See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232419028

Examining Efforts to Infuse Diversity

Within One College of Education

Article in Journal of Diversity in Higher Education September 2009

DOI: 10.1037/a0016190

CITATIONS READS

19 103

4 authors, including:

Patricia Alvarez McHatton Harold R Keller

University of Texas Rio Grande Val University of South Florida
59 PUBLICATIONS 302 CITATIONS 4 PUBLICATIONS 31 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Harold R Keller on 04 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Diversity in Higher Education 2009 National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education
2009, Vol. 2, No. 3, 127135 1938-8926/09/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0016190

Examining Efforts to Infuse Diversity Within One

College of Education
Patricia Alvarez McHatton, Harold Keller, Barbara Shircliffe, and Carlos Zalaquett
University of South Florida

As part of a college-wide commitment to infusing diversity into educator preparation,

focus groups were conducted to determine (a) faculty efforts to infuse diversity, (b)
instructional approaches used, (c) factors that facilitate or hinder infusion, and (d)
supports needed to enhance efforts. Results are presented highlighting personal pro-
fessional development needs, contextual factors, and student-centered challenges that
affect the extent to which diversity is addressed, along with future steps to improve
efforts and implications for other institutions of higher education.

Keywords: teacher preparation, diversity, cultural competency

Population demographics nationally and in-
ternationally are changing dramatically. Ques-
tions arise as to whether teacher education pro-
grams are keeping pace with the resulting
changes in demographics and worldviews (Dar-
ling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005). Children
from underrepresented groups will soon be the
majority within American prekindergarten12
schools (Passel & Cohn, 2008). Certainly, the
increases in diversity in student demographics
in public schools are outpacing the student and
faculty demographics in educator preparation
programs and colleges of education. White,
middle-class women will most likely teach the
nations growing number of native-born ethnic
majority, ethnic minority, and immigrant chil-
dren (Banks, 2000; Hodgkinson, 2002; Sleeter,
2001; Zeichner, 1996).
Given changing demographics and accompa-
nying worldviews, we must transform how we
prepare pre-service teachers (Ambe, 2006).
Most educator preparation programs require
one diversity course (Brown, 2004a, 2004b;
Hollins, & Guzman, 2005; McFalls & Cobb-
Roberts, 2001; Pewewardy, 2005; VanGunten
Patricia Alvarez McHatton, Department of Special Educa-
tion, Harold Keller, College of Education, Barbara Shircliffe,
and Carlos Zalaquett, Psychological and Social Foundations,
University of South Florida.
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-
dressed to Patricia Alvarez McHatton, PhD, University of
South Florida, Department of Special Education, 4202 East
Fowler Avenue, EDU105, Tampa, FL 33620. E-mail:
mchatton@tempest.coedu.usf.edu
127
& Martin, 2001) and encourage service-learning
opportunities (Cooper, 2007) and field place-
ments in diverse settings. However, diversity
content is seldom infused throughout prepara-
tion programs in a manner that involves me-
thodical planning among faculty members
(Vavrus, 2002). Rarely is there systematic as-
sessment of pre-service student development of
cultural competence throughout initial teacher
preparation programs.
Programs approved by the National Council
for Accreditation of Teacher Education commit
to valuing diversity, which is defined as differ-
ences among groups of people and individuals
based on ethnicity, race, socioeconomic status,
gender, exceptionalities, language, religion,
sexual orientation and geographical area (Na-
tional Council for Accreditation of Teacher Ed-
ucation, 2008, p. 86), as a part of its mission to
prepare educators and other professionals. It is
not clear how systematic and reflective this
commitment is enacted among the faculty and
within and across programs (Cochran-Smith,
2003; Cochran-Smith et al., 1999). If teacher
educators hope to infuse diversity throughout
programs, then the developmental needs of both
faculty and students must be assessed and ad-
dressed in a disciplined and meaningful manner.
Furthermore, infusion of diversity content must
be well conceived and of sufficient depth and
breadth so it is not lost through integration
(Robinson & Ferfolja, 2007, p. 856).
In this article, we describe the efforts of fac-
ulty from one college of education (COEDU) in
a metropolitan institution to infuse diversity
128 ALVAREZ MCHATTON, KELLER, SHIRCLIFFE, AND ZALAQUETT
content within programs of study. The study
was designed by our college-wide diversity in-
quiry group, a subgroup of the COEDU Diver-
sity Committee. Through focus groups, we
chronicled how faculty infuse diversity within
programs of study, instructional approaches
used to infuse diversity, factors that enable or
hinder infusion, and supports needed to enhance
