercultural learning, and social justice. Transnationalism reflects the experiences of individuals who fall outside of the traditional migration experience; yet by virtue of their ethnic background and/or phenotype, they often face questions about their American identity (Schiller, 1999). Transnational identities encompass the way that people understand themselves within the context of their origin and heritage that spans beyond national borders, and taps into feelings of belonging and connection to more than one cultural space (Bradatan, Popan, & Melton, 2010). A Reader of Narrative and Critical Lenses on Intercultural Teaching and Learning, pages 149–163 Copyright © 2017 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 149

150    K. J. LANGREHR

In this chapter, I address the unique history of transnational adoption to illustrate the formation of transnational adoptees in the United States. Although transnational adoptees exemplify the dynamic nature of culture and transnationalism in our society, the complexity surrounding their experiences with race and culture are often minimized. Also known as international, intercountry, or foreign adoption, transnational adoption is considered the adoption of infants or young children from countries different from that of the adoptive parents (Baden, 2002; Lee, 2003). Transnational adoptions can be both same-race (i.e., European children adopted into White American homes) or transracial (i.e., non-European children adopted into White American homes). In my discussion, I focus on Korean American adoptees who are considered both transracial and transnational; however, I will use the term transnational to broadly refer to all adoptees born in countries outside of the United States and who differ in race from their adoptive families. In the first part of this chapter, I provide a brief timeline on the history of transnational adoption as practiced by the United States, and discuss intercountry factors that led to the rapid surge of transnational adoptions, particularly from South Korea. I discuss the origins of Korean transnational adoptees and the need to historicize their current place in American society that accounts for marginalization within and across national borders. I use their experiences to help extend the discourse on transnationalism and underscore the bearing of history in the enhancement of social justice and intercultural learning in predominantly White universities. In particular, I address the impact of color-blind ideologies on reducing complex phenomena to notions of accepting diversity and celebrating differences (Worthington, Navarro, Loewy, & Hart, 2008), which can hinder the essence of quality intercultural education. In order for students to gain a genuine and complex understanding of transnationalism, they must understand the injustices of the past and recognize their own privileges in contributing to a larger cycle of oppression. I end this chapter with a brief reflective summary about the intersecting facets of my identity as an educator and Korean American transnational adoptee. For the purposes of this chapter, I use the term intercultural to refer to both multicultural and cross-cultural concepts. It is also important to note that I use the term Korean adoptee to signify individuals from South Korea who have been adopted by Euro-Caucasian families, as this represents the primary identity status used by most Korean adoptees (Park Nelson, 2009). Although a very small percentage of Korean families have adopted Korean children, the large majority of adoptions from South Korea remain transracial and transnational in nature (Kim, 2010; Lee, 2003). Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge the different aspects of my identity that have informed this chapter. I am a faculty member in a

Transnational Adoption and the Implications of Social-Political History     151

graduate-level counseling psychology training program. In addition to engaging in pluralistic research, my role is to help graduate students develop the necessary knowledge, skills, and awareness to effectively serve diverse client populations. My investment in the topic of pluralism and intercultural competence has been based on my own transnational history within the context of the United States and South Korea. In addition to supporting the identity experiences of transnational individuals, it is from my experience that learning about the cultural intersections of the past can also help students and educators gain a better perspective of where they came from and how they see themselves in relation to their current environment as social justice advocates in intercultural education. IMPORTANCE OF HISTORY FOR TRANSNATIONAL ADOPTEES In contemporary westernized societies, there is a general assumption that individuals need to know who they are, and that this understanding is imperative to achieving a positive sense of well-being (Smedley & Smedley, 2005). Learning about where a person comes from can be validating, liberating, and frightening all at the same time. For some individuals, their sense of identity may be contingent upon their environment, such that the more appropriate question would be: “Who am I in this context?” and perhaps: “How did I get here?” For many people, these questions may elicit seeming responses about their personal and immediate-level circumstances (e.g., I was born here, I drove here, etc.). In the United States, however, underrepresented individuals, such as transnational adoptees, often find that such responses beg for additional explanation, implying that something about them appears incongruent with their surroundings. Similar to other ethnic and racial minority groups in America, the histories of transnational adoptees have been marginal and misrepresented. Transnational adoptees are expected to piece together their identities based on limited information from their personal adoption stories (Katz, 1982), which only explains their adoptive family circumstances and does not account for the history associated with their racialized experiences as a person of color in the United States. BRIEF HISTORY OF TRANSNATIONAL ADOPTION Although transnational adoption has garnered considerable media attention over the past decade, the practice is not new to many countries. For the United States, transnational adoptions formally commenced in the early

152    K. J. LANGREHR

1950s and quickly evolved into a globalized institution, sourcing children from approximately 170 countries over a span of 60 years (Hübinette, 2004; United States Department of State [USDS], 2012; Donaldson Adoption Institute [DIA], 2010; Selman, 2006). Since its inception, the practice has been associated with controversy, eliciting polarizing debates about whether transnational adoptions are really in the best interest of the children (Brooks, Barth, Bussiere, & Patterson, 1999). Over the years, depictions of transnational adoption have varied considerably, ranging from expressions of humanitarianism, God’s work, and Christian charity (Holt, 1956) to cultural imperialism and contemporary colonialism (Hübinette, 2004; Kim, 2010). Despite the long-term divide, public attitudes have remained consistent with the dominant influences of the United States. The United States has had a continuous and significant role in rationalizing and sustaining the global practice of transnational adoption. In addition to intercountry influences, several historical events within the United States helped initiate the surge of transnational adoptions (Briggs, 2003; Freundlich & Lieberthal, 2000). For example, early domestic adoptions relied on the availability of infants from unwanted pregnancies; however, legislative changes in reproductive rights led to a significant decline in adoptable White children. From a global perspective, U.S. foreign involvement with countries under economic stress has also helped to sustain the practice of transnational adoption. Despite the political implications, Western media continues to present transnational adoption as a childrescue crusade (Kim, 2010) that caters to Americans’ altruistic sentiments and color-blind mentalities (Lee, 2003). Despite the disputes regarding the costs and benefits of transnational adoption (which continue to this day), assimilative standpoints initially prevailed; adoptive families were advised to socialize their children as if they were White, based on the belief that emphasizing racial and ethnic difference would cause emotional harm (see Lee, 2003 for a comprehensive review). Although practices have changed over time such that adoption agencies now encourage parents to familiarize children with aspects of their heritage, this form of socialization has been criticized as unauthentic and culturally appropriated (Baden, Treweeke, & Ahluwalia, 2012). Impact of Dual Histories The history of transnational adoption can also be traced back to South Korea, which played a significant role in globalizing the practice of transnational adoption. The early U.S. military presence in South Korea led to an estimated 1,000 multiethnic children, which bolstered the growing number of relinquished and homeless South Korean children (see Kim, 2010 for

Transnational Adoption and the Implications of Social-Political History     153

a comprehensive history on Korean adoption). Given the cultural stigma of illegitimacy and miscegenation in Eastern cultures, transnational adoption seemed to be the answer that would allow South Korea to purify the country and avoid public shame (Kim, 2010). For 30 years, South Korea remained the primary source of transnational adoptions, not only for North America but also for Eastern Europe, Scandinavian countries, and Australia (Kim, & Henderson, 2008). However, in response to public criticisms of their adoption practices (i.e., at the Seoul International Olympics, by the New York Times, and the North Korean government), South Korea significantly decreased the number of children sent overseas and began efforts to promote domestic adoption (Kim & Henderson, 2008). Overall, the number of Korean children adopted by American families has been difficult to estimate. Unsuccessful attempts to enact child welfare policies (Simon, Alstein, & Melli, 1994), dubious adoption practices, and early failures in the naturalization process have led to distorted ranges with estimates ranging from 160,000 (DAI, 2010; USDS, 2012) to 300,000 (National Association of Korean Americans, 2006). Similar to other transnational adoptees, Korean adoptees have struggled to solidify a place in U.S. history, making it difficult for others to acknowledge and validate their unique experiences (Langrehr, Yoon, Hacker, & Caudill, 2015). Transnational adoptees often learn of their ethnic origins through appropriated myths that do not reflect their current status that positions them between the margins of two different societies. For example, Korean transnational adoptees are not typically considered real immigrants, as their course to citizenship, and more specifically their process of Americanization, has differed from traditional migration narratives (see Schiller, 1999). Given that many have been adopted into middle to upper class White American families (Lee, 2003), Korean adoptees have been considered to represent an elite or privileged portion of migrants, as they are assumed to benefit from the security and resources not typically accessible in the conventional migration process (Baden et al., 2012). Reminiscent of American exceptionalism (Koh, 2003), transnational adoption has been considered the best solution for orphaned children given the opportunities assumed to come with American citizenship. Overall, transnational adoption continues to be associated with ideologies of rescue that permeate the public and media outlets to this day (Dubinsky, 2008). Korean Adoptees in the United States Based on adoption estimates alone, it can be inferred that individuals from Korea currently represent the largest adult group of transnational adoptees in the United States. Unlike most immigrant groups, however,

154    K. J. LANGREHR

Korean adoptees did not plan their relocation and experienced the transition without the support of family members old enough to have an established understanding of their ethnic roots (Park Nelson, 2009). As transracial adoptees, Korean adoptees are visibly distinct based on their racial and ethnic phenotype, which markedly contrasts from members of their adoptive families. Although they may not represent conventional standards of a traditional American immigrant, they still face the implications of their codified racial status and face discriminatory attitudes based on phenotype alone. As Asian Americans, Korean adoptees also face intrusive curiosities about their ethnic background (Sue, Bucceri, Lin, Nadal, & Torino, 2007). In addition, based on the hypervisibility of race and salience of racial difference, Korean adoptees in the presence of their adoptive families often experience uninvited inquiries from strangers expressing curiosity about their nationality, racial-ethnic background, and adoption status (DocanMorgan, 2010). Given these experiences, it is not uncommon for Korean adoptees to develop a sense of self-identity based on their interactions with others (Baden et al., 2012). Despite that, many have rapidly assimilated to American culture at a young age; adoptees’ ethnic identities can be easily dismissed, as their families and peers often view them as White or American (Lee, 2003). Regardless of the background of their adoptive families, transnational adoptees are unable to pass as racial majority members. Given their paradoxical circumstances, it is difficult for Korean adoptees to gain accurate information about their ethnic histories and circumstances of their adoptions. Just as South Korean history provides no context for adoptees’ racialized experiences in the United States, American history does not account for their transnational backgrounds nor explains the systemic forces of nationalism and stigma that expedited their overseas placement in American homes. Korean Adoptees and Their Relationships With South Korea Although Korean adoptees are inherently tied to their South Korean origins, many have struggled to find a comfortable place within the context of Korean heritage. As the first and largest cohort of American transnational adoptees to have reached adulthood, many have returned to Korea to gain access to their histories and familiarize themselves with Korean culture (Hübinette, 2004). As more adoptees attempted to gain access to their past, however, it became apparent that South Korea had not prepared for their return. In addition to the unearthing the country’s poor recordkeeping practices, many adoptees discovered that their records (e.g., birth dates, reasons for relinquishment) were inaccurate and purposefully

Transnational Adoption and the Implications of Social-Political History     155

misrepresented (Chan, 2013). In addition, Korean adoptees continue to face unique challenges with connecting with the culture given that they represent a secretive and stigmatized part of South Korean history, further complicating their efforts to gain access to their past. In contrast to holding on to romanticized fantasies of Korean culture (Langrehr et al., 2015), Korean adoptees have and continue to face complex challenges with navigating their place in Korean society. Similar to westernized notions that propagate the image of adoptees as perpetual children (Baden et al., 2012), Korean adoptees remain orphans in the eyes of Korean society regardless of their chronological age (Kim, 2010). In contrast to early imageries of the vulnerable, orphaned child (as presented in U.S. media [Kim, 2010]), transnational adoptees have and continue to move to the grown-up table (Dubinsky, 2008) engaging in multiple forms of activism intended to hold Korean society accountable for their systemic flaws and misplaced histories. As evidenced by their successful efforts to be recognized as dual citizens, Korean adoptees have helped create multiple opportunities for members of their community to connect with their culture, as evidenced by increased opportunities for overseas travel to Korea for tourism, language study, teaching placements and interactions with birth family members (Lee & Miller, 2009; Park Nelson, Langrehr, & Kupel, 2014). With the development of technological efficiencies, the transnational nature of their community has been enhanced, allowing ease in global communication and greater access to resources specific to their needs. In addition, Korean adoptees have created their place in history by forming an international community, which includes organizations to engage in advocacy and social networking, as well as through several mediums of expression such as film, biographical narratives, and other forms of literature and research (Hübinette, 2004; Lee & Miller, 2009). Based on their momentum as a community, Korean adoptees have helped create a transnational network that has helped to loosen a sense of cultural confinement between South Korea and their adoptive countries. Challenges With Integrating Transnationalism Into Pluralistic Education Across professional settings (but outside of the classroom), I often find myself engaged in conversations about transnational adoption with acquaintances and colleagues who are interested in my scholarship. During the course of discussion, it is not uncommon for individuals to disclose their own personal connection to transnational adoption as a parent, sibling, or close friend. As the conversation continues, it becomes clear that their perspectives on transnational adoption derive primarily from their personal

156    K. J. LANGREHR

and immediate-level experiences. Although these conversations can be trying at times, I welcome the discourse and explain that my research comes from a more critical and systemic perspective. As you can imagine, reactions to my candor have varied. It can be difficult for people to recognize that something so personally relevant to their lives can be criticized to the degree that they feel judged. Others, however, reveal witnessing some of the unpleasant realities faced by transracial adoptees and their families and are more than willing to engage in an on-going discourse. In many ways, these interactions are comparable to some of my experiences teaching a graduate-level pluralistic counseling course. As most graduate instructors, I continuously try to create an environment where I can balance students’ desire to learn with their course expectations, while doing my best to cover the required material. However, introductory courses on pluralism, intercultural competence, and social justice tend to present additional challenges for instructors given the sensitivities surrounding issues of racism and discrimination (Sue, Lin, Torino, Capodilupo, & Rivera, 2009). One of the many challenges to consider is that each student has his or her own understanding of diversity and multiculturalism based on their unique socialization experiences and personal ideologies. My goal as an instructor is to help students recognize the multidimensional nature of their current identity, which includes how they have benefited from the injustices of the past. In order to effectively work with diverse clientele, students must be able to recognize the historical and systemic factors that have afforded their privileges and marginalized the client populations that they desire to support. As you can imagine, course topics elicit a range of unique student responses. Interestingly, I have found that students often react to the concept of transnationalism in a binary fashion. Although transnational viewpoints can help challenge the value of assimilation beyond traditional Anglo-conformist narratives (Alba & Nee, 1997), students tend to grapple with developing a personal and more complex understanding of the concept. As an instructor, I acknowledge that I am responsible for presenting information in a critical manner; however, like all people, students will interpret and make sense of information in ways already aligned with their worldview. In predominantly White institutions, it is common for students to struggle with personally identifying with cultural lifestyles outside of the United States, let alone recognize the connection between transnationalism and global issues of power and privilege (Sue et al., 2009). In addition, I am often concerned with students that seemingly embrace the thought of fluid identities and connections across borders as concepts that are celebrations of diversity without gaining a full understanding of how their desire for intercultural competence connects to the historical and political injustices of the past. Although not inherently problematic,

Transnational Adoption and the Implications of Social-Political History     157

these belief systems when simplified can suppress students’ willingness to take a critical perspective and hinder the full spectrum of gaining intercultural competence. As evidenced in the history of transnational adoption, roles of privilege can allow people to pick and choose aspects of transnationalism that they are comfortable with and perhaps find the most exciting. Based on conventional images of overseas devastation, knee-jerk desires to intervene, and internalized notions of cultural superiority students can easily position themselves as advocates, allies, and saviors without facing the consequences of privilege and historical injustice (Briggs, 2003). From a transnational standpoint, students must recognize the social-political implications of their own Americanized identities in order to truly work toward intercultural competence. IMPORTANCE OF KNOWING SOCIAL-POLITICAL HISTORY IN PLURALISTIC EDUCATION Students often enter counseling programs to become skilled mental health practitioners, based on their genuine desire to help diverse and disenfranchised populations. Similar to research that suggests that students are typically aware that injustices exist (Sue et al., 2009), I have noticed that students in my class are often eager to take action and fix the problem. Their families and friends may laud them as altruistic and selfless, given their perusal of such a challenging career, however, most genuinely look forward to the sense of fulfillment that comes with helping people in need. Once they begin graduate training, some students are perplexed when asked to explore their privileged identities and discuss the injustices of the past. For some, the notion of recognizing their role in the cycle of oppression seems counterproductive, unreasonable, and often highly threatening. Rarely has a student identified that their semester goal is to confront their privilege and decrease their color-blind racial attitudes. At times, I feel like I am bursting students’ bubbles on the first day of class. Metaphorically, I compare introductory pluralistic courses to the training activities of runners and their coaches as they prepare for an upcoming competition. Like pluralistic training, running competitively is new to most, although some may have run leisurely for several years. Regardless, all students/runners are passionate about running and are eager to compete in what they assume to be the 100-meter dash. As their coach, it is my responsibility to inform them that they registered for the wrong running event, and that the race is actually a marathon. Because students/ runners are in top physical condition and are psyched to compete, they feel confident that they can complete the marathon. In fact, they know several sprinters who have successfully completed marathons without long-distance

158    K. J. LANGREHR

training. Before they take off, I pull them back, telling them that they are not ready and need more training, as they could injure themselves to the degree that they can never run again. I am telling them that their motivation is not enough for them to endure the demands of a marathon. This often plays out in some form at the start of every semester. In the first class, I ask students to indicate their goals for the course. Most, if not all, indicate a desire to learn about various cultural groups assumed to represent the diverse clientele that they will work with as professional counselors. Although not untrue, I tell students that if achieving competence were this easy such a course would be obsolete and that they would simply be given a study manual on every cultural group in the United States. Students are somewhat taken aback as I emphasize the primary goals that focus on understanding social-political history, self-reflection, and moving outside of their personal comfort zones. In essence, I inform them that despite their motivation and intellectual knowledge, that good intentions are not enough. To be a multicultural advocate or competent counselor, they must recognize that their ideologies will be challenged and that facing feelings of discomfort is inevitable and actually a lifelong process. Based on my end-of-semester course evaluations at the undergraduate and graduate level, I have found that students’ often express, to their surprise, that they enjoyed and learned a great deal by reviewing the significance of social-political history in their intercultural training. Although encouraging my students to face and explore their unearned privileges is one of the most difficult objectives of my course, helping them gain some understanding about the source of their privileges can help them to manage their negative reactions without becoming consumed with guilt and defensiveness. Given that students enter my course at varying comfort levels related to discussing race, injustice, and pluralism, I have found it necessary to provide the class with multiple opportunities to engage in different forms of self-reflection. For example, although I encourage students to express themselves in the class, I find that most save their true reactions for their individual reflection papers. I have learned that reflection papers can provide students with a safe place to acknowledge internalized biases and explore feelings of anxiety related to course topics. However, instructors must be willing to recognize these attempts and provide students with honest feedback in order to promote their critical growth. Although certainly time consuming, it provides opportunities to reinforce students’ efforts at expressing the slightest hint of honesty and to normalize their feelings of discomfort. Early feedback is particularly important as it can help address superficial ideologies and minimize defensive student reactions, such as solely fixating on one’s personal oppression and listing off one’s intercultural experiences.

