Multicultural Education and Approaches to Teacher Training

Abstract

Turkey exposed to several mass immigration movements due to its location, is not a “transit country” anymore for immigrants, but a “target country”. Since the day that the migration flows have started, Turkey developed various policies regarding the education of immigrant children. And by the year 2016, these children have begun to be included in the Turkish education system. Research findings reveal that immigrant children face the number of challenges in their education life. These problems include communication and discrimination problems arising out of language and cultural differences. Many countries exposed to mass immigration movements in the world often use multicultural education approaches to solve the educational issues of newcomers. Therefore, comprehensive literature research is needed and that this research will be useful to see the subject as a whole. The findings of the study revealed that the three basic approaches to teacher education could be defined in six stages, each of which consists of two phases. The educators of teachers and policymakers can examine these approaches and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each of them based on their philosophical stances about multiculturalism.

Full text

Journal of Education and Learning; Vol. 8, No. 4; 2019
ISSN 1927-5250 E-ISSN 1927-5269
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education
136
Multicultural Education and Approaches to Teacher Training
Yasemin Acar-Ciftci1
1 Child Development, Istanbul Yeni Yuzyil University, Istanbul, Turkey
Correspondence: Yasemin Acar-Ciftci, Child Development, Istanbul Yeni Yuzyil University, 34010, Istanbul,
Turkey. E-mail: yasemin.acarciftci@yeniyuzyil.edu.tr
Received: March 29, 2019 Accepted: May 27, 2019 Online Published: July 12, 2019
doi:10.5539/jel.v8n4p136 URL: https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v8n4p136
Abstract
Turkey exposed to several mass immigration movements due to its location, is not a “transit country” anymore
for immigrants, but a “target country”. Since the day that the migration flows have started, Turkey developed
various policies regarding the education of immigrant children. And by the year 2016, these children have begun
to be included in the Turkish education system. Research findings reveal that immigrant children face the
number of challenges in their education life. These problems include communication and discrimination
problems arising out of language and cultural differences. Many countries exposed to mass immigration
movements in the world often use multicultural education approaches to solve the educational issues of
newcomers. Therefore, comprehensive literature research is needed and that this research will be useful to see
the subject as a whole. The findings of the study revealed that the three basic approaches to teacher education
could be defined in six stages, each of which consists of two phases. The educators of teachers and policymakers
can examine these approaches and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each of them based on their
philosophical stances about multiculturalism.
Keywords: conservative, liberal, critical multicultural education, social justice, teacher training
1. Introduction
Along with the developments in industrialization, globalization and information technologies, the characteristics
of the geographies in which the countries are located brought paradigm shifts in many of the structures in which
education also took place (Ministry of National Education (MoNE), 2017). The geographical position of Turkey
is still one of the most important elements that determine its social structure. Today’s society is primarily
influenced by the migration movements of the 19th and 20th centuries (GIGM, 2015). Turkey exposed to several
mass migration movements due to its location, is not a “transit country” anymore for migrants but a “target
country” (GIGM, 2017).
According to United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR, 2017) statistics, the number of
registered refugees in Turkey including Iraqis, Afghans, Iranian, Somalian and others—apart from Syrian
refugees—was 306,791 by March 2017. Children who are 18 or below constitute approximately 35% of this
number, which is 99,025 individuals; and 74,977 of these are school-age children (Manap-Kırmızıgul, 2017). By
the date of 20 December 2018, the number of Syrian refugees living in Turkey almost 3,618,624 (Association
for Refugees, 2018). Children who are 0–18 years old constitute 1,723,473 of this number, and among these
1,138,192 of them are school-age children. According to the given data, Turkey has been hosting 1,213,169
school-age registered refugee children who are under temporary protection. Since the day that the migration
flows have started various policies have been developed in Turkey regarding the education of these children.
By the year 2016, these children have started to be included in the Turkish education system (MoNE, 2016).
However, the research studies conducted in the field reveal that these children who are included in the education
system face a number of problems during their education. These problems include communication and
discrimination problems stem from language and cultural differences (Erdem, Kaya, & Yılmaz, 2017; Levent &
Cayak, 2017; Mercan-Uzun & Butun, 2016; Saglam & Ilksen-Kanbur, 2017), unwillingness of public school
teachers to have refugee students in their classrooms (Erdem et al., 2017; Levent & Cayak, 2017; Mercan-Uzun
& Butun, 2016), discriminative attitude and behavior that can be displayed by Turkish students and teachers
(Istanbul Bilgi University, Child Studies Unit, 2015; HRW, 2015), communication problems among students,
language problems, and problems that arise from cultural differences and differences between value judgements

jel.ccsenet.org Journal of Education and Learning Vol. 8, No. 4; 2019
137
(Erdem et al., 2017).). Besides, the data on the attendance of children who are under temporary protection to
school demonstrates that the attendance rates decrease with an increase in the education levels. The schooling
rates of students who receive education in official schools and temporary education centers have occurred as;
preschool 39.02%, primary school 87.80%, secondary school 50.74% and high school education 22.40%
(MoNE74, 2018). Among the primary reasons for early school dropout are economic problems, and other
problems such as early marriages, language and cultural differences among students. Besides, uncertainty about
the future, rejection of Turkish parents for teachers and school administrators to let foreign students in schools,
discriminative attitudes, and behaviors confronted in schools (Tastan & Celik, 2017) play important roles on
school dropout. Furthermore, teachers are frequently disturbed by the existence of Syrian children in their
classrooms, display negative behaviors, and do not act proactively to include these children into in-class
activities (Tastan & Celik, 2017). Some teachers and administrators stated that teachers who are not trained to
work with children from different cultures do not consider themselves competent and think that they are not
capable of making a positive contribution to the development of these children (Mercan-Uzun & Butun, 2016),
and therefore require vocational development and support training to work with Syrian children (Kardes &
Akman, 2018; Ozer, Komsuoglu, & Atesok, 2016).
These problems perceived as ‘daily problems’ for the time being. However, the average length of stay that
refugees spend in host countries is 20 years in 2014, according to the various immigration cases analyzed in the
international context. This duration is almost three times more than the length estimated for the early 1990s
(Milner & Loescher, 2011). Moreover, the number of Syrian refugees who have Turkish citizenship is around
79,820. The number of Syrians who has a residence permit was reported as 32,199 by the date of 25 January
2019 (Association for Refugees, 2018). In the light of this information, it can be predicted that Syrian refugees
will receive Turkish citizenship and residence permit ever-increasingly, and stay in Turkey for longer durations
or for permanently this context, Turkey requires a comprehensive and long-term education reform which
includes all cultural, ethnic and other disadvantaged groups in the system with a particular focus on children and
will have significant impacts on social peace and welfare, besides the short-term urgent solution strategies
towards all children with temporary protection status. The reform projects that have been implemented from past
to present and the international experiences show that the most critical factor in reform efforts in education is the
teacher (MoNE, 2017). Creation of consistent curriculums for schools and teacher training programs by means of
a shared vision of teachers, educators and academic is one of the ways to make long-term and permanent
changes for educating students who can overcome the growing problems. Preparation of a consistent teacher
training program requires faculty members to determine a common goal and share collective responsibility and
to have an opportunity to make an impact on policies and practices.Many countries exposed to mass immigration
movements in the world often use multicultural education approaches to solve the educational problems of
newcomers. The reason for this is that multicultural education is a reform approach that aims to solve such
problems. It is possible to argue that studies on multicultural education conducted in Turkey date back to fifteen
years ago. Although there has been a significant increase in the number of studies conducted on multicultural
education, there are few studies related to multicultural teacher education during this period. Therefore, it is
essential to focus on comprehensive literature research; therefore, this research will be useful to see the subject
as a whole.
This study aims to review previous studies focusing on “multicultural teacher education systematically”. For this
purpose, the following questions are answered:
1) What is multicultural education, and is there a difference between theory and practice?
2) How has this difference been conceptualized, if any?
3) Is there a difference between this conceptualization and the multicultural teacher education literature in recent
years?
2. Method
This study aimed to investigate the previous studies related to ‘multicultural teacher education approaches’
considering their classifications, social objectives, designs, and teacher education objectives. Therefore, a
systematic review research method (Millar, 2004) was used to review previous studies conducted focusing on
multicultural teacher education approaches. Systematic rules and phases were followed for the critical evaluation
of these studies and the analysis of all relevant studies. According to Millar (2004), these phases are a)
determination of the objective, b) the selection of studies, which are consistent with the objective founded on
particular criteria, and c) drawing inferences from the gathered information.

