Improving Cultural Competence by Teaching Multicultural Education

The Journal of Multiculturalism in Education Volume 8 (October 2012)
Improving Cultural Competence by Teaching Multicultural Education
Dr. Christopher Donoghue Montclair State University and Dr. David Brandwein Kean University
Rising ethnic and racial diversity in schools has continually led to calls for multicultural education and higher levels of cultural competence among teachers. In this study, a multicultural education program is tested for its effects on the self-perceived cultural intelligence of the teachers delivering it in the classrooms. The cultural intelligence scale (CQ) was used to measure the cultural competence of 32 teachers at three points in time over a twelve month period, during which they carried out a multicultural education program. The results indicate that cognitive, motivational and behavioral cultural intelligence was enhanced during the study period. Broader applications are needed to determine the likelihood of success in other settings.
KEYWORDS: Cultural Intelligence, Teachers, Culturally Responsive Teaching
The 20th century advances in the proportions of Hispanic, Asian and African American populations in the United States have led to unprecedented ethnic and racial diversity in American schools (Ponterotto, Utsey, & Pedersen, 2006). Over the last few decades, this transformation has created an impetus to improve cultural competence among preservice teachers, who still tend to come from more privileged backgrounds than the students they intend
to teach (Murray, 2010). The effort has been driven in part by evidence that new education professionals are lacking in their understanding of the ways in which ethnic and racial bias serve to create systematic forms of advantage in people's everyday lives (Castro, 2010; Harmon, 2012; Murray, 2010). The campaign has also been bolstered by the Civil Rights underpinning of the multicultural movement which posits that traditional Western-based pedagogies have exacerbated inequities in education among young people (Banks, 2010). Thus, a vast improvement in the cultural competence of preservice teachers has become a celestial goal in the quest for social justice in education. But what can be done to improve the cultural competence of teachers already in the field? Research on Culturally Responsive Teaching (CRT) consistently calls for greater levels of interaction and communication between teachers, students and families (Gay, 2002; Huber, Murphy, & Clandinin, 2003; Smith, 2009), yet the cultural competence required to perform these strategies may sometimes be very lacking among practicing teachers. In addition, many teachers face particular challenges when they are not a member of the dominant ethnic or racial group in their school or when they perceive themselves to be of a higher or lower socioeconomic class than their students. Such disparities create the perception of social distance and can interfere with a teacher's best efforts to interact with students. The purpose of this study is to determine whether elementary school teachers and school administrators experienced an improvement in their level of cultural competence, as a result of their participation in the Multicultural Mosaic, a school-wide multicultural curricular initiative, developed by the teachers themselves. The main goal of the Multicultural Mosaic is to raise ethnic and racial tolerance among students by devoting entire academic years to the appreciation of the broad cultural categories of families that exist among the student body. A secondary goal
set forth by the teachers themselves, however, is to improve their own cultural competencies by increasing their exposure to the cultural diversity that exists among their students. They sought to accomplish this by infusing a multicultural curriculum in a "wrap-around" fashion which would impact all of the classes being taught in the school. School administrators and community volunteers would also make contributions by organizing extra-curricular activities around the ethnic or racial theme for the academic year. By implementing the program, it was anticipated that the teachers and administrators would grow more confident in their abilities to interact with people of different cultures, and increase their feelings of cultural competence.
The Multicultural Mosaic The Multicultural Mosaic was introduced in the 2009-10 academic year following a two year development process completed by the same teachers and administrators who participated in this study. Following the launch, the teachers began introducing multicultural materials on the geography, history, and customs of people of different Asian cultures. The curriculum was supported by books, assembly programs, guest speakers and various forms of media (DVD, CD, computer software, etc.). In the following years, the cultural emphasis would shift to European, Hispanic, African-American and Middle Eastern cultures. The early childhood teachers introduced their students to maps of Asia, pictures of Asian peoples, and cultural practices popular among children, such as Origami making and kite flying. They also explored cultural differentiation by creating Venn Diagrams that demonstrate the similarities and differences between people of different cultures, and discussing the different ways in which people celebrate holidays around the world. In grades Kindergarten through five, a greater emphasis was placed on language, tradition, geography, and the creation of cultural
identities. Students in grades Kindergarten through five learned about Asian cultures by reading in class, exploring the internet, and interviewing relatives. In grades six through eight, children engaged in class discussions about the sufferings of people around the world, the biographies of historically notable people outside of America, and tolerance for other people. They explored Asian history by reading novels, manipulating Tangrams, and reciting poetry. Take home projects and extra-curricular activities focused on Asian cultures at all grade levels throughout the year as well, and in all subjects. Following each activity, the teachers filled out a form describing its goals and objectives, and entered it into a log maintained by a committee of teachers. They also met periodically to review the log and ensure the ongoing alignment of their pedagogies with the goals of the program.