Transnational Adoption and the Implications of Social-Political History     159

AUTHOR REFLECTION Who am I? In addition to identifying as an educator, researcher, and counseling psychologist, I am a transnational Korean adoptee. For me, this indicates that my origins are embedded in the cultural history of South Korea, yet also intersect with my identity status as person of color in the United States. I interpret my experiences as transnational in nature, such that my identity is fluid given that my sense of connection across continents is unremitting. When I am asked about my identity or background, however, I have rarely provided the aforementioned response. Like many Korean adoptees and other transnational individuals, I have encountered questions about my background for as long as I can remember. Although some people may rarely think about their origins, questions about history and belonging are inherent to adoptees’ sense of identity. It is not uncommon that I am approached by strangers who ask about my background without the courtesy of a “hello” or self-introduction. On these occasions, I consider such inquiries to be uninvited, stemming solely from inquirers’ novel perceptions about race and ethnicity. Unlike the purpose of questions that I ask in class, these questions are not intended to help me explore my critical awareness, but to simply ease the curiosity of strangers. As an instructor of a course intended to stimulate critical thought about individual and group identity, reflecting on these experiences has helped me gain perspective on facilitating class discussions on student identity. Although I may be a stranger at the start of the semester, it is my job to establish a relationship with students and do my best to foster a safe environment where they feel comfortable enough to share. Unlike uninvited inquiries about my identity, where most often than not I provide some begrudging response, students often refrain from sharing as they are gripped with anxiety. In a class size of 25 to 30 students, it is not surprising given the sensitive nature of the topic; students are concerned they will appear intolerant and say something that may be deemed offensive. However, as a major objective of the course it is my job to encourage them to take a chance, feel vulnerable, and allow themselves to explore. Just like in a counseling relationship, I can draw from my own identity experiences to empathize with students, validate their feelings, and recognize when they make genuine and honest efforts to move outside of their comfort zones. CRITICAL QUESTIONS One point that I have attempted to address in this chapter is the benefit of helping students understand how they relate to issues of social injustice in order to promote critical awareness toward intercultural concerns

160    K. J. LANGREHR

(e.g., transnationalism) relevant to intercultural teaching and learning. In particular, the following questions are intended to help students engage in mindful reflection about their identity, privilege, and worldview as it relates to the teaching and learning of intercultural competence. 1. What is your understanding of transnationalism as it relates to intercultural education and learning? Where does this understanding come from? How does social justice relate to transnationalism? –– In addition to promoting student reflection on transnationalism, this question is intended to encourage students to explore the foundation of their global perspectives. For example, are students basing their understanding of transnationalism solely from a Westernized worldview? –– In what way do students’ perspectives impact their understanding of social justice as it relates to transnationalism and intercultural education and learning? 2. Do you focus on “exciting aspects” of pluralism (e.g., learning about different cultures), and seem less eager to discuss undesirable facts about injustice? How could an unbalanced perspective impact the process of intercultural teaching and learning in the classroom? –– This reflection question is intended to push students to explore the reasons behind their investment in certain issues of social justice over others concerns. –– Do students focus on the “ism” of their choice and pay minimal attention to other forms of oppression that they are unfamiliar and/or uncomfortable with? 3. How can educators incorporate critical perspectives of social-political history into the classroom to help foster intercultural teaching and learning? What benefits would you anticipate? In contrast, what would be your concerns? –– This question is intended to promote critical thought surrounding what we currently know, the source of this information, and the reasons for our pedagogical approaches. –– Helping students understand their own social political histories can help expand their intercultural perspectives, particularly regarding their own privileged identities that are necessary to explore and reflect upon as competent intercultural educators. SUMMARY The questions explored previously and the argument that has been developed within this chapter overall are intended to encourage and to remind

Transnational Adoption and the Implications of Social-Political History     161

educators and students to continuously reflect upon how they relate to issues of intercultural learning and social justice in higher education. In particular, readers are reminded that privilege continues to manifest at multiple levels and takes on many different forms, which from a transnational perspective has been traditionally guised through savior mentalities and American exceptionalism. In addition, educators and students are reminded to take a wider transnational perspective in conceptualizing injustice, which includes seeking out inconvenient truths. As evidenced in the history of Korean transnational adoption, good intentions fall short of fostering the intercultural context necessary to effectively manage complex issues that involve a long history of injustice within and beyond American borders. To promote intercultural competence in teaching learning, I encourage educators and students to engage in an on-going reflection that includes challenging their personal reasons for investing in certain social justice concerns and revisiting different ways of maintaining a critical balance of perspectives in the classroom. REFERENCES Alba, R., & Nee, V. (1997). Rethinking assimilation theory for a new era of immigration. International Migration Review, 31(4), 826–874. doi: 10.2307/2547416 Baden, A. L. (2002). The psychological adjustment of transracial adoptees: An application of the cultural-racial identity model. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 11(2), 167–192. doi: 10.1023/A:1014316018637 Baden, A. L., Treweeke, L. M., & Ahluwalia, M. K. (2012). Reclaiming culture: Reacculturation of transracial and international adoptees. Journal of Counseling & Development, 90(4), 387–399. doi: 10.1002/j.1556-6676.2012.00049.x Bradatan, C., Popan, A., & Melton, R. (2010). Transnationality as a fluid social identity. Social Identities, 16(2), 169–178. doi: 10.1080/13504631003688856 Briggs, L. (2003). Mother, child, race, nation: The visual iconography of rescue and the politics of transnational and transracial adoption. Gender & History, 15(2), 179–200. doi: 10.1111/1468-0424.00298 Brooks, D., Barth, R., Bussiere, A. & Patterson, G. (1999). Adoption and race: Implementing the Multiethnic Placement Act and the interethnic adoption provisions. Social Work, 44(2), 167–179. Retrieved from doi: 10.1093/sw/44.2.167 Chan, W. (2013). Raised in America, activists lead fight to end South Korean adoptions. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/world/ international-adoption-korea-adoptee-advocates/ Docan–Morgan, S. (2010). Korean adoptees’ retrospective reports of intrusive interactions: Exploring boundary management in adoptive families. Journal of Family Communication, 10(3), 137–157. doi: 10.1080/15267431003699603 Donaldson Adoption Institute. (2010). Keeping the promise. Retrieved from http:// www.adoptioninstitute.org/old/publications/2010_10_20_KeepingThePromise.pdf

162    K. J. LANGREHR Dubinsky, K. (2008). The fantasy of the global cabbage patch. Feminist Theory, 9(3), 339–345. doi: 10.1177/1464700108095855 Freundlich, M., & Lieberthal, J. K. (2000). The gathering of the first generation of adult Korean adoptees: Adoptees’ perceptions of international adoption. Retrieved from http://www.holtintl.org/pdfs/Survey2.pdf Holt, B. (1956). The seed from the east. Los Angeles, CA: Oxford Press. Hübinette, T. (2004). Adopted Koreans and the development of identity in the ‘third space.’ Adoption & Fostering, 28(1), 16–24. doi: 10.1177/030857590402800104 Katz, S. N. (1982). The revolution in family law. Rewriting the adoption story: The old version was based on more fiction than fact—the belief that law could mirror biology. Today’s adoption procedures are more realistic. Family Advocate, 5, 9–10. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25806021 Kim, E. J. (2010). Adopted territory. Transnational Korean adoptees and the politics of belonging. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Kim, J. W., & Henderson, T. (2008). History of the care of displaced children in Korea. Asian Social Work and Policy Review, 2(1), 13–29. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-1411.2008.00007.x Koh, H. H. (2003). On American exceptionalism. Stanford Law Review, 55(5), 1479–1527. Langrehr, K. J., Yoon, E., Hacker, J. & Caudill, K. (2015). Implications of transnational adoption status for adult Korean adoptees. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 43(1), 6–24. doi: 10.1002/j.2161-1912.2015.00061.x Lee, R. M. (2003). The transracial adoption paradox: History, research, and counseling implications of cultural socialization. The Counseling Psychologist, 31(6), 711–744. doi: 10.1177/0011000003258087 Lee, R. M., & Miller, M. J. (2009). History and psychology of adoptees in Asian America. In N. Tewari & A. N. Alvarez (Eds.), Asian American psychology: Current perspectives (pp. 337–363). New York, NY: Psychology Press. National Association of Korean Americans. (2006). A brief history of Korean Americans. Retrieved from http://naka.org/resources/history.asp Park Nelson, K. (2009). Korean looks, American eyes: Korean American adoptees, race, culture and nation. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. Park Nelson, K., Langrehr, K. J., & Kupel, N. B. (2014). Survey of attendees of the 2010 International Korean Adoptee Association gathering of Korean adoptees, August 4, 2010, Seoul, South Korea: An IKAA report. Retrieved from http://www.ikaa.org/ wp-content/uploads/2015/09/IKAAGathering2010Report.pdf Selman, P. (2006). Trends in intercountry adoption: Analysis of data from 20 receiving countries, 1998–2004. Journal of Population Research, 23(2), 183–204. doi: 10.1007/BF03031815 Schiller, N. G. (1999). Transmigrants and nation-states: Something old and something new in U.S. immigrant experience. In C. Hirschman, P. Kasinitz, & J. DeWind (Eds.), Handbook of international migration: The American experience (pp. 94–119). New York, NY: Sage. Simon, R. J., Altstein, H., & Melli, M. (1994). The case for transracial adoption. Washington, DC: American University Press.

Transnational Adoption and the Implications of Social-Political History     163 Smedley, A. & Smedley, B. D. (2005). Race as biology is fiction, racism as a social problem is real. American Psychologist, 60(1), 16–26. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.60.1.16 Sue, D. W., Bucceri, J., Lin, A. I., Nadal, K. L., & Torino, G. C. (2007). Racial microaggressions and the Asian American experience. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13(1), 72–81. doi: 10.1037/1099-9809.13.1.72 Sue, D. W., Lin, A. I., Torino, G. C., Capodilupo, C. M., & Rivera, D. P. (2009). Racial microaggressions and difficult dialogues on race in the classroom. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 15(2), 183–190. doi: 10.1037/a0014191 U.S. Department of State. (2012). Fiscal year adoption statistics. Retrieved from http://adoption.state.gov/about_us/statistics.php Worthington, R. L., Navarro, R. L., Loewy, M., & Hart, J. (2008). Color-blind racial attitudes, social dominance orientation, racial-ethnic group membership and college students’ perceptions of campus climate. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1(1), 8–19. doi: 10.1037/1938-8926.1.1.8

This page intentionally left blank.

CHAPTER 10

NARRATIVE AND CRITICAL EXPLORATIONS OF VOICE IN INTERCULTURAL EXPERIENCES Elaine Chan and Candace Schlein

The foreign-born population has been expanding in the United States and in Canada (Statistics Canada, 2007; United States Census Bureau, 2013). Therefore, schools are increasingly becoming intercultural landscapes where students and teachers from various cultural and language backgrounds interact to shape and be shaped by teaching and learning. Such shifts in education are intricately associated with issues of equity, equality, and social justice (Cummins, 2001; Equity Department of the Toronto District School Board, 2001, 2005). Educators and administrators, who generally represent the nation’s hegemony, are charged with the responsibility of creating and maintaining school communities where students of diverse backgrounds feel welcome and engaged. However, they must do so for students whose experiences these teacher and administrators often do not understand in-depth. As a result, there is a critical need for research examining the experiences of immigrant students

A Reader of Narrative and Critical Lenses on Intercultural Teaching and Learning, pages 165–182 Copyright © 2017 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 165

166    E. CHAN and C. SCHLEIN

and intercultural schools (Chan, 2007). There is a lack of educational research focusing specifically on students (Cook-Sather, 2002) and educational investigations of intercultural students are not well-documented (Chan & Schlein, 2010). Moreover, very little of this work has been completed by researchers with international and intranational intercultural experiences (Schlein, 2009, 2010). In this chapter, we explore intercultural teaching and learning from the vantage of educational research. We discuss our narrative inquiry (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000) research interactions with newcomer students and their teachers within a highly diverse and intercultural school. In this way, we cast a narrative lens on intercultural educational research as a means of shedding light on issues of voicing in intercultural schools. In particular, we consider how narrative inquiry among intercultural students and their teachers might serve to aid them in voicing their own stories of experience (Cook-Sather, 2002). In turn, we discuss this as a socially just form of research dealing with intercultural teaching and learning, whereby we attend to the needs, interests, and experiences of intercultural students within the curriculum and identify potential curricular gaps concerning equitable schooling guided by students’ backgrounds and needs. Interwoven into this work is a consideration of the appropriateness and potential of narrative inquiry and the telling of teacher and student stories of intercultural experiences for enriching understanding of diversity through the dissemination of research texts. We acknowledge the building of knowledge about students’ and teachers’ intercultural experiences as a resource to inform the work of educators with increasingly diverse student populations. Within this chapter, we consider the impact of researchers within a relational study and the role of inquirers in shaping interpretive findings. Significantly, we examine how the data within a relational narrative inquiry (Clandinin et al., 2006) might shape and be shaped by inquiry interpretations. We further analyze our research from a critical lens to consider how our own stances as intercultural researchers might impact intercultural research dealing with teaching and learning. We highlight potential issues related to researcher bias and data interpretation when an investigation is conducted from an intercultural perspective. Critical to this process, we engage in deliberation over the personal, educational, and social appropriateness of narrative inquiry and the relation of stories of experience for students and researchers who have crossed cultures. Our stance in this chapter is to underscore the power and the potential of disseminating research about the experiences of students and their teachers in schools where many students have crossed cultures and interact across and through their cultural experiences on a daily basis in order to inform school practices and policies pertaining to curriculum development

Narrative and Critical Explorations of Voice in Intercultural Experiences    167

and implementation for increasingly diverse student populations. While we assert that it is socially just to share the voiced expressions of the experiences of intercultural students and their teachers, we underscore that interpretation in qualitative research is not neutral. Data analysis and interpretation in qualitative research integrates researchers’ decisions about which stories and voices are included and which are not. Such decisions may be made in subconscious ways, shaped by researcher biases and prior experiences. In narrative inquiry, where the researcher is positioned within the investigation, this type of experiential embedding in a study might become a prominent feature of the study, especially regarding inquiry interpretations. It is our intention to uncover our stories of conducting research within a highly diverse school and among intercultural students and their teachers. In this way, we aim to shed light on factors potentially affecting our understanding about the narrative thread connections from among our data. Telling stories about intercultural students is important for moving toward creating and sustaining equitable schools for all students. It is also a matter of social justice to shift the gaze toward stories that are told and those that remain untold. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK The focus of our study on the role of experience in shaping the professional and personal identity and knowledge of teachers was reinforced by Dewey’s (1938) philosophy of education as shaped by experience in social contexts. This perspective includes an understanding of education as inextricably intertwined with life events. We further explored Dewey’s notion of the dialectic between the personal and the social dimensions of curricular situations and interactions. We refer to Clandinin and Connelly’s (2000) notion of the three-dimensional narrative inquiry space as a framework for considering the potential influence of cultural, racial, religious, ethnic, and linguistic experiences across time and context in informing our understanding of the curricular needs of students living and learning in increasingly diverse global communities. We also consider the potential of researchers’ prior intercultural experiences in contributing to the interpretation of ideas and events as students, teachers, and educational investigators working together in school communities. These ideas were foundational for our interpretive and intercultural examination of teachers’ experiences in relation to their work with diverse students. This theoretical framework is shaped by the idea of professional identity as heavily influenced by teachers’ professional knowledge landscapes (Connelly & Clandinin, 1999). We emphasize the role of schooling in shaping

168    E. CHAN and C. SCHLEIN

a sense of ethnic identity (Chan, 2003; Cummins, 2001; Kouritzin, 1999; Wong-Fillmore, 1991), and we highlight the critical importance of acknowledging students’ cultural backgrounds by engaging students in learning about their home cultures and languages in the curriculum (Cummins, 2001; Igoa, 1995; Schlein & Chan, 2010; Wong-Fillmore, 1991). We also consulted research that addressed the potential of recognizing nuances of differences in the experiences of students and teachers as they work together in classroom contexts, and developing alternative approaches of working with students (Chan & Ross, 2009; Chan & Schlein, 2010; Ross & Chan, 2008) using a deliberative (Schwab, 1983) process. METHODOLOGY We employed a narrative inquiry approach (Clandinin & Connelly, 1994, 2000) with an emphasis on “stories of experience” (Connelly & Clandinin, 1988) to learn about students’ experiences in a diverse, urban, comprehensive elementary and middle school in Canada. We also examined teachers’ experiences at the research school as they attempted to acknowledge the ethnic, racial, linguistic, and religious diversity of their students in their curriculum and through their teaching practices. We reflect upon the layered complexities that they encountered and the stories that they told about themselves and their work with intercultural students as they developed and implemented a culturally sensitive and culturally relevant curriculum. We also draw upon our personal and professional experiences as researchers with intercultural personal and professional experiences to inform our understanding of these challenges. An emphasis on stories as “the closest we can come to experience” (Clandinin & Connelly, 1994, p. 415) offers a means of considering how educators might understand and draw upon intercultural experiences to inform their work with students and to understand further the relationship between experiences, stories of experience, and qualitative research texts that are prepared for dissemination to a public readership. We conducted participant observations with a class of students in the seventh grade over the course of a full academic year, participated in all aspects of classroom life, and interacted with members of the research school community at various school events to learn about ways in which issues of culture play out in the school context.1 We completed a series of interviews with groups of five to seven students at a time over the course of the year in collaboration with their classroom teacher. In turn, the students completed assignments that were used to compile a yearbook toward the end of the year. We also conducted interviews with two teachers: William and Janet,2 respectively the students’ homeroom teacher and the middle school

Narrative and Critical Explorations of Voice in Intercultural Experiences    169

resource teacher who had also previously taught many of the students we focus on in this study. Interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed. We wrote descriptive field notes following observations and interviews, and computerized all field notes. We organized our data according to broad narrative themes generated after reviewing our field notes and interview transcriptions several times. We analyzed field texts using the three-dimensional narrative inquiry framework (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000) to acknowledge the personal-social, temporal, and contextual facets of our teacher participants’ experiences. In this way, we drew tentative interpretations of our participants’ teaching situations and interactions among teachers and students. This framework was also useful for helping us to understand our positioning as researchers in the field and how our own personal, social, temporal, and contextual experiences shaped our work as investigators. This included the collecting of stories of experience, the organization of data into common narrative themes, and the interpretation of the themed data in accordance with the narrative inquiry three-dimensional framework for data analysis. FINDINGS We focus here on our interactions with two teachers at the school: William, a 7th-grade middle school teacher, and Janet, a middle school resource teacher. We highlight ways in which these teachers drew upon their prior culturally embedded experiences to inform their curriculum development and implementation for their students, many of whom come from diverse backgrounds. The following narratives were drawn from our field notes following participant observations and conversational interviews with these teachers. They illustrate some of the complexities of shaping a culturally sensitive curriculum for diverse students that acknowledges students’ needs while accounting for the experiences of teachers and researchers working in a highly multicultural school with a significant intercultural student population. When we approached William to engage in participant observation in his 7th-grade classroom, he immediately welcomed us warmly. We were struck by how he included us into his classroom community. Although we only visited his classroom for two or three afternoons per week, he made sure to have his students greet us as we entered the room. That feeling of community was made obvious throughout interactions between William and his students, as we observed him interacting with siblings and parents of his students, and referring to events and incidents in the family and community from earlier interactions with the students.

