Comparative Education, Teacher Training and New ...

Comparative Education, Teacher Training, Education Policy, Social Inclusion, History of Education. 2011

Part 2 Pre-Service and In-Service Teacher Training BRUNO LEUTWYLER & DANIJELA PETROVIû

NORMALITY REFLECTION SCALE: VERIFICATION OF CROSS-CULTURAL AND CONCURRENT VALIDITY Introduction

In modern societies, globalisation, individualisation, and pluralisation of values and cultural norms are self-evident. Against this background, the omnipresent migration is no longer conceived as a linear, one-dimensional process of emigration, immigration and integration, but rather as a circumstance that produces new cultural and social constellations (Sieber, 2007). Accordingly, the current educational discourse states “diversity” as a crucial concept and claims an appropriate consideration of differences regarding culture, gender, and aptitudes. In view of this, concepts dealing with diversity in education have become increasingly popular. When teacher education institutions aim at preparing future teachers for dealing effectively in culturally diverse settings, they can draw on existing lists of relevant abilities and skills (Swiss Conference of Cantonal Ministers of Education, 2000). These lists are so extensive, however, that it is hardly possible to cover all aspects within teacher education. But there is one pivotal learning field that may be identified as the fundamental issue concerning different abilities and skills in the field of intercultural education: dealing with different normalities. Schools in pluralised societies include students with diverse cultural backgrounds who cultivate different social values and norms: They include students with different notions of what is “normal”, i.e. with different notions of normality. In this respect, teachers are facing different normalities in their everyday work. If recognition and appreciation of diversity is conceived as a crucial norm in pluralised societies, it is indispensable to learn to deal with different normalities, to identify one’s own notion of normality, and to understand how a specific society, a specific educational system, a specific school, and specific schooling practices are shaped by a very specific notion of normality (Sieber, 2007). With this in mind, teacher education in pluralistic societies is challenged to prepare teachers to experience differences as essential and to reflect on how a more or less narrow notion of normality defines existing schooling practices and hinders minority students from succeeding in a given educational system. Such an approach would be in harsh contrast to a teacher education that cultivates and enforces a specific notion of normality regarding culture, ethnicity, nationality, language, achievement, gender, social status, or age (ibid.).

49

%UXQR/HXWZ\OHU 'DQLMHOD3HWURYLü

However, reflecting on dominant conceptions of normality is a difficult task. It implies to question and to reveal one’s own experiences, routines and thinking practices. Mere lecturing and dealing with textbooks won’t be enough. Rather, suitable opportunities for this difficult task could consist in reflective –and well advised and supported– practices in multicultural settings, such as teaching practices in migrants’ countries of origin, a continuous coaching and assistance of a recently immigrated child, assignments in educational projects of the development cooperation, or participation in research on educational issues of migration (Sieber, 2007). These kinds of reflective practices in multicultural settings may stimulate student teachers to detect their own conceptions of normality and to get aware of how a specific sense of normality forms a specific schooling practice: They may learn about the social construction of schooling and teaching (Leutwyler, 2009). It must be clarified, nevertheless, that respective learning processes are difficult to instruct, to guide and to support. They involve affective, behavioural, cognitive, emotional, and reflective domains and must therefore be considered to be highly complex. Nevertheless, specific development tasks may be identified within these complex learning processes. Acquiring the fundamental competency to reflect one’s own normality implies to master four particular steps that can be empirically distinguished (for a detailed description see Leutwyler, Steinger & Sieber, 2009): x Stage 0 – culture-blind reflection: Cultural implications in schooling and teaching are not perceived or processed; or they are limited to global factors such as religion and language. There is no awareness that one’s own perceptions are influenced by one’s own conceptions of normality. One’s own patterns of interpretation are perceived as universally valid. x Stage 1 – culture-bound reflection: Cultural implications in schooling and teaching are perceived; but they are processed within the framework of one’s own cultural schemes. Dealing with differences is bound to one’s own values and beliefs. One’s own patterns of interpretation are still perceived as universally valid. There is hardly any awareness that schooling and teaching are culturally imbued. x Stage 2 – culture-relative reflection: Cultural implications in schooling and teaching are perceived and processed in a context-sensitive way. It is recognised that different ways of schooling and teaching are expressions of different cultural practices and realities. Awareness rises that one’s own conception of normality is culturally imbued and cannot claim universal validity. However, the awareness of how culture and context matter is still undifferentiated. x Stage 3 – culture-dynamic reflection: A differentiated and elaborated reflection of cultural implications in schooling and teaching is reached. Different ways of schooling and teaching are recognised as specific expressions of different cultural practices and realities; furthermore, reasons are explored why schooling and teaching are differently established in different contexts. A deepened awareness is reached that one’s own conceptions of normality are culturally imbued; and it may be explained how culture and context influence one’s own perceptions and beliefs: An elaborated reflection of different normalities is gained.