efforts. A brief review of the literature on pre-
paring teacher candidates for diversity is pro-
vided along with findings, discussion of the
results, and implications for other institutions of
higher education.
The need to improve our efforts in preparing
culturally responsive educators is apparent, as
teacher education graduates continue to express
a lack of preparedness to teach diverse students
(Warren, 2002). Trent, Kea, and Oh (2008) ex-
amined the existing literature on preparing
teacher candidates for cultural diversity. Their
review revealed a lack of progress in this area
and continued gaps in the literature. Specifi-
cally, the literature is replete with recommen-
dations for practices, yet there is a paucity of
research examining (a) program efforts to infuse
diversity, (b) factors that support or inhibit in-
struction of diversity content, (c) developmental
needs of both teacher educators and teacher
candidates, and (d) effective multicultural in-
structional approaches that facilitate the devel-
opment of cultural competency (Jenks, Lee, &
Kanpol, 2001; Trent et al., 2008). Researchers
have also expressed the need for teacher educa-
tion faculty to engage in self-reflection and ex-
amination of their own level of cross-cultural
competency (Jenks et al., 2001; Trent & Dixon,
2004). Indeed, in an attempt to address issues of
linguistic and cultural diversity, some authors
advocate for the need to educate faculty first
(Costa, McPhail, Smith, & Brisk, 2005; Gort,
Glenn, & Settlage, 2007).
Jennings (2007) examined how teacher prep-
aration programs at both the elementary and
secondary levels address diversity. Findings in-
dicate that programs predominately focus on
issues of race and culture, followed by special
needs, language diversity, social class, gender,
and finally sexual orientation, with little differ-
entiation on the basis of level (i.e., elementary
or secondary). One rationale for the emphasis
on race and culture is the continued disparity in
achievement between White students and stu-
dents of color. Similarly, gay, lesbian, bisexual,
transgender, and questioning (GLBTQ) youth
experience equally distressing outcomes, in-
cluding verbal and physical harassment and
lower grades (Kosciw, Diaz, & Greytak, 2008).
Yet, Robinson and Ferfolja (2007) found that
although teacher educators felt that antihomo-
phobia and antiheterosexism were worth ad-
dressing, many felt race and ethnic issues were
more relevant.
Faculty voice personal challenges when ad-
dressing diversity content (Asher, 2007; Robin-
son & Ferfolja, 2007) and a need for teacher
preparation programs to adequately prepare
teacher educators to develop culturally respon-
sive teacher candidates (Sheets, 2003). These
challenges include a lack of experience with the
topic and work with diverse peoples, a lack of
support at both the college and district levels
(Gallavan, 2000), and concerns over the ability
to successfully facilitate student discussions, es-
pecially for tenure-track professors who were
concerned that engendering student resistance
would result in lower student evaluations. Vul-
nerability indeed may be warranted as gender
and race of faculty and other factors (e.g.,
course characteristics) have been found to in-
fluence student evaluations (Read, Rama, &
Raghunandan, 2001). The majority of these
studies were based on faculty charged with de-
livering discrete courses on diversity or multi-
cultural education. Thus, exploring how faculty
from different disciplines infuse diversity content
and the challenges they experience is relevant.
Site of the Study
Our university is one of three major research
universities in Florida. It is one of the larger
institutions in the state, with an enrollment
of 44,251 (Fall 2006). The COEDU was ranked
by U.S. News & World Report (2008a) as 48th
among all graduate schools of education and is
the 7th largest public COEDU in the nation,
graduating the highest or second highest num-
ber of educators in the state. Whereas our uni-
versity is recognized as a diverse university,
with 33% of its students from underrepresented
groups (U.S. News & World Report, 2008b),
within the COEDU 21% of our students and
23% of our faculty are from underrepresented
groups. Conversely, the majority of the districts
in our region have minority enrollments in ex-
cess of 35% (Florida Department of Education,
 EFFORTS TO INFUSE DIVERSITY
2007). The district in which our university is
located is ranked among the 10 largest in the
nation, with more than 193,000 students, 57.1%
of which are minority students (Florida Depart-
ment of Education, 2007).
The diversity committee identified eight ar-
eas of focus for which subgroups were formed.
These included (a) diversity efforts, (b) climate
and awareness, (c) community enrichment, (d)
development, (e) faculty recruitment and reten-
tion, (f) multicultural teaching competence, (g)
inquiry, and (h) student recruitment and reten-
tion. This study derives from the inquiry group
whose purpose was to plan, conduct, and dis-
seminate research that affects our practices and
quality of education (Keller, 2004).
Method
The purpose of the focus groups was to learn
how COEDU faculty infuse diversity into their