170    E. CHAN and C. SCHLEIN

During recess time, some students literally clung to William’s arms as we walked around the school or the schoolyard to perform supervisory duties. We also witnessed the students’ tears and distress at the end of the year when they learned that William would not be their teacher during their 8th-grade year, as had been previously scheduled. We wondered about how William shaped such a close connection with his students within a sense of community. In particular, we noted how William stated on several occasions during conversational interviews that he was “very aware of his place in the school and in the classroom as a White, male teacher.” The students in William’s homeroom class were reflective of the cultural groups that are represented in the primarily immigrant neighborhood surrounding the school. The students’ families came from many different countries including Somalia, Romania, Bangladesh, Iran, Afghanistan, China, Vietnam, and Ethiopia. Three students in the class were third generation Canadians from Caucasian, European backgrounds. Approximately one-third of the students in the class were recent newcomers to Canada from places where English was not spoken; these students were included in the homeroom class for a part of each day and spent the rest of the day in a reception class, where they received English as a second language instruction. They were working toward the goal of full integration into mainstream English language instruction. This picture of ethnic, cultural, language, and citizenship diversity was seemingly at odds with the cohesion that was displayed in William’s class. William told us that he was always conscious of his role as a teacher from the hegemonic Canadian culture. We observed how William made efforts to include the students’ cultural experiences into classroom assignments, by having students interview parents and/or caregivers to learn about enjoyable activities and games from their childhood and then sharing this writing with their classmates through presentations, or having students work with parents and/or caregivers to identify and write out favorite family recipes to be included in a classroom collection to be printed for fundraising. He was also firmly entrenched in the broader community surrounding the school. When we went with him for lunch in nearby restaurants, he was greeted warmly along the way by members of the neighborhood. Over lunch one day, we approached William with a request to interview his students about their cultures and their family backgrounds. We were somewhat nervous that William would feel that our request would constrain his curricular efforts with his students. William thought about our request, as we waited anxiously for a few minutes in silence. Then William responded that he thought that it would be a great idea for us to meet with his students. He suggested that we interview the students in groups of three or four. He told us that this arrangement might make it more comfortable for the students to discuss their cultural experiences. He also requested that

Narrative and Critical Explorations of Voice in Intercultural Experiences    171

he form the groups to identify students needing extra help in talking about their backgrounds. William then surprised us by asking to be involved in the inquiry process with his students. He said that he would be very interested in working with us to shape a list of questions to ask his students. We showed him a list of open-ended questions that we had already created. William then carefully inspected each question, suggesting amendments, and providing requests to add or delete certain questions. He suggested, for example, that we include questions about whether students had been invited to contribute knowledge about their home culture in previous classes, and to ask for specific details about ways in which learning about home cultures had been included in classroom work. It was clear from his response that William was highly interested in learning from his students, and he saw our interviews with the students as new sources of information about the culturally related needs and interests of his pupils. The following week after our discussion with William regarding interviewing his students, we were set to begin meeting with the first group. William discussed with the class that they would all be meeting with us, Elaine and Candace, in different groups. In this way, our research was given agency in the class. After our first set of interviews, we met with William to discuss our progress. We carried out an informal interview with William as he supervised the hallways during recess. William seemed to be excited by the new cultural information that we were gaining from the students. We shared with William some of the information that we were learning about his students from our conversations with them. He further related to us how he had previously included the students’ cultures with various curricular activities. He said that he saw our work with his students as being related to expanding the curriculum in line with the students’ experiential stories. After that, our research became conjoined with William’s curricular interactions with his students, as he worked to shape a culturally sensitive and relevant curriculum. He used some of the general themes from our interviews to guide assignments. He identified some themes and assignments prior to beginning our interviews with the students, such as conducting discussion about experiences of immigration and settlement into their new community, and challenges of learning English in a Canadian school. He also shaped some assignments that were revealed as we spoke with the students about their immigration and settlement experiences, such as differences between their Canadian school and their schools in their home countries, and challenges they encountered in adapting to increased expectations for assisting parents with the care of siblings and household chores during after school hours. Other interview themes became expanded with homework assignments. At William’s urging, we compiled a student cultural and personal survey into a class yearbook. This helped us to wrap

172    E. CHAN and C. SCHLEIN

up our work with the students while ensuring that the focus of our work was on the students. Toward the end of the school year, we aided William with a planned field trip. Lining up outside the school on the warm spring morning of the outing to a local amusement park, William realized that not all of the students had come prepared with money to pay for their public transit fare. William suggested that we could all walk to the park so that every student could be included in the planned day of enjoyment. Such a walk would have taken at least an hour and a half. Instead, some students ran back to their nearby homes to get some money. Then, with brown paper lunch bags in hand we jumped on the streetcar and made our way to the amusement park. As we walked to the streetcar, we spoke with William about his goals for the field trip. Many of William’s students lived in low-income housing near the school, and William highlighted to us that most of his students worked after school in family businesses or they helped to look after siblings while their parents worked long hours. William stated that he felt that it was important that his students from an urban, multicultural school have the opportunity to experience activities that students from other schools experienced, such as a day at an amusement park. William’s approach with his students seemed to be consistent with his acknowledgement that he needed to be aware of his stance as a White, middle class, English-speaking teacher with a homeroom class with highly culturally, ethnically, and linguistically diverse students. He seemed to want to provide opportunities for his students that were similar to experiences that he had enjoyed as a student. He also displayed during the amusement park visit how issues of equity were very important. Rather than sending home the students in his class who were not able to contribute to the cost of transportation, he contemplated alternative means for arriving at the park. Nevertheless, the students were able to work together to make sure that everyone was able to attend the outing. William’s interactions with his students seemingly contrasted with the resource teacher Janet’s outlook on working with students. The following excerpt from our field notes outlines our negotiation of research participation with Janet. We often saw Janet going into the resource room—her office for the school year in which she assumed the position as resource teacher—as we sat with students at the round table outside of Room ABC. Sometimes she carried papers and file folders, sometimes books, and sometimes she had a student with her. Regardless of the day, however, she struggled with the keys on her long, metal keychain, searching to find the correct one, and rattling them as she balanced her materials in the other hand. One day, as we tidied up after a session with the students, she surprised us by commenting on how we were doing “interesting work.” We had not realized anyone had been paying attention to our conversations with the students. In fact, we

Narrative and Critical Explorations of Voice in Intercultural Experiences    173

had chosen the location for our student interviews at the far end of a long hallway that was somewhat removed from the students’ classroom and other classrooms on that floor. Janet’s resource room door was usually closed when she worked with students, and we only interacted with her when she was entering or exiting from her room. We had been conducting a series of interviews with the students about family history and their experiences of the inclusion of culture in the school curriculum. We had not noticed when Janet began paying attention to the questions that we were asking the students and the kinds of responses that they were providing. We knew Janet as a classroom teacher at the school from previous years, before she assumed the position of resource teacher during the year when we were conducting this research, but we had not intended on including her as a research participant. We did not know the details of her experiences or her involvement with students and parents of diverse cultural backgrounds. Also unknown to us at the time was that she had taught the group of students with whom we worked a few years earlier, when they were in either the third or fourth grade respectively. She had also worked with some of the students’ older brothers and sisters previously. Janet often greeted us when she saw us out in the hallway, but it was not until she stopped to talk that day that we realized that she was interested in what we were doing with the students. She shared with us that day detailed knowledge about some of the students with whom we worked, and she spoke with enthusiasm about the importance of students learning about their families’ home cultures. As we were conducting relational research, we took this opportunity to allow our study to be shaped organically through the process of engaging with members of the research school community. Janet’s interest in our study, and her knowledge of our research context, set the path toward opening up our study to include her as a research participant. We thus took this opportunity to ask whether she would talk with us further in an interview about her experiences with the students and their families. On another afternoon several days later, we met with Janet in her resource room for an informal interview. During this interview, she began to talk about how so many of the students at the school, including the group of students who we were interviewing and observing, came from a variety of different countries. She then related to us that she had taught in a few countries abroad prior to returning to Canada and gaining employment at the research school. Seeing our interest in her previous experience in foreign school contexts, Janet elaborated upon the work that she had done with families in South America, and as a settlement worker in Toronto. She spoke about the families with whom she worked and the impact that they had left on her. She described them as having generous spirits and a desire to do well by their children, despite the extraordinary challenges that they

174    E. CHAN and C. SCHLEIN

struggled to overcome in order to survive in new communities with limited financial, language, and cultural resources. Janet’s commitment to her students and their families was obvious. We were further struck by her efforts to understand and support the families of her students, especially those she knew struggled, whether financially or spiritually, as they attempted to find resources and build communities in which to raise their children. When we pointed out that we had noticed a poster that she had recently placed near her room, she spoke about the South Asian mother of one of the students with whom we had been working, describing the mother’s excitement when she saw the notice that she had posted outside her door about the upcoming South Asian festivals in the community. When we later interviewed this parent, we better understood the nuances of the struggles this single, unemployed parent encountered as she attempted to find resources to support her efforts to raise her six school-aged children according to the values and experiences that she believed to be critical for children growing up in Bangladeshi families of Muslim faith. It was only upon reflection on this parents’ struggles that we appreciated more fully Janet’s knowledge of this woman’s experiences, and the importance of her reaching out to this parent as a source of support. We write elsewhere about how this parent appreciated Janet’s efforts and care so much that the mother considered Janet her daughter’s motherfigure at school (Schlein & Chan, 2010). We came to see Janet as an intercultural teacher who advocated for her students and their families. We also observed how she included the students’ cultures in her work as a resource worker and in her decorations in and around her office. We were thus puzzled when Janet mentioned to us that she did “not agree with William’s students going on all of these field trips.” She told us that she only felt that students should go on field trips if they merited the occasion academically and behaviorally, and it seemed that Janet did not feel that William’s students possessed those qualities. We consider the narratives of experience related here in the following section from the perspective of our own stances as intercultural researchers to consider issues of research, intercultural teaching and learning, equity, and social justice. AUTHOR REFLECTIONS: RESONATING STORIES, MULTIPLE LAYERS OF INTERPRETATION We present the previous “stories of experience” (Connelly & Clandinin, 1988) as documentation of interactions with students and teachers in the research school. The stories, in turn, take us back to our own experiences of intercultural teaching and learning. Kerby (1991) stated that “experiences

Narrative and Critical Explorations of Voice in Intercultural Experiences    175

come to one not in discrete instances but as part of an ongoing life” (p. 16). This is much the spirit in which we drew upon our prior experiences of intercultural teaching and learning to inform our understanding of the experiences of our participants. We considered the potential of these prior intercultural experiences as instances that are part of an ongoing life, making use of the three-dimensional narrative inquiry space to draw upon our past stories in connection with our current research stories. In other words, our past narratives of intercultural experiences were powerful in shaping our experiences of diversity when we first lived out those situations, but these personal and professional intercultural interactions also continued to shape our understanding of more recent events through the insight that they offered as we puzzled over incidents and interactions that we witnessed in the school context. Analyzing Elaine’s Stories of Intercultural Experiences in Shaping her Researcher Lens Through interaction with our student and teacher participants, Elaine became aware of the many ways their school and neighborhood differed from those that she had experienced as a Canadian-born child growing up in an immigrant Chinese family. To begin with, the small minority population during her childhood contributed to limited opportunities for exposure to and learning about her family’s Chinese culture outside of the home. Throughout elementary school, Elaine lived in a neighborhood where there were not many Chinese families. Elaine’s family was one of two Chinese families in the neighborhood, and she was more often than not the only person of Asian heritage in her class. Most people did not know much about Chinese culture. In general, non-English-speaking children in school seemed to be few and far between, and they were usually placed into regular classes without supplemental English instruction or academic support beyond what Englishspeaking children received. Given the limited exposure to children who did not speak English or whose families were of cultural backgrounds different from their own, most of the Anglo-Canadian children in her school did not know much about cultures different from that which they lived in their own English speaking families of European descent. Elaine’s adult recollection of school experiences does not include learning about cultural diversity as a part of the school curriculum, sharing knowledge of her home culture in school with peers and teachers, or having members of the school community reach out to her family to learn about and support their efforts to bridge the cultural gap between home and school. Instead, the home culture and language remained in the home and were not usually included in the mainstream, English-speaking school

176    E. CHAN and C. SCHLEIN

culture. She learned about Chinese culture through interactions with family members, through Chinese literature and Chinese language taught in the Chinese heritage language classes she attended during weekends, and through family stories. She does not remember Chinese culture being acknowledged or addressed in school or in the curriculum. The dominance of the English language in her childhood province of Ontario was unmistakably strong in comparison. Elaine’s limited exposure to Chinese language and culture outside the home contributed to her sense of Chinese culture as associated with home life and being markedly different from the culture outside the home. Perhaps due to changes in Canadian society and Canadian schooling in terms of diversity and curricular support for diverse students, our student participants’ experiences differed significantly from those that Elaine had experienced as a child. These differences, in turn, contribute to differences in the ways both of us understand and interpret the experiences in the research school context. These experiences contributed to forming the lens through which we interpret the experiences observed in the research school context, such that when Elaine heard Janet speak with enthusiasm about the importance of encouraging and supporting students’ sharing of knowledge about their family’s culture and history or she observed William including the students’ stories of cultural experiences into the curriculum, she was hopeful that teachers in diverse school communities were making efforts to include the cultural backgrounds of their minority students in the mainstream school curriculum in ways she did not experience in her own schooling. Analyzing Candace’s Stories of Intercultural Experiences in Shaping her Researcher Lens Candace’s prior experiences also shaped her interpretation of events observed in the school. In particular, she reflects on how working as a teacher in Japan for two years had shaped her perspective on her later experiences in the research school. Candace had previously struggled with learning about Japanese culture and the role of the teacher in Japan during a period of 2 years. When she returned to Canada, her struggle was magnified as she relearned what it meant to be a teacher in a Canadian classroom, which often consisted of students from different cultural backgrounds, when she had become accustomed to teaching in largely homogeneous Japanese classrooms, where nearly all of the students were of Japanese descent. Candace came to see teaching and learning as interconnected with culture, language, and cultures of schooling. Such aspects of curricular situations and interactions marked both her struggles with teaching across cultures

Narrative and Critical Explorations of Voice in Intercultural Experiences    177

and her path to being an intercultural teacher. She came to recognize that teaching was not a culturally neutral activity. She further saw the need to support students’ cultures, and their culturally related norms and expectations for education, as an essential component to the establishment of successful learning environments for students of diverse backgrounds. Over time, as Candace became embedded as a researcher in a multicultural school, she further learned about some of the nuances of teaching in classrooms with students from a multitude of cultural backgrounds. She noticed that her researcher lens was shaped by her own lens as an intercultural teacher. For example, she sought out intercultural teachers at the research school to connect with, she shared her own stories of crossing cultures with student participants, and she encouraged William to create a curriculum that recognized his students’ cultural backgrounds. DISCUSSION Personal experience about the impact of the significant divide between home and school cultures as a child informs Elaine’s understanding of what this experience might be like for minority students in North American schools. Likewise for Candace, intercultural experiences of teaching and learning in Japan inform her understanding of the challenges students of minority background may encounter in school. Drawing upon these intercultural experiences of teaching and learning to inform the future work of our preservice and in-service education students highlights their potential as professional development resources to help bridge the gap between home and school for students coming from diverse cultural backgrounds. Given the increasing diversity of student populations, understanding teachers’ development of a sense of professional knowledge needed to work with this student population is essential. This study offers a glimpse of how teachers may draw upon multiple resources and experiences to inform their understanding of the curricular needs of their students. Attending to the cultural, ethnic, and language needs of students from historically underrepresented backgrounds is essential for the establishment of socially just and equitable schools. Furthermore, we consider here how researchers might shape the stories told in ways that might be consistent with their own perspectives. We related previously how both of us have been profoundly impacted by our experiences as intercultural teachers and students. Reflecting on the ways in which our prior experiences have shaped us, we further recognized that we considered ourselves to be intercultural researchers. We then searched through our investigative interpretations to tease apart our researcher influence in terms of the stories told and silenced in our story of conducting

178    E. CHAN and C. SCHLEIN

research about culture, as situated in a highly culturally diverse school that is located in a largely immigrant community. At the outset, our great interest in uncovering the stories of the cultures of our participants might be connected narratively to our own experiences as teachers or students, where culture played a great role. We considered how we might have further sought out stories from William and Janet that showcased attention to culture in their professional work. For example, we wondered about why we were excited to see that Janet had placed a poster about a South Asian celebration outside of her office door. Our attention to this decorative detail led us to a line of questioning with Janet that outlined her ongoing interaction with a Bangladeshi student and her mother. If we had not noticed or questioned Janet about the poster, we would surely not have had the opportunity to learn about how Janet, a Caucasian, Christian, middle-class, and native English-speaking teacher had come to be labeled as a school-based surrogate mother for a student of Bangladeshi and Muslim heritage. Our intercultural experiences enabled us to engage seamlessly in William’s classroom. We understood William’s expressed concern about being a White male teacher to his diverse students, and excitedly supported his efforts to include his students’ cultures in the curriculum. We were happy to support successful field trips to provide students with enjoyable experiences despite, or perhaps because of, their perceived label of being economically disadvantaged. Reflecting on this situation, we wondered about why William repeatedly stated that he recognized that he was White and male, and that he was concerned about how these identity factors might impact his work with his students. We questioned whether this was an important aspect of our research in William’s class. Did William shape his curricular activities based upon a thoughtfulness regarding his own ethnicity? We deliberated over whether William might have created similar classroom experiences regardless of whether he was conscious of how his background might situate him in terms of building a culturally sensitive curriculum and for the creation of socially just and equitable schooling for his students. We questioned whether we might nonetheless have been drawn to William’s statement due to our own intercultural experiences. We reflected upon whether Elaine’s experience of growing up with few Chinese or Asian role models in school and Candace’s experience of returning to Canada after teaching Japanese students might have positioned our researcher lenses and affected our interpretations. We also considered some of the enduring puzzles of our research in association with our positioning as intercultural researchers. We were surprised that Janet did not seem supportive of William’s efforts to plan field trips for his students. Janet was familiar with many of his students, and she believed

Narrative and Critical Explorations of Voice in Intercultural Experiences    179

that such trips should only be supplied based on merit. We wondered about why Janet did not think that all of the students deserved to have the experiences surrounding the field trips. We also puzzled over why Janet did not have the same philosophy as William regarding creating socially just and equitable opportunities for students through the field trips. While William saw the trips as a way to provide experiences to his students that they might not get to enjoy outside of school, Janet seemed to feel that such trips should be provided on a case by case basis. We had been supportive of the field trips, and reflecting on this situation displayed to us how such a perspective might have been consistent with our own experiences as intercultural students or teachers. We then considered why Janet, who had experienced life and teaching in other settings, might have a different perspective on what equity and social justice looks like in a multicultural school. Moreover, we consider how the differing perspectives of William and Janet regarding social justice education might highlight that social justice educators might assume that their perspectives of social justice are the right perspectives. Living alongside Janet and William on the research landscape highlighted for us how there might be nuances when it comes to social justice education. While we did not approach this notion to William or Janet, we wondered whether William might understand his perspective to be right and he might not see Janet’s perspective as socially just. At the same time, it is possible that Janet might believe that her stance on working with students might be socially just while she might understand William’s interactions with his students to be less indicative of socially just education. As well, we noted how our reflections on this scenario might reveal our own biases as intercultural researchers. We might have had certain expectations for Janet based upon the stories of experience that she had shared with us about her work as a teacher in different cultures. However, in telling us that she did not agree with the field trips, she shared with us a divergent point of view on her work with diverse students. Thinking through Janet’s responses to the students and the role of field trips in the school highlighted for us the likelihood of multiple ways of responding to the needs of the students. This situation also underlined for us the complexity of intercultural experiences and the multitude of outcomes that might be based upon individual personal and professional paths. It is important to acknowledge the various facets of William’s and Janet’s stories of field trips as examples of stories that are told in research and of those that might be rendered hidden in investigative interpretations in narrative or qualitative intercultural research among intercultural researchers. Uncovering such stories of research and researcher positioning or bias in interpretation is therefore significant for understanding nuances of social justice in educational research of students and teachers in diverse, intercultural schools.

180    E. CHAN and C. SCHLEIN

CRITICAL QUESTIONS The global community is becoming increasingly diverse through intercultural movement and exchange. There is a growing body of research addressing the interaction of culture and curriculum in school practices. Nevertheless, the experiential narratives that we highlighted in this chapter suggest that further examination of the nuances and complexities of this work is needed. A narrative approach to collecting and analyzing stories of experience from teachers over an extended period of time offers a glimpse of potential challenges and possibilities for understanding different perspectives when teachers and their students embody varying intercultural experiences. This work might help to address the gap between theory and practice with respect to intercultural teaching and learning in multicultural schools. We further raise in this work the possibility of researcher influence in intercultural educational research. We highlighted how researchers with intercultural experiences might gain much from deep reflection on how intercultural experiences might shape data collection and analysis. As such, this study contributes to theory and practice surrounding qualitative investigations, especially those concerning intercultural teaching and learning as a means of conducting socially just and equitable studies and related research texts for dissemination. We conclude with a few critical questions to stimulate the examination of intercultural teaching among readers, to enhance the personal, passionate, and participatory nature of this text. Throughout the research, we wondered about the role of intercultural experience in shaping teaching, learning, and research. Namely, what kinds of professional development would assist teachers to consider the perspectives of their students when developing curriculum that claims to be culturally sensitive and relevant? How can we engage students in learning about issues of diversity when they do not see diversity in their own daily lives? How can we draw upon experiences of diversity as a resource for learning about diversity in ways that engage students in thinking about issues of equity and social justice? How can researchers be more attentive to the stories that are told and untold? How might issues of voicing be connected to a researcher’s own experiences? In what ways might investigative interpretations be associated with issues of social justice and equity? We anticipate that these questions will lead to an ongoing discussion and the stimulation of socially just intercultural research into teaching and learning. NOTES 1. This study has received ethical review approval. 2. Pseudonyms have been used for all people and places featured in this study.

Narrative and Critical Explorations of Voice in Intercultural Experiences    181

REFERENCES Chan, E. (2003). OP-ED. Ethnic identity in transition: Chinese New Year through the years. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35(4), 409–423. Chan, E. (2007). Student experiences of a culturally-sensitive curriculum: Ethnic identity development amid conflicting stories to live by. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 39(2), 177–194. Chan, E. & Ross, V. (2009). Examining teachers’ knowledge on a landscape of theory, practice, and policy. Curriculum & Teaching Dialogue, 11(1/2), 159–171. Chan, E., & Schlein, C. (2010). Understanding social justice and equity through students’ stories: Individual, familial, social, and cultural interpretations. Journal of the International Society for Teacher Education, 14(2), 35–42. Clandinin, D. J. & Connelly, F. M. (1994). Personal experience methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research in the social sciences (pp. 413–427). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Clandinin, D. J., Huber, J., Huber, M., Murphy, M. S., Orr, A. M., Pearce, M., & Steeves, P. (2006). Composing diverse identities: Narrative inquiries into the interwoven lives of children and teachers. New York, NY: Routledge. Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1988). Teachers as curriculum planners: Narratives of experience. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1999). Stories to live by: Teacher identities on a changing professional knowledge landscape. In F. M. Connelly & D. J. Clandinin (Eds.), Shaping a professional identity: Stories of educational practice (pp. 114–132). London, Ontario, Canada: Althouse Press. Cook-Sather, A. (2002). Authorizing students’ perspectives: Toward trust, dialogue, and change in education. Educational Researcher, 31(4), 3–14. Cummins, J. (2001). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: California Association for Bilingual Education. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Equity Department of the Toronto District School Board. (2001). Equitable schools: It’s in our hands: Resources for school leaders. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Toronto District School Board. Equity Department of the Toronto District School Board. (2005). Equity foundation statement and commitments to equity policy implementation. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Toronto District School Board. Igoa, C. (1995). The inner world of the immigrant child. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press. Kerby, A. P. (1991). Narrative and the self. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Kouritzin, S. G. (1999). Face(t)s of first language loss. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Ross, V., & Chan, E. (2008). Multicultural education: Raj’s story using a curricular conceptual lens of the particular. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(7), 1705–1716. Schlein, C. (2009). Exploring novice teachers’ experiences with intercultural curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 25(33), 22–33.