jel.ccsenet.org Journal of Education and Learning Vol. 8, No. 4; 2019
138
An electronic database search, using a variety of Internet search engines, was conducted in November-December
2018: Educational Resources Information Centre (ERIC), SCOPUS, PsychINFO, EBSCOhost, and Google
Scholar. The keywords “multicultural teacher education approaches” and “multicultural education approaches”
or “analysis, multicultural education” in English were searched. Based on the objective of the research, primarily
107 studies (Appendix A) published between the years 2010 and 2018 were downloaded. The fact that the papers
being directly related to “multicultural teacher education approaches” and “multicultural education approaches”
was the significant criterion in the selection of documents for this study.
3. Results
3.1 What Is Multicultural Education and Is There a Difference Between Theory and Practice?
Multicultural education is defined as a medium to eliminate the inequities that students face regarding race, ethnic
origin, gender social class, language, sexual orientation, and abilities (Banks & Banks, 2005; Ukpokodu, 2008),
and a general school reform which was designed to increase educational equity among culturally, ethnically,
economically, etc. marginalized groups (Banks, 1993; Vavrus, 2002). The concept is considered as a superior
discipline due to its content, concepts, principle, theory and paradigms which based on fields such as history, social
sciences, and behavioral sciences and particularly on ethnic studies and women studies, and its design as a study
field that integrates the given fields (Banks & Banks, 2001; Vavrus, 2002).
Despite the fact that multicultural education is an educational approach which is designed with the purpose of
eliminating existing inequities in the society, it may vary in terms of implementation due to the inclusion of
knowledge on different cultures existed in the society in the standard curriculum of the dominant culture, and
inclusion of festivals, celebrations (Banks, 2002), different materials, perspectives and pedagogical
implementations (Cumming-McCann, 2003). Similarly, it may include a number of possibilities, such as bilingual
education or mother tongue-based education (Nieto, 2017). However, such kinds of implementations are
considered as partial and superficial (Irvine, 2003; Ladson-Billings, 1999; Villegas & Lucas, 2002; Zeichner &
Hoeft, 1996) in comparison to a consistent and inclusive multicultural curriculum. The reason for this situation is
the idea that an approach to education that does not have the purpose of changing the “power relations between
majority and minority groups” cannot bring about equity and justice in the real sense (Solomon, 1996, p. 72).
3.2 How Has This Difference Been Conceptualised if Any?
The leaders of the field who have been examining a number of studies on multicultural education, which has
diverse implementations, have presented conceptual/theoretical approaches towards the meaning and
implementation of multicultural education. These approaches are also known as phase approaches and include the
most well-known approaches of McLaren (1994; 2003), Grant and Sleeter (1987; 2007), and Banks (2004; 2012)
Jenks, Lee and Kanpol (2001) that base their opinions within the framework of McLaren’s (1994; 2003) theoretical
framework on multiculturalism, define the concept of teacher training within three conceptual frameworks (Table
1) as conservative, liberal and critical (Jenks et al., 2001; McLaren, 1994; 2003; Webster, 1997).

jel.ccsenet.org Journal of Education and Learning Vol. 8, No. 4; 2019
139
Table 1. Multicultural education and approaches to teacher education (Jenks ve ark., 2001)
Mclaren (1994) Grant ve Sleeter (1987) Banks (1994) Objectives of Schools
Conservative
Multiculturalism
Teaching exceptional
and culturally different
Conservative multiculturalists ignore the importance of difference
in favor of an ideology of cultural homogeneity. Schools
assimilate students into the mainstream culture and its attending
values, mores, and norms (Jenks ve ark., 2001).
Contributions
Liberal
Muliculturalism
Human Relations
Additive Attempts to promote acceptance of diversity through intergroup
education based on the sharing of feelings and values—a liberal
agenda based on the goal of culturally different students living
together harmoniously (Grant & Sleeter, 1987; Jenks ve ark.,
2001).
Critical
Multiculturalism
Single-group studies With the goal of increasing the status of the group, single-group
studies endorse education that develops a critical consciousness
in students regarding the need for change for the identified group
(Jenks ve ark., 2001).
Cultural pluralism Rather than being limited to the study of particular minority
groups, the goal is to reduce prejudice by helping students adapt
to as much diversity as possible and to learn the importance of
power equity and social justice for all groups (Jenks ve ark.,
2001).
Transformation The curriculum teaches social action skills, promotes cultural
pluralism and alternative lifestyles, and has students analyze
oppression with the intent of eventually, if not immediately,
taking action to work for a more democratic society (Jenks ve
ark., 2001).
Social reconstructionist Social Action
3.3 Is There a Difference Between This Conceptualisation and the Multicultural Teacher Education Literature in
Recent Years?
3.3.1 Conservative Multicultural Education
The traditional perspective in education is generally defined as “conservative multiculturalism”. The concept of
conservative multiculturalism considers multiculturalism as an aspect that divides society and argues that the
dominant culture and its values, traditions, and norms should be adopted (Grant & Ham, 2013). Conservatives are
primarily concerned with the rapid transmission of culture based on the continuity of existing social order by
regarding knowledge as constant (Banks, 1994; Banks & Banks, 2012).
Nieto (1994; 2017) defines conservative multicultural education as “a situation in which school structures, policies,
curricula, instructional materials, and even pedagogical strategies are primarily representative of the only
dominant culture” (p. 250), and expresses the concept as monocultural education. According to Nieto, in this
approach, teachers are proud of the fact that they are “color-blind”, that is, that they see no differences among their
students, treating them all the same (Nieto, 1994; 2017). It is assumed that cultural differences have no vital role in
success, and the commitment of all students to the same academic standards is considered as the basis (Jenks et al.,
2001). The first phase of conservative multicultural education is to prepare teachers to enable students to be
assimilated in the education system based on the assumption that there are no cultural differences among students.
The approach “teaching the exceptional and culturally different,” which takes the first place in the division of
Sleeter and Grant (1987; 2007) is considered within the scope of conservative multiculturalism. In this approach,
which includes disabled students besides the different students (Leistyna, 2002), the primary purpose of the
curriculum is to fill the gaps in terms of basic knowledge, skills and values that constitute an impediment for
working in a better paid job (Jenks et al., 2001), and to facilitate the learning of language of the dominant culture
(Grant & Ham, 2013). The purpose of school is teaching the traditional mediums of instruction and bridging
between different cultures and the dominant culture (Grant & Sleeter, 2007; Grant & Ham, 2013; Leistyna, 2002;
Sleeter & Grant, 1987), and the social purpose of school is to facilitate the assimilation process of students into the
dominant society (Grant & Ham, 2013).
Gorski (2009), who assessed the multicultural educational implementations of teacher training in the USA through
lecture programs, places the first phase of the five-phase approach which is the teaching of others in the
conservative approach. This approach is characterized by the use of marginalizing language, presentation of the
society as a homogenous structure, and assessment of education from a market-based or capitalist approach.

jel.ccsenet.org Journal of Education and Learning Vol. 8, No. 4; 2019
140
According to Gorski, marginalizing language defines an individual or a group apart from the normality sphere and
leads to the maintenance of hegemony and adds negative value to identities and ideologies which are different
from the hegemonic norm.
In the context of integration of multicultural content into curriculums, Banks presented a four-phase approach
consisted of the phases titled contributions, additive, transformation and social action (Banks, 1994; Banks &
Banks, 2012). In this line, the contributions approach is assessed in the scope of the conservative approach by
Gorski (2009). However, Jenks et al. (2001) indicated that the contributions approach includes both traditional and
liberal components. Indeed, the contributions approach presented by Banks, and the tolerance approach presented
by Nieto (1994; 2017) include both conservative and liberal elements.
As is evident from its name, the contributions approach expresses inclusion of the contributions of the groups
which are excluded from the dominant culture to a curriculum and maintaining the basic structure, objectives and
main characteristics of the curriculum of the dominant culture without any alteration. This approach is
characterized by the placement of female and male characters of ethnic culture and cultural pieces into a
curriculum by employing criteria that are used in the placement of female and male characters of the dominant
culture into a curriculum (Banks & Banks, 2012). However, due to the fact that different groups are regarded as an
addition, students are not allowed to develop a global perspective towards ethnic and cultural groups. Furthermore,
the contributions approach does not address issues such as oppression, unjust treatment, racism, or poverty. This
approach which does not address the issues of inequities and discrimination as well remains limited to minority
groups and reinforces the judgments and misconceptions (Banks, 1988). Conservatives who advocate this
approach argue that minority groups are represented in instruction programs, and students are informed about other
cultures (Jenks et al., 2001).
Schools that are at a higher level in comparison to monocultural schools accept differences in the condition of
altering them. However, because assimilation is still the ultimate goal, language and culture related differences are
changed rapidly. This ideology also reflects on the physical environment, attitudes of the personnel, and the
curriculum which students are exposed to (Nieto, 1994; 2017).
The ideological roots of the conservative multiculturalism have their origins in the market logic. Therefore, in the
conservative multiculturalism approach, the equity and excellence objectives are based on the participation of
students into the free market competition, luck, the ability to survive among the best and an upward social
movement (Jenks et al., 2001).
In this context, the second phase-teacher training objective of the conservative multiculturalism approach is to
prepare teachers to analyze cultures, values, lifestyles, and worldviews of different identity groups, and eventually
to assimilate them into the education system.
3.3.2 Liberal Multicultural Education
The liberal multicultural approach considers all ethnic and racial groups naturally equal and intellectually “same”
(McLaren, 1995; 2003). Liberal multiculturalism that originates from respecting cultural and ethnic differences
also supports cultural sensitivity and celebrates cultural traditions in the context of curriculums and instruction
(Banks & Banks, 2012).
Liberal multiculturalism is based on the human relations approach have foreign, which recognizes cultural
diversity and pluralism and accepts and celebrates differences (Grant & Sleeter, 2007). The social purpose of the
human relations approach is to encourage unity, understanding, and acceptance within social structures. On the
other hand, the purpose of the school is teaching the necessary skills, developing positive emotions among students,
forming a positive self-identity and reducing stereotyped biases (Grant & Ham, 2013; Leistyna, 2002). In this
approach, it is believed that the primary issue of multicultural education is an interpersonal rapport and
improvement of emotions and communication in a classroom and school is aimed at “reducing biases” (Grant &
Sleeter, 2007). Therefore, a curriculum should include basic academic courses, and also courses on individuals’
differences and similarities (Grant & Ham, 2013). The “human relations” approach developed by Grant and
Sleeter, which is included in the liberal multicultural education approach, is compatible with the “additive
approach” which was developed by Banks regarding the integration of multicultural content into curriculums
(Jenks et al., 2001). The additive approach expresses the main structure of a curriculum, and the addition of ethic
content, concepts, themes, and perspectives into a curriculum without altering any characteristics. This approach
which requires a considerable amount of time, effort and education causes to the addition of an ethnic content into
a curriculum without considering the objectives, goals, and nature of the particular curriculum (Banks, 2004). The
use of ‘teaching the exceptional and culturally different approach’ in the scope of both human relations approach
and teacher curriculums presents a supportive characteristic in terms of teachers’ adoption of a compensatory

