Despite ample evidence that teacher practice can be manipulated through intervention (e.g., Gregory, Hafen, et al., 2016; Grigg et al., 2013; Nelson-Walker et al., 2013; Okonofua et al., 2016; Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968), teacher educators have had little success in preparing teacher candidates to enact equitable teaching practices (Cochran-Smith et al., 2015; Jupp et al., 2016). This gap in the evidence to support teacher candidates’ development as it relates to racially equitable practice was a source of motivation for this study and a focus in considering its implications. Although the sample size for the current study was ultimately small and warrants caution when inferring prescriptive recommendations from the study’s findings, in the following paragraphs, I discuss two areas teacher educators might consider when implementing antiracist education. These considerations may also offer fruitful insights for future intervention work exploring the implementation of transformative activities.
Scaffolding teacher candidates meaning making: Lessening the risk of harm to students and teacher educators of Color
Teacher candidates would benefit from scaffolds that align with racially equitable practice to guide their meaning making of transformative activities. On multiple occasions, teacher candidates participating in this dissertation voiced uncertainty in how to make meaning of transformative activities. Such uncertainty subsequently resulted in difficulty challenging perceptual frameworks and learning about racial equity in teacher practice. For example, when Ash faced obstacles in effectively enacting equitable practices in their classroom, they struggled to challenge deficit perspectives and poverty disciplining perceptual frameworks that were
pervasive in their school context. Subsequently, they were uncertain about how to make meaning of the experience in ways that would have supported their challenging of perceptual frameworks rooted in whiteness and learning about racial equity in teacher practice. Similarly, without guidance, Pattie was uncertain about how to interpret an observation of a teacher's “pushy” interaction with an African American student. She acknowledged that labeling students of Color as problem students could have played a role in the interaction she observed but hesitated to draw that conclusion with any certainty.
On other occasions, the apparent lack of scaffolding resulted in reinforcements of racist perceptual frameworks and/or misconceptions of equitable teacher practice. For example, after seeing the lived experiences of students at the Let's Read! schools (located in low-income neighborhoods), one teacher candidate came to the conclusion that she wanted to work with students from low-income areas so that she could remedy some of the problems that those students faced. Her conclusion demonstrated white savior motivations (see Aronson, 2017; Matias, 2016) that white teachers working with students of Color often endorse. White savior motivations are problematic because they lead teachers to inadvertently undermine communities of Color by creating hostile learning environments (Sue et al., 2009). This demonstrated that without guidance, transformative activities may risk doing harm to students of Color.
Teacher candidates were less likely to express uncertainty or misconceptions when it was clear that their meaning making was scaffolded in ways that supported their learning about racial equity in teacher practice. For example, already having learned that differences are not deficits, Jen rejected deficit perspectives when observing differences across students at the university- operated childcare center and Let’s Read! schools. Instead, she concluded that she would need to maintain high expectations for all students. Similarly, for Ellen, lessons in her coursework on the
pervasiveness of white perspectives in literature prepared her to recognize the problems with using a text like The Secret Life of Bees in the classroom. Without such guidance, these teacher candidates may not have come to the same conclusions.
To scaffold teacher candidates’ meaning making, teacher educators might consider more explicitly guiding teacher candidates in making sense of transformative activities in equitable ways. This may be particularly important because providing adequate scaffolds and reducing the likelihood of teacher candidate uncertainty and misconceptions could lessen the risk of harm to students and teacher educators of Color as teacher candidates are developing their critical race consciousness and capacity to implement racially equitable practice. Prior empirical evidence suggests that students of Color can become casualties of white teacher candidates’ learning. Both overt racism (Huynh & Fuligni, 2010) and subtle microaggressions (Allen et al., 2013) hurt students academically, psychologically, and physically. Such behavior among teacher candidates can similarly harm teacher educators of Color who are often burdened with the load of educating teacher candidates on race even though this work may be triggering due to the racial trauma teacher educators of Color have experienced. Scholars (e.g., Durden & Truscott, 2013; Milner, 2006), to date, have recommended minimizing such harm by engaging teacher candidates in critical reflection that pushes teacher candidates to think critically about how their practices may affect others. However, the findings from this dissertation suggest that such reflection may not be enough. Teacher educators should also consider providing explicit scaffolds to foster teacher candidate development as it relates to racial equity in teacher practice.
Leveraging intrinsic motivation: Minimizing resistance from teacher candidates
Prior literature overwhelmingly focuses on the resistance of teacher candidates to engaging in transformative activities (e.g., Buchanan, 2015; Buehler et al., 2009; Picower, 2009; Riley et al., 2019). Such resistance is rooted in whiteness (Picower, 2009) and functions to perpetuate white supremacy. Teacher candidates in this dissertation did express resistance, particularly in activities like the guest speaker in which a confrontational approach was taken. This was not surprising given Lensmire et al.'s (2013) critique of confrontational approaches to transformative activities. Teacher candidates displayed their resistance in this study through silence and negative emotions (e.g., discomfort, upset, frustration).
However, in addition to resistance, teacher candidates in this dissertation also expressed widespread interest in engaging in transformative activities. For example, teacher candidates, on nearly all occasions, rated their psychological needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness as generally met and their intrinsic motivation to engage in transformative activities at a high level in weekly diaries. Similarly, teacher candidates expressed a variety of positive emotions, including interest, enjoyment, excitement, and openness.
On some occasions, teacher candidates’ positive psychological experiences (e.g., interest) with transformative activities were simultaneously expressed with negative psychological experiences (e.g., resistance). This demonstrated the complexity of teacher candidates’ experiences of transformative activities but also signaled a potential opportunity for teacher educators to minimize resistance by leveraging teacher candidates’ interest in transformative activities. Prior researchers (e.g., Buehler et al., 2009; Pollock et al., 2016; Seidl & Hancock, 2011) have recommended normalizing teacher candidate resistance by talking about it openly in order to better prepare teacher candidates to learn about racial equity in teacher practice. Findings from this
study suggest that teacher educators should also consider exploring teacher candidates’ interests in transformative activities and leveraging those interests to minimize resistance and, ultimately, better support teacher candidates’ learning about racial equity in teacher practice.