182    E. CHAN and C. SCHLEIN Schlein, C. (2010). Resonating effects of cross-cultural teaching. Curriculum & Teaching Dialogue, 12(2), 153–175. Schlein, C., & Chan, E. (2010). Supporting Muslim students in secular public schools. Diaspora, Indigenous, and Minority Education: An International Journal, 4(4), 253–267. Schwab, J. J. (1983). The practical 4: Something for curriculum professors to do. Curriculum Inquiry, 13(3), 239–265. Statistics Canada. (2007). 2006 Census: Immigration, citizenship, language, mobility and migration. Retrieved July 12, 2008, from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/071204/dq071204a-eng.htm United States Census Bureau. (2013). Table 2.1. In Foreign-Born Population by Sex, Age, and Year of Entry: 2013. Retrieved October 2, 2016, from http://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/demo/tables/foreign-born/2013/cps2013/2013asec-tables-year-of-entry.pdf Wong-Fillmore, L. (1991). When learning a second language means losing the first. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6, 323–346.

SECTION IV TECHNOLOGY AS A TOOL FOR INTERNATIONAL AND INTERCULTURAL TEACHER PREPARATION

This page intentionally left blank.

CHAPTER 11

SHAPING A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE Digital Storytelling and Intercultural Teaching and Learning Martha R. Green, Lynne Masel Walters, and Tim Walters

Burning rice fields in Mexico sometimes blot out the sun in Texas. Political instability in Nigeria raises the price of oil in France. Bollywood movies play in American theaters. T-shirts worn by teens in Qatar were made in Filipino factories. Travelers can breakfast in Australia and lunch in Hong Kong. Add to this the worldwide ubiquity of technology, such as the Internet, computers and cell phones, transnational migration and commerce, and we clearly are all citizens of a century largely defined by global interconnectedness (Biddle, 2002). Whether we acknowledge this connectedness or not, what happens in other countries and with other cultures affects nearly everything we do. As teachers we have an obligation to prepare the young people in our classrooms for the world in which they will find themselves. This means we must impart the constantly evolving global paradigm to our students for

A Reader of Narrative and Critical Lenses on Intercultural Teaching and Learning, pages 185–208 Copyright © 2017 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 185

186    M. R. GREEN, L. M. WALTERS, and T. WALTERS

whom it is the new normal. We must do this not only to prepare them for living in a new world defined by technology, but a better world defined by social justice. As Nagda, Gurin, and Lopez (2003) noted, students who will participate in a public democracy need to be educated to a range of competencies and worldviews in order to understand and respond to human and social dilemmas. Teachers help students learn the necessary skills to commit to social justice by supporting their abilities to think, create, and communicate interculturally and to nourish their capacity for tolerance, understanding, and appreciation of multiple perspectives. A central tenant of global competence is the understanding that knowledge, skills, and dispositions should be open to critical reflection, adaption, and innovation (Adler, 1974). Perspective consciousness is another important part of the global education process. It is the realization that worldviews are not shared universally. They are a matter of conscious opinions and ideas, subconscious evaluations, conceptions and unexamined assumptions, all of which may be equally valid as they spring from the culture that surrounds each of us (Hanvey, 1982). This chapter discusses two approaches to intercultural teaching and learning: an international immersion experience for in-service teachers, and a cultural plunge or exposure to a community-based cultural interaction beyond students’ own life experience for preservice teachers. The authors examine changes in preservice and in-service teachers’ global competence and perspective consciousness that result from writing and reflecting on experience and the cognitive impact of transforming their cultural stories into video artifacts using a narrative-based digital storytelling process. GLOBAL COMPETENCE There are many definitions of global competence. Trask and Hamon (2007) defined global competence as the “ability to learn from and relate respectfully to people of your own culture as well as people from other cultures” (p. 128). Taylor (1994) added that the element of adaptivity is based on an inclusive and integrative worldview, which means that an individual finds a way to fit in with others. According to Landis, Bennett, and Bennett (2004), the intercultural skill set includes the ability to analyze interaction, predict misunderstanding, and fashion adaptive behavior. This skill set can be thought of as an “expanded repertoire of behavior—a repertoire that includes behavior appropriate to one’s own culture, but that does not thereby exclude alternative behavior that might be more appropriate in another culture” (p. 149). Instead of “going native” and rejecting the values and actions of their own culture, people often expand the range of perceptions and behaviors

Shaping a Global Perspective     187

of which they are capable. As they move from culture to culture, they can shake hands, bow, or put their hand to their heart when they meet someone new. People can put on a scarf, take off their shoes, or bring out their “Sunday best” when they enter a house of worship. They can wait until the highest-ranking person at the banquet table picks up a soup spoon to begin to eat; they can refrain from eating until the men have been served; or they can dig right in with their forks, chopsticks, or hand. The process of global competence can be thought of as a form of code switching, but at a much deeper level. It means not just being able to use the language of a particular culture, but being able to carry out comfortably the rituals of a culture that informs its language. It is not just saying Inshallah (God willing), as Muslims do when they talk about whether some future event may occur, but understanding that the speaker may be slow to take the initiative because he or she believes God is in charge of all things. It is understanding that “on time” means something different to a U.S. North American, who will arrive promptly, and a South American, who traditionally is accustomed to a less formal way of dealing with schedules. INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE Global competence begins with cultural competence, a quality that is required to be an effective 21st-century educator to the diverse group of students who increasingly populate our classrooms. According to the National Educational Agency (NEA) (2014), cultural competence is the ability to successfully teach students who come from cultures other than our own. It entails developing personal and interpersonal awareness and sensitivities, building cultural knowledge, and mastering a set of skills that, together, underlie culturally responsive teaching. One of the most important words in the NEA definition is intercultural. It is also one of the most misunderstood, often confused for multicultural in which individuals from different cultures work alongside each other in the classroom and cross-cultural in which individuals in the classroom occasionally work across cultural borders (The United Church of Canada/L’Église Unie du Canada, 2011). Intercultural behavior goes much deeper than that produced by multicultural or cross-cultural relationships. A sense of social justice drives intercultural classrooms, and racial and cultural imbalances are addressed. There is comprehensive mutuality, reciprocity, and equality. “People from different cultural groups interact with one another, learn and grow together; build relationships and become transformed, shaped, and molded . . . no one is left unchanged in the intercultural process” (The United Church of Canada/L’Église Unie du Canada, 2011).

188    M. R. GREEN, L. M. WALTERS, and T. WALTERS

In U.S. context, teachers who are interculturally competent “understand cultural traditions that extend beyond the borders of the United States, can communicate across cultures, and have the expertise to prepare learners for living and working in the global community” (Cushner & Brennan, 2007, p. 10). Challenging social and educational inequities that frequently accompany classroom diversity, interculturally competent teachers can serve as change agents through the content or topics they address, as well as through particular pedagogical practices that tend to support the evolution of patterns of parity (Russo, 2004). While teachers may preach global interconnectedness, they sometimes face a classroom cultural disconnect. There continues to be an ever-increasing disparity between the diverse student population in the United States and the predominantly White teaching force (Steeley, 2003). The number of K–12 students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds continues to increase exponentially (Major & Brock, 2003). In fact, by 2042 the people from historically underrepresented backgrounds are expected to represent a majority of the population in the United States (Roberts, 2008). However, most students entering the field of teaching continue to be White, monolingual, middle-class women (Glazier, 2003). Female European American teachers will thus continue to comprise the greatest proportion of educators for some time to come, but they will be teaching students increasingly different from themselves in terms of race, ethnicity, and social class. Because most American teachers work with students who come from cultures that are distinctly different from their own, they need to understand these young people and be interculturally competent to enable their students to succeed (Leeman & Ledoux, 2003). Roose (2001) believes that there is a relationship between the cross-cultural experiences of teachers and their capacity to help all students in schools, regardless of their backgrounds and cultures. A teacher’s intercultural skill set is important to the classroom and the community. In fact, “how teachers manage diversity in the classroom has a direct influence upon future citizens on a local, national, and international level” (Dooly, 2006, p. 18). Walters, Garii, and Walters (2009) stated that more than 80% of America’s public school teachers, especially at the primary and lower secondary levels (grades Kindergarten through 8), are middle-class, Euro-American, White women from rural areas, small towns, or suburbs, who grew up in largely White neighborhoods and graduated from largely White high schools. They have little experience or knowledge of diverse cultures in their own country or abroad (Ference & Bell; 2004; Deruy, 2013). Moreover, they have little understanding of their own culture. They, like most White Americans, do not think they “have” a culture. According to Bennett (1998) no other people in the world but U.S. Americans are so quick to

Shaping a Global Perspective     189

disavow their cultural affiliation. This is true of the authors’ own university at which White, Euro-American preservice teachers were more likely to use the word “mutt” to describe themselves in their autobiographies than to recognize themselves as products of any particular culture and/or ethnicity. While this attitude may be a manifestation of the individualism that is generally attributed to U.S. Americans, it often prevents preservice teachers from developing an intercultural competence that requires an understanding of subjective cultures, their own, as well as that of their students (Bennett, 1998). However, globalization has brought the world to the classroom, and cultural competency means that teachers can and must function effectively in that multicultural space. This is the age of school diversity, as well as global interconnectedness; very few monocultural classrooms exist in the United States. Children of various races, ethnicities, and nationalities regularly populate classrooms. Some are immigrants who speak little English. Some come from religious minorities or nontraditional families. Some face physical, emotional, or financial challenges. Then there are children of privilege whose social and intellectual issues come from not having too many challenges, but too few. King and Baxter Magolda (2005) noted that to produce interculturally competent citizens, teachers must help students achieve intercultural maturity in three dimensions: cognitive, which requires a complex understanding of cultural differences; intrapersonal, which involves the capacity to accept and not feel threatened by cultural differences; and interpersonal, which is the capacity to function interdependently with diverse others. More specifically, this requires that teachers ask themselves critical questions about their values, attitudes, and behaviors. These questions might include: • What is my culture? How did my background, in terms of racial, ethnic, socioeconomic status, language, ability, gender and sexual orientation make me the person I am today? How does my background impact the way I teach and interact with students? • What are the cultures of my students? How do their racial, ethnic, socioeconomic status, language, ability, gender, and sexual orientation impact their beliefs and behaviors? How do these factors affect their attitude and actions toward school, learning, and me? How does my background relate to theirs? • How do I experience cultural differences? How much do I know about different cultures? If I need to know more, how will I do this? • Am I a reflective teacher, open to correction and redirection? • Do I recognize the validity of other worldviews, or do I try to get my students and colleagues to think, learn, and behave the way I do?

190    M. R. GREEN, L. M. WALTERS, and T. WALTERS

• How can I broaden the repertoire of teaching methods to address multiple cultures and learning styles? (Adams and Marchesani, 1992). • Have I recognized the existence of institutionalized privilege? Have I ever shared or addressed concerns with others? Have I done anything to make the situation more equitable? (Bennett, 1998). • What kinds of experiences have I had in relating to people whose backgrounds are different than my own? Have I adapted my style to improve interpersonal interaction? INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE One of the best hopes for developing cultural competence and becoming aware of different perspectives is through an international experience (Walters, Green, Wang, & Walters, 2011). The simple truth is that an international experience is no longer just an excuse for young people to backpack across Europe, relax on beaches, or dance away the night in foreign clubs; an international experience is an educational, economic, and strategic imperative. Globally fluent citizens and workers—those adept at navigating at least some countries and markets outside their own—are a necessary component for a competitive American educational system and economy. America is at a critical juncture. How its students react to our rapidly changing world will help determine not just how they fare in the global job market, but also how America fares on an increasingly competitive global stage (Walters et al., 2011). For more than 50 years, findings have indicated that time spent abroad enhances intellectual growth, personal development, and global mindedness (Adler, 1974; Piaget & Inhelder, 1958). Studies show that individuals mature and acquire a new understanding about life, culture, self, and others when they travel (Landis, Bennett, & Bennett, 2004). Travel offers a perfect opportunity for reflection and change. Piaget and Inhelder (1958) said that change occurs during periods of “discontinuity, displacement, and disjunct,” which would certainly happen during an international experience in a totally foreign culture. For teachers, an experience abroad will increase their intercultural competence and will help them develop a new understanding of their role and ability to teach globally and to work with students, families and colleagues from diverse cultures (Mahon & Cushner, 2002). REFLECTION As important as it is for teachers to have an international experience, it is even more important for them to reflect on their time abroad. Freire stated, “Within the word, we find two dimensions, reflection and action, in

Shaping a Global Perspective     191

such radical interaction that if one is sacrificed—even in part—the other immediately suffers” (1970, p. 69). For teachers, reflecting deeply upon the concept of culture is a critical first step for taking action in the classroom. Reflection is a process that leads to conceptual change, knowledge transfer, and action (Strampel & Oliver, 2007). John Dewey defined reflective thought as “active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends” (1933, p. 118). Through reflection, we consider attitudes and actions, look for patterns in behavior, document progress toward goals, and search for reasons behind successes and failures. Reflection provides the understanding that allows us to correct our misguided stereotypes or mistaken thoughts and actions and learn from them, thereby creating a more satisfying and productive life. Reflection can be at the macro level, in which we examine the way we live, and at the micro level, in which we examine a single experience or interaction, attitude, or event. Do I believe in God? Am I living a meaningful life? Do people like me? Why did I send such an embarrassing tweet? How could I get a C on that paper? Why are my students not motivated to read for pleasure? These are all prompts that can lead to reflective thought whereby individuals create new meaning that leads to growth and the ability to take informed actions. Dewey stressed that reflection involves communication within a social context and leads to the development of moral beliefs (1933). Reflection has not always been considered an important instrument in a teacher’s pencil box. For the most part, those who taught teachers and wrote about their education did not mention the critical nature of reflection. They expected teachers to practice their profession, not ponder it. Reflection generally was not associated with working as a teacher, which is often seen to “be primarily about the immediate present and instant pragmatic action, while reflecting is perceived as a more academic pursuit” (Hatton & Smith, 1995). As Francis (1995) noted, close examination of one’s own behavior does not occur automatically, and it is not developed without anxiety. Reflection might reveal some distressing truths about a teacher’s attitudes and behavior in the classroom. Moreover, busy teachers do not typically engage in indepth reflection. “I barely have time to do what I have to do in a day,” said a harried teacher to one of the authors. “There is just not a free minute to reflect on why I’m doing it and what it means, although I know this is really important. Of course, I suppose I could give up sleeping and eating,” she concluded with a laugh (anonymous interview, July 1, 2010). Education researchers did not take up Dewey’s call for reflective practice in any significant number until the 1980s. Building on Dewey’s (1933) seminal work on reflection and its subsequent interpretation by Schön (1983)

192    M. R. GREEN, L. M. WALTERS, and T. WALTERS

and others (Hatton & Smith, 1995), many educational researchers, including Daudelin (1996) and Hatton and Smith (1995), argued that reflection promotes a type of introspection necessary for professional growth. The major qualities are specificity, connective thinking, and honesty about any challenges and obstacles that have been encountered. Reflective action is bound up with persistent and careful consideration of practice in the light of knowledge and beliefs, and showing attitudes of open-mindedness, responsibility, and wholeheartedness (Noffke & Brennan, 1988). Daudelin (1996) further provided a definition of reflection that explicitly captured its relationship to learning. Reflection is the process of stepping back from an experience to ponder carefully and persistently its meaning to the self through the development of inferences; learning is the creation of meaning from past or current events that serves as a guide for future behavior. (p. 39)

According to Francis (1995), reflection allows teachers to inform, confront, and reconstruct and to answer such questions as: What did I do? What did I want to do? What does this mean? How did I come to be this way? How might I view/do things differently? Answering questions like these adds to an orientation toward social justice for the classroom teacher, allowing him or her to build self-knowledge and examine assumptions about culture and stereotyped beliefs, becoming more attuned to diversity driven socialization, and being able to mentor students from a variety of cultures. Once these teachers understand how their personal experiences, identities, values, and emotions affect how they interpret information, form opinions, and perceive and relate to others, they are better able to comprehend complicated, controversial, and dynamic concepts (Pope, Reynolds, & Mueller, 2004). EVIDENCE OF REFLECTION Traditionally, teachers have used various written media—including journals, essays, portfolios, and narratives—to compose and reflect on their thoughts. Based on their review of the literature, Hatton and Smith (1995) concluded that writing tasks most frequently involved keeping journals, and that these writing tasks fostered reflection in teachers by deliberately making explicit the teachers’ thoughts and actions (Andrews & Wheeler, 1990; Wedman, Malios, & Whitfield, 1989). Moreover, journaling enables teachers to look in the mirror (that is why it is called reflection) and see themselves as others see them: clearly, honestly, responsibly, and in control of their own words and deeds.

Shaping a Global Perspective     193

While journal or diary writing may allow opportunities for reflection, difficulties are associated with using such forms as evidence for reflection. Even with the best of intentions by the writer, journals tend to be reports of what happened that day—Where did I go? How did I get there? What did I do?—rather than what it meant (Walters et al., 2011). Then there is the issue of whether the journal or diary is to be examined by others, especially an authority figure like a teacher or group leader and, if so, the manner in which entries are likely to be altered to meet the perceived expectations of the reader and the ego-bolstering needs of the writer. In addition, many entries may be personal, reactive, emotive, and, at the time of writing, not at all reflective. This may be especially true if the author is experiencing a different culture, an experience fraught with emotion, insecurity, and uncertainty. However, even when written in these conditions, journal entries can provide the ideal substance for later reflection upon action, one source of information among others, which may be drawn upon for the creation of another reflective artifact (Bain & Milles, 2002). NARRATIVES Narratives may be better vehicles for reflection than diaries or journals (Walters et al., 2011). Narratives are ubiquitous in our lives; they fill our cultural and social environment and shape our interactions with other people and events (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000). We create narrative descriptions for ourselves and for others about our own past actions and perceptions, and we develop storied accounts that give sense to the behavior of others. We also use narratives to inform our decisions by constructing imaginative “what if” scenarios. On the receiving end, we are constantly confronted with stories during our conversations with other individuals and encounters with the written and visual media. We are told fairy tales as children and read and discuss stories in school (Polkinghorne, 1988). Throughout life, we are surrounded by stories: those we hear and those we tell. Individuals can explain, understand, and account for experience through stories, which are constructed through the process of reflection on experience (Blocher, 2008). As Boase (2008) explains: The process of reevaluating experience includes relating new information to that which is already known, seeking relationships between new and old ideas, determining the authenticity for ourselves of the ideas and feelings that have resulted, and making the resulting knowledge one’s own. (p. 4)

Telling stories is how we make sense of our experiences for ourselves who tell them, and for others who hear them (Bruner, 1986).

194    M. R. GREEN, L. M. WALTERS, and T. WALTERS

Through narrative or storytelling, a person learns from experience by reflecting upon experience, declaring what it means, and distilling it into a symbolic form to be expressed and remembered (Davis & Waggett, 2006). Characterized as a narrative mode of intelligence (Bruner, 1986), storytelling is a way of thinking about an experience that is situated in time and space and that values the individual’s view of the world. Storytelling is linked to theoretical models of reflective learning (McDrury & Alterio, 2003) by enabling teachers to recapture their experience, think about it, mull it over and evaluate it. Furthermore, storytelling is used as a way in which to empower teachers, giving them a voice to express emotion, create meaning and situate their teaching in a wider political context. (Ritchie & Wilson, 2000)

In recent years, the more complex narrative tool of digital storytelling has evolved to meet this need. DIGITAL STORYTELLING A digital story, as we use the term in this paper, is based on a meaningful personal experience, such as international travel or participation in something outside of the individual’s own culture. It is composed of a mix of images, video, music, and text. The narrative is written and spoken by the author of the digital story, which in the course of retelling the story, enables the author to better understand and articulate his or her perspective and understanding of the events being described (Bakhtin, 1981). Yet, the digital story does not simply replace writing (Murnen, 2003). The process of creating the video begins with writing the script; therefore, storytellers still have to learn the conventions of written language, while they have the opportunity to expand or enhance their words by combining those words with visuals, music, and personal narration. They must make choices from all the available materials based on their perception of how their audience will react. They also have the opportunity to take ownership of the project by personalizing a generic assignment and by developing and delivering their own personal viewpoint or perspective. In fact, using visual images to crystallize their perspectives may provide individuals with a deeper sense of how to shape their perspectives through the written word by prompting them to make words engage their readers’ visual and auditory capacities. All of this takes a considerable amount of time and thought, which allows for digital stories to be more ordered, introspective, and contemplative than hastily written journal entries.