jel.ccsenet.org Journal of Education and Learning Vol. 8, No. 4; 2019
141
perspective towards accepting languages spoken at home and the ones who learn a second language apart from the
language spoken at home. Moreover, both approaches were designed to facilitate the process of transition for
students in terms of the dominant language and culture (Grant & Ham, 2013).
In the classification of Gorski (2009), liberal multicultural education is addressed in two phases as tolerance and
teaching with multicultural sensitivity and teaching with multicultural competence. In the phase of tolerance and
teaching with multicultural sensitivity; respecting diversity, sensitivity to cultures and self-reflection are
emphasized; however, the educational inequities are not mentioned. Respecting diversity is included in an
assimilationist pluralist approach (Gorski, 2009). In this approach, students have an opportunity to analyze their
assumptions, biases, and values (both negative and positive), and the impact of these factors on interpersonal
relations. In this way, the approach aims to enable students to develop a cultural understanding. The lectures are
generally organized based on the identity aspect (race, gender, class, etc.), and students focus on their prejudices
and biases.
The human relations approach provides the skills of tolerance and sensitivity to differences through analyzing the
first phase of the liberal multicultural education that includes tolerance, teaching with cultural sensitivity and
additive approaches and their teacher training objectives in terms of biased attitudes and behaviors.
The teaching with the multicultural competence phase of Gorski (2009) and the tolerance phase of Nieto (1994;
2017) are consistent with each other. In this sense, the inclusion of these phases in the second stage of liberal
multicultural education would be appropriate. The multicultural competence phase in teacher training puts
multicultural competences in the center and aims at providing “cultural competence” by teaching culturally
sensitive learning and teaching strategies, however, the phase overlooks educational inequities.
On the other hand, in the “acceptance” phase of Nieto (1994; 2017), the value of differences is neither
acknowledged nor underestimated. At this level, a perspective and movement towards multicultural education are
observed. Various school politics and implementations alter as an indication of this movement, and assimilation is
no longer considered as an objective. to enable teachers focusing on the concept of diversity seminars on diverse
subjects such as learning styles, unbiased evaluation techniques, and bilingual education are provided. Liberal
multicultural education requires to adapt instruction styles, learning strategies, and communication between school
and parents to curriculums (Grant, 1994).
In this approach, equity and excellence are achieved in education through acceptance, tolerance, and
understanding. Just like the conservative approach, the liberal approach assumes that laws and political decisions
will bring about equity and excellence within the dominant culture and free market economy (Jenks et al., 2001).
Despite the fact that the intention of this approach is humanist and utilitarian, it still masks controversies and
conflicts in society by ignoring identity-related problems revolving around issues such as race, ethnic origin, and
class (Jenks et al., 2001). The teacher training objective of the given phase of the liberal multicultural education is
equipping prospective teachers with the knowledge, implementation skills and pedagogical strategies that are
necessary for implementing multicultural curriculums (Gorski, 2009).
3.3.3 Critical Multicultural Education
Critical multiculturalism focuses on the issues of culture, race, socioeconomic class and gender, and emphasizes
transforming structural and social relations. In this approach, cultures are not considered as compatible with each
other due to conflicts of interest (McLaren, 1994; 2003). It is argued that intercultural harmony can be achieved
only through a commitment to social justice (Gay, 2000; Nieto & Bode, 2008). On the one hand, critical
approaches search for justice by focusing on the relationship between equity and excellence; and on the other hand,
by focusing on race, ethnic origin, and class divisions. The approach accepts that leaving these components to the
free market competition and upward social movement process will not bring about justice (Jenks et al., 2001).
Critical multiculturalists question the existing socio-political order due to their belief in the presence of significant
social inequities and injustices, and accordingly, analyze the historical and political contexts of curriculums.
According to critical multiculturalists, societies do not fulfill their responsibility of providing equal opportunities
for everyone (Gamage, 2008). Therefore, critical multiculturalists argue that the purpose of education is
development and democratic emancipation, and schools, curriculums, and instruction are mediums for producing
democratic citizens (Gamage, 2008). The acceptance that cultural pedagogy which is expressed with schools and
television shows, movies, video games, popular music, etc. does not engage in unbiased and ideologically
immaculate activities is at the center of the critical theory (Gamage, 2008; Kincheloe & Steinberg, 2002). In the
critical approach, justice is pursued by focusing on the relationship between equity and excellence, and on the
other hand, on race, ethnic structure, and socioeconomic group structures. It is believed that leaving these
problems to free market competition processes and only to upward social movement would be a failure in terms of