curricula and courses, identify factors that facil-
itate or hinder infusing diversity, and determine
what supports are needed to enhance faculty
efforts. Participants were asked to reflect on
each of these topics at the individual, depart-
mental, and college levels.
Participants
The dean of the COEDU and diversity com-
mittee co-chairs invited all faculty to participate
in the focus groups. Seven focus groups were
conducted over the fall and spring semesters
(2004 2005). Six of the focus groups were held
at the main campus on the same day at three
different times. To ensure participation by fac-
ulty from the regional campuses, a seventh fo-
cus group was held on a different date at a
regional campus.
Each focus group lasted approximately 90 min-
utes, and the number of participants in each focus
group ranged from six to ten. Fifty-two individu-
als representing all eight of the COEDU depart-
ments participated in the focus groups, approx-
imately one-third of the full-time instructional
faculty. The individual participants represented
a convenience sample of those who came to the
focus group meetings. Participants were not a
proportional representation of the departmental
faculty distribution. Although the proportion of
focus group participants at the tenure-earning
level was identical to the college at large, male
129
participation was disproportionately lower than
their representation in the college. The propor-
tion of White faculty participating in the focus
groups was lower than in the college at large.
The proportion of Black and Asian faculty par-
ticipants in the focus group was proportionately
lower than in the college at large compared with
the proportion of Hispanic faculty participants
in the focus group, which was higher than the
college at large.
Procedure
Each focus group was conducted by two fa-
cilitators. Across groups, facilitators were of all
academic ranks (including one graduate assis-
tant), from White and Hispanic ethnic groups,
and both genders (including all coauthors of this
article). Focus groups were audio-taped for fu-
ture transcription. Before beginning the focus
group discussion, facilitators explained to the
participants the purpose of the focus group as an
attempt to capture a deeper understanding of
the good things that are going on in the COEDU
related to diversity. In that process we may also
identify barriers/challenges that are impeding
our progress. We also provided the ground
rules for the discussion (e.g., contribute from
personal knowledge and experience, allow for
maximum participation from all, one person
speaks at a time, and confidentiality of re-
sponses), and shared the previously stated def-
inition of diversity and our agreed-on definition
of cultural competency.
Analysis
Focus group discussions were transcribed,
totaling 145 pages of single-spaced text.
There were multiple iterations of data analy-
sis. Initially, transcripts were independently
coded by four members of the inquiry group,
all of whom are experienced with coding of
qualitative data. Coding was extensive with the
goal of saturation (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).
This first iteration resulted in 88 codes applied
to 405 quotations, or sections of the transcripts
containing sufficient context to allow for inter-
pretation. The group reconvened to review the
codes and reach consensus, if necessary, on
discrepancies. In the final iteration, 18 topics
or themes arose from the seven focus group
discussions correlating to four areas of
130 ALVAREZ MCHATTON, KELLER, SHIRCLIFFE, AND ZALAQUETT
inquiry: (a) attempts to infuse diversity; (b)
bridges and barriers; (c) supports needed to
enhance efforts; and (d) unanticipated bene-
fits of participating in the focus group.
Results
Findings from the focus groups are presented
by area of inquiry. The data are summarized,
and supporting quotations are provided.
Attempts to Infuse Diversity
Focus group participants were asked to de-
scribe what approaches they used to infuse di-
versity in their programs. Efforts included (a)
discrete course or courses on teaching diverse
populations or English-language learners; (b)
infusion within a program of study through spe-
cific assignments, activities, and readings; or (c)
a combination of both. Some participants indi-
cated having a dedicated unit or lesson within
the course on the topic: [I have] one dedicated
class to diversity where the focus is just on
diversity for that evening. Others reported us-
ing a hybrid method, including both a dedicated
unit or lesson and infusion through teachable
moments or other instructional approaches. One
participant noted the importance of using both
methods because infusion alone can be so sub-
tle that students dont get the message that it is
important. In addition, several programs re-
quire field experiences or service-learning
projects in diverse settings as a way to bridge
theory to practice and provide opportunities for
students to gain experience working with di-
verse individuals.
Participants shared multiple and varied in-
structional approaches to integrate diversity
within individual courses. For example, in one