50

Normality Reflection Scale: Verification of cross-cultural and concurrent validity

If teacher education aims at preparing teachers to deal appropriately within a culturally diverse context, the development of students’ normality reflection is an important element. This development may follow the four particular steps specified above according to the four levels of normality reflection. The sequence of these steps indicates particular development tasks that may be treated step by step. In this respect, the above presented four-stage model of normality reflection focuses on the specific cognitive aspects that are treatable within institutionalised learning and teaching settings prevailing in teacher education. It may serve as an instrument to document students’ levels of reflection and to identify potential starting points for an individual support of students’ learning processes (Leutwyler, 2009). Normality Reflection Scale

In order to support this diagnostic function, a questionnaire was developed that facilitates the identification of individual reflection patterns: the Normality Reflection Scale (NRS). The NRS was developed at the University of Teacher Education Central Switzerland with concrete statements of a multitude of student teachers as well as experts in the field of intercultural education. They had previously been interviewed on their perceptions how pupils’ cultural background would influence their learning process and their school achievement (Leutwyler, Steiger & Sieber, 2009). Statements of the respective answers were allocated to the different stages of the model of normality reflection and –if necessary– reformulated in order to fulfil the criteria for item formulations. First statistical tests checked for insufficient distributions and analysed factor structures and reliability measures. After having eliminated inappropriate items, 4 scales resulted with a total of 21 items. First validity tests were conducted by comparing different methodical approaches: On the one hand, 67 students described in short essays how a pupil’s cultural background would influence its learning process and its school achievement. Subsequently, 3 experts rated each student’s reflection in terms of the 4 stages of normality reflection. On the other hand, the same 67 students answered the items of the NRS questionnaire. This questionnaire also allows the identification of conformity to one of the 4 stages of normality reflection. The comparison of both approaches showed a conformance of 80.4 %. This first validity test, however, is only a first step to validate the NRS. The further examination of its validity is the goal of the present paper. Research goals and method

In the present paper, the validity of the NRS is examined in two different cultural contexts. First, the factor structure and the internal consistency are compared in culturally different samples: in a Swiss sample and in a Serbian sample. Second, the concurrent validity of the NRS is evaluated with three related measures: with the Intercultural Sensitivity Scale (Chen & Starosta, 2000); the Teacher Multicultural Attitude Survey (Ponterotto et al., 1998); and the Generalised Ethnocentrism Scale (Neuliep & McCroskey, 1997). Participants were, on the one hand, teacher students from different Universities of Teacher Education in the German speaking part of Switzerland (n = 233), 51


whereas 85 % were female and 15 % were male. On the other hand, participants in the Serbian sample (n = 184) were teacher students of the Pedagogical Faculty in Jagodina (middle size town in central Serbia) whereas 85.3 % were female and 14.7 % were male. The following instruments were adopted to these participants: x The Normality Reflection Scale (NRS) contains 4 sub-scales and 21 items with a four-point Likert scale as answer format. It intends to measure individuals’ perception of normality (see above). Scales and statistical parameters are reported below. x The Intercultural Sensitivity Scale (ISS) contains 24 items with a four-point Likert scale as answer format (Chen & Starosta, 2000). The scale includes 5 sub-scales: interaction engagement, respect for cultural differences, interaction confidence, interaction enjoyment, and interaction attentiveness. The ISS is intended to measure individuals’ feelings about interacting with people who have different cultural backgrounds. A sample item is: “I enjoy interacting with people from different cultures.” 3HWURYLü DQG Zlatkoviü (2009 UHSRUWHG D &URQEDFK¶V DOSKD FRHIILFLHQW RI Į = 0.79. In the current VWXG\WKH&URQEDFK¶VDOSKDFRHIILFLHQWZDVĮ = 0.78. x The Teacher Multicultural Attitude Survey (TMAS) contains 20 items with a four-point Likert scale as answer format (Ponterotto et al., 1998). The TMAS is intended to measure teachers’ multicultural awareness and readiness to include multicultural issues in the learning process and curriculum. A sample item is: “In order to be an effective teacher, one needs to be aware of cultural differences present in the classroom.” In a previous research in Serbia, the TMAS obtained a Cronbach’s alpha of Į = 3HWURYLü ,Q WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ WKH &URQEDFK¶V DOSKD FRHIILFLHQWZDVĮ = 0.73. x The Generalised Ethnocentrism Scale (GENE) includes 15 items with a four-point Likert scale as answer format (Neuliep & McCroskey, 1997). It is designed to assess people’s feelings regarding their culture. A sample item is: “Most other cultures are backward compared to my culture.” In the FXUUHQWVWXG\WKH&URQEDFK¶VDOSKDFRHIILFLHQWZDVĮ = 0.80. Adopting these instruments in the described samples, the following results may be reported.


