Preservice Teachers’ Culturally Responsive Teaching Self-Efficacy-Forming Experiences: A Mixed Methods Study

ABSTRACT

The author used an explanatory mixed methods research design. The first phase involved the collection of quantitative data to examine the nature of preservice teachers’ (N = 192) culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy beliefs. Follow-up face-to-face interviews were carried out with a subsample selected from Phase 1 participants. These interviews were used to identify the types of culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy-forming experiences that preservice teachers encountered during their teacher education program and the perceived influence that these experiences had on the development of their self-efficacy beliefs. The face-to-face interviews uncovered disparities among preservice teachers regarding the aspects of culturally responsive teaching that were discussed, modeled, and practiced. The theoretical and practical implications of this study are discussed.

Keywords:

• culturally responsive teaching
• mixed methods research
• teacher education
• teacher self-efficacy

The often-cited data that highlight the disproportionate number of African American and Hispanic students who experience academic failure has prompted researchers from various disciplines to critically examine the educational process and potentially identify alternative approaches to teaching students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds (Gay, 2002; Ladson-Billings, 2000a). Delpit (1995), Gay (2000), Irvine (2003), and others have focused their attention on the cultural context of teaching and learning. Viewing the plight of African American and Hispanic students from this context has led researchers to conclude that instruction for these groups of students is not always culturally responsive or relevant.

In search for alternative approaches to instruction, scholars in the field began to study the practices of successful teachers of African American and Hispanic students (e.g., Foster, 1994; Ladson-Billings, 1994; Milner, 2006). A synthesis of research findings suggest that effective teachers of African American and Hispanic students were proficient in infusing their students’ culture throughout the teaching and learning process. Gay (2000) referred to these practices as culturally responsive teaching. Gay defined culturally responsive teaching as “using the cultural knowledge, prior experiences, frames of reference, and performance styles of ethnically diverse students to make learning encounters more relevant to and effective for them” (p. 29). Gay (2002), Ladson-Billings (1994), Irvine (1990), and others have called for the training and preparation of culturally responsive teachers. In response to this call, there have been a number of books and theme issues of journals dedicated to discussing culturally responsive pedagogy and preparing culturally responsive teachers (e.g., Gay, 2002; Villegas & Lucas, 2002).

Teacher education programs whose mission is to prepare teachers for diverse classrooms, often seek to assist prospective teachers in developing the knowledge and skills reflective of culturally responsive teachers. However, assisting prospective teachers develop the knowledge and skills associated with culturally responsive teaching, may not accurately predict their future classroom behavior. Using Bandura's (1997) social cognitive theory as a basis for his reasoning, Siwatu (2007) argued that teacher educators should also nurture prospective teachers’ culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy (CRTSE) beliefs. CRTSE is an individual's belief in his or her capabilities to execute the practices associated with culturally responsive teaching (Siwatu, 2007).

Because efforts to prepare culturally responsive teachers are fairly recent, there is the unfortunate possibility that prospective teachers may graduate without being exposed to the practices of culturally responsive teaching during their coursework and field experiences. This lack of exposure may influence the development of their self-efficacy beliefs. With this possibility in mind, the purpose of this study was threefold. First, this study was designed with the intent of deepening the field's understanding of the nature of preservice teachers’ CRTSE beliefs. Second, this study was designed to identify the types of culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy-forming experiences that preservice teachers encountered during their teacher education program. The final purpose of this study was to examine preservice teachers’ beliefs regarding the influence that these self-efficacy-forming experiences had on the development of their CRTSE beliefs.

Preservice and inservice teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs are commonly examined through the theoretical lens of Bandura's (1977) social cognitive theory (Labone, 2004; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Within this theoretical perspective, Bandura acknowledged the role that cognitive factors play in the regulation of an individual's behavior. In particular, Bandura (1997) described two types of expectancy beliefs that have the potential to influence behavior—self-efficacy and outcome expectations. These two expectancy beliefs are often grouped under the umbrella term teacher efficacy despite the research suggesting that self-efficacy and outcome expectancy beliefs are related but indeed different (Bandura, 1997). Bandura's (1997) line of research suggests that although self-efficacy and outcome expectancy beliefs influence motivation, self-efficacy beliefs are a stronger predictor of an individual's behavior. Given the predictive nature of self-efficacy beliefs, it is the focus of this review of literature and consequently the present study.

Bandura (1997) defined self-efficacy as “beliefs in one's capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (p. 3). In the context of teaching, teacher self-efficacy was defined as “a teacher's belief in her or his ability to organize and execute the courses of action required to successfully accomplish a specific teaching task in a particular context” (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy, 1998, p. 117).

