wk 1

SRATE Journal Winter 2011-2012, Vol. 21, Number 1 Page 29

Research on multicultural self-awareness has been primarily conducted with pre-service teachers (Brown, 2004; Larke, 1990; Milner, Flowers, Moore, Moore, & Flowers, 2003). As a consequence, there is a dearth of studies that have investigated in-service school teachers. For this reason, the current study was conducted to further understand how in-service school teachers perceive themselves in today’s culturally diverse teaching environment. Furthermore, using the study by Yeung (2006), a cultural comparison be- tween American in-services teachers and Chinese in-service teachers in Hong Kong was made.

Cultural diversification in American class- rooms is emerging as an additional challenge for school teachers in this ever-changing world of teaching (Banks, 2007). Today, school age chil- dren represent diverse affiliations in race, culture, socio-economic status, and language more than

ever before. Children no longer live in monoracial or monocultural environments and are expected to reside harmoniously with members from cultural groups different from their own. To teach suc- cessfully in culturally diverse classrooms, school teachers need to become more aware of their own multicultural perceptions as their beliefs and behaviors affect the academic and social skill de- velopment of their students (Taylor & Quintana, 2003). Teachers should be expected to demon- strate professional competencies that will enable them to work more effectively, respectfully, and ethically among school children with racially and culturally diverse backgrounds.

Since the mid-1960s, a major factor a fecting demographic changes in the United States has been the growing number of immigrants enter- ing the United States from countries throughout the world (Daniels, 2008). In 1995, one in seven

Comparing Cross-Cultural Multicultural Self-Awareness among K-12 In-Service School Teachers

Chieko Koyama: Troy University Shawn Plash:Troy University Kirk Davis: Troy University

The present study explored multicultural self-awareness among 134 K-12 in-service school teachers using the Cultural Diversity Awareness Inventory (CDAI). The results were compared to Yeung’s (2006), allow- ing for a comparison between Eastern and Western cultures. A composite score was generated for each of the five areas measured by the CDAI. A chi-square was then conducted to determine whether teachers from an Eastern or Western culture responded differently. A statistically significant difference at the .05 level was found in all five areas with teachers from an Eastern culture were more likely to strongly agree/ agree in all five areas.

SRATE Journal Winter 2011-2012, Vol. 21, Number 1 Page 30

children enrolled in public schools spoke a lan- guage other than English at home. In 2007, this number rose to one in five children (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009). Further, this trend is projected to continue (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008), and by the year of 2050, the enrollment of ethnic minority students at all levels in public school is estimated to be nearly 50% (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2010a). While the population of ethnic minority students in schools is chang- ing dramatically, the characteristics of teachers and administrators remain largely unchanged. From 1971 to 1991, approximately 88% of public school teachers were White (Yasin, 1999), yet data from 2007-2008 showed a decrease in the number of White teachers to 83% (NCES, 2010b). The ethnic composition of the remaining teachers were: African American (6.9%), Hispanic (7.2%), Asian (1.3%), Native Hawaiian/Pacific islander (0.2%), American Indian/Alaska Native (0.5%) (NCES, 2010b). The prevalence by White princi- pals at all levels in both public and private schools continues despite a slight decline in the number from 83.9% in 1999-2000 to 82.9% in 2007-2008 (NCES, 2010c). The gap between the diversity in the student and teacher populations remains clearly notable.

Mismatch in cultural backgrounds between student and teacher does not inevitably preclude the effective teaching of students from cultur- ally diverse backgrounds. However, the teachers’ knowledge of their student’s cultures, as well as of culturally appropriate teaching methods and materials, can influence these students’ academic performance (Pope & Wilder, 2005). It has been argued that teacher education programs fail to design multicultural courses that fit into to tra- ditional curricula (Banks, 2007). Additionally, these programs do not require pre-service teachers to acquire knowledge and skills that adequately address the needs of culturally diverse students, validate each of the cultural groups, and advocate equal access to educational opportunities (Pop & Wilder, 2005; Taylor & Whittaker, 2009). Further, and more importantly, these researchers indicate

that many teacher education programs fail to encourage pre-service teachers to examine their attitudes toward culturally diverse students. The values and beliefs that teachers hold affect their interaction with culturally diverse students. Their attitudes about these students can impact their re- lationships and consequently affect their learning experience and academic performance.