Shaping a Global Perspective     195

Digital storytelling provides a structure and process through which authors construct meaning from cultural experiences (Vygotsky, 1978). Through writing, reflection, and sharing stories with an audience, digital authors shape personal understanding and individual subjectivity. The blending of text, visual images, and an audio track to narrate a digital story combine to convey a perspective that is uniquely the creator’s and cannot be achieved by the written text alone. It is important to keep in mind that ideological becoming is not just the process of writing words or choosing visuals, it is the ongoing process of simultaneously shaping one’s own understanding and one’s own identity or subjectivity through the words and visuals (Murnen, 2003). Burgess (2006) called the process of creating individual artifacts, like digital stories, “vernacular creativity” (p. 1), noting how technology allows for democratization of media content. Digital storytelling is designed to amplify the ordinary voice. It aims to remediate vernacular creativity, but even more importantly to legitimate it as a relatively autonomous and valuable contribution to public culture. In this form, digital storytelling “balances the ethics of ‘access’ with an aesthetic that aims to maximize relevance and impact” (Burgess, 2006, p. 3). Makers of digital stories are “relatively autonomous citizen-producers” (Burgess, 2006, p. 7). Cultural production, in other words, the creation and dissemination of cultural artifacts, is now “increasingly part of the ‘logics of everyday life’” (Burgess, 2006, p. 3) and allows us to communicate more often and more intimately with more geographically and culturally diverse communities than ever before (Strampel & Oliver, 2007). Technology is easily accessible in the 21st century generation, and netizens—those who have grown into a digital world—use the tools with which they are comfortable. Madden’s Pew Internet and American Life Project (2011) shows that Americans are increasingly drawn to the Internet to share materials that they have created, seek news, video chat, and remix materials they have found. Helping students to best use these tools to enhance their experiences in school can lead to effective literacy teaching and learning, which should be more broadly defined as understanding and using “the dominant symbol systems of a culture for personal and community development” (The Centre for Literacy, 2014). The ability to engage in a digital creation has undergone widespread diffusion. Free online video sharing services are part of the online culture, as people of all ages upload pictures, art, video, and audio to multiple sites and utilize free software from industry giants such as Apple, Microsoft, and others. The result is that end users can assemble their digital stories and share them with the world (Hammond & Ferster, 2009). Constructing a digital story requires individuals to organize information, write, and utilize technology, but most importantly authors must reflect on

196    M. R. GREEN, L. M. WALTERS, and T. WALTERS

their experiences (Barrett, 2005). They must also select and sequence images that meaningfully support the message of the text, which requires critical awareness of the meaning he or she wishes to convey. Imaginative and creative uses of technology are nice, but not necessary to make meaning of an experience (Burgess, 2006). The narrative, the voice that reads it, and the emotion that is behind it are the most important elements. By emphasizing certain aspects of the story, authors reveal to an audience what they perceive to be the relative importance of individual parts. Unlike oral stories that are subject to varying interpretations and emphasis, and that change with the telling and the teller, digital stories become permanent artifacts that capture a specific moment in time, one telling of an experience, and stand as objects for personal reflection and critique (Lathem, Reyes, & Qi, 2006). As Hatton and Smith (1995) noted, it is insufficient to assert that reflection is encouraged by a procedure or technique; rather the means must be specified to demonstrate that particular kinds of reflecting are taking place. They called for scholars to move beyond self-reports to the identification of ways in which reflective processes can be evidenced. Digital storytelling provides such an instrument. CHINA SEMINAR Two projects show how digital stories impacted the creator’s cultural understanding. In 2010, two of the authors (Lynne Walters & Martha Green) and 13 Texas social studies teachers were participants in a Fulbright-Hays Group Projects Abroad China Seminar. The overarching goal was developing the educators’ intercultural competence and enhancing their schools’ world history/geography/cultures curricula. The seminar provided opportunities for the participants to acquire firsthand knowledge of the history, culture, language, geography, family structures, religion, education, economics, and politics of China and to dispel any previously held stereotypes and myths about China and its people. During a 31-day tour of China, teacher-participants maintained daily individual reflective journals. Upon their return, researchers scanned the journals and returned the journals to participants. Teachers were asked to construct individual digital stories based on a meaningful personal experiences in China. None had written a digital story before this assignment, and they did not receive any training on digital story design beyond a one-page instruction sheet. The authors wanted to evaluate the impact of an international cultural immersion experience on cultural competence through analyzing and comparing the themes appearing in the journals and digital stories. We were looking for depth of personal insight to determine if the

Shaping a Global Perspective     197

digital stories actually became reflection artifacts that provided a window into the level of individual change and ideological becoming. The digital stories focused on participants’ interactions with the Chinese people and Chinese culture. The stories ranged from the profound to the mundane. Alicia’s (all names are pseudonyms) story was perhaps the most reflective. A self-described child of the “duck and cover generation,” she used visuals illustrating China’s Red Menace image of the 1950s juxtaposed with her photographs of the warm and welcoming Chinese people she met through the seminar 60 years later to illustrate how her perceptions of the country had changed as the result of her travels. Jeremy, a young geography teacher who carried his “travel guitar” in his backpack, also deeply probed his understanding as he told how he discovered the “music of the people” when our government hosts apparently prevented him from meeting wellknown folk musicians and scholars. On the other end of the reflection spectrum, Christine wrote about the difficulties of crossing the street in a large Chinese city, something she had never faced in her one-stoplight town in East Texas. Rita, whose friends were fascinated by the Chinese “squatty potties,” gave them a digital story that dealt with the trenches and toilets used by women throughout the country. Ethan wrote about growing rice, and David wrote about the personal challenge of eating rice with chopsticks. Yet strangely enough, even the stories that barely scratched the surface of life in China showed elements of reflection: the recognition of cultural differences, the impact of the experience on teachers’ level of intercultural competence, and the feeling of “otherness” they felt in China. More importantly, the question of change itself—change in perception, change in belief, change in attitude, change in behavior, and change in values—seldom is addressed in journals (Cushner, McClelland, & Safford, 1992). However, digital stories served as reflection artifacts, providing a window into the process of individual change, yielding important information for researchers seeking insight beyond participant self-reports to identify ways in which reflective processes can be evidenced. They now stand as permanent artifacts available for further reflection on consequences and choices, reexamination of the author’s reactions in a cross-cultural situation, and benchmarks for comparison with future growth. The researchers, who examined both the participants’ journals and digital stories, learned that journals are for telling, and digital stories are for learning. Journals focused on the facts of the journey: the weather, the food, the sights, nice to recount but certainly not life altering. Digital stories focused on its meaning: how did I feel, what did I learn, and why did it happen. According to Dewey (1933), meaning leads to growth and knowledge. Moreover, digital stories are for sharing, which can create cross-cultural relationships and intercultural understanding. Journals, on the other hand, are rarely seen by anyone other than the writer. Not so with digital

198    M. R. GREEN, L. M. WALTERS, and T. WALTERS

stories, which have been shown to friends, colleagues, students, and community groups dozens of times since their creation. Said one participant, “My digital story has become a way to preserve and revisit the strong sense of connection I felt as I met and observed people on our trip.” Another said, “It was an incredible way of putting [down] so many of my thoughts and feelings. . . . I relive my experience every time I see it.” Many scholars have noted that culture is much like an iceberg because so much of culture is invisible or unobservable. (See for example, Kim, 1996.) The digital stories included in this study illustrated this analogy; many China Seminar participants struggled to be able to discuss culture explicitly and were challenged by trying to situate themselves in the larger sociocultural context. Even so, the creation of digital stories increased awareness of culture and promoted reflection on a participant’s individual values and beliefs, an important first step in preparing them for the challenges of their work as teachers in our increasingly diverse society. “The digital story allowed me to look back at my fear and see how it was overcome to make me a stronger person,” said one participant. CULTURAL PLUNGE ASSIGNMENT Very few in-service teachers are fortunate enough to be able to travel as were those selected to participate in the China seminar. The same holds true for preservice teachers. Although study and teaching abroad programs are becoming more popular for education majors, a full curriculum and an empty wallet make it difficult for more than a small percentage of preservice teachers to have a significant international experience (Walters et al., 2009). For them, as for the vast majority of people in the world, direct involvement in life beyond the local community is infrequent or nonexistent. Many factors, other than personal experience, can shape perspectives. These include ethnicity, religion, economic and social status; views and input by the media, television, newspaper, the Internet, and social media, among others. Preservice teachers must learn to reflect on and examine phenomena and events from different perspectives in order to encourage respect and appreciation for beliefs, customs, and values different from their own. Achieving such aims means that university educators must provide the means by which these preservice teachers can become good global citizens who are culturally sensitive, personally reflective, and conscious of planetwide issues without an international experience. Critical, too, is the ability of preservice teachers to examine their own values and attitudes, and to develop knowledge and skills so that they can participate in a global community and disparate classrooms. Cross-cultural awareness aids in correcting

Shaping a Global Perspective     199

misunderstandings and fosters cooperation, forming global citizens who can face everyday challenges of a society characterized by a culturally diverse, multilingual, and interconnected world from multiple perspectives. An understanding of transnational issues, therefore, helps students to understand that anything happening in the world today could affect them either directly or indirectly (Focho, 2010). The authors used an assignment in a multicultural education course for preservice teachers to reach this level of understanding. Students in the course were required to take a cultural plunge. Instead of going on a trip abroad, like the China seminar group, individuals in the class were exposed to persons or groups within their own community who were markedly different in culture, ethnicity, language, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, and/or physical exceptionality from their own (Nieto, 2006). Students were expected to explore and reflect on a cultural interaction that did not mirror their own lives. Each preservice teacher in the class participated in a cultural experience that required her or him to be in an environment and participate in something that he or she would not normally do within his or her own culture. Examples included attending a worship service of a religion that was significantly different from their own, working for a day in a soup kitchen, attending a substance abuse meeting, or participating in a social gathering for deaf adults. The assignment was designed to give preservice teachers the opportunity to gain insight into the culture and characteristics of another group in an authentic and real-world setting and to experience what it is like to be “different” or “other.” On a personal level, the experience offered participants the prospect of increasing self-awareness and self-confidence, and of gaining insight into personal values, biases, and responses to a new and unfamiliar environment. The hope was that this would lead them to promote social justice in their future classrooms by using culturally relevant pedagogy that recognizes the difference in people and their backgrounds. By promoting a social justice pedagogy, teachers can increase a sociopolitical consciousness, foster a sense of agency, and help students develop a belief in themselves as conscious actors in the world. Of course, the authors recognize that this one-day experience does not provide the same opportunity for cultural contemplation and competence as does working abroad for a semester, but it does offer the geographically bound preservice teachers the potential for growth in cultural knowledge and skills. Feedback from the students seems to support the value of the plunge assignment. One Hispanic Catholic student said she had a longtime interest in Judaism. She admitted that she was afraid of taking action because she did not know what to expect or how she would be received. This assignment inspired her to find the only synagogue in her mid-sized Texas border community, attend a service, and meet with the rabbi. One

200    M. R. GREEN, L. M. WALTERS, and T. WALTERS

result was a change in her classroom teaching, not only about Judaism, but also about discrimination. She said: This assignment has already impacted my classroom by allowing me to teach with a better understanding of the Jewish faith as we are reviewing our Holocaust unit in 6th-grade history. I have my newly acquired calendar hanging up by my whiteboard, and many of my students are eager to learn about it. Now I feel much more confident in my delivery on the lesson as well as more eager to learn along with my students. They have become more open in discussing discrimination as well as the importance of not staying silent.

Another preservice teacher who was assigned to teach in an inclusion classroom admitted that she knew very little about young people with mental challenges, and what she did know was based on negative stereotypes she had picked up from friends, family, and the media. She said the plunge as a volunteer for Special Olympics gave her new insight about culture and teaching. “I loved every minute of it,” she commented. I enjoyed learning about a new culture. I think that this cultural plunge will impact the way that I teach and relate to my students. It has allowed me to realize that I do not know everything about another culture or even about individuals. I need to get to know someone, ask questions, love, and learn about each and every one of my students. I look forward to my students sharing their different cultures with one another and making my classroom a more multicultural environment. We can learn a lot from each other, and this cultural plunge and digital story has given me new eyes to see all of that.

Visiting a Hindu temple led one preservice teacher to reevaluate her individual perceptions about culture and inspired her to travel and learn firsthand about other cultures. The cultural plunge experience has taught me not only about the Hindu religion and Indian culture but also about my perceptions and outlook on culture. I’ve learned that I need to be more culturally sensitive in my classroom in order for students that have come from different countries to feel welcomed. I want to learn more about different cultures as well and visit different countries to experience things firsthand. India seems like a good place to start.

Being engulfed in another culture and language at a Turkish festival provided new insight into the emotional experience of an English-language learner upon entering a classroom where the teaching language is English. One preservice teacher explained: I am one of “those” people who stick to what they know and customs that they know. Teaching children of different ethnic backgrounds is completely

Shaping a Global Perspective     201 different for me than to be surrounded by only people of one background. Through this experience I learned that I have a very blocked view of things I know nothing about. This activity has shown me what my English-language learners feel like when they are surrounded by children of American descent. I understand the feelings and emotions that they must experience as they walk into my classroom for the first time wondering what to expect and why we do the various things we do.

The cultural plunge assignment requires preservice teachers to write a six to seven page research paper on the cultural group with at least five references and create a three to five minute digital story about the cultural plunge experience. The digital story is a personal reflection based on the student’s feelings about the experience. The reflection should have led them to answer question such as: What did you expect? What did you find? What did you learn? How did this make you feel? Did it impact the way you view your own culture and the culture of others? How will this experience affect how you teach and interact with others, particularly your students and colleagues? When we analyzed the research paper and the corresponding digital story, once again we found that the written document included facts and descriptions of what the participant did, and the digital story focused on how it made him or her feel. One of the preservice teachers said: I believe the act of reflection is invaluable to something so personal as this assignment. Creating a memoir of your personal feelings to reflect on can help remind you of what you felt and is something you can come back to as your cultural awareness increases over the years.

One of her classmates agreed: The digital story helped because it forced me to reflect on the experience. I had to mentally re-live the experience, analyze what happened, and reflect on my feelings towards the experience. I do think the digital story will impact the way I teach and relate to students. If I had not done the digital story, I may not have gotten as much as I did from the experience. I would not have reflected and analyzed my thoughts and feelings as much.

From statements such as these, we learned that the cultural plunge digital story assignment leads preservice teachers to see culture, as one said, with new eyes. This supports previous research that, according to Strampel and Oliver (2007), says “over and over again” that reflective practice is fostered when students are given access to multiple worldviews, thus expanding their experience and conceptual basis.

202    M. R. GREEN, L. M. WALTERS, and T. WALTERS

COGNITIVE DISEQUILIBRIUM Cultural plunge projects widen the range of modes available to students, thus creating additional forms of access to school-valued literacy practices. Often when students become aware of new subject matter, they become cognitively stimulated and feel they must make sense of the new information; until the new information can be assimilated and accommodated, they are in a state of cognitive disequilibrium (Gregoire, 2003). Researchers suggest that cognitive disequilibrium facilitates further reflection and can lead to conceptual change, but only if the students are properly motivated (Bendixen & Rule, 2004; Schunk, 1991). In higher education, the awareness stage of reflection and the following cognitive stimulation stage can be encouraged when instructors present university students with tasks such as creating a digital story from their cultural plunge assignment. Such tasks put them in a state of cognitive disequilibrium caused by being the “other” and dealing with elements of a culture that is not their own. Thus, it stimulates them to reach comprehension (Graesser, McNamara, & Van Lehn, 2005), while at the same time motivating them to fully engage in the process of ideological becoming, which according to Bakhtin is “an intense struggle within us for hegemony among various available verbal and ideological points of view, approaches, directions and values” (1981, p. 346). DIGITAL VIDEO In addition, this project gave the preservice teachers opportunities to understand and explore their topic through multiple media, which offered unique angles on ways of approaching the subject matter (Ranker, 2008). Evoking new challenges followed by new understandings, the students gradually come to regard themselves as committed to a change of behavior and of perspective. Exposing them to new ideas, metaphors, images, and technologies also can change the way they think about the world and their place in it. The cultural plunge project also provides students with opportunities for ideological becoming: taking other people’s words, concepts, and visual representations and using them to build their own arguments, themes, and theses giving them ownership of the project (Bakhtin, 1981; Murnen, 2003). Digital video can function, not simply for novelty sake, but as a genuine means to students’ ideological becoming. If our goal is to provide students with opportunities to engage in ideological becoming, we need to provide other genres beyond the traditional essay; one such example is the digital video documentary (Murnen, 2003). Students also begin to connect the personal with larger public issues to be effective as tools for political and social activism. Digital technology has the potential to successfully bridge

Shaping a Global Perspective     203

the gap between the call for reflection in higher education and tertiary students actually becoming reflective practitioners (Strampel & Oliver, 2007). PERSPECTIVE CONSCIOUSNESS Perspective consciousness refers to individual awareness that a person’s view of the world is not shared universally. It is shaped by influences often escaping conscious detection (Hanvey 1982). International travel and immersion in another culture, such as a trip to China, continues to be the most effective approach to developing global competence and awareness of different perspectives for preservice and in-service teachers alike. However, providing a cultural plunge opportunity in the university classroom scaffolds the development of cultural competence and encourages students to see the world through new eyes (Walters et al., 2011). Preservice teachers must learn to reflect on and look at phenomena and events from different perspectives in order to encourage respect and appreciation for beliefs, customs and values different from their own. Realization through reflection that an individual’s worldview is a matter of conscious opinions and ideas, subconscious evaluations, conceptions, and unexamined assumptions is an important part of the education process (Hanvey, 1982). CRITICAL QUESTIONS Critical questions about using a cultural plunge project in the classroom revolve around encouraging cultural change and the use of technology. Questions about guiding cultural change include whether (a) students have considered their own culture and how that consideration impacts their consciousness perception, (b) how students can achieve cultural competence, (c) how an educator can appropriately guide students to cognitive transformation through developing digital stories, (d) how an educator can foster reflective practices among students, and e) how differing world views can be brought into a classroom curriculum. While technology that uses modern affordances can be an excellent addition to a classroom, technology in and of itself neither provides solutions nor is it an end in itself. Rather, it is the appropriate use of technology that adds to a learning environment. Thus, with respect to the classroom, an educator must carefully consider (a) how technology can be best used to engage students in leaning about global interconnectedness and social justice, and (b) what metrics can be used to judge what and how technological output contributes to the classroom. Besides potential contributions to the

204    M. R. GREEN, L. M. WALTERS, and T. WALTERS

learning environment itself, concerns also exist about the production of digital stories themselves. These include: • developing the software knowledge to create the materials, • the availability of hardware and software, • the time an instructor can devote to learning the processes and procedures, and • the availability of classroom time for students to create their own materials. AUTHORS’ REFLECTIONS Reflection in learning and the use of cultural stories to promote self-evaluation are critical. Meaningful reflection is a process remembering, looking back on experience, and personal self-evaluation that leads to change. Most students are generally familiar with the word reflection, but often think of reflection in terms of recall rather than as a process occurring over time. However, any discussion of reflection in learning must emphasize the process aspect of reflection and also recognize that reflection only leads to change when the participant is willing to change. Researchers suggest that cognitive disequilibrium facilitates reflection and can lead to conceptual change, but only if the students are properly motivated (Bendixen & Rule, 2004; Schunk, 1991). Cultural plunge projects can provide that motivation to widen the range of modes available to students, thus creating additional forms of access to school-valued literacy practices. Often when students become aware of new subject matter, they become cognitively stimulated and feel they must make sense of the new information until the new information can be assimilated and accommodated. Thus, they are in a state of cognitive disequilibrium (Gregoire, 2003). CONCLUSION As educators, our goal must be to prepare students for living in a new world of global interconnectedness, defined by both technology and social justice. We must provide students with the skills to develop intercultural competence by supporting their abilities to think, create, and communicate interculturally and by nourishing their capacity for tolerance, understanding, and appreciation of multiple perspectives. Digital storytelling provides a structure and process through which authors construct meaning from cultural experiences. Through writing, reflection, and transforming a cultural experience into a digital artifact, they

