Culturally Congruent Teacher Education

Antioch's Efforts to Develop
Culturally Congruent Teacher Education

by Linda Campbell

Antioch University Seattle began offering a graduate level teacher certification program in 1990. During our first three years of providing pre-service education we were acutely aware that 90% of our students were white. As is the case with nearly all education departments, we desired to attract minority candidates into the teaching force. Unlike many certification programs, however, we eventually identified a two-pronged recruitment strategy. First, in 1993, we narrowed our recruitment focus. Faculty hypothesized that if we worked with members of a single community of color we might learn how to provide culturally appropriate higher education for that cohort. To begin our recruitment efforts, we opted for depth over breadth.

Based upon the collective experience of faculty and administration, we decided to recruit candidates from the racial group least successful in elementary, secondary and higher education - that of the American Indian. To actualize this goal, I wrote and received a Washington State grant in 1993 to implement a teacher preparation program on-site at the Tulalip Indian Reservation in northwestern Washington State. The grant included forging a three-way alliance between Antioch University, the Tulalip Tribes, and the Marysville School District which provides public education for Tulalip Indian children.
Originally, we intended to offer a graduate level program on the reservation. After six months of recruiting in the small tribal community of 2500 members, we realized that a bachelor's degree completion program was needed. Through collaborating with Antioch's B. A. Degree Completion program, we enrolled seven students in a combined bachelor of arts and teacher certification program in September, 1994.
As of October, 1997, six students have received their bachelor's degrees; two have been certified; another is currently completing her student teaching; one student has left the program and the remaining three plan to student teach next year.
With our admittedly small but nevertheless encouraging "in depth approach" to increasing student diversity, we launched a second recruitment strategy. Like the first approach, the second also involved a partnership effort. In 1995, we joined forces with the Multicultural Alliance, a national organization dedicated to identifying minority college graduates who want to become classroom teachers. In 1996, after a year of dialogue with the Alliance and scholarship fundraising, we enrolled 15 minority and 35 Caucasian students into our on-campus, graduate certification program. The enrollment numbers for our 1997 program are similar. For the last two years approximately 30% of Antioch's graduate certification students are students of color.
Even though the Tulalip undergraduate and the graduate on-campus programs are intentionally small, I assume that some issues we have faced in increasing student diversity will be interesting to, if not relevant for, other preparation programs. In this brief article, I will focus on only one of the several challenges we have and continue to confront in our efforts to become more diverse. The challenge I will address is one that initially eluded us but has proved the most critical for retaining minority students.
At Antioch, we are grappling with how to establish a culturally congruent program. A culturally congruent program is founded on elements of the cultures it seeks to serve. It embraces some of the cultural norms, values, standards of behavior, social systems, and interaction patterns of its student populations (Swinomish Tribal Mental Health Project,1995, p. 114). Ideally, the program model would emerge from and respond to cultural belief systems and practices. Its goal is to increase the congruence minority students experience between their lives and schooling.
As mentioned above, our program endeavors to create a more culturally responsive model. We do not have definitive suggestions for others on how to proceed or ultimately, what such a model would look like.
Instead, we are in process and can share our experiences from that perspective. What follows is a description of some of our early attempts at program refinement and our subsequent, more significant programmatic adjustments.
Initial Attempts at "Multiculturalizing" Our Certification Programs

When the teacher education faculty made the commitment to attract new student populations, we concurrently made program adaptations to become more "user friendly." Such changes might be termed "common multicultural education approaches" or "multicultural enhancements"and while valuable in and of themselves, they do not go far enough in meeting diverse student needs. Our initial efforts included the following:

Enhance mainstream faculty member diversity awareness. We sought opportunities to learn about a variety of cultures through attending courses and retreats, working formally and informally in diverse settings, and hiring cultural informants and experts to assist us.
Hire minority faculty. We advertised in a broader array of newsletters and journals than previously, sought faculty of color through informal networking, and identified doctoral students who were close to completing their dissertations to serve as faculty in our program.
Include minority authors and perspectives in courses. Every faculty member has and continues to diversify their required readings, course content, and guest presenters in each course.

While these changes were important, they did little to improve the quality of the higher education experience or the academic success of minority students. Instead, these refinements served as additives to our original program model which essentially remained unchanged. The above adjunctive cultural enhancements yielded a more culturally sensitive but not culturally responsive or effective program. With a certification cohort of American Indian students, and two others with significant diversity, the minority students were still required to participate in a white, middle class model of schooling.
As simple as it sounds, we found it necessary to acknowledge and then respond to the fact that different people think differently. Years ago, in 1929, Edward Sapir aptly stated, "The worlds in which different societies live are distinct worlds, not merely the same world with different labels attached (p. 207)." Through honest dialogue with students, we knew we were far from a culturally congruent program. To more closely approach such a model, it would be necessary to instill non-mainstream values at its core and then allow such values to mold and shape program features. To proceed, we first had to articulate the diverse cultural differences we encountered.
Certainly, serious concerns can be raised when attempting to describe the values and world views of others' cultures. We realized that infinite variations in beliefs exist from individual to individual as well as among and across groups. However, we did identify one framework that explained some differences between mainstream and non-mainstream groups. Work undertaken since the 1950's by anthropologists, psychologists, and sociologists identified two cultural scripts that are in significant contrast to one another (Greenfield, 1994). Such information proved useful in program redesign.
The Contrasting Value Systems of Collectivism and Individualism