Method

Participants and Procedure

One hundred and thirty four K-12 teachers in a city school system near a mid-size Army base in the southeast region of the United States participated in the current study. These partici- pants (55% in elementary) were females (89%), Whites (86%), Blacks (10%), as well as Latinos and Native Americans (1%) with the median age of 42. More than half of the participants (59%) had a, at least, master’s degree and beyond with more than 10 years of teaching experience (64%). The majority of the participants (87%) had taught English as Second language (ESL) students but had taken no academic diversity courses (60%). Participation was solicited to K-12 teachers by a survey package individually mailed to the school in which they were employed. The survey return rate was 31%.

Instruments

The Cultural Diversity Awareness Inventory (CDAI) was used to explore K-12 in-service teachers’ self-perception in regard to their at- titudes, beliefs, and behaviors toward cultural diverse students. The CDAI was originally cre- ated by Henry (1986) and later modified by Larke (1990). The current study used Larke’s version of CDAI, which is a self-administered inven- tory consisting of 27 opinion statements using a 5-point Likert scale (e.g., 5 = Strongly Agree 4= Agree, 3= Neutral, 2=Disagree, 1= Strongly Disagree). The responses to these 27 statements are categorized into five areas: (1) general cultural

SRATE Journal Winter 2011-2012, Vol. 21, Number 1 Page 31

awareness, (2) culturally diverse family, (3) cross- cultural communication, (4) assessment, and (5) creating a multicultural environment using mul- ticultural methods and materials. In addition, a demographics sheet consisting of ten questions was used to obtain background information of the participants.

Results

Response frequencies for each question were computed using the data collected from CDAI and are reported in Table 1 alongside the results obtained by Yeung (2006). Additionally, in order to compare these findings with those obtained by Yeung, five mean composite scores were created for each of the five areas measured by the CDAI. The composite scores were computed by finding the mean for all of the strongly agree/agree, neu- tral, and strongly disagree/disagree responses in each of the five areas measured. By computing an average frequency for the five areas, it was pos- sible to compute a chi-square for each area rather than 27 chi-squares using each separate question.

Regarding the area of cultural awareness, over 70% of the participants in the current study were not surprised when members of certain eth- nic groups contributed to particular school activi- ties. Further, more than half the participants indi- cated that students who had different values from their own did not make them feel uncomfortable (64.2%), and they did not prefer working with students and their parents who shared a culture with them (57.5%). In regard to the cross-cultural comparison between this study and the study by Yeung (2006), a chi-square analysis found a sta- tistically significant difference in the area of cul- tural awareness, χ2 (2, N = 134) = 19.32, p < .001. The participants in Yeung’s study (42.86%) were more likely to respond strongly agree/agree than the participants in the current study (16.67%).

Regarding the area of teachers’ perception of culturally diverse family, over half of the par- ticipants indicated that they had not experienced

frustration in conferences with parents of different cultures (60.4%). Many participants supported the views in which on-going parent input in program planning was necessary (56.7%) and a conference or program planning were scheduled at the par- ents convenience (56.7%). Further, slightly more than half in-service teachers did not think that they should ask families their preference for eth- nic identification at the initial meeting (53.7%). Similar to the previous cross-cultural comparison, a chi-square analysis indicated a statistically sig- nificant difference in the perception on the cultur- ally diverse family between American in-service teachers and those of Chines in Hong Kong (Yeung, 2006), χ2 (2, N = 134) = 10.32, p < .01. The participants in Yeung’s study (46.94%) were more likely to respond strongly agree/agree than the participants in the current study (32.82%).

Among the four statements measured regard- ing cross-cultural communication, the only state- ment with which more than half the participants (58.2%) agreed was: regular curriculum should include ESL for non-English speaking children. Less than half the participants disagreed with the following statements: teachers were not un- comfortable with people who speak nonstandard English (48.5%) and students’ spoken language should be corrected by modeling without any further explanation (46.3%). Between these statements, close to half the participants marked their responses as neutral to the former statement (42.5%) and over a third indicated their opin- ion as neutral (35.8%) for the latter statement. Further, over 40% of the participants did not an- swer agree or disagree for the statement whether non-standard English should be ignored sometime (44.8%). In regard to the cross-cultural compari- son between the current study and Yeung’s study (2006), statistically significant difference was also found, χ2 (2, N = 134) = 6.13, p < .05, in the area of cross-cultural communication. The participants in Yeung’s study (30.61%) were more likely to respond strongly agree/agree than the participants in the current study (28.46%).