considered. This shortened scale contains 8 items divided in fore sub-scales: cultureblind reflection (stage 0); culture-bound reflection (stage 1); culture-relative reflection (stage 2); and culture-dynamic reflection (stage 3). Table 1: Short version of Normality Reflection scale – Factor Numbers and Item-Factor-Loadings

In order to find out the correlation between the NRS and the three related measures, Pearson product-moment correlations were computed in the Serbian sample. Table 2 presents the respective results. Significant positive correlations were found between the Generalised Ethnocentrism Scale and the stages 0, 1 and 2 of the Normality Reflection Scale. Significant negative correlations were found between the Teacher Multicultural Attitude Survey and the stages 0 and 1 of the Normality Reflection Scale as well as between the Intercultural Sensitivity Scale and the stage 1 of the Normality Reflection Scale. Table 2: Pearson product-moment correlations of NRS stages with ISS, TMAS and GENE

Results

The factor structure of the Normality Reflection Scale was compared by performing a principal component factor analysis (Varimax rotation with Kaiser normalisation) in both the Swiss and the Serbian samples. In the Swiss sample, the factor analysis extracted for the 21 items of the NRS 7 factors with eigenvalues of 1.000 or higher. These factors accounted for 62 % of the variance. In the Serbian sample, the factor analysis extracted 8 respective factors that accounted for 60 % of the variance. Based on the comparison of these two factor analyses, the items with high loadings on respective factors in both samples were selected and combined to a shortened version of the Normality Reflection Scale (see Table 1). Only items with factor loadings of at least .500 and no secondary loadings higher than .300 were 52

Discussion and Conclusion

The construction of an instrument that satisfies the methodological requirements in both the Swiss and the Serbian sample proved to be a difficult challenge. Different factor structures, respectively different item-factor-loadings express the difficulty of reaching comparable understandings and conceptions of the issues in question. Translating the questionnaire from German to English – by testing it with the re-translating method – does not automatically obtain a common understanding of the respective concepts. And the “respective concepts” may imply, in fact, 53


different concepts in the two different cultural contexts. In this regard, we assume that Serbian and Swiss teachers (or student teachers) have different connotations regarding the core concepts associated with normality reflection. For instance, if Swiss teachers speak about “children with a migrant background” in a pronounced immigration country, they may have other conceptions in mind than Serbian teachers – keeping in mind that even within a given sample, these conceptions may differ considerably. Maybe, the term “children from minority cultures” might be more appropriate to refer on comparable – but not identical – concepts in the Serbian context: The concepts in question are on their own part culture-bound and, therefore, difficult to conceptualise in a culture-free form. If dealing with different normalities is, for instance, an expression of handling the conflicting priorities of respecting cultural minorities on the one hand and establishing shared values and norms on the other hand, then the way of teachers’ normality reflection is also an expression of how the educational and social mission of schooling is perceived. It seems obvious that this mission may differ between two nations with different cultural and political traditions. Therefore, in order to improve the Normality Reflection Scale, a common understanding of the key concepts should be reached. Further interpretive approaches might be helpful for that: How do Swiss teachers interpret the statements formulated in the items? How do these interpretations and associations differ from those of Serbian teachers? Or: Based on which experiences do teachers in Serbia and in Switzerland answer the questionnaire? Do teachers have comparable debates on multicultural education in Switzerland and in Serbia? Such interpretative approaches may lead to the need of reformulating items in the Serbian or the Swiss version – or in both versions. These interpretative approaches may lead, furthermore, to a better understanding of teachers’ role conceptions as well as of the subjective meaning, importance and challenges regarding teaching in a culturally diverse setting. Regarding the correlations with related measures like the Intercultural Sensitivity Scale, the Teacher Multicultural Attitude Survey and the Generalised Ethnocentrism Scale, the results show clearly that the Normality Reflection Scale does cover something different than the other measures: Correlations are given only in parts. Regarding the Intercultural Sensitivity Scale (ISS), a significant negative correlation was shown with the stage of culture-bound reflection, but not with the other stages. This result stresses the cognitive focus of the NRS: Whereas the ISS measures individuals’ feelings about interacting with people who have different cultural backgrounds and is, therefore, emotionally loaded (see above), the NRS covers the modus of reflection and is, therefore, much more cognitively oriented. The culture-blind reflection (stage 0) covers to what extent an individual perceives cultural elements in teaching and learning: This is independent from emotional aspects. The lack of correlation makes sense in this regard. The culture-bound reflection (stage 1), correlating negatively with the ISS, implies the recognition of cultural elements but expresses an implicit evaluation of differences. This evaluation implies an emotional part that explains the negative correlation with the ISS. The culture-relative reflection (stage 2) and the culture-dynamic reflection (stage 3) require a cognitive elaboration of cultural differences that do not correspond automatically with a higher degree of delight or interest in intercultural interactions