The contrasting value systems we encountered can be termed collectivist (interdependent) and individualistic (independent) orientations. While many mainstream people assume that the independent individual is a universal prototype, approximately 70% of the world's population uphold an alternative belief system that emphasizes social interdependence or collectivism (Triandis, 1989). Researchers have asserted that several minority group members living in the United States and Canada such as American Indians, African Americans, African French, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, and Asian Canadians adhere to an interdependent, collectivist world view where group determines one's world view, behavior, and goals (Greenfield, 1994). This is in contrast to individualistic values espoused by members of Euro-American and Euro-Canadian groups which emphasize the significance of the self and individual rights (Greenfield, 1994).
Several researchers (Parson, 1951; Inkeles and Smith, 1974; Hofstede, 1980; Markus and Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1994) further define individualism and collectivism as follows:
Individualism pertains to belief systems in which ties between individuals are loose and everyone is expected to look after himself and one's nuclear family. Collectivism refers to a world view where people are integrated into strong, cohesive groups and relationships with others and loyalty to one's group are of paramount importance.

The main elements of an individualistic world view include:

An "I" consciousness where the views, needs, and goals of the self are most important;
Behavior that is motivated by the pleasure principle;
Beliefs which are individualistic in nature and encourage individual autonomy;
Social behavior that is independent and emotionally detached;
Individual, competitive initiative;
Status that is gained through achievement, wealth, and credentials.

The main components of collectivism include:

A "we" consciousness where the views, needs, and goals of the group are important;
Behavior that is a function of norms and duties imposed by the collective;
Shared beliefs that are highly significant;
Social behavior that is dependent, emotionally attached, where one may be cooperative, and self-sacrificing toward others in the collective but indifferent or hostile towards out-group members;
Collaboration and group solidarity;
Status that is achieved through contributions to the group, knowledge, and helpfulness.

While the above descriptors offer broad generalities, it is important to note that there is more than one form of individualistic orientation and more than one type of collectivism across cultural groups. Additionally, these world views are not mutually exclusive. In any culture there is the constant interplay between the individual and the group. However, different cultural emphases yield different patterns of socialization and behavior.
Towards Culturally Congruent Teacher Education
In confronting the differences in collectivism and individualism, we realized that our certification model, even with its alternative, progressive philosophy, strongly adhered to mainstream, independent values. We emphasized self-directed learning, individual initiative and autonomy, and Socratic questioning as an important instructional approach. From their feedback, it was evident that to retain many minority students our program would have to undergo a significant values shift. Instead of placing the individual student and his self-actualization at the core, our program needed to promote positive interdependence through broader and deeper relationships. Such enhanced relationships would include those among students, with the faculty and staff, with university support services, and with members of diverse communities. We also needed to forge new relationships between students and their instruction to contextualize their learning.
To shift our focus from the individual student to "students in relation," we first, as a faculty had to reflect on our own beliefs. Some of us confronted a lack of awareness of our culture assuming instead that our world views were the norm. Kim (1991) describes this attitude as one of unacknowledged culture:
It is only when Americans realize that what they believe in is cultural, then they can recognize what African Americans or Native Americans are experiencing is also cultural. However, when Americans feel that their standard or their view is not cultural and is universal, and that it is the Japanese Americans or Native Americans who are clinging to culture, then . . . there is a problem of discourse. (Quoted in Greenfield, 1994, p.23).

Upon reflection and dialogue, most of us realized that instead of being culture-free, we strongly adhered to a "cultural prototype" that valued the independent, self-sufficient individual. We recognized the disparity between this ideal and those held by members of diverse cultural groups. This awareness inspired new possibilities for program design.
We were encouraged to build upon our previous multicultural enhancement efforts. Instead of relying upon an additive approach that maintained our original model and its values in tact, we began to consider more fundamental restructuring. Since 1994, we have sought to achieve greater cultural congruence and as a result have initiated the following changes:

Our program places greater emphasis upon community and collaboration.
Students are encouraged to learn with and from each other. At the start of the program, for example, faculty teach group dynamics and identify a variety of social roles. The roles are assumed by students on a rotating basis so that all serve as integrated members of the cohort. The rules of such roles are made explicit and they are frequently applied in collaborative course projects. Individual achievement and competition are integrated into an interdependent value system where success honors all.