SRATE Journal Winter 2011-2012, Vol. 21, Number 1 Page 32

The participants’ responses in the area of as- sessment were evenly spread among the answer choices rather than concentrated in one particular area. The statement chosen most often by the participants was that they did not believe that translating a standardized achievement or intelli- gence test to a child’s dominant language gave the child an added advantage (48.5%). Slightly over 40% of respondents were neutral to the opinion that adaptations in standardized assessments are questionable since it alters reliability and valid- ity (43.3%) and were disagree/strongly disagree to the statement that student should be referred for testing if learning difficulties appear to be due to cultural or language differences (42.5%). An analysis by chi-square found statistically signifi- cant difference in the assessment area between the current study and that of Yeung’s (2006), χ2 (2, N = 134) = 28.77, p < .001. Among the five cultural diversity areas measured by CDAI, assessment was the area most statistically significantly differ- ent between the current study and Yeung’s study. The participants in Yeung’s study (54.08%) were more likely to respond strongly agree/agree than the participants in this study (25.38%).

Regarding the area of creating a multicul- tural environment using multicultural methods and mateials, the majority of the participants disagreed with the following statements; teachers should not provide opportunities for children to share cultural differences (88.1%), I would ac- cept the use of ethnic jokes/phrases by children (80.6%), I believe that the solution to commu- nication problems of certain ethnic groups is the child’s own responsibility (72.4%), I believe that there are times when racial statements should be ignored (71.6%), and one’s knowledge of a particular culture should affect one’s expectation of the children’s performance (53.0%). Further, more than half the participants agreed that each child should be involved in a regular rotating schedule for classroom job assignments (76.1%), classroom displays and materials should reflect multiple cultural groups (65.7%), and teachers should make program adaptation to accommodate

diversity (54.5%). In regard to the cross-cultural comparison between the current study and Yeung’s study (2006), a statistically significant difference was also found, χ2 (2, N = 134) = 16.12, p < .001, in the area of creating a multi- cultural environment using multicultural methods and materials. The participants in Yeung’s study (49.48%) were more likely to respond strongly agree/agree than the participants in the current study (27.82%).

Prior to further discussion, research limita- tions need to be acknowledged. The data of this study was not collected randomly, so that implica- tions for generalization are limited. Composite scores were used for the cross-cultural compari- son with the study by Yeung (2006), which may have influenced the results foreseeing manner.

Discussion

Multicultural self-awareness among 134 K-12 in-service school teachers was determined using the CDAI. The CDAI measures five areas of multicultural awareness: cultural awareness, culturally diverse family, cross-cultural commu- nication, assessment, and creating a multicultural environment. The results from the current study were compared to those obtained by Yeung (2006) to determine how teachers from the two cultures (Eastern vs. Western) differed with respect to the five areas measured by the CDAI.

The participants in the Yeung’s study (2006) were more likely to respond as Strongly Agree or Agree for all five areas. The order from the most difference to the least difference between the two studies was assessment, cultural awareness, creating a multicultural environment using multi- cultural methods and materials, culturally diverse family, and cross-cultural communication.

Although the two groups differed signifi- cantly in all five areas, it is impossible to say with certainty that the differences were due to cultural difference between Eastern and Western.

SRATE Journal Winter 2011-2012, Vol. 21, Number 1 Page 33

The participants from a single study should not be construed as necessarily being representative of an entire culture. In addition, because detailed demographics were not reported by Yeung (2006), it is uncertain how the participants from the cur- rent study differed from those in Yeung’s study. Therefore, variables such as years of teaching experience, age, and gender could not be con- trolled. Future studies contrasting Eastern and Western cultures should be conducted in such a way as to control for these demographic variables. Lack of research on multicultural self-awareness among school teachers is evident. A replication of the current study in different settings and with populations both in-service and pre-service teach- ers should yield interesting comparisons with the results of this study.

References

Banks, J. A. (2007). Race, culture, and education: The selected works of James A. Banks. New York, NY: Routledge.

Brown, E. L. (2004). The relationship of self-con- cepts to changes in cultural diversity aware- ness: Implications for urban teacher educators. The Urban Review, 36(2), 119-145.

Daniels, R. (2008). The immigration act of 1965: Intended and unintended consequences. In the U.S. Department of States, Bureau of International Information Programs (Ed.), Historians on America: Decisions that made difference (pp. 76-83). Retrieved from http:// www.america.gov/media/pdf/books/histori- ans-on-america.pdf

Henry, G. (1986). Cultural Diversity Awareness Inventory. Hampton, VA: Hampton University. Mainstreaming Outreach Project. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 282 657.

Larke, P. J. (1990). Cultural diversity awareness inventory: Assessing the sensitivity of preser- vice teachers. Action in Teacher Education, 12(3), 23-30.