Although the context in which self-efficacy beliefs are applied may differ, how these beliefs are formed are relatively the same. The formation of self-efficacy beliefs is influenced by four sources of information: mastery experience, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and psychological and emotional states (Bandura, 1977). In the present study, attention is given to the nature of preservice teachers’ mastery and vicarious experiences. According to Bandura (1977), mastery experiences are the most influential source in the development of self-efficacy. These experiences provide an individual with concrete evidence of his or her ability to execute the specified task successfully. When Bandura's self-efficacy construct is applied to teachers and teaching tasks, Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998) believed that actual teaching experience is the most influential activity that shapes an individual's confidence in his or her abilities. Through these enriching teaching experiences, student and inservice teachers acquire information about their capabilities and the consequences of their efforts (Lee, 2002).

Bandura (1977) believed that when an individual observes a model (i.e., vicarious experiences) successfully execute a task, this observation may influence an individual's beliefs in his or her own abilities. The success (or failure) of others may be interpreted as an indication that he or she too can (or cannot) execute the task successfully (Bandura, 1977; Schunk, 1998). Vicarious experiences are effective especially if an individual does not have any prior experiences on which to make an accurate assessment of his or her capabilities. In teacher education, preservice teachers formulate ideas about their abilities from professional literature, field experiences, and classroom observations (Lee, 2002).

Although CRTSE beliefs are a newly explored aspect of teacher self-efficacy research, a sufficient amount of research exists that suggests preservice and inservice teachers’ beliefs about their capabilities to teach should not be overlooked (Ross, 1998). This study was designed to answer the following questions: What is the nature of preservice teachers’ CRTSE beliefs? What types of culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy-forming experiences have preservice teachers encountered during their teacher education program? How do preservice teachers describe the influence that these self-efficacy-forming experiences had on the development of their CRTSE beliefs?

Method

Research Design

In the present study I used an explanatory mixed methods research design (Creswell, 2003; Iyankova, Creswell, & Stick, 2006). In the first phase, quantitative data were collected to examine the nature of preservice teachers’ CRTSE beliefs. The descriptive data furnished in this phase of the study were used to guide the purposeful sampling of participants for Phase 2 of the study. In the second phase, face-to-face interviews were conducted to identify the types of culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy-forming experiences that preservice teachers encountered during their teacher education program and the perceived influence that these experiences had on the development of their CRTSE beliefs. In this study the qualitative data collection and analysis were given priority.

Data Collection

The researcher utilized a sequential mixed methods sampling technique (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009), which included convenience sampling and purposeful sampling. In the first phase of the study, quantitative data were drawn from a population of preservice teachers enrolled in a teacher education program in the Midwest. As shown in Table 1, participants in this study (N = 192), consisted of female and male preservice teachers. One hundred and eighty-three preservice teachers indicated that they were Caucasian, and nine were not (e.g., Hispanic, Asian, African American). The sample of preservice teachers had a mean age of 20.23 years (SD = 1.65 years). Forty-five percent of the sample participants were in year 3 of their undergraduate program and within one semester of student teaching. The sample consisted of preservice teachers majoring in elementary, middle level, and secondary education.

TABLE 1 Summary of Academic and Demographic Background Data

Variable	Phase 1 participants (n = 192)
Gender
Female	140
Male	52
Race–Ethnicity
Caucasian	183
Asian	4
African American	1
Hispanic	1
Other	3
M age (in years)	20.33
Academic classification
Freshman	42
Sophomore	63
Junior	63
Senior	24
Major
Elementary education	104
Middle-level education	10
Secondary education	78

TABLE 2 Culturally Responsive Teaching Self-Efficacy (CRTSE) Beliefs Among Phase 2 Participants (n = 8)

	High self-efficacy beliefs					Low self-efficacy beliefs
Variable	Mary	Kari	Aly	Stephanie	Group average	Adam	Ann	April	John	Group average
CRTSE total score	3687	3623	3695	3640	3661	3104	2925	3090	2575	2923
CRTSE strength index	92.18	90.58	92.38	91.00	91.53	77.60	73.13	77.25	64.38	73.09

Data collection in the first phase was designed to gather quantitative data that would assist me in identifying participants for the second phase of the study. After granting their consent, participants were asked whether they would be interested in participating in a face-to-face interview. Approximately 48% (n = 93) of the participants indicated a willingness to be interviewed.