Student services have been increased and new services have been added.
Rather than relying upon external scholarship support, Antioch's Education Department has instituted ongoing fundraising efforts to provide scholarships quickly and as needed. The scholarships ensure access to higher education and serve to retain students once they are enrolled. Additionally, we have provided (and mandated) workshops in math and writing so that mainstream and non-mainstream students alike have opportunities to strengthen their skills. In some cases, we have also hired adult education experts to tutor students in small groups. Through increasing the university's support services to address student economic and academic needs, we are able to maintain a strong, cohesive community.

Faculty and staff are becoming better educated in the history, values, and current challenges of diverse cultural groups and as a result often make significant changes in their classes.
For instance, faculty who teach child and adolescent development promote a holistic philosophy through attention to the intellectual, social, physical, emotional, moral, aesthetic, and spiritual aspects of development. Cultural influences are also considered within each of these seven areas. For example, when students study aesthetic development, they research whether the arts are promoted in the education of diverse groups as well as how the arts are taught and for what purposes. Additionally, and with some trepidation, the spiritual aspect of child development has been included in this course due to faculty's new awareness of the centrality of spirituality and/or religion in many communities.

Instructional processes have expanded to include storytelling, hands-on-learning, integration of community members, collaborative projects, simulations, and individual mentoring.
Faculty have a heightened awareness of the limitation of things rather than people as sources of knowledge. As Suina (1991) has noted, an overemphasis upon text can undermine "the very fiber of connectedness" (Quoted in Greenfield, 1994, p.14). Faculty provide more experiential forms of learning such as conducting oral history interviews with elders, offering numerous, mentored field experiences in schools, and introducing theories by connecting them with students' lives. One faculty member after considering how her teaching has changed, commented, "My instruction is now centered in both my head and my heart."

Faculty and students discuss and adapt programmatic elements as appropriate.
Rather than voting, consensus is sought for decisions about course or program policies. Changes that have been initiated through such discussion include adding undergraduate courses in Lushootseed language (the original language of many Northwest Coast tribes); altering mandatory individual narrative self-assessments since the self-assertion they require is foreign to many non-mainstream students; and adding evening program options to accommodate work, family, and community duties.

The above changes remain in process. Our educational model is dynamic rather than static. What is constant, however, is Antioch's challenge to the assumption that mainstream teacher education programs can be made culturally appropriate through additives or enhancements.
We are, instead, attempting to forge a program that is embedded in interdependent values which shape our educational philosophy and program features. While fortunate in our efforts to recruit diverse students, a new responsibility has emerged as a result of this success. We are responsible for providing educational experiences that validate our students' values and cultural experiences. Perhaps, if we succeed at developing culturally congruent teacher education programs, certification students might gain new skills to benefit the diverse students they will teach.

References:

Greenfield, P. & Cocking, R. (Eds.) (1994).Cross-Cultural Roots of Minority Child Development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Organizations and Cultures: Software of the Mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Inkeles, A. & Smith, D. (1974). Becoming Modern - Individual Change in Six Developing Countries. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Joe, J. (1994). "Revaluing Native American concepts of development and education" in P. Greenfield's Cross-Cultural Roots of Minority Child Development. Hillsdale, N.J. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Jordan, C. (1985). "Translating culture: From ethnographic information to educational program." Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 16, 105-123.
Kitayama, S. and H. Markus (eds.). (1995). Emotion and Culture: Empirical Studies of Mutual Influence. Washington D.C.American Psychological Association.
Markus, H. (1991). "Culture and self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation." Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
Parsons, T. (1951). The Social System. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.
Robbins, R. & J. Tippeconnic. (1985). Toward a Philosophy of American Indian Higher Education. Tempe, Arizona: Arizona State University, College of Education.
Swinomish Tribal Mental Health Project. (1995). A Gathering of Wisdoms. Mount Vernon, WA: Veda Vangarde.
Triandis, H. (1989). Cross-cultural studies of individualism and collectivism. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Triandis, H. (1994). "Major cultural syndromes and emotion." In S. Kitayama and H.R. Markus (eds.) Emotion and Culture: Empirical Studies of Mutual Influence. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.

About the Author

Linda Campbell administers and serves as faculty in the K-12 teacher certification programs at Antioch University Seattle. She is author of numerous articles and books, the most recent of which is entitled, Teaching and Learning Through Multiple Intelligences, a Simon and Schuster educational bestseller.
Linda may be reached at Antioch University at 2326 6th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98121 or through e-mail at lindacam@premier1.net.

Copyright © 1997 Linda Campbell, all rights reserved.

Posted with permission by New Horizons for Learning
http://www.newhorizons.org
E-mail: info@newhorizons.org
For permission to redistribute, please contact:
Linda Campbell at lindacam@premier1.net