Cultural Intelligence and the Multicultural Mosaic Cultural intelligence or CQ refers to an individual's capacity to interact and communicate effectively with people of diverse cultural backgrounds (Ang et al., 2007; Earley & Ang, 2003). It is comprised of four domains: the Metacognitive CQ, the Cognitive CQ, the Motivational CQ and the Behavioral CQ. The Metacognitive CQ refers to an awareness of one's own knowledge of, and response to, situations characterized by cultural difference; whereas the Cognitive CQ refers to an individual's degree of knowledge of cultural practices other than his or her own. Motivational CQ measures an individual's level of confidence and enjoyment experienced during intercultural interaction, and the Behavioral CQ refers to the actual steps people take in order to engage with people of different cultures (Ang et al., 2007; Earley & Ang, 2003). A greater degree of cultural intelligence has been consistently linked to superior cultural judgment and decision making, adjustment, joint profit, and to a lesser degree, enhanced task performance, in
studies of professionals who engage with culturally diverse partners and counterparts (Ang et al., 2007; Imai & Gelfand, 2010; Templer, Tay, & Chandrasekar, 2006). The use of this construct to measure the perceived self efficacy of professional educators in their interactions with diverse people is new to this study, as is the question of whether an individual can increase one's own level of cultural intelligence by studying foreign peoples, engaging in professional interactions with people of diverse backgrounds, and communicating knowledge of foreign cultures to other people in an academic environment. We expect that cultural intelligence can grow in this manner over time if professionals are self-motivated to interact with diverse others, supported by their organizations, and enabled to utilize their own professional expertise. The Multicultural Mosaic is the product of a voluntary initiative among elementary and middle school teachers to formally recognize all of the ethnic and racial groups in their school's student body, in their curriculum, and extracurricular activities. Using demographic data from the school, they determined that all of their students would find representation in at least one of the following major categories: Asian cultures, European cultures, Hispanic cultures, AfricanAmerican cultures and Middle Eastern cultures. They then used this information to develop a plan to spend a full academic year on each one. In addition, they sought to raise tolerance among the students toward people of different ethnic and racial backgrounds, by introducing an awareness of the harms associated with stereotyping and prejudice into the curriculum, at appropriate developmental levels. Although the teachers carrying out the Multicultural Mosaic possessed the full institutional support of their school, they lacked financial resources to carry out their plans. Since the program was of their own making, however, they benefited from a high level of
interest and motivation from most of the faculty. This may have enabled them to take advantage of the intrinsic incentives that come from organizing grass roots efforts that build social capital. Social capital is defined as the "connections among individuals - social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them" (Putnam, 2000). It is most effective when it is supported by community organizations or institutions (Warren, 2001), but the trust that forms within successful movements is strongest when it is inspired by genuine initiatives from the actors who must carry out the work. For this reason, the teachers in this study may have felt a sense of personal investment in their project since they developed it on their own, rather than being encouraged (or forced) to carry it out. Lee, Aurolyn, Cory & Annis (2007) drew a similar conclusion in a 2-year intervention study of a program intended to increase the usage of student cultural language in the teaching of science. The authors of that study found no sustainable effects among the teachers who participated in the project, which was notably devoid of their input or investment. An added benefit of the fact that the Multicultural Mosaic was developed by the teachers is that unlike most efforts to comprehensively revise a school curriculum, this project held a greater potential for avoiding standardization. As Schenck (2010) makes clear, standardization can have the effect of diminishing or reversing the cultural sensitivity required to develop an effective diverse pedagogy because it fails to take into account the actual human differences that exist in the classrooms where the instruction takes place. In lieu of standardizing classroom practices, the teachers of the Multicultural Mosaic sought to coordinate their efforts by logging their activities and outcomes, and reviewing them in group sessions. The faculty meetings were intended to maintain cohesion and consistency with best practices in diverse pedagogical strategies. Sheets' (2009) prescription for a diverse pedagogy theory encourages teachers to