jel.ccsenet.org Journal of Education and Learning Vol. 8, No. 4; 2019
142
realizing justice (Jenks et al., 2001). Critical multicultural education provides a pedagogic framework that puts,
ideas, experiences and social norms, that certain groups benefit from at the expense of others, in the center of
educational studies to criticize and object, which is strengthening and transformative for students (Gérin-Lajoie,
2008; Ghosh, 2002; Kincheloe & Steinberg, 2002; May & Sleeter, 2010; Solomon, 1996).
The present study addresses the “single group studies” and “multicultural education,” and “multicultural social
justice” approaches of Sleeter and Grant within critical multiculturalism. Single group studies focus on a particular
group and aim to explain why this group is exposed to discrimination (Sleeter & Grant, 1987; 2007). The
objectives of these studies and ethic research programs include; (a) content integration that presents ideas and
concepts by providing examples on members of different groups or information about different groups (b) efforts
of a group member to gain economic, social and political power. These strategies concentrate on the knowledge
production process towards the questions of why perspectives of a certain group are excluded, what are the reasons
for inequity, and how traditional education maintains inequity (Ali & Ancis, 2005). Single group studies approve
an education towards developing a critical awareness of the need for change in the group, in order to increase the
status of the particular group (Jenks et al., 2001). The social purpose of this approach is to recognize the groups
that students who are excluded from the dominant culture belong to and to teach them their roots through critical
questioning in a way to support structural equity. The purpose of the school is to teach the skills which are
necessary for a group to reach their objectives through history and culture. A curriculum includes appropriate
learning experiences and activities that will enable students to learn about the constitutions of their group to society,
challenges that groups should overcome, and the issues that they currently confront (Grant & Ham, 2013).
The advocates of the second critical approach presented by Grant and Sleeter, “multicultural education” use the
expression of multicultural education to define human rights, social justice, equal opportunity, cultural diversity,
and equal power distribution methods for marginalized groups (Ali & Ancis, 2005; Grant & Sleeter, 2007). The
social purpose of this approach is to help students to learn about their roots through intellectual reasoning and
critical questioning in a way to support their pluralist perspective with structural equality, cultural pluralism, and
cultural recognition. The objectives of the school include the acceptance of power equity between groups, equality
of opportunity, cultural pluralism, and alternative lifestyles. A curriculum should be organized around the
contributions and perspectives of multiple groups, to teach critical thinking for the analysis of similarities and
differences. Curriculum activates designed in a way to support students for the subjects which academically
challenge them and for the use of multiple languages (Grant & Ham, 2013). It integrates knowledge on various
groups into the curriculum, and in this way, enables the continuous teaching of all subjects from a multicultural
perspective (Ali & Ancis, 2005; Grant & Sleeter, 2007). Also, this approach aims to alter school culture and
organization to enable students to represent and enhance their groups. The “multicultural social justice” approach
of Grant and Sleeter is expressed as the most visionary and critical approach which follows the multicultural
education phase. In multicultural social justice education, the issues related to race, social class, gender, and
disability are addressed more directly in comparison to other approaches. The purpose of this approach is to
prepare the citizens of the future, particularly colored, poor, women and disabled individuals, to take action to
serve the interest of all human groups in a better way. The approach is based on the re-structuring idea that aims to
restructure the society for more equality in terms of race, class, gender, and disability, and also questions the power
relations and ethics in the global economy (Grant & Sleeter, 2010). Despite the fact that this approach and the
multicultural education approach are very similar concerning their curriculum and instruction, there are
differences due to the fact that the four practices are intrinsic to multicultural social justice education (Grant &
Sleeter, 2010). First of all, democracy is actively implemented in schools (Banks, 2007; Parker, 2003). Secondly,
students learn about how to analyze institutional inequality in their own living conditions. Thirdly, students learn
about participating in social actions to change unjust social processes. Finally, they might collaborate to extend
their common interest spheres formed between marginalized groups. Therefore it is important as it can provide
energy against oppression and strengthen the fight against unjust social processes.
In his study, Gorski (2009) mentions two important phases. These are “teaching in sociopolitical context” that has
become critical in the context of multiculturalism and “teaching as resistance and counter-hegemonic practice.”
Teaching in the sociopolitical context is characterized by the critical analysis of education policies and practices at
an institutional level, addressing this analysis within a wide sociopolitical context and contribution of critical
theories. This approach emphasizes the analysis of the impacts of sociocultural and sociopolitical variables on race,
ethnic origin, gender and social class, and the impacts of tendencies of schools’ structures, policies, and practices
concerning the maintenance of discrimination and inequity on students and educators. Furthermore, the attention is
drawn to the parallelism between educational inequalities and social inequalities. The significant difference
between the “teaching as resistance and counter-hegemonic practice” and “teaching in sociopolitical context” is

jel.ccsenet.org Journal of Education and Learning Vol. 8, No. 4; 2019
143
preparing teachers for resistance, and their determination to make their students for strength. Moreover, this
approach aims to enable teachers and prospective teachers to imagine themselves as a change agent within and
outside schools and to nurture this spirit in their students; and brings forward the issue of reconstruction of the
society as the key project of multicultural education.
When the concept of multiculturalism is considered as the basis, the “transformation” and “social action” phases of
Banks’ (1994; 2012) and the respect” and “affirmation, solidarity and critique” phases of Nieto (1994; 2017)
becomes more critical. The transformation approach of Banks is different than contributions and additive methods
in principle. In the transformation approach, there is a need for a change in the structure of the curriculum due to
the fact that perspectives and experiences of ethnic, racial and other minority groups will be included in the
curriculum. The transformation approach alters the underlying assumptions of the curriculum and proposes reform
to enable students to consider concepts, subjects, themes, and problems from different ethnic perspectives and
viewpoints. First of all, the transformation approach is critical because it teaches students to analyze the
knowledge that underlies cultural assumptions and its relation between different cultures and the dominant culture.
It encourages democracy through equity and justice education. In this way, it enables students to comprehend
concepts from different perspectives (Banks, 1994; 1988; 2012). On the other hand, the social action approach
requires students to take action to fight injustice and inequity through community-based curriculums, instead of
analyzing problems through a restructured curriculum in the transformation phase. By means of this curriculum,
students carry out research/action projects and learn about the methods to start a change (Banks, 1994; 1988;
2012).
In Nieto’s (1994; 2017) classification, the “respect” phase follows the affirmation phase. This phase includes
respecting differences and esteem for diversity. When the differences are respected, respect has become the basis
of all activities that occur in a school. The employees of a school, teachers and other personnel, also show a
diversity just as students. Major changes can be realized in the curriculum, and bilingual education can be included
in curriculums (Nieto, 1994; 2017). In the “affirmation, solidarity and critique” phase, which follows the respect
phase, the main assumption is based on the understanding that culture is not constant or unalterable, and therefore
it is reproachable. The multicultural education at this level is associated with equity and social justice. Students
start to understand the universality of power, oppression, prejudice, and privilege, to see the connection between
themselves and others, and to develop a global understanding of social movements.
Accordingly, it is possible to place the approaches within the scope of multicultural education in Sleeter and
Grant’s (1987; 2007) single group studies and multicultural education, Banks’s (1994; 2012) transformation,
Gorski’s (2009) teaching in sociopolitical context and Nieto’s (1994; 2017) respect approach in the first phases of
critical multicultural approaches. The main purpose of teacher training objective of this phase is to equip them with
skills to improve their students’ social action skills by engaging in a critical examination of the systemic influences
of power, oppression, dominance, inequity, and injustice on schooling, from their practice to institutional and
federal education policy.
The phases; Grant and Sleeter’s (1987; 2007) multicultural social justice, Gorski’s (2009) teaching as resistance
and counter-hegemonic practice, Nieto’s affirmation, solidarity, and critique phases and Banks’s social action
phases constitute the second phase of critical multiculturalism. Critical theories are concerned with the role of
institutions such as schools in the prevalence of economic, social and political inequity, and they acknowledge that
these inequities and exploitation is not only economical, but also arise from gender, race, nationality, social class
structures and discrimination against disabled individuals, apart from (Hooks,1994; Mthethwa-Sommers, 2014).
The teacher training objective of this phase is to equip teachers with the creating research/action projects skill that
will help them to enable their students to take action and fight against injustice and inequity through
community-based curriculums.
As a result the present study re-organized the approaches to teacher training and teacher training objectives of
these approaches within the framework of McLaren’s (1994; 2003) conceptual framework by considering the
main features of the approaches presented by Grant and Sleeter (1987; 2007), Nieto (1994; 2017), Banks (2004;
2012) and Gorski (2009) (Table 2).

jel.ccsenet.org Journal of Education and Learning Vol. 8, No. 4; 2019
144
Table 2. Multicultural education and approaches to teacher education
Mclaren Grant & Sleeter Banks Gorski Nieto Teacher training Objectives
Conservative
Multiculturalism
Monocultural
Education
To prepare teachers to “enable
students to be assimilated into an
education system based on the
assumption that there is no cultural
difference among them”
Teaching
exceptional and
culturally
different
Teaching the “other” To prepare teachers to “enable
students to be assimilated into the
education system by analyzing
cultures, values, lifestyles, and
worldviews of different identity
groups” (Gorski, 2009).
Contributions Tolerance
Liberal
Muliculturalism
Human Relations
Additive Teaching with
Cultural Sensitivity
and Tolerance
To equip teachers with the skills to
be tolerant towards differences and
sensitive to diversity by analyzing
biased attitudes and behaviors
(Gorski, 2009)
Multicultural
Education
Teaching with
Multicultural
Competence
Acceptance To provide teachers with the
knowledge and practical skills
necessary to implement multicultural
curriculum and pedagogical
strategies and enabling them to meet
the diverse learning needs of
students.
Critical
Multiculturalism
Single group
studies
Transformation Teaching in
Sociopolitical
Context
Respect To equip teachers with skills to
improve social action skills of
students by critically analyzing
personal, professional and
institutional practices, and
systematic impacts of power,
oppression, domination, inequities,
and injustice, and educational
policies on education.
Multicultural
Social Justice
Social Action Teaching as
Resistance and
Counter-Hegemonic
Practice
Affirmation,
solidarity, and
critique
The teacher training objective of this
phase is teaching the skill of creating
and implementing
research/action-based projects to
enable students to take action and
fight with injustice and inequities
through
community-based-curriculums.
4. Discussion
Data of the study, which are intended to see the whole, reveals the socio-political context of multicultural
education and teacher education in the United States and how it is defined. The studies, in particular the study of
Gorski (2009), conducted in the field reveal that all of the liberal and critical approaches starting from the
conservative multicultural education and the in-between tones are used in teacher education today, even in the
mother country of multicultural education, and that there is no collective voice in this field.
The social conditions of each country are different from each other. However, multicultural education refers to
more than just one set of teaching strategies or teaching programs; it is also seen as an arena (Sleeter, 2018) for
the power of defining the objectives and processes of education in a diverse and unequal world. In this sense, it
is almost the same in every country today. The determinant factor in this field is the cultural, social, political, and
economic philosophies of the countries. The cultural politics history of Western societies is closely related to the
development of their societies as a nation-state. These societies have especially assumed a central responsibility
in the process of establishing a centralized state by defining a community or a tribe living in a particular region
as a specific culture. They, as members of a defined society (nation) living on the same land, have helped the