Milner, H. R., Flowers, L. A., Moore, E., Jr., Moore, J. L., III, & Flowers, T. A. (2003).

Preservice teachers’ awareness of multicul- turalism and diversity. High School Journal, 87(1), 63-70.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2010a). Status and trends in the education of American Indians and Alaska natives: 2008. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/ nativetrends/tables/table_1_1c.asp

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2010b). Characteristics of full-time school teachers. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/ programs/coe/2010/section4/table-tsp-1.asp

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2010c). Characteristics of school principals. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/ coe/2010/section4/table-pal-1.asp

Pope, J., & Wilder, J. (2005). Now that I’m out in the field: Student teaching and valuing di- versity. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 32(4), 322-328.

Taylor, G. M., & Quintana, S. M. (2003). Teachers’ multicultural competencies. In D. B. Pop-Davis, H. L. K. Coleman, W. M. Liu, & R. L. Toporek (Eds.), Handbook of multicul- tural competencies in counseling psychology (pp. 511-527). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Taylor, L., & Whittaker, C. R. (2009). Bridging multiple worlds: Case studies of diverse edu- cational communities (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.

U.S. Census Bauru (2008). An older and more diverse nation by midcentury. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/ archives/population/cb08-123.html

U.S. Census Bureau (2009). Characteristics of people by language spoken at home. Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ STTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&- qr_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_S1601&-ds_ name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_&-_lang=en&- redoLog=false&-CONTEXT=st

Yasin, S. (1999). The supply and demand of elementary school teachers in the United States. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on teaching and teacher education (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No.

SRATE Journal Winter 2011-2012, Vol. 21, Number 1 Page 34

ED436529). Retrieved from http://www.ericdi- gests.org/2000-3/demand.htm

Yeung, A. S. W. (2006). Teachers’ conceptions of borderless: A cross-cultural study on mul- ticultural sensitivity of the Chinese Teachers. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 5, 33-53.

Author’s Note

Dr. Chieko Koyama is a licensed profes- sional counselor and a counselor educator at Troy University Dothan Campus. Her research inter- ests include diversity issues in counseling and education.

Dr. Shawn Plash holds a doctorate in Curriculum and Instruction and teaches at Troy University Dothan Campus. Her interest lies in secondary education and science.

Dr. Kirk Davis holds a doctorate in experi- mental psychology, loves statistics, and currently serves as department chair of counseling and psy- chology at Troy University Dothan Campus.

Table 1. Summary of Cultural Diversity Awareness Inventory

Current Study (n = 134)

Yeunga (n= 100)

SA/Ab N

(%)

Nc N

(%)

SD/Dd N

(%)

SA/Ab N

(%)

Nc N

(%)

SD/Dd N

(%) Cultural Awareness

Cultural different between teacher and student 40

(29.9) 48

(35.8) 45

(33.6) 53

(53.0) 14

(14.0) 31

(31.0)

Important to identify students by ethnic group 47

(35.1) 56

(41.8) 30

(22.4) 92

(92.0) 8

(8.0) 0

(0.0)

Prefer to work with students share my culture 12

(9.0) 44

(32.8) 77

(57.5) 24

(24.0) 56

(56.0) 20

(20.0) Uncomfortable with people who have values dif- ferent from me

9 (6.7)

39 (29.1)

86 (64.2)

34 (34.0)

24 (24.0)

42 (42.0)

Surprised at minority participation in traditional non-minority school activities

2 (1.5)

35 (26.1)

96 (71.6)

10 (10.0)

22 (22.0)

68 (68.0)

Composite Score χ2 (2, N = 134) = 19.32, p < .001

(16.7) (33.3) (50.0) (42.9) (24.5) (32.7)

SRATE Journal Winter 2011-2012, Vol. 21, Number 1 Page 35

Current Study (n = 134)

Yeunga (n= 100)

SA/Ab N

(%)

Nc N

(%)

SD/Dd N

(%)

SA/Ab N

(%)

Nc N

(%)

SD/Dd N

(%) Culturally Diverse Family

Teachers should establish parent interactions out- side school activities

54 (40.3)

55 (41.0)

25 (18.7)

50 (50.0)

46 (46.0)

2 (2.0)

Necessary to include parent input in program planning

76 (56.7)

49 (36.6)

8 (6.0)

68 (68.0)

32 (32.0)

0 (0.0)

Schedule IEP conference or program planning at parent convenience

76 (56.7)

50 (37.3)

7 (5.2)

