Estella Williams Chizhik

Are You Privileged or Oppressed? Students' Conceptions of Themselves and Others.

Given the preponderance of research on students’ resistance to multicultural courses, the authors begin to ponder this resistance by exploring students’ preconceptions of social justice concepts. They present two mixed-methods studies to examine students’ preconceived notions regarding two terms associated with social justice education: privilege and oppression. In Study 1, the authors conducted a qualitative investigation of students’ self-definitions of whether they believe themselves to be privileged or oppressed. In Study 2, they take a quantitative look at students’ reactions to hypothetical character scenarios differentiated based on two variables: (a) privilege or oppression and (b) socially conscious aspirations. The findings indicate specific ways that Whites, especially White men, view privilege and oppression differently from people of color. Findings are discussed in terms of students’ resistance to multicultural education, with a focus on lack of intersubjectivity, sense of privilege, downplaying the existence of oppression, and lack of commitment to social activism.

A Path to Social Change Examining Students’Responsibility, Opportunity, and Emotion Toward Social Justice

College students from various institutions completed questionnaires regarding their beliefs about privileged and oppressed adults’responsibility for the onset and offset of social inequities, the emotions linked with privileged and oppressed adults’responsibility, and the behaviors that should result from the privileged and oppressed adults’ responsibility for social equity. A path analysis revealed two causal pathways. The first path starts with responsibility of the privileged for offset of societal inequities that leads through frustration of oppressed as well as pity of the privileged. The second path leads directly from the perception that privileged adults are responsible for the onset of societal inequities without the mediation of guilt of the privileged, as predicted by attribution theory. Results imply that inclusion of privileged adults’guilt within the social justice curriculum may contribute to students’ resistance to multicultural discourse while also being important for motivating students toward social change.

Developing student teachers’ teaching self-efficacy through Shared Mentoring in Learning Environments (SMILE)

Purpose The researchers developed a model of mentoring student teachers, known as Shared Mentoring in Learning Environments (SMILE), to provide opportunities for classroom teachers to build shared understanding with university field supervisors. The purpose of this paper is to compare teaching efficacy of those student teachers who matriculated through the SMILE approach with mentoring student teachers who matriculated through a traditional approach to mentoring and identifying aspects of SMILE that may have contributed to the development of teacher efficacy. Design/methodology/approach A total of 29 student teachers participated in the SMILE model of supporting student teaching, and 29 student teachers (comparison group) were provided with a traditional support structure. At the start and end of their one-year post-baccalaureate credential program, all student teachers completed a teaching efficacy questionnaire. During the last month of the teacher-credential program, all student teachers were interviewed in focus groups regarding the quality of their student-teaching mentoring. In addition, the researchers asked classroom teachers in the SMILE cohort to complete a questionnaire, identifying specific strengths and weaknesses of the SMILE model of mentoring student teachers. Findings Student teachers in the SMILE cohort improved their teaching efficacy in comparison with student teachers in a traditional model of support. SMILE student teachers appreciated critical feedback, while the comparison group participants focused on whether feedback was positive or negative. In addition, SMILE student teachers attributed their development of instructional skills to the mentoring process from classroom teachers and university supervisors, while comparison group participants attributed their development as teachers mainly to their classroom teachers who modeled effective instructional strategies. SMILE classroom teachers made reference to how particular aspects of the model (e.g. sequencing and lesson study) contributed to both student- and mentor-teacher development. Originality/value The SMILE approach to mentoring student teachers facilitated collaboration between university field supervisors and classroom teachers in joint mentoring of future teachers into their profession, a rare occurrence in teacher education programs. Joint mentoring led to improved teaching efficacy among student teachers.