Shaping a Global Perspective     205

shape personal understanding and individual subjectivity. Individuals must step back and reflect on the experience. They must process new ways of looking at themselves, their students, and society at large. Their classrooms will then become places to begin the quest for a just, equitable, and humane world; models of civility and respect that cut across cultural, political, socioeconomic, and religious boundaries (Brown, 2007). “Knowledge,” said Paulo Freire in Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1993), “emerges only through invention and re-invention, through the restless, impatient continuing, hopeful inquiry human beings pursue in the world and with each other” (p. 72). REFERENCES Adams, M., & Marchesani, L. (1992, Winter). Dynamics of diversity in the teachinglearning process: A faculty development model for analysis and action. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 9–20. Adler, P. (1974). Beyond cultural identity: Reflections upon culture and multicultural man. In R. W. Brislin (Ed.), Topics in culture learning, 2 (pp. 23–40). Honolulu, HI: East-West Center. Andrews, S., & Wheeler, P. (1990, November). Tracing the effects of reflective classroom practice. Paper presented at the 1990 annual National Reading Conference, Miami, FL. Bain, J., & Milles, R. (2002). Developing reflection on practice through journal writing: Impacts of variations in the focus and level of feedback. In J. Bain, C. G. Mills, R. Ballantyne, & J. Packer (Eds.), Teachers and teaching: Theory and practice (Vol. 8; pp. 171–196). Queensland, Australia: Griffith University. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). Discourse in the novel. (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Eds. and Trans). In. M. Holquist (Ed.), The dialogic imagination: Four essays (pp. 259– 422). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Barrett, H. (2005). Researching and evaluating digital storytelling as a deep learning tool. The REFLECT Initiative. Retrieved October 4, 2014, from http://helenbarrett.com/portfolios/SITEStorytelling2006.pdf Bendixen, L., & Rule, D. (2004). An integrative approach to personal epistemology: A guiding model. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 69–80. Bennett, M. (1998). Intercultural communication: A current perspective. In M. J. Bennett (Ed.), Basic concepts of intercultural communication: Selected readings (pp. 1–34). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Biddle, S. (2002). Internationalization: Rhetoric or reality. New York, NY: American Council of Learned Societies. Blocher, M. (2008). Digital storytelling and reflective assessment. In K. McFerrin et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2008 (pp. 892–901). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved October 4, 2014, from http://www.learntechlib.org/p/27286 Boase, C. (2008). Digital storytelling for reflection and engagement, a review of the potential for digital storytelling. Higher Education Academy/JISC Higher Education eLearning Pathfinder Program, Phase 1 (pp. 1–17). Retrieved October 4, 2014, fromhttps://gjamissen.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/boase_assessment.pdf

206    M. R. GREEN, L. M. WALTERS, and T. WALTERS Brown, H.D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents. Bruner, J. (1986). Life as narrative. Social Research, 54(1), 11–32. Burgess, J. (2006, June), Hearing ordinary voices: Cultural studies, vernacular creativity and digital storytelling. Continuum: Journal of Media & Culture, 20(2), 201–214. Retrieved June 11, 2014, from www.tandfonline.com/doi/ abs/10.1080/10304310600641737 Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Cushner, K., & Brennan, S. (2007). The value of learning to teach in another culture. In K. Cushner & S. Brennan (Eds.), Intercultural student teaching: A bridge to global competence (pp. 1–11). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Cushner, K., McClelland, A., & Safford, P. (1992). Human diversity on education:An integrative approach. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Daudelin, M. (1996.) Learning from experience through reflection. Organizational Dynamics, 24(3), 36–48. Davis, M., & Waggett, D. (2006) Enhancing pre-service teachers’ reflective practice via technology competencies and e-portfolio development. Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education. Retrieved September 10, 2007, from https:// www.learntechlib.org/p/22567 Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. New York, NY: D. C. Heath. Deruy, E. (2013). Student diversity is up but teachers are mainly white. Retrieved from June 22, 2014, http://www.newstaco.com/2013/03/22/student-diversity-is -up-but-teachers-are-mostly-white/ Dooly, M. (2006). Integrating intercultural competence and citizenship education into teacher training: A pilot project. International Journal of Citizenship and Teacher Education, 2(1), 18–30. Ference, R. A., & Bell, S. (2004). A cross-cultural immersion in the U.S.: Changing preservice teachers’ attitudes toward Latino ESOL students. Equity and Excellence in Education. 37, 343–350. Focho, G. N. (2010). Language as tool for a global education: Bridging the gap between the traditional and a global curriculum. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching 3(1), 135–148. Francis, D. (1995). The reflective journal: A window to preservice teachers’ practical knowledge. Teaching & Teacher Education, 11(3), 229–241. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum International. Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum International. Glazier, J. (2003). Moving closer to speaking the unspeakable: White teachers talking about race. Teacher Education Quarterly, 30(1), 73–94. Graesser, A., McNamara, D., & VanLehn, K. (2005). Scaffolding deep comprehension strategies through Point & Query, AutoTutor, and iSTART. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 225–234. Gregoire, M. (2003). Is it a challenge or a threat? A dual-process model of teachers’ cognition and appraisal processes during conceptual change. Educational Psychology Review, 15(2), 147–179. Hammond, T., & Ferster, B. (2009). Student-created digital documentaries in the history classroom: Outcomes, assessment, and research design. In J. Lee & A.

Shaping a Global Perspective     207 Friedman (Eds.), Research on technology in social studies education (pp. 39–66). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Hanvey, R. (1982). An attainable global perspective. Theory into Practice, 21(3), 162–167. Hatton, N., & Smith, A. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and implementation. Teaching & Teacher Education, 11(1), 33–49. Kim, D. H. (1996). From event thinking to systems thinking. The Systems Thinker, 7(4), 6–7. King, P., & Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2005). A developmental model of intercultural maturity. Journal of College Student Development, 46(6), 571–592. Landis, D., Bennett, J., & Bennett, M. (2004) Handbook of intercultural training (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lathem, S., Reyes, C., & Qi, J. (2006). Literacy autobiography: Digital storytelling to capture student voice and reflection. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2006 (pp. 700–704). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Leeman, Y., & Ledoux, G. (2003). Preparing teachers for intercultural education. Teaching Education, 13(3), 279–292. Madden, M. (2011). State of social media: 2011. Pew Internet and American life project. Retrieved October 4, 2014, from http://www.pewinternet.org/2011/12/14/ state-of-social-media-2011/ Mahon, J., & Cushner, K. (2002). The overseas student teaching experience: Creating optimal culture learning. Multicultural Perspectives 4(3), 3–6. Major, E., & Brock, C. (2003). Fostering positive dispositions toward diversity: Dialogical explorations of a moral dilemma. Teacher Education Quarterly, 30(4), 7–27. McDrury, J., & Alterio, M. (2003) Learning through storytelling in higher education. London, England: Kogan Page. Murnen, T. J. (2003). The digital video documentary: Engaging students in ideological becoming. American Reading Forum.org. Retrieved October 4, 2014, from http://americanreadingforum.org/yearbook/yearbooks/03_yearbook/pdf/ Murnen.pdf Nagda, B., Gurin, P., & Lopez G. (2003). Transformative pedagogy for democracy and social justice. Race Ethnicity and Education, 6(2), 165–191. National Education Agency. (2014). Diversity toolkit: Cultural competence for educators. Retrieved June 21, 2014, from http://www.nea.org/tools/30402.htm Nieto, J. (2006). The cultural plunge: Cultural immersion as a means of promoting self-awareness and cultural sensitivity among student teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(1), 75–84. Noffke, S., & Brennan, M. (1988). The dimensions of reflection: A conceptual and contextual analysis. Paper presented at the 1988 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 5–9. Retrieved from ERIC database (ED 296968). Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. New York, NY: Basic Books. Polkinghorne, D. (1988). Narrative knowing and the human sciences. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Pope, R., Reynolds A., & Mueller, J. (2004). Multicultural competence in student affairs. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

208    M. R. GREEN, L. M. WALTERS, and T. WALTERS Ranker, J. (2008). Making meaning on the screen: Digital video production about the Dominican Republic. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51(5), 410–422. Ritchie, J. S., & Wilson, D. E. (2000). Teacher narrative as critical inquiry: Rewriting the script. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Roberts, S. (2008, October 14). Minorities in U.S. set to become majority by 2042. New York Times. Retrieved September 7, 2014, from http://www.nytimes. com/2008/08/14/world/americas/14iht-census.1.15284537.html Roose, D. (2001). White teachers’ learning about diversity and “otherness”: The effects of undergraduate international internships on subsequent teaching practices. Equity & Excellence in Education, 34(1), 43–49. Russo, R. (2004). Social justice as general education. Journal of Geography, 103(3). Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books. Schunk, D. (1991). Learning theories: An educational perspective. New York, NY: Maxwell Macmillan International. Steeley, S. (2003). Language minority teacher preparation: A review of alternative programs. Action in Teacher Education, 25(3), 59–68. Strampel, K., & Oliver, R. (2007) Using technology to foster reflection in higher education. Proceedings of Ascilite conference in 2007. Singapore. Retrieved June 20, 2014, from http://www.celtelearning.org/images/uploads/expertise/documents/strampel_and_oliver_reflection.pdf Taylor, E. (1994). Intercultural competency: A transformative learning process. Adult Education Quarterly, 44(3), 154–174. The Centre for Literacy. (2014). What is literacy? Literacy for the 21st century: A guiding definition. Retrieved June 21, 2011, from http://www.centreforliteracy.qc.ca/ about/literacy The United Church of Canada/L’Église. Unie du Canada. (2011). Defining multicultural, cross-cultural and intercultural. Retrieved June 21, 2014, from https:// webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3zebmcMbVBOJ:htt ps://www.researchgate.net/file.PostFileLoader.html%3D55d345b56225ff510 88b457e%26assetKey%3DAS%253A273834429616132%25401442298623252 +&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=US Trask, B., & Hamon, R. (2007). Cultural diversity and families: Expanding perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Walters, L. M., Garii, B., & Walters, T. (2009) Learning globally, teaching locally: Incorporating international exchange and intercultural learning into preservice teacher training. Intercultural Education 20(1/2), 151–158. Walters, L., Green, M., Wang, L., & Walters, T. (2011, Fall). From heads to hearts: Digital stories as reflection artifacts of teachers’ international experience. Issues in Teacher Education, 37–52. Wedman, J., Mahlios, M., & Whitefield, J. (1989). Perceptual differences regarding the implementation of an inquiry-oriented student teaching curriculum. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 22(4a), 29–35.

CHAPTER 12

“INSIDE PEOPLE ARE ALL THE SAME” A Narrative Study of an Intercultural Project With UAE and U.S. Preservice Teachers Patience A. Sowa and Cynthia Schmidt

In the 21st century it is vital to develop teacher candidates who know how to communicate with children and families from different cultures and countries in order to build classroom communities where all children have equal chances to succeed in school and in a global society (Banks, 2010; Gay, 2010; Major, 2005). Although some may question the customs, religions, and values of others, living in this era requires that educators become more accepting of “beliefs, worldviews, values, and behaviors of people from other cultures” (McDaniel, Samovar, & Porter, 2009, p. 16). Being open to the cultures of others is especially important for teachers in countries with multicultural and multiethnic populations, such as the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and the United States.

A Reader of Narrative and Critical Lenses on Intercultural Teaching and Learning, pages 209–227 Copyright © 2017 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 209

210    P. A. SOWA and C. SCHMIDT

We are two friends and colleagues who have common goals for preparing teachers to use multicultural children’s literature in ways that enhance culturally relevant pedagogy and promote social justice. One of us worked with preservice teachers in the UAE and the other author has done the same in the United States. We decided to develop intercultural online discussions of multicultural literature that raised social issues to provide our preservice teachers with opportunities to communicate with persons whose lives and cultures were different from their own. The online discussions were a critical literacy practice that we used to start the preservice teachers on the path to implementing a critical literacy curriculum and as a means of teaching for social justice. The discussions served to demonstrate to our preservice teachers the power of language and texts and how they can be used to “position us in particular ways” (Vasquez, 2010, p. 3), as well as to change the world in which we live. We believed that the online discussions could provide a virtual experience for sharing and learning with persons, rather than reading about persons from a different culture. We viewed the online discussions as a form of border crossing (Giroux, 1993; Lewison, Flint, & Van Sluys, 2002) that would help our preservice teachers to become more aware and appreciative of multiple and different ways of looking at the world. We define social issues broadly, as the complex problems that people encounter in society. The purpose of this chapter is to explore our experiences in promoting intercultural education through the use of online discussions with our preservice teachers in the UAE and the United States. We answer the research question: What did we learn from shaping these intercultural experiences for our preservice teachers? Our study of the discussions led us to reframe our teaching. We became more explicit and strategic regarding our critical literacy practices. The project also set our students on the path of becoming more aware of multiple viewpoints and teaching for social justice. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK To explore our stories in this intercultural project, we used narrative inquiry as both our method and our framework. Narrative inquiry, Connelly and Clandinin (2006) stated, “Is the study of experience as story . . . a way of thinking about experience” (p. 375). Narrative inquiry is most suited to this study because during narrative inquiry, “We are, as researchers and teachers, still telling in our practices our ongoing life stories as they are lived, told, relived and retold” (Connelly & Clandinin, 2006, p. 9). We also drew on the literature of self-study of teacher education practices. Hamilton and Pinnegar (1998) described the self-study of teaching practice as reframing; that is, the systematic reflection of teacher educators to “open

“Inside People Are All the Same”     211

themselves to new interpretations and to create different strategies for educating students” (p. 2). In the telling and retelling of our stories, we reframed and reconceptualized our teaching practices (Hamilton & Pinnegar, 1998; Loughran, 2002; Loughran & Northfield, 1998) to “lead to better transformative possibilities” for our teacher candidates (Orr & Olson, 2007, p. 823). A key theory that influenced this study and the reframing of our teaching practices is critical literacy. Critical literacy involves encouraging students “to use language to question the everyday world . . . interrogate the relationship between language and power . . . analyze popular culture and media, and to understand how power relationships are socially constructed.” (Lewison, Leland & Harste, 2008, p. 3). Developing a critical literacy stance and engaging in critical literacy practices can help teachers work with students to promote social justice (Lewison, Leland & Harste, 2008; Luke & Freebody, 1997). Literature on multiculturalism and intercultural education in teacher education also informed our study. These bodies of research emphasized the importance of providing preservice teachers with experiences that open them up to the world and deepen their understandings of themselves, their cultures, and the cultures of other people (Banks, 2010; Sowa & Schmidt, 2014). These personal experiences are essential in helping preservice teachers understand the significance of critiquing instructional practices and working toward inclusive and culturally responsive practices to support all children academically and socially (Gay, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Nieto, 2010). In this globalized world, scholars are calling for the preparation of internationally minded teachers through experiences that broaden their perspectives and give them skills to problem solve and interact with people from different cultural backgrounds “whose attitudes, values, knowledge and skills may be significantly different from their own” (Cushner, 2007, p. 27–28). Similarly, Walters, Garii, and Walters (2009) noted that intercultural learning opportunities “can lead to new perspectives regarding human differences, and if wisely structured, can rectify misconceptions and reverse stereotypes” (p. 158). Using authentic multicultural books that raise social issues is recommended as one practical way to enhance children’s understanding and appreciation of their own cultures and the cultures of others (Au, 2000; Galda & Beach, 2002; Lewison, Flint, & Van Sluys, 2002). Preservice teachers need to understand the power they have to encourage children and adolescents to think critically about the stories of life that are presented in the books that they read and the world around them (Lewison, Leland, & Harste, 2008; Van Sluys, Laman, Legan, & Lewison, 2005; Vasquez, 2010). They

212    P. A. SOWA and C. SCHMIDT

also need to understand how language can be used to maintain systems of dominance or challenge the status quo (Janks, 2000). METHODOLOGY In this section of the chapter, we will describe the methodology of our study, discuss the background and context of the study, and then illustrate our use of narrative inquiry and the themes that emerged from our analysis of data. Background and Context The authors, Patience and Cynthia, met at a small midwestern U.S. university. We shared a common task—to develop graduate courses in language and literacy—and we became more than colleagues. Our friendship grew through conversations, during planning sessions and breaks between classes, and over cups of tea in our homes. We shared our family stories and our professional knowledge as we taught each other lessons about the intersections of culture, language, and literacy. We brought different perspectives to this collaboration. Cynthia is a White, middle-class woman who had been raised, educated, and worked in several midwestern U.S. cities as a teacher and a teacher educator. Patience was born in Ghana and had completed graduate degrees in both Ghana and the United States before completing her doctoral degree in teaching English to speakers of other languages (ESOL). Our personal friendship and our professional collaborations were thriving, but changes intervened. Cynthia took a position as a professor of literacy at a midwestern state university. Patience found a position in the UAE as a professor of language and literacy at a women’s university. Despite the distance, we maintained our personal friendship and continued to share our professional interests as we engaged in developing literacy courses in our two institutions. Cynthia’s university focuses on preparing teachers for urban schools and emphasizes cultural competence and culturally responsive teaching practices (Gay, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 1995). Patience’s university prepares Emiratis to take on leadership roles in a country that has undergone an amazing physical, social, and economic transformation in its 43-year existence (Sowa & De La Vega, 2008). Online Discussions and Participants We arranged five online discussion groups among preservice teachers in our classes between 2008 and 2012. The discussions usually took five to

“Inside People Are All the Same”     213

six weeks during a 15-week fall semester. All of the participants in the UAE were Emirati women. Most of the U.S. preservice teachers were female. The ages of the participants from both countries ranged from 20 to 35 years old. Over the years, six males (four White, two African American) from the United States participated in the discussions. Among the U.S. females, the demographics were 75% White, 18% African American, 5% Latina, and 2% Asian American. The U.S. preservice teachers were taking a literacy methods course, while the Emirati students were participating in a course on children’s and adolescent literature. Class sizes in the UAE were smaller than in the United States and on average consisted of 10 Emirati preservice teachers. Cynthia typically had about 20 U.S. preservice teachers in her courses in the United States. For many Emiratis this was their first encounter with people from the United States besides their instructors in the university, so we made sure that each discussion group had at least two Emirati participants. To be sensitive to cultural norms, which generally limit women’s contact with unrelated males, Patience always asked for volunteers who were willing to have discussions with males. Selecting Books We selected stories that were set in particular cultural contexts—some more familiar to U.S. participants, others were familiar to the Emirati participants. Consequently, each group could serve as cultural informants providing insights into the actions and motives of characters. The texts also discussed social issues, such as immigration, disability, war, and religion. Over the years we read four picture books and five chapter books with different groups of preservice teachers. Together, we read picture books such as Marianthe’s Story (Aliki, 1998), about a young immigrant girl’s experiences learning English in the United States, and The Roses in My Carpets (Khan, 2004), which describes the life of a young Afghan boy living in a refugee camp. In Ian’s Walk (Lears, 1998) Ian’s life as a child with autism is described through his sister’s eyes, and My Name is Yoon (Recorvits, 2002) tells the story of a Korean immigrant child’s experiences in school as a newcomer to the United States. The chapter books we read included Tasting the Sky (Barakat, 2007), Seedfolks (Fleischman, 1997), Marrying Malcolm Murgatroyd (Farrell, 1995), The Color of my Words (Joseph, 2000) and Habibi, (Nye, 1997). The majority of the protagonists in these books were young girls who were coming of age through experiencing war, (Barakat, 2007) community (Fleishman, 1997), and change (Nye, 1997). In Tasting the Sky (Barakat, 2007) and The Color of

214    P. A. SOWA and C. SCHMIDT

my Words (Joseph, 2000) Ibtisam and Ana Rosa learn about the power of words, and how words can change one’s life and the lives of others. Narrative Inquiry Using narrative inquiry, we examined our experiences developing and conducting an intercultural project. In narrative inquiry, there are three commonplaces, or dimensions, which serve as a conceptual framework and analytical tool for this study. The commonplaces are temporality, sociality, and place (Clandinin & Huber, 2010). Together the commonplaces provide a “three-dimensional narrative inquiry space,” (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000, p. 49) a scaffold that allowed us to explore and retell our stories through analysis and interpretation (Orr & Olson, 2007). Temporality occurs when narrative inquirers attend to “the past, present, and future of people, places, things and events under study” (Clandinin & Huber, 2010, p. 436). Sociality refers to the personal, social conditions, and relationships between the researchers and participants. “Social conditions refer to the milieu, the conditions under which people’s experiences and events are unfolding” (p. 436). Connelly and Clandinin (2006) defined place as “the specific concrete, physical and topological boundaries of place or sequences of places where the inquiry and events take place” (p. 380). In our study we consider these three commonplaces as a whole. We address the dimension of sociality through reflections on our friendship and work. The commonplaces of temporality and place are addressed in our discussions of our collaboration across a span of 5 years, and the hybrid places (online and face-to-face) where this collaboration took place. Data Collection and Analysis Clandinin and Huber (2010) described narrative inquiry as a “recursive process of being in the field, composing field texts, drafting and sharing interim research texts” (p. 439). Our field texts consisted of our transcriptions of conversations on Google Talk and Skype, field notes, and the online discussions. Other sources of data included research texts presented at conferences, open-ended surveys, and reflection papers completed by the preservice teachers. We restoried and reframed our teaching and our lives through the process of self-study (Connelly & Clandinin, 1999). Olson and Craig (2012) stated: “Restorying makes the turbulence, tensions, and epistemological dilemmas that invariably become lived visible” (p.  437). We present our narrative in “demonstrative mode” using our data “in exemplary ways to illustrate our thoughts as narrative writers” (Connelly &

“Inside People Are All the Same”     215

Clandinin, 1990, p. 11). We therefore tell the story in our separate voices as well as together. We examined our data separately and then together looking for themes and patterns. The major themes that emerged are: collaborating in hybrid places, sankofa, and recognizing our cultural lenses. We name our major theme sankofa: a word from the Akan language in Ghana. The word literally means “to go back and get it.” The Akans use it to emphasize the importance of looking to the past to plan for the future. In the tradition of narrative inquiry and self-study, we went back to the past, examined our stories, and used what we learned to improve our teaching. FINDINGS In this section we discuss and explore our emerging themes of collaborating in hybrid spaces, sankofa, and recognizing our cultural lenses. We first describe the theme that sets the stage for our narrative, which we call collaborating in hybrid spaces. Then we highlight how throughout the project our continuous reflections helped us restory (Connelly & Clandinin, 1999) and improve the online discussions and our teaching. Finally, we outline how the discussions helped us broaden our view of the world, and moved our preservice teachers toward the awareness of multiple perspectives and teaching for social justice. Collaborating in Hybrid Spaces We previously noted (Sowa & Schmidt, 2009) some of the challenges we had regarding our collaboration across continents: Instead of daily chats between classes or over lunch, we now had to schedule times to chat in Google Talk while living in time zones that were 10 hours apart. . . . We realized that conversations between someone who is waking up early and someone who is ready for bed are not ideal . . . Other problems with internet connections inhibited our dialogue. The thrill of being able to hear each other’s voices soon wore off when the internet connections faded in and out. “How many bars do you have today?” A more subtle challenge emerged as we tried to navigate our long distance collaboration. We did not realize how much our roles as critical friends depended on the dailyness of our shared lives. When we chatted online, we spent time initially catching up with our personal lives. We noticed that we needed to feel a familiar level of comfort before launching into problems with our classes or our research. Eventually, the logistics of online dialogue became

216    P. A. SOWA and C. SCHMIDT more familiar to the extent that we could simply pick up our conversations where we had left them.