become astute observers of their students' cultural behavior so that they may take this diversity into account when developing curriculum. By monitoring the strategies being used by the teachers at various developmental levels, the committee was able to ensure that what was happening in the classroom was consistent with the goals of the program. From the outset, the teachers carrying out the Multicultural Mosaic sought to involve students and their families by seeking cooperation in organizing classroom activities, extracurricular events and class outings. Gay (2002) and Smith (2009) both recommend this practice, suggesting that teachers become partners with their students and their families by reaching out and interacting with them in diverse settings. The teachers also developed class projects that drew directly upon the cultural heritage of their students. This strategy conforms with Huber, Murphy and Clandinin's (2003) method for creating a curriculum of diversity, which entails a direct collaboration between teachers and students in the process of multicultural curriculum development. In summary, the Multicultural Mosaic held potential for improving the cultural intelligence of the teachers and administrators. As a program that the teachers developed on their own, there was reason to expect that it would stimulate a sense of pride and belief in its core mission; by calling for a high level of interaction between the teachers, their students, and their students' families, its methodology was firmly grounded in the literature on culturally diverse pedagogy; and by permitting the teachers to retain autonomy by drawing from their expertise and making use of the real cultural differences that existed in their own classrooms, the teachers were encouraged to maximize their professionalism. Thus, the main hypothesis of this study is that the teachers and administrators will experience gains in their self-perceived levels of cultural intelligence, as they execute a multicultural education program that: a.) they created on their
own; b.) is backed by the support of the institution; c.) involves a high level of interaction with diverse students and families; and d.) utilizes their professionalism by permitting a high degree of academic freedom in the classroom and participation in program evaluation and governance.
Methods This study was approved by the Kean University Institutional Review Board, and it was conducted by a team of researchers independent of the school. The subjects are the faculty and staff of a private school (grades Pre-K-8) located in the Northeastern United States. All of the faculty and staff who work at the school (n = 32) were invited to participate; all chose to participate in the study (100%).
Subjects The subjects of this study were 32 female faculty and staff. 27 identified themselves as teachers (84.4%) and 5 identified themselves as administrators or staff (16.6%). 30 self-reported as White or Caucasian (93.8%), and two reported as Hispanic (6.2%). The mean age was 52.7 (sd=11.01).
Measures The study was conducted using the Cultural Intelligence Scale (Ang et al., 2007) which is a four factor (Motivational, Cognitive, Metacognitive, and Behavioral), 20-item scale that assesses the construct of cultural intelligence, or the capability to function effectively in situations characterized by cultural diversity (Ang et al., 2007; Earley & Ang, 2003; Earley & Peterson, 2004).
Earley & Ang (2003) described the cognitive component of CQ as, specific knowledge that people are able to gain and comprehend about a new culture based on various cues provided (p 91). The meta-cognitive component of CQ involves the strategies of awareness, planning, checking knowledge, and development of coping strategies to cope with cultural challenges (Ang et al., 2007). The motivation component of CQ is defined as ones propensity and commitment to act on the cognitive facet [of CQ] as well as persevere acquiring knowledge and understanding a new culture and overcome stumbling blocks or failure (Earley & Ang, 2003). The behavioral facet is described as, the capability of a person to enact his or her desired intended actions to a given cultural situation (Earley & Ang, 2003). An individuals ability to know their cultural intelligence provides insights about their capabilities to deal with multicultural situations and participate in intercultural interactions.
Procedure The surveys took place in a computer lab in the school, in three sessions, each separated by approximately six months. The teachers and administrators were given the demographic data questionnaire and the Cultural Intelligence Scale, via computer, during each session. The pretest measure (Test 1) occurred in June 2009, prior to the implementation of the multicultural education curriculum. The process measure (Test 2) occurred during January 2010, in the middle of the year while the multicultural education module was ongoing. The posttest measure (Test 3) occurred in June 2010, after the first year of the multicultural education module had been completed. All 32 of the subjects were administered the Cultural Intelligence Scale at least twice. 22 of the 32 (68.8%) took both measures all three times. 29 individuals (90.6%) participated
10
during Session 1; 27 individuals (84.4%) participated during Session 2; and 26 individuals (81.3%) participated during Session 3. Alpha tests for reliability for the four CQ factors ranged from 0.81-0.88.