Next, participants were given a questionnaire packet. Included in the packet was the CRTSE scale (Siwatu, 2007). The CRTSE scale was designed to elicit information from preservice teachers regarding their self-efficacy to execute specific culturally responsive teaching tasks. The Likert-type scale consists of 40 items in which participants are asked to rate how confident they are in their ability to engage in specific culturally responsive teaching practices (e.g., I am able to identify the diverse needs of my students) by indicating a degree of confidence ranging from 0 (no confidence at all) to 100 (completely confident). Participants’ responses to each of the 40 items were summed to generate a total score. Total scores may range from 0 to 4000. Participants with higher scores on the CRTSE scale were more confident in their ability compared to those with lower scores. In addition to a total score, responses to each item were summed and divided by the total number of items to generate a CRTSE strength index. This index, which may range from 0 (low self-efficacy beliefs) to 100 (high self-efficacy beliefs), is a quantitative indicator of the strength of each preservice teacher's CRTSE beliefs. Internal reliability for the administration of the 40-item measure was .96.

I conducted a descriptive analysis of the self-efficacy data to identify preservice teachers with high and low CRTSE beliefs. The self-efficacy data were used to select eight preservice teachers to participate in the second phase of the study. The eight participants who were selected were among the 93 preservice teachers who previously indicated their interest in participating in the second phase of the study. The goal of the purposeful sampling technique was to achieve diverse views among preservice teachers, therefore four preservice teachers from each side of the distribution of self-efficacy scores were selected to participate in the face-to-face interviews.

A median split method was used to identify participants whose self-efficacy scores were on the high or low end of the distribution of scores. The high self-efficacy group consisted of preservice teachers whose CRTSE total scores ranged from 3370 to 3961 (out of 4000) and self-efficacy strength indexes ranged from 84 to 99 (out of 100). The second group of preservice teachers had self-efficacy scores that comparatively speaking were lower than participants in the first group. For this reason, I referred to the second group as the low self-efficacy group. Preservice teachers in this group had CRTSE total scores that ranged from 2270 to 3369 and self-efficacy strength indexes that ranged from 56 to 88. Table 2 presents a quantitative description of Phase 2 participants’ self-efficacy beliefs.

The sample of preservice teachers in the second phase consisted of six women and two men. The ages of the participants ranged from 20 to 23 years. Six of the participants were juniors, and two were seniors. To assist in the presentation of the qualitative findings, fictitious names were used to refer to the participants.

Data collection in Phase 2 was designed to gather information to answer the second and third research questions guiding this study. The face-to-face interviews were semistructured and guided by nine open-ended questions. The questions were designed to elicit information from preservice teachers about their coursework, practicum experiences, and perceptions of their professor's qualifications and experiences.

Interviews were conducted by the researcher who was familiar with culturally responsive pedagogy and Bandura's (1977) social cognitive and self-efficacy theory. Participants were interviewed in a one-on-one meeting that was held in a small conference room. Each participant was assured full confidentiality. The tape-recorded interviews ranged from 30 to 55 min. Participants’ responses were typed verbatim and identified only by an identification number.

Data Analysis

In Phase 1, quantitative data were analyzed in the form of descriptive statistics (e.g., item-specific means). In Phase 2, data were analyzed using an a priori thematic analysis method. The a priori themes reflected the variables that have been identified in the research literature as factors that influence the development of self-efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1997). These themes included knowledge and skill development and mastery and vicarious experiences.

I began reading the interview transcripts once the a priori themes were identified and defined. I highlighted segments of the data if they appeared to have some relevance to the research question. When these segments appeared to fit one of the a priori themes, the data were coded as such. I reread the transcripts several times to identify any new themes that would potentially provide additional insight into the types of experiences preservice teachers encountered during their teacher education program. To double check the accuracy and reliability of the coding, a coding consistency check was conducted. An independent coder was given the objectives of the qualitative phase of the study and the a priori themes and descriptions of these themes. Next, the independent coder was given the raw text and asked to assign sections of the text to the themes.

Results

This study involved the collection and analysis of quantitative and qualitative data that assisted the researcher in answering the three research questions underlying this study. In this section, I summarize the quantitative and qualitative findings.