class students are encouraged to share their own
personal narratives through multicultural geno-
grams, that is, ethnographic stories that trace an
individuals personal roots. Textbook readings
were augmented by journal articles, case stud-
ies, and video responses, although one partici-
pant noted, That kind of thing works fine but
doesnt necessarily create change in peoples
perceptions. Several described engaging stu-
dents in experiential activities such as tutoring
at a local community center located in a diverse
setting followed by structured reflection and
debriefing opportunities. One participant stated,
I have better luck reaching more [students]
when I engage them in those kinds of experien-
tial activities rather than simply reading mate-
rials.
Classroom discussions were used to explore
various topics related to diversity, including is-
sues of equity and access. Several participants
invited guest speakers or collaborated with fac-
ulty from different racial or ethnic groups to
allow students to hear and learn from multiple
perspectives. Other approaches employed to ex-
pand students understanding of diversity in-
cluded cross-cultural simulations, minority ex-
periences (i.e., students are immersed in a set-
ting in which they are the minority), and values
clarification through critical friends, small
groups that provide support as members reflect
on their own practice.
All participants reported that students were
required to apply their learning in some manner.
For example, students were expected to develop
lesson plans or instructional units that clearly
demonstrated culturally responsive methods, in-
cluding accommodations for students with dis-
abilities. Another project required identifying
an equity issue in a school and developing an
action plan to address the problem.
Factors That Facilitate or
Hinder Infusion
Faculty were asked to describe factors that
facilitated or hindered their infusion of diver-
sity. Although some questioned whether the im-
petus for the current focus on diversity was
driven by the National Council for Accredita-
tion of Teacher Education, most commended
the efforts at the college level, especially with
regard to recruitment efforts and the diversity
committees work. Likewise, the universitys
diversity plan was highlighted with the caveat
that there was still much to be done and a
question as to whether we were willing to do it.
Online environments provided both opportu-
nities and challenges when addressing diversity.
The anonymity of the virtual world at times
allowed students to be more open about their
beliefs, yet it also precluded the ability to see
how students reacted to the discussions, making
it difficult to respond proactively or quickly.
Faculty members noted that factors related to
student and community characteristics played a
pivotal role in their decisions about the content
 EFFORTS TO INFUSE DIVERSITY
of their instruction. Several participants found
inclusion of issues pertaining to individuals
who are GLBTQ especially difficult. Some ex-
pressed trepidation in discussing this topic for
fear of how some students might respond: Im
scared to use it [specific book chapter on
GLBTQ] because I am afraid how it will unfold.
. . . I have not had the courage to go there.
Others felt constrained in their ability to discuss
these issues because of negative responses from
the surrounding community. A faculty member
from a regional campus explained, I am
bounded by the context, I cannot discuss gay
and lesbian; theyll run me out of town. A
similar response was shared by a participant
also from a regional campus who showed a
video on working with children who come from
same-sex families: . . . Im telling you, they
were ready to run me right out of there.
This concern or fear of repercussions was
echoed by other participants when addressing
certain topics within the diversity umbrella: I
may feel nervous about letting people open up.
. . . If it gets out of control, I dont know if I
really have the skill or enough experience [to
deal with it]. Another noted, Im uncomfort- that in other courses. Although this response
able with what I call creating a revolt . . . so I
kind of sit somewhere in the middle.
New faculty expressed some apprehension
about infusing diversity because of their real or
perceived vulnerability as tenure-earning faculty.
Their concerns centered on student responses via
potentially negative student evaluations: I still
feel really vulnerable in my tenure-earning sta-
tus that they [students] could hurt me in my
evaluations . . . that wouldnt be a reason for me
not to do it. I would still do it, but I should say
that thats something that scares me. This same
participant was concerned about receiving neg-
ative student evaluations and having to justify
instructional approaches.
Faculty of color also expressed a sense of
vulnerability when addressing diversity topics
because the fact that they themselves were di-
verse seemed to affect student responses to the
infusion of diversity content. Many considered
their race/ethnicity a double-edged sword. Of-
ten they were viewed as the expert on the topic
or were thought to have a personal agenda and