When we consider the commonplaces of narrative inquiry, we realize that we created a hybrid space for our collaboration. We managed to meet face-to-face at least three times a year when Patience visited the midwestern city where Cynthia lived, or when we attended professional conferences. The success of our interaction in this hybrid space is described as follows. Cynthia: During a phone conversation with my daughter, Megan, I shared news about Patience and her family and how we would soon be meeting at a conference. Megan commented, “Mom, do you realize how unusual this is?” It was true that I kept in touch with Patience more frequently than with my own sisters, who lived in the U.S. We had created a sort of hybrid space to nurture and sustain our lives as friends and colleagues. Patience: Cynthia’s story resonated with me. We actually saw and spoke to each other more than we had expected, even though we were miles apart. It described quite aptly the strength of our relationship. I had not realized how hard we have worked to maintain our friendship and collaborate in our research across continents. I had taken for granted a situation which was truly unusual! (Sowa & Schmidt, 2009)

Today we collaborate online using web 2.0 tools such as Skype, Dropbox, and email. Writing proposals and manuscripts together has developed interesting contours in our hybrid space. As we pass our drafts back and forth, the patterns in our words and syntax have become so familiar that we often forget who actually started a particular sentence. Consequently, our hybrid space for talking and writing has become a comfortable home. Sankofa Each year we created new research texts based on our analysis of data. Over time, we found that we could use the tradition of sankofa to learn from the past as we restoried, interpreting the present and planning for the future. We learned many lessons from these continuous reflections as critical friends, and we made important changes both in the structure of the project and the content of our teaching. Structuring the Discussions The preservice teachers in both countries were required to post on the online discussion groups as a course assignment. The participants needed time

“Inside People Are All the Same”     217

to read and post responses to texts and to respond to one another. This was particularly true for the Emirati participants, who had varying levels of proficiency in English. Asynchronous posting made this collaboration possible, but it was not without its challenges. The U.S. and UAE semester, week, and daily schedules were different. Cynthia’s fall semester ran from late August to early December. Patience’s semester started and ended later, but included a number of Muslim holidays that are observed on a variable schedule each year. Living in different time zones meant that the Emirati students were posting 10 hours ahead or 14 hours behind their U.S. peers. Similarly, the weekly class schedules were different. For example, the school week in the UAE is Sunday through Thursday while in the U.S. it is Monday through Friday. In our first analyses of the online discussions, we discovered great variations among the groups and different levels of student satisfaction with the experience. Some groups had more thoughtful and pertinent discussions than other groups, and we tried to determine what contributed to the most successful group experiences. We learned that many participants were frustrated when they posted a comment or question and did not receive a reply for several days. Consequently, we developed a calendar for each discussion group and set expectations for the number and types of postings each week. During the first week we asked participants to introduce themselves and get to know each other. We began posting discussion prompts and selected discussion leaders for each group. In subsequent years, we abandoned the role of discussion leader. However, we spent time in our classes discussing the qualities of thoughtful responses that our students might try in their groups and consider using in future classrooms with children. We tried to provide enough structure and support without interfering in the discussions. We wanted to observe and learn from our students about the possibilities for these types of intercultural conversations. Reframing Our Teaching Over the 5-year period of this study, we continued analyzing the data from different discussion groups to learn more about the factors that seemed to constrain or support dialogues and participants’ satisfaction. This led to changes in the selection of multicultural books and a greater focus on critical literacy. Choosing Multicultural Books Initially, we used multicultural books that were available in the UAE. There were not many, and sometimes Patience had to buy them during her

218    P. A. SOWA and C. SCHMIDT

trips to the United States. Many of these books were written by authors of Arab descent living in the United States, the United Kingdom, or Australia describing experiences as immigrants or as in the case of Barakat’s (2007) Tasting the Sky, describing their childhood in the Middle East. In time, Patience collaborated with her university library to order sets of multicultural books. We spent considerable time selecting these books. This was noted in our field notes, such as in the following excerpt. Patience: I experienced a lot of tension in our selection of books. We wanted our preservice teachers to read books which they could identify with, but there were no chapter books written about Emiratis in English. Most of the books about Arabs and Muslims published in Western countries tended to negatively portray them as victims of bullying and war. Arab cultures are also very different. Palestinian culture described in Tasting the Sky (Barakat, 2007) is quite different from Emirati culture. Another tension was the content of some of the books. We selected Seedfolks (Fleischman, 1997) when I was quite new in the Emirates, and I was apprehensive about introducing a text which might be seen as offensive. In one chapter, an unmarried pregnant teenager considered terminating her pregnancy. There were no complaints about reading the book, and several of the preservice teachers wrote that they really enjoyed reading it. Now I am more comfortable selecting texts and discussing our different perspectives on the social issues. I do not experience as much tension, but am still sensitive to the cultural norms and what might be considered inappropriate. I frequently tell the students upfront that there may be situations in the chapter books they will read, or the video clips they watch, which they might find offensive, and that they may leave the classroom or choose another book to read if they feel uncomfortable. As yet, no one has chosen to do this. I have come to realize also, that most of the apprehension is on my part, not theirs. (Field notes, 2010)

From the data, we learned that our students valued diverse frames of reference provided by discussion partners from different cultures (Banks, 2010). This is reflected in the extract from this research text: Most U.S. teacher candidates said they felt the online discussions provided good opportunities to make personal connections with people from a different culture. One participant noted that she would remember more from the authentic conversations than she would have gained from simply reading about the UAE. . . . Teacher candidates also noted that interacting with someone from a different culture was good preparation for teaching because their future students would come from different cultural backgrounds. The following quotes represent these responses; “I liked these discussions. They helped me see how people on the other side of the world thought.” “I can see that it helps to give me an open mind.” (Schmidt & Sowa, 2009)

“Inside People Are All the Same”     219

One consistent pattern in this project was that participants found commonalities among their differences. In Marianthe’s Story (Aliki, 1998), as Marianthe, an immigrant child, fretted about her first day at school in a new country, her mother assured her saying, “Inside we are all the same.” This statement resonated with many of the participants. Survey responses indicated many were surprised to learn “how much we have in common” with peers from a different country and culture. Comments made by preservice teachers from both countries include: “They value education like we do,” “We have had similar experiences,” and “We found more in common when talking about personal interests.” Unfortunately, we noted participants rarely moved into discussing tensions related to ethnicity, race, class, and culture presented in the books, even with explicit prompts from their instructors such as “Discuss the social issues the books raise.” By the third year of our discussions, we decided to be more explicit about explaining and discussing what it means to take a critical literacy stance. We introduced Luke and Freebody’s (1997) Four Resources Model and texts that discussed both theories and practical approaches to using critical literacy in elementary classrooms (Lewison et al., 2008; Vasquez, 2010). While these readings led to thoughtful classroom discussions about the rationale for engaging in critical literacy, we still struggled with helping our students adopt a critical literacy stance and discuss critical issues in their conversations. Patience: It was hard to move my preservice teachers towards an understanding of what it means to adopt a critical literacy stance. The tensions inherent in taking this approach with my preservice teachers led me to rethink my teaching. I became more mindful and thoughtful as to how I could best help them understand what it means to teach with a critical literacy perspective. We started by looking at advertisements to demonstrate the idea that no text is neutral. We read Cinder Edna (Jackson, 1994) and deconstructed Cinderella (Brown, 1997) to help participants question where their own assumptions come from by studying the author’s point of view, disrupting the common place, and interrogating text (Lewison et al., 2008). This led to conversations about gender roles, perceptions of beauty in different cultures, and the power and influence of stories. We discussed the fact that almost all of the married young women in many of my classes had taken on Western and Disney fairy tale notions in their ideas for a wedding dress. Cultural appropriateness was also an issue that was discussed in-depth. Should they read a popular folktale like the Three Little Pigs to Emirati children when pigs are considered taboo in Islam? The last page of Cinder Edna (Jackson, 1994) shows Prince Rupert and Cinder Edna kissing. Although they enjoyed the story and understood the author’s point of view regarding gender roles, many considered this book to be inappropriate for children because of the kiss. Context is everything. I have come to realize this more than ever; and although my preservice teachers are not all wealthy, they are certainly privileged in ways I could not imagine. It is harder, then, to see what is happening

220    P. A. SOWA and C. SCHMIDT to those less privileged, or to see or recognize exploitation and injustice. Two years ago I introduced social journals into the course. This assignment requires the preservice teachers to choose a book which discusses a social issue, and to respond to it. I respond, and we start conversations, where I carefully guide them into seeing situations around them. As a response to superficial comments about the plight of African American slaves, I would ask, “What kinds of modern day slavery or forms of exploitation exist here in the UAE?” I have tried to avoid privileging Western ways of thought prevalent in my own education. I have worked to move my Emirati preservice teachers towards the realization that humans have different ways of being and perceiving the world. Helping them see that factors such as culture, religion, nationality, and ethnicity influence the way people live and think is exciting for my students and me. Discussing complex social issues is particularly timely because as the UAE undergoes rapid transformation, Emiratis are questioning the Westernization of their country as well as the relevance of some of their own cultural traditions. Cynthia: Critical literacy fit naturally into the reading and language arts curriculum at my university. Our preservice teachers had previous coursework and experiences focused on examining their personal biases related to race, gender, and socioeconomic status. Weekly practicum experiences in urban classrooms included selecting and discussing books with a small group of children. We read articles about critical literacy (Luke & Freebody, 1997; Vasquez, 2010) and discussed the power teachers have to select books that are culturally relevant. We watched and discussed videos of authentic literature discussions, paying close attention to how teachers engaged children in thoughtful critical discussions of text. In class, we practiced reading and discussing challenging picture books that raised social issues to elicit discussions. During the practicum, preservice teachers worked as partners to lead discussions and observe a small group of children. In debriefing sessions, they evaluated the level of children’s responses and interactions. The preservice teachers wrote journal reflections on their progress in engaging children in interrogating texts. Throughout the course, we developed an expanded notion of literacy as a lifelong journey in becoming critical and thoughtful in reading, writing and discussing significant issues. (Sowa & Schmidt, 2011)

In another field note excerpt Cynthia wrote the following reflection: I was particularly pleased when former students returned to tell me that they were reading some of the multicultural books from our project with children in their own classrooms. One new teacher told me how she loved sharing Marianthe’s Story (Aliki, 1998) with her students because many, like Marianthe, were recent immigrants. Another student teacher used the theme of prejudice in Seedfolks (Fleischman, 1997) to help her fifth graders address bullying and cliques in their school. Despite these success stories, I knew others still struggled. A preservice teacher confessed that she felt uncomfortable when

“Inside People Are All the Same”     221 her third graders raised questions about the racial tensions in The Jacket. (Clements & Henderson, 2003; Field notes, 2012)

While many participants from both countries embraced multicultural literature as a tool for building cultural understanding and promoting social justice, we knew that we still had work to do. Preservice teachers still needed to work on interrogating texts and asking difficult questions of their peers. Developing a critical literacy stance is a continuous process that depends on personal experiences and thoughtful reflection on the social and political implications of language, classroom activities, and interactions. Our ongoing analyses revealed we were both living in our own cultural cocoons. We storied and restoried as our experiences of language and culture “bumped up” against the stories of our students and their experiences (Clandinin, Huber, Huber, Murphy, Murray Orr, Pearce, & Steeves, 2006, p. 32). We became more conscious of our biases, assumptions, and perspectives of the world. Cynthia: In the first year or two of our collaboration, I wrote research texts about Emiratis and Americans. Patience tactfully pointed out that America was a larger area than the United States, and I quickly realized my error. I was also writing about the Muslim religion, and Patience explained that Islam is the religion, while Muslims are followers of this religion. My errors in writing indicated my own ethnocentric views. Patience: I learned about and shared with Cynthia distinctions between religious dogmas and cultural traditions. I discovered many of the rules about women’s roles in society and their dress in public are not part of Islam. For example, women’s abayas (black covering) are not essential to Islam, but rather a part of the cultural traditions of nations in the Gulf States, i.e., local interpretations of Islam. This took me awhile to get used to and understand. In my culture black is worn as a sign of mourning. I found that underneath the abayas and shailas (veil) were women who are like students everywhere. They are funny, serious, shy, bold, feisty, curious, and intelligent. (Field notes, 2012)

The online discussions created a space for our preservice teachers to share their personal stories. This gave us insights into what the participants were learning from each other. Sharing these personal reactions involved a level of self-disclosure, and some shared more than others. Participants from both countries shared stories about their relationships with family members who reminded them of characters in the stories. In Marianthe’s Story (Aliki, 1998), her mother prepares Marianthe for her first day of school by carefully combing and braiding her hair. Aliki’s description of this tender moment elicited memories from both Emirati and U.S. participants who wrote about similar intimate moments.

222    P. A. SOWA and C. SCHMIDT Cynthia: A U.S. participant wrote that it reminded her of how her boyfriend ran his fingers through her hair when they were going to sleep. This created a tension for me. I realized I had created a situation where a naïve U.S. student was exposing personal information that fostered a stereotype of casual sexual relationships. Patience: The Emiratis did not comment about this revelation online, and did not bring it up in class; however one wrote in her survey response; “They live together without being married . . . this is forbidden in our culture.” I questioned some participants later about their reaction to such comments. They shrugged and said they were not particularly shocked because they see these things in movies and U.S. television programs. The online discussions prompted participants to develop or confirm their own stories about daily lives of discussion partners in a different world. I experienced a tension. How could I help my Emirati preservice teachers realize that life in the United States was not what they saw on TV? It was not sufficient to tell them that not everyone in the United States lived like the women on Desperate Housewives! (Field notes, 2012)

We found many assumptions and potentially ethnocentric statements made by the U.S. preservice teachers in survey responses. They thought Emiratis lived cloistered lives and were surprised to find out that they went to the beach, liked shopping, and were passionate about education. They wrote: “Emiratis are open about our ideas,” and “the women we worked with are very Americanized” (Italics added by authors). The positive comments seemed to pale in comparison with the ethnocentric comments. Cynthia: I was genuinely surprised by the sophisticated responses of the Emirati women in the online discussions. Why was I expecting less from them? I realized I was imagining these women as less experienced and less capable than my U.S. preservice teachers. I had biases about women who covered themselves in public and needed permission from male guardians to attend public functions. I had “bumped up” (Clandinin et al., 2006, p. 32) against my own story about women that was not as culturally sensitive as I would have liked. Patience: As with anyone living in a new and different culture, I was very curious about my preservice teachers, their lives, and their ways of looking at the world. This was challenging because I do not understand Arabic. I looked for and found many commonalities regarding notions of family and certain rites of passage. Small occurrences would make me stop short and teach me that I had my cultural blinders on. I chose the chapter book Marrying Malcolm Murgatroyd (Farrell, 1995) because Hannah’s (the protagonist) younger brother Ian had muscular dystrophy. Malcolm was an awkward adolescent whom Hannah regarded as an embarrassment. Hannah and Malcolm’s parents were good friends and often teased the two about getting married. In the end they did marry, but I was very surprised when some Emirati women remarked that they were glad that Hannah finally listened to her parents and agreed to the ar-

“Inside People Are All the Same”     223 ranged marriage! Because arranged marriages are the cultural norm here, they did not grasp that Malcolm and Hannah’s parents were actually teasing them.

We started our project with the goal of moving our preservice teachers toward becoming internationally minded (Cushner, 2007) and aware of the multiple perspectives of others. Through our self-studies and reframing of our teaching, we realized the discussions had done the same for us. We examined our own ways of being, our biases and ways of seeing the world, and became more aware of our cultures and the cultures of others. We summed up our experience in the following excerpt from a research text: “The online discussions have also taken us on a cultural journey. As a result of these discussions, we too have developed multiple perspectives and have become more globally aware” (Sowa & Schmidt, 2014, p. 59). AUTHOR REFLECTIONS This chapter explores our experiences in promoting intercultural understandings through online discussions of multicultural literature with our preservice teachers in the UAE and the United States. As teacher educators, we believe in helping preservice teachers develop critical literacy practices as a way to promote social justice. Olson and Craig (2012) emphasized the need for teacher educators to be strongly committed to social justice. We wanted our preservice teachers and their future students “to be better able to contribute to a more equitable and just world by being . . . able to make informed decisions” (Vasquez, 2010, p. 4) regarding complex social issues of race, ethnicity, class, gender, power, and control. The use of narrative inquiry and self-study gave us the opportunity to restory our lives on both personal and professional levels. This process helped us examine our cultural viewpoints. As teacher educators, we reframed our own teaching practices as we learned to appreciate subtle differences in what our students wrote online, and in what we read between the lines in their responses to each other and to us, their instructors, about their experiences. We created a hybrid space where we could grapple with facilitating preservice teachers’ understandings and practices related to culture and social justice. Other researchers have noted the difficulties involved in moving teachers toward classroom practices that authentically incorporate social justice (Lewison, Flint, & Van Sluys 2002; Olson & Craig, 2012). We humbly acknowledge our own small steps in moving our preservice teachers toward deeper understandings of critical literacy in discussions and in teaching practices. The online discussions served as a vehicle to help our preservice teachers start on this path. While they enjoyed reading the books, not all our former preservice teachers were comfortable using them in their classrooms.

224    P. A. SOWA and C. SCHMIDT

Patience realized, for example, that preservice teachers selected “safe” books to use in their classrooms. We realize like Van Sluys et al. (2005) that giving our preservice teachers more time to engage in these discussions might have moved them beyond making personal connections and recognizing perspectives of others. Unlike Van Sluys et al., (2005) we noted that our participants shared their experiences, but did very little interrogating of the texts. However, we still see our online discussions as worthwhile. They gave our participants glimpses into the lives of others. The experiences helped dispel some assumptions and stereotypes (Walters et al., 2007). Our participants learned that even with multiple perspectives and different frames of reference, “Inside people are all the same” (Aliki, 1998). CRITICAL QUESTIONS Education is the most powerful weapon we can use to change the world —Mandela, 2003

In the 21st century, it is crucial for teacher educators to provide preservice teachers with intercultural experiences, which open them up to the world by considering the viewpoints of others. Researchers emphasize the need to challenge and redefine cultural borders “encouraging students to be border crossers in order to understand others” (Giroux, 1993; Lewison et al., 2002; p. 384). By incorporating critical literacy practices into online discussions of multicultural books that raise social issues, we gave our preservice teachers a virtual opportunity to cross international borders, learn about people from a different country and culture, and become more internationally minded (Cushner, 2007; Schlein, 2010). As teacher educators in language and literacy, we believe that examples of critical literacy practices and the study of the underlying theories of critical literacy are fundamental in preparing teachers to create classrooms that help children to develop understandings about the social and political values embedded in texts, and to consider implications for developing their own values. Our research adds to the growing body of research related to critical literacy practices in classrooms and teacher education (Lewison et al., 2002; Lewison et al., 2008; Van Sluys et al., 2005; Vasquez, 2010). In addition, we believe that studying preservice teachers’ development of cultural understandings and critical literacy practices enhances our understanding of their paths toward a more culturally relevant pedagogy (Gay, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Nieto, 2010). We hope that the stories of our own cultural journeys and the consequent reframing of our teaching will be useful to other teacher educators as they seek to create transformative possibilities for their preservice teachers.