Culturally Responsive Teaching Self-Efficacy Beliefs

Preservice teachers’ total scores on the CRTSE scale ranged from 2270 to 3961, with a mean of 3347.75 (SD = 346.63). The sample of preservice teachers’ self-efficacy strength indexes ranged from 56.75 to 99.03 with a mean of 83.69 (SD = 8.06). To identify the specific tasks in which participants felt more or less confident in their ability to execute, item-specific means were divided into quartiles. The upper quartile included items with means that ranged from 88.36 to 92.78 and reflected those aspects of culturally responsive teaching that preservice teachers were most efficacious in accomplishing. In the lower quartile, item-specific means ranged from 69.17 to 80.63. Items falling within this range are those tasks in which participants felt less self-efficacious. Table 3 lists the self-efficacy items that fell in the upper and lower quartiles. A closer examination of Table 3 shows that items in the upper quartile relate more to general teaching practices (e.g., “help students feel like important members of the classroom”), whereas those in the lower quartile were much more specific to culturally responsive teaching (e.g., “implement strategies to minimize the effects of the mismatch between my students’ home culture and the school culture”).

TABLE 3 Preservice Teachers’ Culturally Responsive Teaching Self-Efficacy Beliefs

Preservice teachers were most efficacious in their ability to execute the following tasks:

• help students feel like important members of the classroom

• develop a personal relationship with students

• build a sense of trust in students

• use a variety of teaching methods

• use the interests of students to make learning meaningful for them

• implement cooperative learning activities for those students who like to work in groups

• structure parent–teacher conferences so that the meeting is not intimidating for parents

• obtain information about students’ academic weaknesses

• help students develop positive relationships with their classmates

Preservice teachers were less efficacious in their ability to execute the following tasks:

• identify ways in which students communicate at home that differ from the school norms

• identify ways that the school culture (e.g., values, norms, practices) is different from my students’ home culture

• obtain information about students’ home life

• identify ways that standardized tests may be biased toward linguistically diverse students

• communicate with the parents of English language learners regarding their child's achievement

• implement strategies to minimize the effects of the mismatch between my students’ home culture and the school culture

• praise English language learners for their accomplishments using a phrase in their native language

• greet English language learners with a phrase in their native language

TABLE 4 The Average Number of Practices of Culturally Responsive Teaching That Were Discussed, Observed, and Practiced Among Preservice Teachers (n = 8)

	High self-efficacy beliefs					Low self-efficacy beliefs
Variable	Mary	Kari	Aly	Stephanie	Group average	Adam	Ann	April	John	Group average
Number of CRTSE practices discussed	40	39	28	20	31.75	24	36	27	26	28.25
Number of CRTSE practices observed	20	13	31	16	20.00	13	8	17	15	13.25
Number of CRTSE practices practiced	30	12	30	33	26.00	11	6	8	7	8.00
Note. CRTSE = culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy.

The findings from the quantitative phase of this study provided a glimpse into the nature of preservice teachers’ CRTSE beliefs. The quantitative data were also used to select preservice teachers’ to participate in the face-to-face interviews. The findings from the qualitative phase of the study are presented next.

Preservice Teachers’ CRTSE-Forming Experiences

The following section describes the types of culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy-forming experiences that preservice teachers encountered during their teacher education program and its perceived influence on the development of their CRTSE beliefs.

Developing the knowledge of culturally responsive teaching

According to Bandura (1997), “perceived self-efficacy is concerned not with the number of skills you have, but with what you believe you can do with what you have under a variety of circumstances” (p. 37). In light of this proposition, I believed that the first step in examining the factors that may influence preservice teachers’ CRTSE beliefs should be an examination of their opportunity to develop the knowledge of culturally responsive teaching. To examine these opportunities, I gave each participant a photocopy of their responses to the 40-item CRTSE scale. The participants were asked to indicate which of the items outlined in the scale were discussed in their teacher education courses. As shown in Table 4, on average, preservice teachers with higher self-efficacy beliefs had the most exposure to the theory and practice of culturally responsive teaching compared to those with lower self-efficacy beliefs. On further examination, many of the skills included in the CRTSE scale that were related to working with English language learners (ELL) were reportedly not discussed in preservice teachers’ courses.

In addition to indicating which items on the scale were discussed in their classes, participants were asked to specify the names of the courses that did address these issues. It quickly became evident that only a select few of their required courses involved discussion of the skills outlined in the CRTSE scale. Noticeably missing from this list were preservice teachers’ methods courses (e.g., teaching mathematics in the elementary school). This absence is especially noteworthy, given that these courses would be ideal for assisting preservice teachers develop the knowledge and skills needed to teach academic subjects in culturally responsive ways.