thus the rationale for the infusion of the content.
One participant who felt it important for stu-
dents to recognize diversity as a legitimate
issue found this situation problematic.
131
Time or lack of it was cited as a major insti-
tutional barrier. Trying to use teachable mo-
ments to address diversity issues that arise
spontaneously in class was seen as possibly
detracting from coverage of required course
content given state standards. Most of the par-
ticipants spoke about the expectation to cover
increasing amounts of material within pre-
scribed time limits, making it difficult to ad-
dress diversity with the breadth and depth nec-
essary. Furthermore, the lack of assigned time
to restructure existing courses and programs or
create new courses further limited the ability to
design and implement developmentally appro-
priate experiences in a program of study.
Faculty discussed student-centered chal-
lenges, which were varied and encompassed
behaviors ranging from vocal resistance to si-
lent withdrawal. One participant expressed a
need to be purposeful in how, when, and what
materials are presented to students stating:
Sometimes we lose them early on if it is too
intense or if the reflection is too immediate.
Several participants indicated that often stu-
dents perception is that they have already done
was attributed in part to resistance or at least a
lack of understanding of the multiplicity of di-
versity, one participant noted that without a
structured mechanism for faculty to convene
and strategically plan for purposeful integration
of diversity, the students perception may have
some validity.
Finally, several participants felt assessing
student growth in the area of cultural compe-
tency was a barrier. Some expressed the need to
assess students level of cultural sensitivity on
entry into the program and along predetermined
intervals to be able to make informed decisions
regarding course content and experiences. As
noted by one participant, How can you develop
folks when you dont know what theyre com-
ing in with and what youre developing them
from?
Several participants also questioned the va-
lidity of the assessment methods they currently
used to be able to truly gauge student level of
cultural awareness. Although many used stu-
dent reflections and response to readings to
measure student attitudes, the fact that many
students are adept at determining what an in-
structor would consider appropriate responses
made them suspect: I see some movement, but
132 ALVAREZ MCHATTON, KELLER, SHIRCLIFFE, AND ZALAQUETT
again, they know what I want to hear. Further-
more, even if faculty were successful in advanc-
ing students development, concerns regarding
the ability of students to generalize their learn-
ing in the field remained depending on the en-
vironment in which they ultimately find them-
selves as beginning teachers.
Supports Needed
Participants provided a series of suggestions
that they felt would aid our efforts in infusing
diversity. Foremost was the need to provide
professional development to faculty to address
the challenges previously described. This devel-
opment centered on awareness, knowledge, and
skill. Several participants expressed the need for
faculty to engage in self-reflection and assess-
ment to become cognizant of what each is
bringing to this [their practice] and how it is
affecting the choices that they make in the class-
room. Concerns over the ability to engage stu-
dents in what one faculty member termed dan-
gerous discussions, or discussions pertaining to
diversity that may challenge student beliefs,
were numerous. This was especially true for
content related to GLBTQ issues given that
most participants felt they lacked the expertise
to be able to substantively address this topic.
Many participants noted a lack of skill in ad-
dressing student resistance, and stated that their
preparation program did not instruct them about
delivering content that may challenge students
belief systems or addressing covert or overt
student resistance to those topics.
All participants discussed the importance of
having frequent, strategic opportunities to en-
gage in collegial dialogue within and across
departments and colleges. These opportunities
would allow faculty to engage in departmental
and college conversations to ensure that content
was not duplicated, thus diminishing student
frustrationand possibly resistanceand facil-
itate designing a spiraling curriculum that
builds on students prior experiences and
knowledge. Likewise, faculty need opportuni-
ties to identify redundancy in course materials
and work collaboratively to build students cul-
tural awareness, sensitivity, and competency in
a developmental manner: . . . [we] could col-
lapse and combine [objectives] so that students
can in fact have more opportunity [for mean-
ingful experiences]. These discussions could
also enhance research efforts as faculty become
more aware of colleague interests fostering part-
nerships within and beyond departments.
Unanticipated Benefits
Participation in the focus groups provided an
unanticipated benefit for faculty, many of whom
expressed how much they enjoyed the opportu-
nity to dialogue with other faculty members on