54


as measured by the ISS. The lack of correlations with stages 2 and 3 seems, therefore, meaningful. Regarding the Teacher Multicultural Attitude Survey (TMAS), significant negative correlations were found with the stages 0 and 1 of the NRS. The TMAS covers teachers’ multicultural awareness and readiness to include multicultural issues in the learning process and curriculum (see above). Given the fact that stages 0 and 1 characterise culture-blind and culture-bound reflections, the negative correlations with multicultural awareness as covered by the TMAS make sense, indeed. The lack of correlation with the stages 2 and 3 may seem illogical. However, the culture-relative reflection (stage 2) and the culture-dynamic reflection (stage 3) imply something different than just more readiness to include multicultural issues. And these modes of reflection imply, furthermore, something different than just more multicultural awareness. They imply the understanding how one’s own teaching practices are culturally influenced and how cultural traditions shape schooling. This reflection on cultural imprints in schooling and teaching practices differ from a mere multicultural awareness expressed in the following sample item of the TMAS: “As classrooms become more culturally diverse, the teacher’s job becomes increasingly rewarding”. Against this background, the lack of correlation with stages 2 and 3 makes sense, too. Regarding the Generalised Ethnocentrism Scale (GENE), significant positive correlations were found with the stages 0, 1 and 2 of the NRS. As a lack of awareness that culture matters (as covered by stage 0 of the NRS) often goes in line with an ethnocentric worldview (Bennett, 2004), the positive correlation of stage 0 with the GENE is easy to interpret in a meaningful way. The same applies for the correlation with stage 1: A culture-bound reflection implies a worldview that considers only one’s own perspective and is, therefore, highly ethnocentric. However, the positive correlation of the GENE with stage 2 of the NRS (with the culture-relative reflection mode) appears strange: The culture-relative reflection expresses a contrast to an ethnocentric worldview; the correlation can, thus, not be interpreted in a meaningful way. Further analyses are needed in order to find reasons for this counter-intuitive finding. To conclude, the findings may be summarised as following: The Normality Reflection Scale is an appropriate way to cover the different modes of normality reflection. The comparison with related – but not identical – measures point to the specific focus of the NRS: The NRS involves a more cognitive orientation than the other considered measures. It adds, therefore, a complementary aspect to the discussion of how to prepare future teachers for dealing effectively in culturally diverse settings. It focuses on the specific cognitive aspects that are treatable within institutionalised learning and teaching settings prevailing in teacher education. A shortened version of the original German version of the NRS proves to be culture-free in the sense that the specific stages of normality refection may be covered in a Swiss and in a Serbian sample. However, a considerable amount of items failed to be comparable in the two different samples. For that reason, further effort in developing the NRS and an additional testing of the NRS are needed. The results from this research show that the shortened version as described above may serve as the nucleus for the further development – both for further statistical analyses and for additional interpretative approaches. 55