jel.ccsenet.org Journal of Education and Learning Vol. 8, No. 4; 2019
145
“imaginary societies,” as expressed by Benedict Anderson, form a nation that is shaped jointly by common
identity and history and that shares a common culture (Bennett, 2001, p. 27). Just as it is all over the world,
naturally the process was the same in Turkey as well, and the known facts have not been officially stated. For
this reason, it is seen in Turkey that very few studies, for which research results are shared with the public, about
the distribution of various groups are conducted by some private survey companies. According to the data of the
survey conducted with mother tongue control in 2011, the distribution of ethnic identities of adults (18 years old
and over) in Turkey has been determined to be local identities with 78.1 percent Turkish, 13.4 percent Kurdish,
1.5 percent “Laz” and “Turkmen” and other groups with 0.31 percent (Konda, 2011). According to this
distribution, there were rarely a few students from different cultures in the classes of teachers, and they could not
perceive that those students came from different cultures. Because they were being prepared to “ensure the
assimilation of such students in the education system, based on the assumption that there was no cultural
difference between the students.” An essential part of these children could not survive in the education system
for a long time. Today, the schools and teachers encountered such a large group for the first time, and they don’t
know what to do, how to educate these children; they don’t understand them and cannot speak their languages.
This is a major problem now not only for the teachers and schools, but also for the education system and, even,
for all systems and society. In such contexts, multicultural education is generally considered as a way of
improving the conditions and assimilation of new immigrants (Aguado-Odina et al., 2017; Sleeter, 2018) and as
a way to create “tolerance” between immigrants and native students. According to the results of this study, the
objective of teacher education of the second phase of conservative multicultural education is to examine the
cultures, values, lifestyles, and worldviews of various identity groups and to prepare the teachers in order to
assimilate those various identity groups in the education system (Gorski, 2009). This may be considered as an
option; however, it may mean creating new and bigger problems rather than a solution when we look at the
experiences of the Kurdish community in Turkey and the communities in the world.
In this study, it is seen, through the examination of biased attitudes and behaviors and prejudices in particular,
that the teacher education objectives of liberal multicultural education approach are to provide teachers with the
ability to tolerate differences and be sensitive to diversity (Gorski, 2009) and to provide them with the
knowledge and practical skills necessary to implement the multicultural education program and pedagogical
strategies and to ensure that students meet various learning needs. The liberal approach that can be defined as
more humane compared to conservative multicultural education requires a new philosophical view and the
reconceptualization of multicultural education, as in other approaches. Such an approach towards teaching is
very different from assuming that a contextually unbiased general pedagogy and curriculum is suitable for all
students. Many educators of teachers and policymakers may consider such approach and conceptualization
sufficient and suitable.
It is recommended that the necessity of social change and teacher education can be organized in line with these
objectives by taking social justice as the foundation in both phases of critical multicultural education. It is seen in
literature in recent years that the emphasis on “social justice” as a theme in the teacher education concept has
increased. According to Cochran-Smith, Gleeson, and Mitchell (2010), some critics (i.e., Crowe, 2008;
MacDonald, 1998; Will, 2006) reject the idea of “teacher education for social justice” because they see it as
progressive and political targets at the cost of traditional academic learning objectives. On the contrary, many
supporters (i.e., 2006; Michelli & Keizer, 2005; Oakes & Lipton, 1999) argue that providing all students with
intellectually complex learning opportunities is a central part of teacher education for social justice
(Cochran-Smith et al., 2010).
The educators of teachers and policymakers will evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each of them based on
their own philosophical stances about multiculturalism while examining the approaches mentioned above.
Ideally, it can be asserted that a fairer and more democratic society can be achieved by the realization of the
teacher education objective of the final stages, by moving the students towards a critical philosophical
framework and through a fair and democratic education.
References
Ali, S. R., & Ancis, J. R. (2005). Teaching and social justice: Integrating multicultural and feminist theories in
the classroom. In C. Z Enns & A. L Sinacore (Eds.), Multicultural education and critical pedagogy
approach. (pp. 69–84). Washington: American Psychological Association.
https://doi.org/10.1037/10929-004
Association for Refugees/Multeciler Dernegi. (2018). Istatistikler. Retrieved from
https://multeciler.org.tr/istatistikler/

jel.ccsenet.org Journal of Education and Learning Vol. 8, No. 4; 2019
146
Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. A. (2012). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (8th ed.). Wiley Global
Education.
Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. A. M. (2004). Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education. 2.bs. Multicultural
education: Historical development, dimensions, and practice (pp. 3–30). San Francisco USA: Jossey-Bass
Edition. https://doi.org/10.2307/1167339
Bennett, T. (2001). Differing Diversities Transversal Study on the Theme of Cultural Policy and Cultural
Diversity. Council of Europe Publishing, F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex ISBN 92-871-4649-7.
Clumming-McCann, A. (2003) Multicultural education: Connecting theory and practice. Focus on Basics:
Connecting Research and Practice, 6(B), 9–12. Retrieved from http://ncsall.net/index.html@id=208.html
Cochran-Smith, M., Gleeson, A. M., & Mitchell, K. (2010). Teacher education for social justice: what’s pupil
learning got to do with it? Berkeley Review of Education, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.5070/B81110022
Erdem, M. D., Kaya I., & Yilmaz, A. (2017). Örgün Eğitim Kapsamındaki Suriyeli Çocukların Eğitimleri Ve
Okul Yaşantıları Hakkında Öğretmen Görüşlerinin Değerlendirilmesi. International Journal of Languages’
Education and Teaching, 5(3), 463–476. https://doi.org/10.18298/ijlet.2071
Gamage, S. (2008). Interrogating common sense: Teaching for social justice In I. Soliman (Ed.), Current
thinking about critical multicultural and critical race theory in education (pp. 111–131). Frenchs Forest,
Australia: Pearson Education.
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Teachers College
Press.
GİGM. (2017). Göç İdaresi Başkanlığı. The Directorate General of Migration Management. Geçici Koruma.
Retrieved from http://www.goc.gov.tr/icerik6/gecici-koruma_363_378_4713_ icerik.
GİGM. (2015). Göç İdaresi Başkanlığı. The Directorate General of Migration Management. Turkiye’nin
Duzensiz Gocle Mucadelesi. Retrieved from
http://www.goc.gov.tr/icerik3/turkiyenin-duzensizgocle-mucadelesi_409_422_424
Gorski, P. C. (2009). What we’re teaching teachers: An analysis of multicultural teacher education coursework
syllabi. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 309–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.07.008
Grant, C. (1994). Best practices in teacher preparation for urban schools: Lessons from the Multicultural teacher
education literature. Action in Teacher Education, 16(3), 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.1994.10463204
Grant, C., A., & Ham, S. (2013). Multicultural Education Policy in South Korea: Current Struggles and Hopeful
Visio n. Multicultural Education Review, 5(1), 67–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/2005615X.2013.11102898
Grant, C., & Sleeter, C. (2007). Doing multicultural education for achievement and equity. New York:
Routledge.
Grant, C., & Sleeter, C. (2008). Turning on learning: Five approaches for multicultural teaching plans for race,
class, gender, and disability. San Francisco: Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Grant, C., & Sleeter, C. (2010). Race, Class, Gender, and Disability in the Classroom, In Multicultural education:
Issues and perspectives (Ed. Banks & Banks, 8th ed.). Wiley Global Education
Hooks, B. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. NY: Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.3366/para.1994.0013
Irvin, J. J. (2003). Educating Teachers for Diversity: Seeing with a Cultural Eye. Teachers College Press.
Jenks, C., Lee, J. O., & Kanpol, B. (2001). Approaches to Multicultural Education in Preservice Teacher
Education: Philosophical Frameworks and Models or Teaching. The Urban Review, 33, 87–105.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010389023211
Kardeş, S., & Akman, B. (2018). Suriyeli sığınmacıların eğitimine yönelik öğretmen görüşleri. İlköğretim Online,
17(3), 1224–1237. https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2018.466333
Konda. (2011). Kurt Meselesi’nde Algı ve Beklentiler. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
Leistyna, P. (2002). Defining and Designing Multiculturalism: One School System’s Efforts. State University of
New York Press, SUNY series.
Levent, F., & Cayak, S. (2017). School Administrators’ Views on Syrian Students’ Education in Turkey. Hasan