“Inside People Are All the Same”     225

Olson and Craig (2012) reminded us that narrative inquiry is intended to raise questions through the interpretation of meaning based on contextualized examples. Following in this tradition, we invite you as readers to engage in dialogue about our work. We are still grappling with two major questions that involve helping our preservice teachers move toward deeper understandings of ways to develop critical literacy practices using multicultural literature that focuses on social issues. 1. How would you move preservice teachers toward practicing critical literacy to promote cultural understanding and social justice? 2. If you were to conduct a similar project with preservice teachers, what strategies could you use to help them study the relationship between language and power in texts? Olson and Craig (2012) contended that a commitment to social justice is essential for teacher educators “to become open to global ideas and values” (p. 434). Our research provides a concrete example of working simultaneously to develop understandings of social justice and cross-cultural perspectives. We encourage readers of this chapter and this book to teach and conduct research in the areas prompted by our questions so as teacher educators we might work toward changing the world through education. REFERENCES Aliki (1998). Painted words; spoken memories: Marianthe’s story. New York, NY: Greenwillow Books. Au, K. (2000). A multicultural perspective on policies for improving literacy achievement: Equity and excellence. In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3; pp. 835–870). Mahwah, N.J. Erlbaum. Banks, J. (2010). Multicultural education: Major themes in education. New York, NY: Routledge. Barakat, I. (2007). Tasting the sky: A Palestinian childhood. New York, NY: Farrar, Strauss & Giroux. Brown, M. (1997). Cinderella. New York, NY: Aladdin. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Clandinin, D. J., & Huber, J. (2010). Narrative inquiry. In B. McGaw, E. Baker, & P. P. Peterson (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education. (3rd ed.; pp. 436–441). New York, NY: Elsevier. Clandinin, D. J., Huber, J., Huber, M., Murphy, M. S., Murray Orr, A., Pearce, M., & Steeves, P. (2006). Composing diverse identities: Narrative inquiries into the interwoven lives of children and teachers. New York, NY: Routledge. Clements, A., & Henderson, M. (2003). The jacket. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

226    P. A. SOWA and C. SCHMIDT Connelly, M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry. Educational Researcher, 19(5), 2–14. Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1999). Shaping a professional identity: Stories of educational practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Connelly M., & Clandinin, D. J. (2006). Narrative inquiry. In J. Green, G. Camill, & P. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research. (3rd ed.; pp. 477–487). New York, NY: Routledge. Cushner, K. (2007). The role of experience in the making of internationally-minded teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34(1), 27–39. Farrell, M. (1995). Marrying Malcolm Murgatroyd. New York, NY: Farrar, Strauss & Giroux. Fleischman, P. (1997). Seedfolks. New York, NY: Harper Collins. Galda, L. & Beach, R. (2002). Response to literature as a cultural activity. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(1), 64–73. Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research and practice. (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Giroux, H., (1993). Literacy and the politics of difference. In C. Lankshear & P. L. McLaren (Eds.), Critical literacy, politics, praxis, and the post-modern (pp. 367– 378). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Hamilton, M. L., & Pinnegar, S. (1998). The value and promise of self-study. In M. Hamilton (Ed.), Reconceptualizing teaching practice: Self-study in teacher education, (pp. 235–246). London, England: Falmer Press. Jackson, E. (1994). Cinder Edna. New York, NY: Lothrop, Lee & Shepard. Janks, H. (2000). Domination, access, diversity and design: A synthesis for critical literacy education. Educational Review, 52(2), 15–30. Joseph, L. (2000). The color of my words. New York, NY: Joanna Cotler Books. Khan, R. (2004). The roses in my carpets. Markham, Ontario, Canada: Fitzheny and Whiteside. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. Lears, L. (1998). Ian’s walk: A story about autism. Morton Grove, IL: Albert Whitman. Lewison, M., Flint, A. S., & Van Sluys, K. (2002). Taking on critical literacy: The journey of newcomers and novices. Language Arts, 79(5), 382–392. Lewison, M., Leland, C., & Harste, J. (2008). Creating critical classrooms: K-8 reading and writing with an edge. New York, NY: Erlbaum. Loughran, J. (2002). Understanding self-study of teacher education practices. In J. Loughran, & T. Russell (Eds.), Improving teacher education practices through selfstudy, (pp. 239–248). London, England: Routledge Falmer Press. Loughran, J., & Northfield, J. (1998). A framework for the development of self-study practice. In M. Hamilton (Ed.), Reconceptualizing teaching practice: Self-study in teacher education, (pp. 7–18). London, England: Falmer Press. Luke, A., & Freebody, P. (1997). Shaping the social practices of reading. In S. Muspratt, A. Luke, & P. Freebody (Eds.), Constructing critical literacies: Teaching and learning textual practice (pp. 185–225). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Major, J. (2005) Teacher education for cultural diversity: Online and at a distance. The Journal of Distance Learning, 9(1), 15–26.

“Inside People Are All the Same”     227 Mandela, N. (2003). Lighting your way to a better future. Planetarium, University of the Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa. Retrieved from http:// db.nelsonmandela.org/speeches/pub_view.asp?pg=item&ItemID=NMS909 McDaniel, E., Samovar, L., & Porter, R. (2009). Understanding intercultural communication: The working principles. In L. Samovar, R. Porter, & E. McDaniel (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (12th ed.; pp. 6–17). Boston, MA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. Nieto, S. (2010). The light in their eyes: Creating multicultural learning communities. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Nye, N.S. (1997) Habibi. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Olson, M. R., & Craig, C. J. (2012). Social justice in preservice and graduate education: A reflective narrative analysis. Action in Teacher Education, 34(5/6), 433–446. Orr, A. M., & Olson, M. (2007). Transforming narrative encounters. Canadian Journal of Education, 30(3). 819–838. Recorvits, H. (2002). My name is Yoon. New York, NY: Frances Foster Books. Schlein, C. (2010). Resonating effects of cross-cultural teaching. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 12(2), 153–175. Schmidt, C., & Sowa, P. (2009). “Without fear or confusion”: Emirati and U.S. students build paths toward understanding through online discussion of children’s books. Paper presented at the 2009 annual National Reading Conference, Albuquerque, NM. Sowa, P., & De La Vega, E. (2008). One corner at a time: Collaborating for change in the UAE. Childhood Education, 85(2), 102–106. Sowa, P., & Schmidt, C., (2009). Google talk and instant messaging: A self-study of teacher collaboration encourage preservice teachers’ cultural consciousness. Paper presented at the 2009 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), San Diego, CA. Sowa, P., & Schmidt, C. (2011). Re-imagining teacher education: A self-study of our cultural journeys through the facilitation of online discussions of multicultural children’s literature books. Paper presented at the 2011 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), New Orleans, LA. Sowa, P., & Schmidt, C. (2014). United Arab Emirates and U.S. preservice teachers share perspectives in online literature circle discussions. In C. Leung, J. Richards, & C. Lassonde (Eds.), International collaborations in literacy research and practice (pp. 41–65). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Van Sluys, K., Laman, T. T., Legan, N., & Lewison, M. (2005). Critical literacy and preservice teachers: Changing definitions of what it might mean to read. Journal of Reading Education, 31(1), 13–22. Vasquez, V. (2010). Getting beyond ‘I like the book’: Creating space for critical literacy in K–6 classrooms (2nd ed). Newark, NJ: International Reading Association. Walters, L. M., Garii, B., & Walters, T. (2009). Learning globally, teaching locally: Incorporating international exchange and intercultural learning into pre-service teacher training. Intercultural Education, 20(1/2), 151–158. doi: 10.1080/14675980903371050

This page intentionally left blank.

ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS

Supriya Baily is an associate professor at George Mason University teaching international and comparative education and qualitative research methods. She is also the associate director for the Center for International Education. Her research interests focus on gender, education and empowerment, as well as higher education in India. She is the coeditor of two books, Internationalizing Teacher Education in the US (2012), Educating Adolescent Girls Around the Globe: Challenges and Opportunities (2015), and numerous journal articles and book chapters. Dr. Baily serves on the executive committee as treasurer of the Comparative and International Education Society (CIES) and sits on the board of the Global Teacher Education, Inc. She has been awarded multiple grants for research and teaching. David M. Callejo Pérez is an associate provost at Saginaw Valley State University (SVSU). He was previously the Carl A. Gerstacker Endowed Chair and chair of Human Subjects Institutional Review Board at SVSU. Callejo Pérez has authored books on curriculum studies, civil rights, and higher education, and over 75 peer-reviewed articles, research papers, and reports.  He is a member of national advisory and journal boards. David was the director of the Doctoral Program in Curriculum Studies at West Virginia University, past-president of the American Association for Teaching and Curriculum, Factotum, treasurer of the Society for Professors of Curriculum, and a research fellow at several centers. His most recent books, The Red Light in the Ivory Tower and Curriculum as Spaces: Aesthetics, Community, and the Politics of Place won national book prizes. David has also worked as PI and evaluator in over $8 million in research and development projects. A Reader of Narrative and Critical Lenses on Intercultural Teaching and Learning, pages 229–236 Copyright © 2017 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 229

230   About the Contributors

Elaine Chan is an associate professor of diversity and curriculum studies in the Department of Teaching, Learning, and Teacher Education, College of Education and Human Sciences, University of Nebraska, Lincoln. Her research and teaching interests are in the areas of culture and curriculum, international teacher education, multicultural education, intercultural teaching, narrative inquiry, ethnic identity of first-generation North Americans, student experiences of schooling, and educational equity policies. She has taught and conducted long-term classroom-based research in Canadian, Japanese, and American schools. She coauthored Teaching the Arts to Engage English Language Learners with Margaret Macintyre Latta, and coedited Narrative Inquirers in the Midst of Meaning-Making: Interpretive Acts of Teacher Educators with Vicki Ross and Dixie Keyes. Her work has been recognized with an Early Career Award from the AERA Narrative Research Special Interest Group (SIG) and publication awards from AERA Division K (Teaching and Teacher Education) and the Narrative Research SIG. Hannah Dockrill is a doctoral student in Curriculum Studies at Purdue University and has a Masters of Education in school counseling, also from Purdue University. She teaches undergraduate courses in multicultural education and preservice teacher development. Her research interests are in study abroad in teacher education, Whiteness studies, and decolonial pedagogy. Barbara Garii is Vice President of Academic Affairs at St. Joseph’s College– Brooklyn. She was former Dean of the College of Education, Information, and Technology at LIU Post. She also taught at the State University of Oswego for 9 years and she taught secondary mathematics in Colombia and Burkina Faso. At SUNY Oswego, she codeveloped the Benin-France-Oswego collaborative, which enabled preservice teachers to visit and work in schools in Porto Novo, Cotonou, and Paris. Her scholarship explores the ways in which early professional international and intercultural experiences influence late career development. Martha R. Green, PhD, serves as program coordinator for public partnerships and outreach, Office of the Provost, Texas A&M University. Dr. Green holds a BA in history and English from the University of Texas at Austin, a MEd in educational technology, and a PhD in educational psychology from Texas A&M University. She is responsible for the development and implementation of continuing professional education programs for K–12 teachers focusing on digital technology, world culture, global issues, and cultural awareness. Martha Green has conducted workshops on digital storytelling and documentary development since 2006. She implemented a global issues conference for high school students from 2008 to 2013: Zooming Out for a Global View, at Texas A&M University. Dr. Green’s research focus is

About the Contributors    231

effective implementation of digital technology to teach the writing process and development of critical thinking and problem-solving in mathematics. Dawn Hathaway is an assistant professor in the Division of Learning Technologies, College of Education and Human Development, George Mason University. Dr. Hathaway works with preK–12 practicing teachers in an advanced graduate program with an emphasis in designing digital learning in schools. Her work expands traditional models of instructional design to include strategies for supporting teachers and students as designers in both national and international contexts. Her research interests include online learning quality, use of design strategies as they influence technology in teacher education, and design-based research as an approach to educational inquiry. Margo E. Isabel is the head of Wakefield Lower School. She is fluent in Spanish and has worked in both the United States and South America as a principal, assistant principal, and department chair. She has taught core academic subjects, and Spanish and English as a second language to 4-year-olds through adults. Her BA is in international relations and Latin American studies from Scripps College, and she has a master’s degree in multicultural/bilingual education from Fairfield University. She earned her PhD in educational leadership and international education from George Mason University. Maria Katradis is a PhD candidate in international education and educational psychology at George Mason University in Fairfax, VA. She received her MA in international education and her BA in Hellenic studies and Middle Eastern and Islamic studies from New York University. Maria’s scholarship examines the intersection of international education, world language education, and educational psychology. She is currently completing her dissertation research using a phenomenological approach to explore teachers’, students’, and parents’ beliefs about language learning in two modern Greek language programs at the elementary school level in the United States. As part of her ongoing effort to build a bridge between academic and Greek language communities, Maria is serving on the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) as the current chair of the Modern Greek Special Interest Group (2016–2017). Kimberly J. Langrehr is an assistant professor at the University of Missouri, Kansas City, in the Counseling and Educational Psychology Division. She earned her PhD in counseling psychology at Loyola University Chicago and her master’s and undergraduate degrees at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. Prior to her doctoral training, Kim worked as a case manager and licensed counselor in the Milwaukee child welfare and juvenile justice system. Kim’s scholarship focuses on racial-ethnic socialization, adoption throughout the lifespan, and developing critical awareness among

232   About the Contributors

counselor trainees and other social justice stakeholders. Kim teaches graduate courses in pluralistic counseling, prevention, and counseling methods. She is the cochair of the Special Interest Group in Adoption and Research and Practice for The Society of Counseling Psychology (Division 17 of the American Psychological Association), is an active member of the Asian American Psychological Association, and a cofounder of Korean Adoptees of Chicago (KAtCH). Jennifer Mahon, PhD, is an associate professor and program coordinator of secondary education at the University of Nevada, Reno. Her work focuses on the development of intercultural awareness and competencies among educators, especially how their notions of conflict affect that understanding. Growing out of the critical tradition, Dr. Mahon examines the ways in which cross-cultural and cross-disciplinary experiences can affect change, and how institutional norms and structures become barriers to growth. She is coauthor, along with Kenneth Cushner, of the Inventory of Cross-Cultural Sensitivity (ICCS). She holds her master’s and doctoral degrees from Kent State University, the University of Dayton, and the University of New England (Australia). She is a board member of the International Academy for Intercultural Research, and she has lived and worked as an educator in Australia, England, and Costa Rica. Dr. Helen A. Marx, PhD, is an associate professor in the School of Education at Southern Connecticut State University in New Haven, Connecticut. She coordinates the undergraduate elementary education programs and codirects the urban education fellows. Her current research interests are in the areas of supporting intercultural development and study abroad program design within teacher education. David M. Moss, PhD, is an associate professor and director of global education in the Neag School of Education at the University of Connecticut. Dr. Moss specializes in curriculum studies and internationalizing U.S. teacher education. His current research interests are in the areas of global/international education, culturally responsive teaching, and curriculum reform. As a scholar, he has published numerous articles and books promoting educational reform. He was named a teaching fellow at UConn, the highest honor awarded for instructional excellence and leadership. Dr. Moss has served as a keynote and featured speaker at scholarly societies, universities, and national/international conferences. He has extensive curriculum development experience and directs the Neag School of Education London Study Abroad program. JoAnn Phillion is a professor of curriculum and instruction at Purdue University. She teaches graduate courses in curriculum theory and multicultural

About the Contributors    233

education, and an undergraduate course in preservice teacher development. Her research interests are in immigrant student education, multicultural education, and teacher education in international contexts. She has directed a teacher education summer immersion study abroad program in Honduras since 2002. She is also involved in teacher education and research in Hong Kong and China. Jubin Rahatzad is a Curriculum Studies doctoral candidate at Purdue University, and holds an MA in Political Science from Purdue University. Research interests are postglobal topics in education, critical curricular theories, and international teacher education. Teaching experiences include a foundational multicultural education course for preservice teachers, international education courses through a study abroad program in Honduras, and preparatory courses for international student teaching. Professional activities include serving as an assistant director for a study abroad program in Honduras, and as a council member of the Curriculum and Pedagogy Group. Candace Schlein is an associate professor of curriculum studies at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. Her research focuses on experiential curriculum, intercultural teaching and learning, educational diversity and equity, classroom interactions, and narrative inquiry. Her work has been recognized with awards and distinctions from the American Association for Teaching and Curriculum (AATC), the Canadian Society for the Study of Education (CSSE), and the American Educational Research Association (AERA), including the 2014 Early Career Award from the Narrative Research Special Interest Group (SIG) of AERA. She is an AATC conference historian and the historian for Division B: Curriculum Studies of AERA. She has served as the past chair, vice chair, and program chair for the AERA Classroom Management SIG. She was Co-Editor of a special issue of Issues in Teacher Education on intercultural education. She is senior review editor and former editor of The Canadian Journal for New Scholars in Education. Cynthia Schmidt, PhD, is a retired teacher educator and literacy specialist. She formerly taught at the University of Missouri, Kansas City, and is currently working as a literacy consultant in K–12 schools. Suniti Sharma is an associate professor in the Department of Teacher Education at Saint Joseph’s University, Philadelphia. She teaches instructional techniques for English language arts and social studies, ESL pedagogy, and literacy across the curriculum. Her research focuses on preparing critical multicultural teachers through study abroad and international field experiences; education of at-risk youth; and the intersection of identity, culture, and curriculum. Her research has been published as a book, Girls Behind Bars Reclaiming Education in Transformative Spaces; a coedited collection,

234   About the Contributors

Internationalizing Teacher Education for Social Justice: Theory, Research and Practice; and in education and curriculum journals, such as Race, Ethnicity and Education; Teachers College Record; Issues in Teacher Education; and Journal of Curriculum Theorizing. Patience A. Sowa is an associate professor of education and an educational consultant. She conducts research in the areas of teaching ELL’s, international education, literacy, language and culture, and preservice teacher education. Ervin F. Sparapani earned his PhD at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and is currently a retired professor of middle school and secondary classroom teaching at Saginaw Valley State University, University Center, Michigan. While a faculty member at Saginaw Valley State, he taught graduate-level (master’s degree) courses for middle school and high school teachers in curriculum design and analysis, research methods, thinking skills, differentiating instruction, learning theory and adolescent development, and thesis completion. Ervin’s research interests include teaching for higher-level thinking, teacher use of cooperative learning, use of technology in the classroom, and teacher involvement in professional learning communities. His scholarship includes the publication of three books, the publication of numerous articles, and many presentations at national and international conferences, all focused at middle school and high school teaching, mainly addressing differentiating instruction and teaching for higher-level thinking in the middle school and high school. Lynne Masel Walters, PhD, is an associate professor in the Department of Teaching, Learning and Culture, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas. She was a visiting professor at the Universiti Utara Malaysia from 2011 to 2013 and at Ahmad Dahlan Universiti Yogyakarta, Indonesia, in 2014. Dr. Walters teaches and does research in international and intercultural education. Much of her latest research is on the impact of an international experience on cultural sensitivity and on digital storytelling as a reflective artifact to be used in teacher education. She also works in the area of digital literacy and its impact on teaching and learning across the curriculum. Dr. Walters’ academic background is in the field of communication. She has a BS in radio-television (Indiana University), MA in journalism (Penn State University), and a PhD in mass communication (University of Wisconsin, Madison). Dr. Tim Walters has been an associate dean, department head, and a media center education director and journal editor and has supervised and edited numerous proposals, papers, manuscripts, master’s theses, and PhD dissertations. He specializes in editing the academic work of ESL and EFL students

About the Contributors    235

for language, APA style, and meaning in many subjects, including business, communication, education, science, and engineering. He has more than a decade of experience teaching and working with students from Asia, the Maghreb, and the Arabian Gulf, including the United Arab Emirates and the states of Kuwait and Qatar and from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Dr. Walters earned a BA with honors from Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire; an MA in history from Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana; a PhD in journalism from the University of Texas, Austin; and a media management certificate from the New School, New York City.