Several preservice teachers acknowledged that they were given the opportunity to learn about culturally responsive teaching and the related skills associated with a culturally responsive pedagogy. Many of the interviewees acknowledged the limited impact opportunities to develop the knowledge of culturally responsive teaching had on their CRTSE appraisals. When asked why, most preservice teachers mentioned that opportunities to develop the knowledge of culturally responsive teaching were often limited to classroom discussions. These discussions, according to the participants, were limited to facts about culturally responsive teaching and cultural and linguistic diversity (i.e., declarative knowledge) as opposed to procedural and conditional knowledge related to becoming a culturally responsive teacher. Students were seemingly aware that a discussion of culturally responsive teaching without an emphasis on procedural and conditional knowledge would result in information that would not be useful once they entered the classroom. One student summarized this sentiment perfectly. Stephanie commented, “I think the education [to be a culturally responsive teacher] that I have received is largely discussion based and theory based and does not include an outline of procedural steps that need to be taken.” Stephanie's comments highlight the importance of showing students how to be culturally responsive teachers, not just telling them what is culturally responsive teaching.

Observing the practice of culturally responsive teaching

A basic assumption underlying social cognitive theory suggests that much of human learning occurs vicariously. Not only does observing a model provide the learner with information about the task, it can also influence the formation of self-efficacy beliefs. Stemming from this possibility I queried the interviewees about their opportunities to observe the practices of culturally responsive teaching and how these opportunities (or lack thereof) may have influenced their self-efficacy beliefs.

During their interviews, participants were asked to indicate which tasks included in the CRTSE scale they observed being executed by a model. As Table 4 indicates, there was a noticeable decline in the number of tasks that were observed compared with those that were discussed. In addition to the decline in the number of observations, there were noticeable differences in the number of skills modeled for the two groups of preservice teachers.

Most of the preservice teachers reported opportunities to observe several of the practices of culturally responsive teaching during their practicum. Mary, for example, described multiple opportunities to observe inservice teachers exhibiting care toward students. In addition to the demonstration of care, Mary observed her cooperating teacher model strategies to communicate with families. Mary admired the fact that her cooperating teacher would communicate with students’ parents when there was good news in addition to when there was bad news. According to Mary, these opportunities to observe models assisted in the formation of her self-efficacy beliefs.

Similar to Mary, Aly's opportunities to observe inservice teachers were viewed as valuable learning opportunities. During the interview, Aly shared a story about her opportunity to observe a teacher model ways to integrate students’ native language into the teaching and learning process. Prior to this experience, Aly was not sure where she stood on the issue of allowing students to use their native language in the classroom. This opportunity to observe this teacher not only provided information about how to successfully capitalize on students’ native language, but according to Aly, it increased her self-efficacy to engage in this culturally affirming activity.

Mary and Aly commented on the influence that opportunities to observe the practices of culturally responsive teaching had on their self-efficacy beliefs. Their interview transcripts did not reveal any information about why Mary and Aly thought these experiences had a positive impact on their self-efficacy; however, a comment made by Kari assisted in understanding the relationship between the two variables. When asked to discuss why her opportunities to observe culturally responsive teaching in practice influenced her self-efficacy, Kari replied:

Those teachers using these strategies in their classroom, which in turn, helps us learn how to use them and understand how to use them and how they work and how they are effective … because you see the teacher implement those strategies and be successful at them and so that gives you confidence to try them and to adapt them to fit your needs in the classroom that you will be working in.

Executing the practices of culturally responsive teaching

Bandura (1997) believed that mastery experiences were the most influential factor in the development of an individual's self-efficacy. With this assertion in mind, the researcher also asked participants to indicate which items on the CRTSE scale they had an opportunity to practice and where (see Table 4). The greatest disparity between preservice teachers in the high and low self-efficacy groups were seen in the number of tasks that they reportedly had opportunities to practice. Preservice teachers with higher self-efficacy beliefs indicated that they practiced more of the tasks outlined in the self-efficacy scale.

After indicating which skills they had the opportunity to practice, participants were asked to specify where they were able to practice these skills. Preservice teachers reported that most of their opportunities to practice the skills outlined in the CRTSE scale occurred during practica and in after-school programs, summer camps, and mentoring programs. But what about opportunities to practice in the college classroom? A poignant comment was made by one participant as she acknowledged that there were several missed opportunities to practice a variety of these skills in her courses. Reflecting on her teacher education experiences, Kari said:

As I was going back and doing this, I was thinking, “oh well, yeah we talked about that, but it would have been really neat like to critically examine a standardized test to see … how it could be more challenging to students from other backgrounds.” I said, “Well that's something that seems practical and can be done in class and could be very useful.” So, as I was going through this [the items in the CRTSE scale] there was several things like that where I was “yeah, we have discussed that but would it have been cool and would it have been really meaningful if we could have done that [practice it] rather than just discussed it.”