jel.ccsenet.org Journal of Education and Learning Vol. 8, No. 4; 2019
147
Ali Yucel Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 14(1), 21.
Manap-Kırmızıgül, C. (2017). Türkiye’deki Mültecilerin Dezavantajlılığı. Toplum Ve Demokrasi Dergisi, 11(24).
McLaren, P. (2003). Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of Education (4th
ed.). Albany, NY: Allyn and Bacon.
McLaren, P. L. (1995). Multicultural education, critical pedagogy, and the politics of difference In C.E. Sleeter &
P. L. McLaren (Eds.), White terror and oppositional agency: Towards critical multiculturalism (pp. 33–70).
Albany, NY: State. University of New York Press.
Mercan-Uzun, E., & Butun, E. (2016). Okul Öncesi Eğitim Kurumlarındaki Suriyeli Sığınmacı Çocukların
Karşılaştıkları Sorunlar Hakkında Öğretmen Görüşleri. Uluslararası Erken Çocukluk Eğitimi Çalışmaları
Dergisi, Hasan Kalyoncu Üniversitesi.
Millar, J. (2004). Systematic Reviews for Policy Analysis. In S. Becker and A. Byrman (Eds.), Understanding
Research for Social Policy and Practice: Themes, Methods and Approaches. Bristol: Policy Press.
Milner, J., & Loescher. G. (2011). Refugee Studies. Centre Oxford Department of the International Development
University of Oxford.
MoNE, Ministry of National Education. (2016). Suriyeli Çocukların Türk Eğitim Sistemine Entegrasyonunun
Desteklenmesi Projesi PICTES.
MoNE, Ministry of National Education. (2017). Öğretmen Strateji Belgesi: 2017–2023. Öğretmen Yetiştirme ve
Geliştirme Genel Müdürlüğü, Ankara
MoNE, Ministry of National Education. (2018). Geçici koruma altındaki öğrencilerin eğitim hizmetleri.
Retrieved from
https://hbogm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2018_03/05103521_05-03-2018__Ynternet_BYlteni.pdf
Mthethwa-Sommers, S. (2014). Narratives of Social Justice Educators. Standing Firm Springer. Cham.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08431-2
Nieto, S. (1994). Affirmation, solidarity, and critique: Moving beyond tolerance in multicultural education.
Multicultural Education, 1(3), 9–12, 35–39. Retrieved from
http://www.sonianieto.com/OLD/PDF/Moving%20beyond%20tolerance%20Mult%20Ed%201994.pdf
Nieto, S. (2017). Language, Culture, and Teaching: Critical Perspectives (3rd ed.). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315465692
Nieto, S., & Bode, P. (2008). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education (5th ed.).
Boston: Pearson.
Özer, Y., Komşuoğlu, A., & Ateşok, Z. (2016). Türkiye’deki Suriyeli Çocukların Eğitimi: Sorunlar ve Çözüm
Önerileri. The Journal of Academic Social Science, 4(37), 76–110. https://doi.org/10.16992/ASOS.11696
Sleeter, C. E. (2018). Multicultural Education Past, Present, and Future: Struggles for Dialog and Power-Sharing.
International Journal of Multicultural Education, 20(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.18251/ijme.v20i1.1663
Sleeter, C. E., & Grant, C. (1987). An Analysis of Multicultural Education in the United States. Harvard
Educational Review, 57(4). https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.4.v810xr0v3224x316
Solomon, R. P. (1996). Beyond celebratory multiculturalism: Where Teachers fear to tread. In K. A. McLeod
(Ed.), Multicultural education: The state of the art national study, report #4 (pp. 67–74). Winnipeg, MB:
CASLT.
Taştan, C., & Çelik, Z. (2017). Education of Syrian children in Turkey: Challenges and Recommendations.
Eğitim-Bir-Sen Stratejik Araştırmalar Merkezi, Educators Trade Union Research Center.
Ukpokodu, O. N. (2008). Teachers reflections on pedagogies that enhance learning in an online course on
teaching for equity and social justice. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 7, 227–255. Retrieved from
http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/pdf/7.3.5.pdf
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). (2017). Global Trends. Forced Dısplacement in
2017.
Vavrus, M. (2002). Transforming the Multicultural Education of Teachers: Theory, Research, and Practice. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing Culturally Responsive Teachers: Rethinking the Curriculum

jel.ccsenet.org Journal of Education and Learning Vol. 8, No. 4; 2019
148
Journal of Teacher Education, 53(20). https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487102053001003
Zeichner, K. M., & Hoeft, K. (1996). Handbook of research on teacher Education (2nd ed). In J. Sikula, T.
Buttery & E. Guyto (Eds.), Teacher socialization for cultural diversity (pp. 525–547). New York:
Macmillan.
Appendix A
Author(s) Year Article
Sleeter, Christine E. 2018 Multicultural Education Past, Present, and Future: Struggles for Dialog and
Power-Sharing. International Journal of Multicultural Education, [S.l.], v. 20, n. 1, pp. 5–
20, feb. 2018
Gutentag, T., Horenczyk,
G., & Tatar, M.
2018 Teachers’ Approaches Toward Cultural Diversity Predict Diversity-Related Burnout and
Self-Efficacy. Journal of Teacher Education, 69(4), 408–419.
Sleeter, C. E. 2017 Critical Race Theory and the Whiteness of Teacher Education. Urban Education, 52(2),
155–169
Wayne Journell 2017 Politically Conservative Preservice Teachers and the Spiral of Silence: Implications for
Teacher Education. Teacher Education Quarterly, Vol. 44, No. 2 (Spring 2017), pp. 105–
129
Berchini, C. N 2017 Critiquing Un/Critical Pedagogies to Move Toward a Pedagogy of Responsibility in
Teacher Education. Journal of Teacher Education, 68(5), 463–475.
Thompson, Franklin Titus “Advancing the Dialogue on Multicultural Instructional Approaches,” Journal of
Curriculum, Teaching, Learning and Leadership in Education: Vol. 2: Iss. 1, Article 7.
Howlett, K., M.; Bowles,
F., A.; Lincoln, F.
2017 Infusing Multicultural Literature into Teacher Education Programs: Three Instructional
Approaches Multicultural Education, v24, n3–4, p10–15, Spr-Sum 2017
Lucey, T., A.; White, E., S. 2017 Mentorship in Higher Education: Compassionate Approaches Supporting Culturally
Responsive Pedagogy Multicultural Education, v24, n2, p11–17, Win
Christopher C. Martell 2017 Approaches to teaching race in elementary social studies: A case study of preservice
teachers The Journal of Social Studies Research Volume 41, Issue 1, January 2017, Pages
75–87
Clark, C., Sapon-Shevin,
M., Brimhall -Vargas, M.,
McGhie, T., & Nieto, S.
2017 Critical Multicultural Education as an Analytical Point of Entry into Discussion of
Intersectional Scholarship: A Focus on Race, as Well as Class, Gender, Sexuality,
Dis/Ability, and Family Configuration. Taboo: The Journal of Culture and Education, 16
(1).
CHO, Hyunhee. 2017. Navigating the Meanings of Social Justice, Teaching for Social Justice, and Multicultural
Education. International Journal of Multicultural Education, [S.l.], v. 19, n. 2, pp. 1–19,
June
Hall, G. C. N., Yip, T., &
Zárate, M. A.
2016 On becoming multicultural in a monocultural research world: A conceptual approach to
studying ethnocultural diversity. American Psychologist, 71(1), 40–51.
Tichnor-Wagner, A,
Parkhouse, H., Glazier,
J.& Cain, J
2016 Expanding approaches to teaching for diversity and social justice in K-12 education:
Fostering global citizenship across the content areas. education policy analysis archives,
24, 59.
Alismail, Halah Ahmed 2016 Multicultural Education: Teachers’ Perceptions and Preparation
Journal of Education and Practice, v7, n11, pp. 139–146, 201
Agirdag, O., Merry, M. S.,
& Van Houtte, M.
2016 Teachers’ Understanding of Multicultural Education and the Correlates of Multicultural
Content Integration in Flanders. Education and Urban Society, 48(6), 556–582.
Paul C. Gorski 2016 Making better multicultural and social justice teacher educators: a qualitative analysis of
the professional learning and support needs of multicultural teacher education faculty,
Multicultural Education Review, 8(3), 139–159,
Ramona F. Amthor &
Kevin Roxas
2016 Multicultural Education and Newcomer Youth: Re-Imagining a More Inclusive Vision
for Immigrant and Refugee Students, Educational Studies, 52(2),155–176
Logvinova O., K.
&Ivanova G., P.
2016 Pre-Service Teac h er Multicultural Education in Russia: Problems and Responses Indian
Journal of Science and Technology, Vol 9(29)
Martin, Renee J.;
Dagostino-Kalniz, Victoria
2015 Living Outside Their Heads: Assessing the Efficacy of a Multicultural Course on the
Attitudes of Graduate Students in Teacher Education. Journal of Cultural Diversity.
Summer2015, Vol. 22 Issue 2, pp. 43–49. 7p
Zeichner K., Payne, K., A.
& Brayko, K.
2015 Democratizing Teacher Education Journal of Teacher Education
2015, Vol. 66(2), 122–135
Nieto, S. 2015 Moving beyond Tolerance in Multicultural Education. Multicultural Education, v1 n4 pp
9–12, 35–38 Spr 1994
Santamaría, L. J 2014. Critical Change for the Greater Good: Multicultural Perceptions in Educational