References Bennett, M. J. (2004). Becoming interculturally competent. In J. Wurzel (Ed.), Toward multiculturalism: A reader in multicultural education (2nd edition) (p. 62-77). Newton, MA: Intercultural Resource Corporation. Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (2000). The development and validation of the intercultural sensitivity scale. Human Communication, 3, 1-15. Leutwyler, B. (2009). Learning to Deal with Differences: A Crucial Issue for Teacher Education. In 1 3RSRY &K :ROKXWHU % /HXWZ\OHU 0 0LKRYD - 2JXQOH\H = %HNLUR÷XOODUÕ (GV Comparative Education, Teacher Training, Education Policy, Social Inclusion and Child Psychology (p. 77-82). Sofia: Bureau for Educational Services. Leutwyler, B., Steinger, E. & Sieber, P. (2009). Stufenmodell der Normalitätsreflexionen. Wie Lehrpersonen kulturelle Heterogenität in Schule und Unterricht unterschiedlich reflektieren. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Bildungswissenschaften, 31 (3), 565-583. [Stage model of normality reflections. How teachers reflect differently on cultural heterogeneity in the school context] Neuliep, J.W. & McCroskey, J.C. (1997). The Development of a U.S. and Generalised Ethnocentrism Scale. Communication Research Reports, 14 (4), 385-398. Ponterotto, J. G., Baluch, S., Greig, T., & Rivera, L. (1998). Development and Initial Score Validation of the Teacher Multicultural Altitude Survey. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, 1002-1016. 3HWURYLü ' (2009) Stav nastavnika prema multikulturalnosti u obrazovanju, ; QDXþQL VNXS 1DXþQDLGXKRYQDXWHPHOMHQRVWGUXãWYHQLKUHIRUPL8QLYHU]LWHWX%DQMD/XFL%DQMD/XND28. novembar 2009.god, knjiga rezimea, str. 27-28. [Teachers’ Attitude towards Multiculturalism in Education] 3HWURYLü' =ODWNRYLü% ,QWHUFXOWXUDO6HQVLWLYLW\RI)XWXUH3ULPDU\6FKRRO7HDFKHUV,Q 1 3RSRY &K :ROKXWHU % /HXWZ\OHU 0 0LKRYD - 2JXQOH\H = %HNLUR÷XOODUÕ (GV Comparative Education, Teacher Training, Education Policy, Social Inclusion and Child Psychology (p. 121-128). Sofia: Bureau for Educational Services. Swiss Conference of Cantonal Ministers of Education. (2000). Interkulturelle Pädagogik in der Lehrerinnen- und Lehrerbildung. Zentrale Lernbereiche – Thesen – Literaturhinweise. Bern: Swiss Conference of Cantonal Ministers of Education. [Intercultural Education in Teacher Training. Key Learning Fields – Propositions – References.] Sieber, P. (2007). Transnationalität und nationale Schulsysteme: Perspektiven für Forschung und Lehre. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Bildungswissenschaften, 29 (3), 345-362. [Transnationality and National School Systems: Perspectives for Research and Teachings]

Prof. Dr. Bruno Leutwyler Institute for International Cooperation in Education University of Teacher Education Central Switzerland – PHZ Zug Switzerland [email protected] 3URI'U'DQLMHOD3HWURYLü Department of Psychology, Faculty of Philosophy University of Belgrade Serbia [email protected] 56

Bibliographic note:

Bruno Leutwyler & Danijela Petroviü Normality Reflection Scale: Verification of cross-cultural and concurrent validity In Nikolay Popov, Charl Wolhuter, Bruno Leutwyler, Marinela Mihova, James Ogunleye (Editors): Comparative Education, Teacher Training, Education Policy, Social Inclusion, History of Education Volume 8, 2011

Publisher © 2011 Bureau for Educational Services ISBN 978-954-9842-17-3

This is a peer review book. Each paper is reviewed by two editors – the relevant part editor and the editor-in-chief. Finally, a five-member international editorial board takes decisions on papers to be included in the book.

Suggestion for citation: /HXWZ\OHU% 3HWURYLü' 1RUPDOLW\5HIOHFWLRQ6FDOH9HULILFDWLRQRI&URVVCultural and Concurrent Validity. In N. Popov, Ch. Wolhuter, B. Leutwyler, M. Mihova. & J. Ogunleye (Eds.), Comparative Education, Teacher Training, Education Policy, Social Inclusion, History of Education (p. 49 – 56). Sofia: Bureau for Educational Services.

All rights reserved. This edition is protected by the Bulgarian Copyright Law (adopted 1993, amended 1994, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011). No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher and individual contributors.

Comparative Education, Teacher Training, Education Policy, Social Inclusion, History of Education Volume 9, 2011 Popov, N., Wolhuter, C., Leutwyler, B., Mihova, M., Ogunleye, J. (Eds.) Quire format 70 x 100 / 16 Printed quires 27.5 Book size 17 x 24 cm Pages viii, 432 Published by Bureau for Educational Services Under the auspices of the Bulgarian Comparative Education Society Printed by Ral-Kolobar Sofia, Bulgaria May 2011