Analyses Results from the Cultural Intelligence Scale were aggregated for the purpose of identifying longitudinal trends in the school. The aggregated data, across all three periods of administration, were analyzed using paired samples t-tests. The threshold for statistical significance was set at p = .05; actual p-values are reported in the next section for clarity.
Results It was hypothesized that the teachers and administrators would show longitudinal gains in their self-perceived cultural intelligence, as a result of their implementation of a multicultural education program. Descriptive statistics from each administration of the Cultural Intelligence Scale are displayed in Table 1. Table 2 displays results from the paired t-tests for each factor of the CQ. On the Metacognitive factor, teacher awareness of their own knowledge of, and response to, situations characterized by cultural difference, decreased slightly between the pretest and the process measure. However, there was a significant difference, in the expected direction, in teacher awareness (p < .05) from the process measure to the posttest. There was a small, but non-significant (p > .05), difference on the Metacognitive factor from pretest to posttest. On the Cognitive factor, teachers self-rated knowledge of different cultures was higher on the process measure than on the pretest, but the difference was not significant (p > .05).
11
Significant differences, again in the expected direction, were seen on the Cognitive factor from process measure to posttest (p < .05), and from pretest to posttest (p < .01), suggesting that teachers, during implementation of the multicultural education program, raised their perceived knowledge of different cultures across the school year. The Motivation factor reveals no change from pretest to the process measure, but a significant increase (p < .05) was experienced from process to posttest. Finally, on the Behavioral Factor, which assesses teacher ratings of the actions they have undertaken to interact with diverse individuals and cultures, ratings increased significantly from pretest to posttest (p >.05), although no significant differences were observed between pretest and process or process and posttest.
Discussion Overall, the three cultural intelligence factors that responded during the intervention were the cognitive, motivational, and behavioral subscales. Improvements in these forms of cultural intelligence indicate that the teachers and administrators perceived themselves to be more knowledgeable, more willing and more effective in their interactions with people of diverse cultures. The change in the motivational factor may be the most noteworthy of the three subscales, since it is natural to expect that interest and excitement about the project would wane by the end of the school year. To the contrary, the teachers and administrators showed their highest level of interest in engaging in diverse interactions, at the end of the program. This enhancement in motivation may have occurred as the teachers and administrators grew more confident in their abilities to interact with culturally diverse others. We expect that these changed perceptions resulted from their immersion into the literature and media about people
12
from diverse cultures, the delivery of the curriculum, and their interactions with the students and their families. The meta-cognitive factor is the only dimension of cultural intelligence that did not improve between the pretest and the posttest. This indicates that although the teachers and administrators perceived the acquisition of cognitive knowledge about how to respond to cultural cues in diverse interactions, they did not experience an improvement in their ability to detect those clues and develop adaptive behaviors for them. Ethnic and racial diversity is on the rise among children in American classrooms, yet preservice teachers continue to come primarily from White middle class areas, and tend not to be well prepared for teaching in ethnically and racially diverse settings (Castro, 2010). Research indicates that preservice teachers can grow in their level of interest in culturally sensitive pedagogy over time (Groulx & Silva, 2010), and that more new teachers are interested in matters concerning racial justice in education than in the past (Castro, 2010). However, new education professionals tend to be over simplistic in their conceptions of diversity, overly reliant on their own cultural lens, and heavily influenced by past experiences (Castro, 2010; Groulx & Silva, 2010; Taylor, 2010). Perhaps even more disconcerting is the notion among some preservice teachers that establishing a diverse educational curriculum is not the responsibility of a teacher, but rather that of a community or a school in general (Silverman, 2010). These observations suggest the presence of a persistent cultural intelligence deficit among new teachers, despite the best efforts made in Teacher Education Program's (TEP) to instill an awareness of multiculturalism and diverse pedagogies. Culturally responsive teachers must reflect not only upon the depth and uniqueness of their students' cultural backgrounds, but also that of their own (Villegas & Lucas, 2002). By engaging in inward and outward reflection, teachers may gain perspective on the roots of their
The Journal of Multiculturalism in Education Volume 8 (October 2012) own personal biases, as well as those of their students.