Kari's comments serve as a reminder that practice does not have to be restricted to out-of-class experiences. For example, in one of Ann's classes, the professor discussed a variety of techniques that could be used to obtain information about students’ cultural background and home life. Following this discussion, the professor assigned a project related to this topic. The purpose of the assignment was to allow preservice teachers an opportunity to produce a tangible resource that they could use in an attempt to get to know their students. The assignment was to produce (a) a student profile and interest survey, (b) a parent letter, and (c) a parent survey. The surveys were to be designed in a manner that would allow the preservice teacher to obtain information about their students’ interests, academic strengths and weakness, learning preferences, students’ family, and cultural background. Ann was intrinsically motivated to do this assignment because she believed that it would produce something tangible that she could use. She believed that this project increased her self-efficacy beliefs for obtaining information about her students and their home life.

Regardless of where preservice teachers practiced these culturally responsive teaching skills, most believed that these experiences were valuable in the development of their CRTSE beliefs. The discussion with Stephanie revealed that these opportunities were not only helpful in the formation of her CRTSE beliefs, but also valuable experiences that prompted conceptual change. As Stephanie recalled, prior to this one particular practicum experience, she believed that the “ELL room was kind of like a SPED [special education class]” for Hispanic students. With this misconception, Stephanie believed that her self-efficacy for working with Hispanic students in the context of the ELL room would be rather low. When asked why, Stephanie said that her self-efficacy beliefs would be influenced in part by her misconception of ELLs and the ELL room. However, during a semester of working with ELLs as a part of her practicum experience, Stephanie realized that her previous conceptions of the ELL room were incorrect. To her surprise, the ELLs were eager and quick to learn, and easy to interact with, compared with many of these students in mainstream classrooms. The practicum appeared to have prompted Stephanie to experience conceptual change, while also increasing her CRTSE beliefs in general, but in particular, her self-efficacy to work with ELLs.

Aly's discussion of the influence that practicum experiences had on her CRTSE beliefs was also quite telling. Aly was quick to point out that her self-efficacy to execute the practices of culturally responsive teaching increased but only within the context of teaching in a classroom comprising only Caucasian students. Knowing that this student reported completing two practica requirements in two very different schools, the researcher probed the student's response. Aly clarified her initial response to the question regarding the influence that practicum experiences had on her self-efficacy beliefs. According to Aly, the practicum experience that was most helpful in developing her CRTSE beliefs was situated in a school and classroom that was not culturally or linguistically diverse. Therefore, in Aly's case, she would be more confident engaging in the practices of culturally responsive teaching in the context of teaching Caucasian students. Aly's comments are a reminder that self-efficacy beliefs are context-specific.

The findings from the qualitative phase of this study uncovered disparities among preservice teachers regarding the aspects of culturally responsive teaching that were discussed, modeled, and practiced. In the following section, I discuss the quantitative and qualitative findings, along with the theoretical and practical implications.

Discussion

The findings of this study were two-pronged: the quantitative phase that revealed the nature of preservice teachers’ CRTSE beliefs and the qualitative phase that identified the types of culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy-forming experiences that preservice teachers encountered during their teacher education program and the perceived influence that these experiences had on the development of their CRTSE beliefs. These findings have implications for the preparation of teachers who are both competent and confident in their abilities to execute the practice of culturally responsive teaching.

The data collected in Phase 1 was used to answer the following research question: What is the nature of preservice teachers’ CRTSE beliefs? The instrument that was used to answer this question was purposefully designed to contain a variety of items that vary in their level of difficulty. According to XXXX (2007), easier items on the self-efficacy scale relate to general teaching practices, whereas the more difficult items reflect tasks specific to culturally sensitive and responsive teaching practices. Varying the level of difficulty among items was helpful in shedding light on the types of tasks that individuals in this study were confident in their ability to execute. The descriptive data used to answer the first research question revealed that preservice teachers were more confident in their ability to execute many of the more general teaching practices that may not require the integration of students’ cultural and linguistic background (e.g., “build a sense of trust in my students”). On the other hand, preservice teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs were lower for successfully completing tasks that were specific to culturally responsive teaching (e.g., “identify ways that the school culture is different from my students’ home culture”).

One explanation for this finding should include a discussion of preservice teachers’ mastery and vicarious experiences. According to Bandura (1997) mastery and vicarious experiences are powerful sources of self-efficacy information. For most preservice teachers, opportunities to practice or observe culturally responsive teaching would ideally occur during their field experiences situated in culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms. Unfortunately, a closer look into the nature of preservice teachers’ field experiences reveals that these experiences often take place in schools not reflective of the cultural and linguistic diversity that the often-cited student demographic data highlight (Ladson-Billings, 2000b). Therefore, preservice teachers in this study may not have had opportunities to practice or observe many of the more difficult aspects of culturally responsive teaching. This possibility in turn may influence the development of preservice teachers’ CRTSE beliefs.