jel.ccsenet.org Journal of Education and Learning Vol. 8, No. 4; 2019
149
Leadership Toward Social Justice and Equity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(3),
347–391.
Thompson, F. T. 2014. Effective Multicultural Instruction: A Non-Color-Blind Perspective. SAGE Open. Journal
of Education and Practice Vol.7, No.11, 2016
Desmond S. King and
Rogers M. Smith,
2014 Multicultural Education: Teachers’ Perceptions and Preparation “Without Regard to
Race”: Critical Ideational Development in Modern American Politics, The Journal of
Politics 76, no. 4 (October 2014), 958–971.
Daniela Martin
2014 Good education for all? Student race and identity development in the multicultural
classroom International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Volume 39, 2014, pp. 110–123
Ndemanu, Michael
Tak af or
2014 Multicultural Teacher Education Courses Are Not Designed for All Pre-service
Teachers: An African American Student Teacher’s Perspective.
Journal of Instructional Psychology. 2014, Vol. 41 Issue 1–4, pp. 64–78. 15p.
Lorri J. Santamaría 2014 Critical Change for the Greater Good: Multicultural Perceptions in Educational
Leadership Toward Social Justice and Equity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(3),
347–391.
Ilana Paul-Binyamin, Roni
Reingold
2014 Multiculturalism in teacher education institutes – The relationship between formulated
official policies and grassroots initiatives
Teaching and Teacher Education, Volume 42, 2014, pp. 47–57
Ritchie, S.; S., An,;
Cone, ; Bullock, P.
2013 Teacher Education for Social Change: Transforming a Content Methods Course Block
Current Issues in Comparative Education, v15, n2, pp. 63–83, Spr
Robinson, Jasmine
Angela.
2013 Critical Approaches to Multicultural Children's Literature in the Elementary Classroom:
Challenging Pedagogies of Silence New England Reading Association Journal; Portland
Vol. 48, Iss. 2, (2013), 43–51,88.
Smith, Patriann. 2013 Accomplıshıng The Goals of Multıcultural Educatıon. Curriculum & Teaching Dialogue.
2013, Vol. 15 Issue 1/2, pp. 27–40. 14p.
Krummel, A. 2013 Multicultural Teaching Models to Educate Pre-Service Teachers: Reflections,
Service-Learning, and Mentoring. Current Issues in Education, 16(1).
Carl A. Grant & Sejung
Ham
2013 Multicultural Education Policy in South Korea: Current Struggles and Hopeful Vision,
Multicultural Education Review, 5(1), 67–95.
Paul C. Gorski, Shannon
N. Davis & Abigail Reiter
2013 An Examination of the (In)visibility of Sexual Orientation, Heterosexism, Homophobia,
and Other LGBTQ Concerns in U.S. Multicultural Teacher Education Coursework,
Journal of LGBT Youth, 10(3), 224–248
Ndura, E., & Dogbevia
M., K.
2013 Re-envisioning Multicultural Education in Diverse Academic Contexts. Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences, Volume 93, 2013, pp. 1015–1019
Paul C. Gorski 2012 Instructıonal, Instıtutıonal, And Socıopolıtıcal Challenges of Teachıng. Multıcultural
Teacher Educatıon Courses the Teacher Educator, 47, 216–235
Paul C. Gorski, Shannon
N. Davis & Abigail Reiter
2012 Self-Efficacy and Multicultural Teacher Education in the United States: The Factors That
Influence Who Feels Qualified to be a Multicultural Teacher Educator, Multicultural
Perspectives, 14(4), 220–228,
Lerner, Amy B.
2012 The Educational Resettlement of Refugee Children: Examining Several Theoretical
Approaches Multicultural Education, v20, n1, pp. 9–14, Fall 2012
Dervın, Fred et al 2012 Multicultural Education in Finland: Renewed Intercultural Competences to the Rescue?
International Journal of Multicultural Education, [S.l.], v. 14, n. 3, dec. 2012
Yang, Y., & Montgomery,
D.
2011 Behind Cultural Competence: The Role of Causal Attribution in Multicultural Teacher.
Education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(9).
Karuppiah N., &
Berthelsen D.
2011 Multicultural Education: The Understandings of Preschool Teachers in Singapore Volume:
36 issue: 4, pp. 38–42
Gorski, P. C., & Goodman,
R. D.
2011 Is There a “Hierarchy of Oppression” in U.S. Multicultural Teacher Education
Coursework? Action in Teacher Education, 33(5–6), 455–475
Xenia Meyer, Barbara A.
Crawford
2011 Teaching science as a cultural way of knowing: merging authentic inquiry, nature of
science, and multicultural strategies Cultural Studies of Science Education, 2011, Volume
6, Number 3, Page 525
Dilys Schoorman 2011 Reconceptualizing Teacher Education as a Social Justice Undertaking: Underscoring the
Urgency for Critical Multiculturalism in Early Childhood Education, Childhood
Education, 87(5), 341–344,
Dedeoglu, H., & Lamme,
L. L.
2011 Selected Demographics, Attitudes, and Beliefs About Diversity of Preservice Teachers.
Education and Urban Society, 43(4), 468–485
Pickett, A., & York, J. G. 2011 Multicultural teacher education: Developing a hermeneutic disposition. Philosophy of
Education Archive, 68–77.
Mayo, Sandra; Larke,
Patricia J.
2011 Multicultural Education Transformation in Higher Education: Getting Faculty to “Buy
In” Journal of Case Studies in Education, v1 Jan 2011

jel.ccsenet.org Journal of Education and Learning Vol. 8, No. 4; 2019
150
Ozturgut, O. 2011 Understanding Multicultural Education. Current Issues in Education, 14(2).
Laura B. Perry & Leonie
Southwell
2011 Developing intercultural understanding and skills: models and approaches, Intercultural
Education, 22(6), 453–466,
Theresa Alviar-Martin,
Li-Ching Ho
2011 “So, where do they fit in?” Teachers’ perspectives of multi-cultural education and
diversity in Singapore Teaching and Teacher Education, Volume 27, Issue 1, 2011, pp.
127–135
Syed, K. T. 2010 Canadian Educators’ Narratives of Teaching Multicultural Education. International Journal
of Canadian Studies, (42), 255–269.
Lori Czop Assaf, Rubén
Garza and Jennifer Battle
2010 Multicultural Teacher Education: Examining the Perceptions, Practices, and Coherence
in One Teacher Preparation Program, Teacher Education Quarterly, Vol. 37, No. 2, Shaping
New Models of Teacher Education (Spring 2010), pp. 115–135
Ken Zeichner
2010 Competition, economic rationalization, increased surveillance, and attacks on diversity:
Neo-liberalism and the transformation of teacher education in the U.S Teaching and
Teacher Education Volume 26, Issue 8, November 2010, Pages 1544–1552
GORSKI, Paul Cameron 2010 The Scholarship Informing the Practice: Multicultural Teacher Education Philosophy
and Practice in the U.S. International Journal of Multicultural Education, [S.l.], v. 12, n. 2,
nov. 2010
Dilys Schoorman, Ira
Bogotch
2010 Conceptualizations of multicultural education among teachers: Implications for practice
in universities and schools, Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1041–1048
Michalinos Zembylas &
Sotiroula Iasonos
2010 Leadership styles and multicultural education approaches: an exploration of their
relationship, International Journal of Leadership in Education, 13(2), 163–183
Keengwe, J. 2010 Fostering Cross-Cultural Competence in Preservice Teachers Through Multicultural
Education Experiences, Early Childhood Educ J (2010), 38, 197.
L Rosenthal, SR Levy 2010 The colorblind, multicultural, and polycultural ideological approaches to improving
intergroup attitudes and relations. Social Issues and Policy Review, 2010 - Wiley Online
Library
Camp, Emilie M.;
Oesterreich, Heather A.
2010 Uncommon Teaching in Commonsense Times: A Case Study of a Critical Multicultural
Educator and the Academic Success of Diverse Student Populations. Multicultural
Education, v17 n2 p20-26 Win 2010
Melissa L. Gibson 2010 Are We “Reading the World”? A Review of Multicultural Literature on Globalization,
Multicultural Perspectives, 12(3), 129–137
Ngo, B 2010 Doing “Diversity” at Dynamic High: Problems and Possibilities of Multicultural
Education in Practice. Education and Urban Society, 42(4), 473–495
Owen, PamelaM. 2010 Increasing Preservice Teachers’ Support for Multicultural Education. Multicultural
Perspectives. Jan-Mar 2010, Vol. 12, Issue 1, pp. 18–25. 8p.
Paul C. Gorski
2010 The Scholarship Informing the Practice: Multicultural Teacher Education Philosophy
and Practice in the United States International Journal of Multicultural Education 2010 Vol.
12, No. 2
Blincoe, S., & Harris, M.
J.
2009. Prejudice reduction in white students: Comparing three conceptual approaches. Journal
of Diversity in Higher Education, 2(4), 232–242.
Lowenstein, K. L. 2009. The Work of Multicultural Teacher Education: Reconceptualizing White Teacher
Candidates as Learners. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 163–196.
Paul C. Gorski 2009 What we’re teaching teachers: An analysis of multicultural teacher education
coursework syllabi. Teaching and Teacher Education Volume 25, Issue 2, February 2009,
Pages 309–318
Smith, Earl Bradford 2009 Approaches to Multicultural Education in Preservice Teacher Education: Philosophical
Frameworks and Models for Teaching, Multicultural Education, v16, n3, pp. 45–50, Spr
2009
Wang, J.-C., &
Humphreys, J. T.
2009. Multicultural and popular music content in an American music teacher education
program. International Journal of Music Education, 27(1), 19–36.
Gorski, P. C. 2009. Insisting on Digital Equity: Reframing the Dominant Discourse on Multicultural
Education and Technology. Urban Education, 44(3), 348–364.
Luther, Kristin. 2009 Celebration and Separation: A Troublesome Approach to Multicultural Education.
Multicultural Perspectives. Oct-Dec2009, Vol. 11 Issue 4, pp. 211–216. 6p. 1
Michael Vavrus 2009 Sexuality, schooling, and teacher identity formation: A critical pedagogy for teacher
education Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009), 383–390
Julia Resnik 2009 Multıcultural Educatıon – Good for Busıness But Not for The State? The Ib Currıculum
And Global Capıtalısm, British Journal of Educational Studies, 57(3), 217–244
Kumagai, A. K. & Lypson,
M. L.
2009. Beyond Cultural Competence: Critical Consciousness, Social Justice, and Multicultural
Education. Academic Medicine, 84(6), 782–787
Paul C. Gorski 2009 What we're teaching teachers: An analysis of multicultural teacher education coursework