13
Teachers who have adopted this
philosophy have reported great success in developing diverse pedagogies (Haviland, Gere, Buehler, & Dallavis, 2009; Owen, 2010), although it remains to be seen whether teachers with average or low levels of cultural intelligence can carry these tasks out effectively. Richards, Brown & Forde (2007) describe a culturally responsive pedagogy as one that includes a commitment from the institution and its teachers, as well as an ample deployment of instructional resources to bring the plan to fruition. For teachers, this commitment requires a willingness to move beyond the basic awareness of classroom diversity that many preservice teachers may acquire simply by completing TEP's that include classes in multiculturalism (Taylor, 2010). (Lyon, 2009) believes that this can be accomplished by requiring preservice teachers to engage families in the field prior to the completion of their training. Although the teachers of the Multicultural Mosaic appear to have raised their cultural competencies over the first year through their efforts to change their school's curriculum, the program falls short of the standards of a critical multicultural education (Hopkins-Gillispie, 2011; McLaren, 2007). By introducing multicultural material into so many parts of the
curriculum and extracurricular activities at the school, the Multicultural Mosaic increases exposure to diversity, but in its current form, it does not challenge the traditional manner of teaching about ethnic and racial difference through a singular cultural lens. By introducing new and interesting forms of ethnic and racial diversity, the Multicultural Mosaic may even have the unintended effect of adding to the mystical and peculiar feelings that people sometimes experience when thinking about people whom they perceive as foreign (Paluck & Green, 2009). Indeed some research has shown that interventions which seek only to introduce students to diversity may lead to an increase in stereotyping and prejudice.
14
In future assessments of the program, it will also be important to consider other forms of attitudinal change among the teachers, such as prejudice reduction. One limitation of the current findings is that they rely upon just one outcome measure. Reducing prejudice is a difficult goal for a school based intervention. Most prior research indicates that few strategies are consistently effective in achieving this goal (Bigler, 2005; Paluck & Green, 2009). Thus, the teachers may be in need of a stronger outside professional development component in order to accomplish more significant changes in their own ethnic and racial attitudes.
The Journal of Multiculturalism in Education Volume 8 (October 2012) References
15
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K. Y., Templer, K. J., Tay, C., & Chandrasekar, N. A. (2007). Cultural Intelligence: Its Measurement and Effects on Cultural Judgment and Decision Making, Cultural Adaptation and Task Performance. [Article]. Management & Organization Review, 3(3), 335-371. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8784.2007.00082.x Banks, J. A. (2010). Multicultural education : characteristics and goals. In J. A. Banks & C. A. Banks (Eds.), Multicultural education: issues and perspectives (7th ed., pp. 1-32). New York: John Wiley. Bigler, R. S. (2005). The use of multicultural curricula and materials to counter racism in children. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 687-705. Castro, A. (2010). Themes in the Research on Preservice Teachers Views of Cultural Diversity: Implications for Researching Millennial Preservice Teachers. Educational Researcher, 39(3), 198-210. Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence : individual interactions across cultures. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Business Books. Earley, P. C., & Peterson, R. S. (2004). The Elusive Cultural Chameleon: Cultural Intelligence as a New Approach to Intercultural Training for the Global Manager. [Article]. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3(1), 100-115. doi: 10.5465/amle.2004.12436826 Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 106-116. Groulx, J. G., & Silva, C. (2010). Evaluating the Development of Culturally Relevant Teaching. [Article]. Multicultural Perspectives, 12(1), 3-9. doi: 10.1080/15210961003641120
16
Harmon, C. (2012). An investigation of the diversity beliefs of educators. The Journal of Multiculturalism in Education, 7(2). Haviland, V. S., Gere, A. R., Buehler, J., & Dallavis, C. (2009). Making the Journey Toward Cultural Competence With Poetry. [Article]. Multicultural Perspectives, 11(1), 19-26. doi: 10.1080/15210960902743870 Hopkins-Gillispie. (2011). Curriculum and schooling: Multiculturalism, critical multiculturalism and critical pedagogy. 4. Huber, J., Murphy, M. S., & Clandinin, D. J. (2003). Creating Communities of Cultural Imagination: Negotiating a Curriculum of Diversity. [Article]. Curriculum Inquiry, 33(4), 343. doi: 10.1046/j.1467-873X.2003.00269.x Imai, L., & Gelfand, M. J. (2010). The culturally intelligent negotiator: The impact of cultural intelligence (CQ) on negotiation sequences and outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 112(2), 83-98. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.02.001 Lee, O., Aurolyn, L., Cory, B., & Annis, S. (2007). The challenge of altering elementary school teachers' beliefs and practices regarding linguistic and cultural diversity in science instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(9), 1269-1291. Lyon, A. F. (2009). Teaching Others: Preservice Teachers' Understandings Regarding Diverse Families. [Article]. Multicultural Education, 16(4), 52-55. McLaren, P. (2007). Life in schools : an introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of education (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon. Murray, O. (2010). A Mindfulness To Transcend Pre-Service Lip-Service: A Call for K-12 Schools To Invest in Social Justice Education. Multicultural Education, 17(3), 48-50.