The interviews conducted in the second phase of this study were designed to answer the following research questions: What types of culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy-forming experiences have preservice teachers encountered during their teacher education program? and How do preservice teachers describe the influence that these self-efficacy-forming experiences had on the development of their CRTSE beliefs? The interviews with the eight preservice teachers resulted in a candid discussion that was helpful in understanding the quantitative results. For example, the interviews uncovered reasons why preservice teachers in this study were less self-efficacious in their abilities to work and communicate with ELLs. The interviews also revealed that the degree of exposure to the practices associated with culturally responsive teaching varied among preservice teachers. In addition, several interviewees believed that their exposure to the practices associated with culturally responsive teaching influenced the formation of their self-efficacy beliefs. The major findings of the qualitative phase of this study are discussed subsequently.

Disparities in the Exposure to the Practices Associated with Culturally Responsive Teaching

The face-to-face interviews uncovered disparities among preservice teachers’ exposure to the practices associated with culturally responsive teaching. On average, preservice teachers with higher self-efficacy beliefs reported that more of the tasks outlined in the self-efficacy scale were discussed in their teacher education courses. In addition to this disparity, preservice teachers revealed that only a select few of their courses exposed them to the theory and practices undergirding culturally responsive teaching and those courses were generally not their methods courses. For teacher educators who understand the need for developing culturally responsive teachers this finding is indeed disappointing. Having only a few courses—and none of them methods courses—address issues of culture and teaching is not sufficient in nurturing the development of culturally responsive teachers.

Perhaps the most telling disparity was found in the number of skills and tasks that were outlined in the self-efficacy scale that preservice teachers had the opportunity to practice and execute. Compared to those with lower self-efficacy beliefs, preservice teachers with higher self-efficacy beliefs reported practicing more of the skills and tasks outlined in the CRTSE scale. Although no causal relationship can be established using the existing data, this finding appears to be consistent with Bandura's (1977) assertions regarding mastery experiences as the most powerful and influential source of self-efficacy information.

Developing the Knowledge of Culturally Responsive Teaching

Becoming an effective culturally responsive teacher requires both the acquisition of related knowledge and skills, and the self-efficacy beliefs to put these skills to use. Undeniably, coursework plays a major role in the development of preservice teachers’ knowledge of culturally responsive teaching. Preservice teachers acknowledged that many of the culturally specific instructional practices outlined in the CRTSE scale were not discussed in their courses. For example, many of the skills outlined in the self-efficacy scale that were related to working with ELLs were reportedly not discussed in preservice teachers’ courses. This may partly explain why preservice teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs were lower for successfully completing tasks that were specific to culturally responsive teaching.

Preservice teachers in this study were also critical of their opportunities to develop the knowledge of culturally responsive teaching. They believed that these opportunities did not allow them to develop in-depth knowledge of culturally responsive teaching such as relevant procedural and conditional knowledge. Preservice teachers in this study are similar to novice teachers across the country who report that their teacher education program did not prepare them for the specific tasks associated with everyday teaching. These novice teachers contend that their teacher education program placed a heavy emphasis on theory and not enough on the practical skills associated with teaching (Liston, Whitcomb, & Borko, 2006).

The prospective teachers in Phase 2 of this study seemed to recognize that if they were to become culturally responsive teachers, they needed to learn more about how to perform the various practices associated with culturally responsive teaching and when and why to employ relevant declarative and procedural knowledge. Developing procedural and conditional knowledge often requires enactive and vicarious learning opportunities. Unfortunately, the qualitative phase of the study revealed that there were several missed opportunities in preservice teachers’ courses to engage in or observe the practices associated with culturally responsive teaching. As one interviewee pointed out, her professors have allowed several opportunities to practice the skills outlined in the CRTSE scale slip by. Mastery and vicarious learning opportunities are instrumental in helping individuals develop procedural and conditional knowledge; however, these experiences also assist in the formation of self-efficacy beliefs. Most of the preservice teachers sampled in Phase 2 believed that mastery and vicarious experiences were influential in the development of their CRTSE beliefs.