jel.ccsenet.org Journal of Education and Learning Vol. 8, No. 4; 2019
151
syllabi Teaching and Teacher Education Volume 25, Issue 2, February 2009, Pages 309–
318
Rogers-Sirin, L. 2008 Approaches to multicultural training for professionals: A guide for choosing an
appropriate program. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 39(3), 313–319.
Neil O. Houser 2008 Cultural plunge: a critical approach for multicultural development in teacher education,
Race Ethnicity and Education, 11(4), 465–482,
Hanna Kaisa Nordström 2008 Environmental Education and Multicultural Education – Too Close to Be Separate?
International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 17(2), 131–145,
Michalinos Zembylas &
Sotiroula Iasonos
2008 Leadership styles and multicultural education approaches: an exploration of their
relationship, International Journal of Leadership in Education, 13(2), 163–183
Asher, N 2007 Made in the (Multicultural) U.S.A.: Unpacking Tensions of Race, Culture, Gender, and
Sexuality in Education. Educational Researcher, 36(2), 65–73.
Katherine Richardson
Bruna
2007 Finding new words: how I use critical literacy in my multicultural teacher education
classroom, Journal of Education for Teaching, 33(1), 115–118,
Laura S. Abrams &
Priscilla Gibson
2007 Teachıng Notes: Reframıng Multıcultural Educatıon: Teachıng Whıte Prıvılege in the
Socıal Work Currıculum, Journal of Social Work Education, 43(1), 147–160
Abril, C. R. 2006 Learning outcomes of two approaches to multicultural music education. International
Journal of Music Education, 24(1), 30–42.
Paul C. Gorski
2006 Complicity with conservatism: the de-politicizing of multicultural and intercultural
education Intercultural Education, Vol. 17, No. 2, May 2006, pp. 163–177
Elizabeth BifuhAmbe 2006 Fostering multicultural appreciation in pre-service teachers through multicultural
curricular transformation, Teaching and Teacher Education, Volume 22, Issue 6, August
2006, Pages 690–699
Cho, G. &
DeCastro-Ambrosetti, D.
2005 Is Ignorance Bliss? Pre-service Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Multicultural Education. The
High School Journal, 89(2), 24–28. The University of North Carolina Press. Retrieved
April 16, 2019, from Project MUSE database.
Gay, G. 2005 Politics of Multicultural Teacher Education. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(3), 221–
228.
H. Richard Milner 2005 Developing a Multicultural Curriculum in a Predominantly White Teaching Context:
Lessons from an African American Tea c he r in a Suburban English Classroom, Curriculum
Inquiry, 35(4), 391–427
Pewewardy, Cornel
2005 Shared Journaling: A Methodology for Engaging White Preservice Students into
Multicultural Education Discourse Teacher Education Quarterly, v32, n1, pp. 41–60, Win
2005
Honigsfeld, A., &
MarjorieSchiering
2004 Diverse Approaches to the Diversity of Learning Styles in Teacher Education, Educational
Psychology, 24(4), 487–507
Wasonga, T. A., & Joyce
A. Piveral
2004 Diversity and the Modeling of Multicultural Principles of Education in a Tea ch e r
Education Program, Multicultural Perspectives, 6(3), 42–47
Carmen Montecinos 2004 Paradoxes in multicultural teacher education research: students of color positioned as
objects while ignored as subjects, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education,
17(2), 167–181,
Trent, S. C., & Dixon, D.
J.
2004 “My Eyes Were Opened”: Tracing the Conceptual Change of Pre-Service Teachers in a
Special Education/Multicultural Education Course. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 27(2), 119–133.
Horton, Julie; Scott,
Dominic
2004 White Students’ Voices in Multicultural Teacher Education Preparation Multicultural
Education, v11, n4, pp. 12–16, Sum 2004
Cochran-Smith, Marilyn 2003 The Multiple Meanings of Multicultural Teacher Education: A Conceptual Framework,
Teacher Education Quarterly, v30, n2, pp. 7–26
Helfenbein, Jr., Robert J 2003 Troubling Multiculturalism: The New Work Order, Anti Anti-Essentialism, and a Cultural
Studies Approach to Education. Multicultural Perspectives. 2003, Vol. 5, Issue 4, pp. 10–
16. 7p.
Hudson, A. H. 2003 Multicultural Education and the Postcolonial Turn. Policy Futures in Education, 1(2),
381–401.
Allison
Cumming-McCann
2003 Multicultural Education Connecting Theory to Practice, Focus on Basics National Center
for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy (NCSALL), Volume 6, Issue B, February
2003
Michelle Jay 2003 Critical Race Theory, Multicultural Education, and the Hidden Curriculum of Hegemony,
Multicultural Perspectives, 5(4), 3–9,
Martin, R. J., & Van
Gunten, D. M.
2002 Reflected Identities: Applying Positionality and Multicultural Social Reconstructionism in
Teacher Education. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 44–54.
Jennings, L. B., & Smith, 2002 Examining the role of critical inquiry for transformative practices: Two joint case studies

jel.ccsenet.org Journal of Education and Learning Vol. 8, No. 4; 2019
152
C. P. of multicultural teacher education. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 456–481.
Lee Anne Bell 2002 Sincere Fictions: The Pedagogical Challenges of Preparing White Tea c her s for
Multicultural Classrooms, Equity & Excellence in Education, 35(3), 236–244,
Bennett, C. 2001 Genres of Research in Multicultural Education. Review of Educational Research, 71(2),
171–217.
Jenks, C., Lee, J.O. &
Kanpol, B.
2001 Approaches to Multicultural Education in Preservice Teac h er Education: Philosophical
Frameworks and Models for TeachingThe Urban Review 33(87).
Gaudelli, William. 2001 Reflections on multicultural education: A teacher’s experience
Multicultural Education; San Francisco Vol. 8, Iss. 4, (Summer 2001): 35-37.
Nieto, S. 2000 Placing equity front and center: Some thoughts on transforming teacher education for a
new century. Journal of Teacher Education, 51 (3), 180-187.
Roux, Johann Le. 2000 Multicultural education: a new approach for a new South African dispensation. Academic
Journal of Intercultural Education. Apr 2000, Vol. 11, Issue 1, pp. 19–29. 11p.
Olneck, M 2000 Can Multicultural Education Change What Counts as Cultural Capital? American
Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 317–348.
Copyrights
Copyright for this article is retained by the author, with first publication rights granted to the journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).