a topic they were committed to and valued.
Realizing that others shared similar experiences
was cited as beneficial for some. Furthermore,
several participants indicated that they had
gained new ideas that they would implement in
their courses in the future, as noted by one
participant who stated, Ive already taken two
or three ideas from today that I want to start
thinking about and circulating right away.
Discussion
The information gleaned from the focus
groups correlate with existing literature, leading
us to agree with Trent and colleagues (2008)
assessment that there is lack of progress in
preparing teacher candidates for diversity. Al-
though results are from only one institution
located in a metropolitan area, the information
can assist other institutions of higher education
in identifying faculty needs as they plan for
the purposeful preparation of culturally respon-
sive educators. Additional limitations include
the fact that participants represent a conve-
nience sample; thus, it is possible that the pur-
pose of the focus groups drew individuals who
were committed to diversity and were willing to
discuss their experiences infusing diversity into
their programs. It is also likely that we did not
hear from faculty who perhaps do not see the
need for infusing diversity or who were not
willing to discuss personal efforts or challenges
when doing so.
As noted in the existing literature (Cooper,
2007; Hollins & Guzman, 2005), content re-
lated to diversity is presented through a variety
of instructional approaches via stand-alone
courses, infusion within programs of study, and
field experiences or service-learning opportuni-
ties in diverse settings. When asked to discuss
factors that facilitated or hindered their efforts
to infuse diversity, the majority of the partici-
pants focused on challenges and concerns.
 EFFORTS TO INFUSE DIVERSITY
Challenges again mirrored existing research
(Asher, 2007; Robinson & Ferfolja, 2007; Stan-
ley, 2007). Several participants questioned their
ability to effectively facilitate dangerous discus-
sions into important educational and develop-
mental growth opportunities and were con-
cerned about their ability to (and, interestingly,
their belief that they must) diffuse possible neg-
ative responses from students. Participants per-
ceived student resistance in largely negative
terms, seldom commenting on the educational
benefits of cognitive dissonance (McFalls &
Cobb-Roberts, 2001) or constructive contro-
versy through deliberate discourse (Johnson consistently voiced as a barrier. Lack of as-
& Johnson, 2009, p. 38). This finding is relevant
when viewed in conjunction with instructional
methods used to infuse diversity. A majority of
the participants indicated the use of class dis-
cussion as an instructional method. Considering
that many felt that they lacked the necessary
skills to facilitate dangerous discussion leads us
to question the efficacy of class discussions as
an instruction method under those conditions.
Not surprisingly, many participants revealed
a hesitance on their part to include GLBTQ
content in their courses. This was predomi-
nantly because of fear of student objections as
well as a lack of knowledge on the topic, al-
though two participants from a regional campus
indicated perceived repercussions from the sur-
rounding community when attempting to ad-
dress these issues in their classes. The response
from the surrounding community may not be
very different from what some of our teacher
candidates will face on graduating and embark-
ing on their career. Considering that one of our
goals is to produce graduates who will serve as
advocates for all their students, a decision not to
address a difficult topic sends a distressing mes-
sage to our students. What is omitted from our
curriculum is as important as what is included.
Thus, the need to provide faculty with the nec-
essary skills and tools to address sensitive issues
and resistance is paramount in our quest to
ensure culturally responsive and competent ed-
ucators. The challenge then becomes one of
how to engage faculty in faculty development
efforts, including those who want to enhance
their skills and those who do not recognize the
need to change.
Concerns over the power of student evalua-
tions in the tenure and promotion process, es-
pecially when teaching courses that have the
133
capacity for strong student resistance and re-
sponse, were voiced by several junior faculty,
again echoing existing research (Read et al.,
2001). This is a concern that cannot be over-
looked, especially when considering possible
student response to the message based on the
messenger. Although all the participants indi-
cated that this concern was not sufficient to keep
them from addressing the content, it highlights
the need to contextualize student evaluations
beyond a given score.
Time or lack thereof to plan for and revise
syllabi for purposeful infusion of diversity was
signed time further limited possibilities for col-
laboration within and across programs to ensure
a developmental approach to infusion efforts.
Several comments focused on the expectation to
cover ever increasing amounts of materials