Limitations of the Study

The findings of the study are important given the probability that tomorrow's teachers may teach students from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds (Gallego, 2001; Taylor & Sobel, 2001; Torok & Aguilar, 2000). However, several limitations in both phases of the study should be considered in the interpretation and generalization of these findings. First, this study was nonexperimental and therefore no causal conclusions can be drawn. Second, the data collected from this study for the most part reflect the CRTSE beliefs of Caucasian preservice teachers in the Midwest. Therefore, these findings may not generalize well to other areas and regions within the United States. Third, participants in the second phase of the study were taken from a pool of preservice teachers who were willing to be interviewed. Consequently, it is unknown whether the qualitative findings would be different if those who did not want to be interviewed (n = 109) participated in the second phase of the study. Fourth, I might have overlooked the data that did not fit the a priori themes. In light of this possibility, I attempted to identify new themes that did not fit the a priori themes. Nevertheless, the use of this method of data analysis should be considered a limitation, despite its noted benefits. These limitations should be considered in the interpretation of both the quantitative results and qualitative findings.

Implications for Teacher Education

I intend that the findings from this study be used to encourage teacher educators to undertake the necessary steps to enhance the preparation of teachers who are competent and confident in their abilities to execute the practice of culturally responsive teaching. In light of the findings of this study, teacher educators and administrators may wish to consider the following implications.

Implication 1: Incorporate self-efficacy-building activities in the preparation of culturally responsive teachers

In this study, preservice teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs were higher for successfully executing general teaching practices associated with culturally responsive teaching that may not require the integration of students’ cultural and linguistic background. On the other hand, preservice teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs were lower for successfully completing tasks that were specific to culturally responsive teaching. In light of the growing research documenting the influential nature of self-efficacy beliefs (e.g., Bandura, 1997; Pajares, 1996; Ross, 1998) teacher educators should attempt to foster the development of teachers who are competent and confident in their ability to execute the practices associated with culturally responsive teaching. Therefore, teacher preparation should include a variety of self-efficacy-building activities (see Siwatu, 2009). These activities may include supplementing lecture with demonstrations, video case studies, role-playing, field experiences, and simulations. Strategically planned and structured, these self-efficacy-building activities are designed to provide preservice and inservice teachers with opportunities to develop competence and confidence.

Implication 2: Comprehensive faculty development

The previous implication speaks to the importance of providing prospective teachers with opportunities to develop confidence in their abilities to execute the practice of culturally responsive teaching. Structuring these types of experiences requires teacher educators to know what culturally responsive teaching is and the types of experiences that assist in the development of prospective teachers’ CRTSE beliefs. Because it is conceivable that many teacher educators may not have in-depth knowledge of culturally responsive teaching and the construct of self-efficacy, there may be a need for comprehensive faculty development. Costa, McPhail, Smith, and Brisk (2005) recently reported the effectiveness of this type of faculty education. Borrowing from Costa et al., the purpose of this faculty development would be threefold: to (a) assist teacher education faculty in recognizing that culturally responsive teaching is a topic that should be included throughout the curriculum, (b) devise ways to infuse the teacher education curriculum with the scholarship of culturally responsive teaching, and (c) identify the types of activities and experiences that assist in the development of preservice teachers’ CRTSE beliefs. Accomplishing these purposes requires teacher education faculty be exposed to the scholarship of culturally responsive teaching (e.g., readings, guest speakers) and teacher self-efficacy research. In addition, faculty should learn how culturally responsive teaching is relevant in all teacher education courses and the methods used to integrate this pedagogical knowledge into course content.

Conclusion

In a recent interview with Shaughnessy (2004), Woolfolk Hoy acknowledged the need for educational researchers to begin combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies to further the field's understanding of issues related to teachers’ self-efficacy (e.g., developmental trends, consequences, antecedents). In response to this call, I conducted an explanatory mixed methods study in which priority was given to qualitative data collection and analysis. The face-to-face interviews assisted me in identifying the types of self-efficacy-forming that preservice teachers encountered during their teacher education program and the perceived influence that these experiences had on the development of their CRTSE beliefs. The findings are consistent with Bandura's (1977, 1997) theorizing about the nature of self-efficacy and the factors that may influence the formation of self-efficacy beliefs. I hope that the findings from this study are used to encourage teacher educators to undertake the necessary steps to enhance the preparation of teachers who are competent and confident in their abilities to execute the practice of culturally responsive teaching.

AUTHOR NOTE

Kamau Oginga Siwatu is an Associate Professor of Educational Psychology in the Department of Educational Psychology and Leadership at Texas Tech University. His research interests focus on preservice teachers’ culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy beliefs and the factors that influence the formation of self-efficacy beliefs, and examining the role of educational psychology in preparing culturally responsive teachers.