17
Owen, P. M. (2010). Increasing Preservice Teachers' Support of Multicultural Education. [Article]. Multicultural Perspectives, 12(1), 18-25. doi: 10.1080/15210961003641310 Ponterotto, J. G., Utsey, S. O., & Pedersen, P. (2006). Preventing prejudice : a guide for counselors, educators, and parents (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone : the collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster. Richards, H. V., Brown, A. E., & Forde, T. B. (2007). Addressing Diversity in Schools: Culturally Responsive Pedagogy. [Article]. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(3), 64-68. Schenck, A. (2010). Improving multicultural education through the synthesis of multiple educational strategies. Improving Multicultural Education, 5(2), 1-24. Sheets, R. H. (2009). What is a diverse pedagogy? [Article]. Multicultural Education, 16(3), 1117. Silverman, S. (2010). What is diversity?: an inquiry into preservice teacher beliefs. American Educational Research Journal, 47(2), 292-329. Smith, E. B. (2009). Approaches to Multicultural Education in Preservice Teacher Education. [Opinion]. Multicultural Education, 16(3), 45-50. Taylor, R. (2010). The role of teacher education programs in creating culturally competant teachers. Multicultural Education, 17(3). 24-28. Templer, K., Tay, C., & Chandrasekar, N. (2006). Motivational cultural intelligence, realistic job preview, realistic living conditions preview, and cross-cultural adjustment. Group & Organization Management, 31(1), 154-173. Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: rethinking the curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 20-32.
The Journal of Multiculturalism in Education Volume 8 (October 2012) Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for the Cultural Intelligence Scale Mean Metacognition Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Cognitive Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Motivation Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Behavioral Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 3.78 4.13 4.34 1.44 1.55 1.35 4.68 4.68 4.81 1.26 1.32 1.23 2.97 3.17 3.60 1.20 1.41 1.27 4.90 4.82 5.14 1.32 1.56 1.11
18
Standard Deviation
The Journal of Multiculturalism in Education Volume 8 (October 2012) Table 2 T-scores for the Cultural Intelligence Scale by Subscale and Time t-score Metacognition Time 1 vs. Time 2 Time 2 vs. Time 3 Time 1 vs. Time 3 Cognitive Time 1 vs. Time 2 Time 2 vs. Time 3 Time 1 vs. Time 3 Motivation Time 1 vs. Time 2 Time 2 vs. Time 3 Time 1 vs. Time 3 Behavior Time 1 vs. Time 2 Time 2 vs. Time 3 Time 1 vs. Time 3 -1.378 .897 -2.771 27 21 21 .180 .380 .011* -.600 -1.391 -1.991 27 21 21 .554 .179 .050* -.985 -2.417 -3.185 27 21 21 .333 .025* .004** -.032 -2.314 -1.728 27 21 21 .975 .031* .099 df p
19
Time 1= pre-test; Time 2 = process measure; Time 3= Post-test *p < .05; **p < .01

Improving Cultural Competence by Teaching Multicultural Education

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Improving Cultural Competence by Teaching Multicultural Education

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

The Journal of Multiculturalism in Education Volume 8 (October 2012)