within prescribed time periods, leading us to
question whether this was indicative of curric-
ular infusion that is more additive than transfor-
mative (Banks, 1990).
Participants expressed a need for professional
development to assist them in their efforts. This
supports Sheetss (2003) reproach on the prep-
aration of teacher educators. Having opportuni-
ties to dialogue with and learn from each other
was desired, and indeed many participants
noted how beneficial taking part in the focus
groups had been as it provided them with an
opportunity to hear what others are doing and to
realize that they were not alone in the chal-
lenges they experienced.
Results also reveal the need for purposeful
preparation of our students that consists of sub-
stantive assessment and programs of study de-
signed from a developmental perspective, al-
lowing for maximum growth by our students.
Furthermore, the need for structured, strategic
ongoing dialogue within and across depart-
ments would enhance our efforts in preparing
culturally competent and responsive educators.
Our primary challenge as an institution at-
tempting to infuse diversity throughout our ed-
ucator preparation programs is to apply a devel-
opmental perspective. That is, our courses and
student experiences must be structured in such a
way that they build on prior learning and expe-
riences. As stated at the outset, our intent is to
foster our students transformation and the suc-
cessful application of their knowledge and skills
in prekindergarten12 schools and related edu-
134 ALVAREZ MCHATTON, KELLER, SHIRCLIFFE, AND ZALAQUETT
cational contexts. Thus, developing a process to
assess our efforts and our students develop-
ment is essential.
Implications for Institutions of
Higher Education
As noted, although the findings center on
only one COEDU at a metropolitan university,
the close correlation with existing research
would indicate the relevance for other institu-
tions of higher education. Ensuring assigned
time for purposeful infusion of diversity within
and across programs would allow for content to
be delivered using a developmental approach.
This may reduce or eliminate perceived or ac-
tual redundancy of content and enhance the
likelihood of increased cultural awareness and
subsequent cultural responsiveness by teacher
candidates. Faculty can be supported in their
efforts to infuse diversity by providing continu-
ing professional development on various topics,
including student resistance and facilitating
dangerous discussions, affording opportunities
for dialogue among faculty and offering men-
toring by faculty experienced in diversity. Fi-
nally, a mechanism for assessing student eval-
uations that considers the multiple factors that
can influence students responses might reduce
anxiety experienced by tenure-earning faculty
as they plan for infusion of diversity into their
courses.
References
Ambe, E. B. (2006). Fostering multicultural appreci-
ation in pre-service teachers through multicultural
curricular transformation. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 22, 690 699.
Asher, N. (2007). Made in the (multicultural) U.S.A.:
Unpacking tensions of race, culture, gender, and sex-
uality in education. Educational Researcher, 36,
6573.
Banks, J. A. (1990). Approaches to multicultural
curriculum reform. In E. Lee, D. Menkart, & M.
Okazawa-Rey (Eds.), Beyond heroes and holidays
(pp. 74 75). Upper Marlboro, MD: McArdle.
Banks, J. A. (2000). Cultural diversity and educa-
tion: Foundations, curriculum, and teaching. Bos-
ton: Allyn & Bacon.
Brown, E. L. (2004a). The relationship of self-
concepts to changes in cultural diversity aware-
ness: Implications for urban teacher educators. The
Urban Review, 36, 119 145.
Brown, E. L. (2004b). What precipitates change in
cultural diversity awareness during a multicultural
course: The message or the method? Journal of
Teacher Education, 55, 325340.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2003). Learning and unlearning:
The education of teacher educators. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 19, 528.
Cochran-Smith, M., Albert, L., DiMattia, P., Freed-
man, S., Jackson, J., & Mooney, J. (1999). Seeking
social justice: A teacher education facultys self-
study. International Journal of Leadership in Ed-
ucation: Theory and Practice, 2, 229 253.
Cooper, J. E. (2007). Strengthening the case for com-
munity-based learning in teacher education. Jour-
nal of Teacher Education, 58, 245255.
Costa, J., McPhail, G., Smith, J., & Brisk, M. E.
(2005). Faculty first: The challenge of infusing the
teacher education curriculum with the scholarship
of English language learners. Journal of Teacher
Education, 56, 104 118.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2005). Pre-
paring teachers for a changing world: What teach-
ers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Florida Department of Education. (2007). Growth of
minority student populations in Floridas public
schools. Retrieved February 28, 2008, from http://
www.fldoe.org/eias/eiaspubs/pdf/minority.pdf
Gallavan, N. P. (2000). Multicultural education at the
academy: Teacher educators challenges, conflicts,