70 (70.0)

18 (18.0)

8 (8.0)

Schedule include family view of school and soci- ety in school program planning

53 (39.6)

37 (27.6)

44 (32.8)

52 (52.0)

46 (46.0)

2 (2.0)

Experience frustrations in conferences with parents of different cultures

10 (7.5)

42 (31.3)

81 (60.4)

26 (26.5)

34 (34.7)

38 (38.8)

Parents know little about assessing their own children

22 (16.4)

54 (40.3)

58 (43.3)

36 (36.0)

46 (46.0)

18 (18.0)

During initial meetings, teachers should ask fami- lies their preference for ethnic identification

16 (11.9)

41 (30.6)

72 (53.7)

16 (16.0)

50 (50.0)

34 (34.0)

Composite Score χ2 (2, N = 134) = 10.32, p < .01

(32.8) (35.1) (32.1) (46.9) (38.8) (14.3)

Cross-Cultural Communication Uncomfortable with people who speak nonstan- dard English

11 (8.2)

57 (42.5)

65 (48.5)

26 (26.0)

26 (26.0)

48 (48.0)

Students’ spoken language should be corrected by modeling without explanation

20 (14.9)

48 (35.8)

62 (46.3)

2 (2.0)

6 (6.0)

92 (92.0)

Sometimes non-standard English should be ignored 42

(31.3) 60

(44.8) 28

(20.9) 28

(28.0) 38

(38.0) 32

(32.0) Regular curriculum should include ESL for no- English speaking Children

78 (58.2)

40 (29.9)

14 (10.4)

62 (62.0)

28 (28.0)

10 (10.0)

Composite Score χ2 (2, N = 134) = 6.13, p < .05

(28.5) (39.2) (32.3) (30.6) (24.5) (44.9)

Table 1. continued

SRATE Journal Winter 2011-2012, Vol. 21, Number 1 Page 36

Current Study (n = 134)

Yeunga (n= 100)

SA/Ab N

(%)

Nc N

(%)

SD/Dd N

(%)

SA/Ab N

(%)

Nc N

(%)

SD/Dd N

(%) Assessment

Students should be referred for testing if learn- ing difficulties appear to be cultural or language differences

40 (29.9)

36 (26.9)

57 (42.5)

52 (52.0)

34 (34.0)

12 (12.0)

Adaptations in standardized assessments to be question the alter reliability and validity

30 (22.4)

58 (43.3)

40 (29.9)

32 (32.0)

49 (49.0)

14 (14.0)

Give standardized or intelligence test in child’s dominant language

31 (23.1)

36 (26.9)

65 (48.5)

73 (73.4)

16 (16.3)

10 (10.2)

Composite Score χ2 (2, N = 134) = 28.77, p < .001

(25.4) (33.1) (41.5) (54.1) (33.7) (12.2)

Creating A Multicultural Environment Using Multicultural Methods and Materials

Accept the use of ethnic jokes/phrases by children 2

(1.5) 24

(17.9) 108

(80.6) 12

(12.0) 10

(10.0) 76

(76.0)

Sometimes ignore racial statements 9

(6.7) 29

(21.6) 96

(71.6) 16

(16.0) 32

(32.0) 50

(50.0) Solution to communication problems of certain ethnic groups is child’s own responsibility

2 (1.5)

35 (26.1)

97 (72.4)

32 (32.0)

26 (26.0)

42 (42.0)

Teachers should provide opportunities for children share cultural differences

3 (2.2)

13 (9.7)

118 (88.1)

63 (63.0)

35 (35.0)

0 (0.0)

Teachers should make program adaptation to ac- commodate diversity

73 (54.5)

50 (37.3)

7 (5.2)

65 (65.0)

31 (31.0)

2 (2.0)

Displays and materials should reflect at least three cultural groups

88 (65.7)

36 (26.9)

10 (7.5)

22 (22.0)

58 (58.0)

18 (18.0)

Cultural knowledge should affect teacher expectation

17 (12.7)

45 (33.6)

71 (53.0)

75 (75.0)

21 (21.0)

2 (2.0)

Student jobs assignments should rotate regularly and equally in job assignments

102 (76.1)

24 (17.9)

6 (4.5)

98 (98.0)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

Composite Score χ2 (2, N = 134) = 16.12, p < .001

(27.8) (24.1) (48.1) (49.5) (26.8) (23.7)

Note. aYeung (2006); bSA/A = Strongly Agree and Agree; cN = Neutral; dSD/D = Strongly Disagree and Disagree.

Table 1 continued