and coping skills. Equity and Excellence in Edu-
cation, 33(3), 511.
Gort, M., Glenn, W. J., & Settlage, J. (2007, April).
Teacher educators efforts to self-improve in the
area of linguistic and cultural diversity: Al andar
se hace camino. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Education Research As-
sociation, 2007, Chicago.
Hodgkinson, H. (2002). Demographics and teacher
education: An overview. Journal of Teacher Edu-
cation, 53, 102104.
Hollins, E. R., & Guzman, M. T. (2005). Research on
preparing teachers for diverse populations. In M.
Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying
teacher education: The report of the AERA Panel
on Research and Teacher Education (pp. 477
548). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Jenks, C., Lee, J. O., & Kanpol, B. (2001). Ap-
proaches to multicultural education in preservice
teacher education: Philosophical frameworks and
models for teaching. The Urban Review, 33, 87
105.
Jennings, T. (2007). Addressing diversity in U.S.
teacher preparation programs: A survey of elemen-
tary and secondary programs priorities and chal-
lenges from across the United States of America.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 1258 1271.
 EFFORTS TO INFUSE DIVERSITY
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). Energizing
learning: The instructional power of conflict. Ed-
ucational Researcher, 38, 3751.
Keller, H. (2004). Research/inquiry summary report.
Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, College
of Education.
Kosciw, J. G., Diaz, E. M., & Greytak, E. A. (2008).
2007 National School Climate Survey: The expe-
riences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
youth in our nations schools. New York: Gay,
Lesbian and Straight Education Network.
McFalls, E. L., & Cobb-Roberts, D. (2001). Reduc-
ing resistance to diversity through cognitive disso-
nance instruction: Implications for teacher educa-
tion. Journal of Teacher Education, 52, 164 172.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Educa-
tion. (2008). Professional standards for the accredi-
tation of teacher preparation institutions. Retrieved
February 24, 2009, from http://www.ncate.org/
documents/standards/NCATE%20Standards%
202008.pdf
Passel, J. S., & Cohn, D. (2008). U.S. populations
projections: 20052050. Retrieved from http://
pewhispanic.org/files/reports/85.pdf
Pewewardy, C. (2005). Shared journaling: A meth-
odology for engaging White preservice students
into multicultural education discourse. Teacher
Education Quarterly, 32, 41 60.
Read, W. J., Rama, D. V., & Raghunandan, K.
(2001). The relationship between student evalua-
tions of teaching and faculty evaluations. Journal
of Education for Business, 76, 189 192.
Robinson, K. H., & Ferfolja, T. (2007). Playing it up,
playing it down, playing it safe: Queering teacher
education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24,
846 858.
Sheets, R. H. (2003). Competency vs. good inten-
tions: Diversity ideologies and teacher potential.
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Ed-
ucation, 16, 111120.
Sleeter, C. (2001). Preparing teachers for culturally
diverse schools: Research and the overwhelming
presence of whiteness. Journal of Teacher Educa-
tion, 52, 94 106.
View publication stats
135
Stanley, C. A. (2007). When counter narratives meet
master narratives in the journal editorial-review
process. Educational Researcher, 36(1), 14 24.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative
research techniques and procedures for develop-
ing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Trent, S. D., & Dixon, D. J. (2004). My eyes were
opened: Tracing the conceptual change of pre-
service teachers in a special education/multicul-
tural education course. Teacher Education and
Special Education, 27, 119 133.
Trent, S. D., Kea, C. D., & Oh, K. (2008). Preparing
preservice educators for cultural diversity: How far
have we come? Exceptional Children, 74, 328
350.
U.S. News & World Report. (2008a). Americas best grad-
uate schools 2008. Retrieved February 20, 2008, from
http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/
usnews/edu/grad/rankings/edu/brief/edurank_brief.php
U.S. News & World Report. (2008b). Campus eth-
nic diversity: National universities. Retrieved
February 1, 2008, from http://colleges.usnews
.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/
rankings/brief/natudoc_campdiv_brief.php
VanGunten, D. M., & Martin, R. J. (2001). Complex-
ities and contradictions: A study of teacher educa-
tion courses that address multicultural issues.
Journal of Intergroup Relations, 28, 31 42.
Vavrus, M. (2002). Transforming the multicultural
education of teachers. New York: Teachers Col-
lege Press.
Warren, S. R. (2002). Stories from the classrooms:
How expectations and efficacy of diverse teachers
affect the academic performance of children in
poor urban schools. Educational Horizons, 80,
109 116.
Zeichner, K. (1996). Educating teachers for cultural
diversity. In K. Zeichner & M. L. Gomez (Eds.),
Currents of reform in preservice teacher education
(pp. 133175). New York: Teachers College Press.
Received March 31, 2008
Revision received March 27, 2009
Accepted March 30, 2009