This is an interesting single case study, but it would be risky to extend any major conclusions to other contexts. A further weakness of this article is that the theory is largely separate from the observation. The lengthy introduction sets out the findings of previous scholars, but it is not always obvious how this relates to the particular teacher being studied in the article. The hybrid method of academic argument followed by snippets of interview leads to an implied devaluation of the teacher’s words as mere anecdote. It is as if the teacher is cited as an illustration of someone else’s theories, rather than a speaker and thinker in her own right. For this reason the article presents a strange aura of superficiality and the fact that the author is male and the subject is female creates a certain gender specific tension as well. This article shows a potential of researcher bias due to strong tone of advocacy that emerges. The choice of method leaves the male professor in control of the way a single female teacher’s voice is edited and presented. Status and gender issues make this a potentially unfair representation, and adding gender hierarchies to the obvious racial hierarchies that are discussed in the article. In summary, then, this article is clearly knowledgeable about theory, but somewhat inadequate in explaining the connection between theory and practice. Its focus on one researcher and one teacher makes it also very limited in scope and open to the charge of bias. Article 2 (Mathews and Dilworth) This article addresses three main questions relating to the way that preservice teachers view multicultural citizenship, namely 1) the type of citizen that preservice teachers aspire to promote in their future classrooms; 2) the way that preservice...
This paper approves that the innovative approach used in the Cutri article on narrative as a method of teaching and learning multicultural citizenship is applicable is a good example of new thinking being applied to a familiar context. It stands out as a new technique among many old and tired approaches, and although it may not suit everyone, and might seem suspect for researchers who prepare quantitative approaches and more triangulation from different perspectives, it can safely be recommended as an exciting tool to help trainee teachers set out their own narrative starting points and begin to engage students with the personal and the emotional aspects of the subject.
This essay comes to the conclusion that the close study of the three articles highlighted at the start of this paper has led to a greater appreciation of the difference between surface knowledge and deeply held beliefs. All three studies provide useful insights into the teaching of multicultural citizenship, and especially into the methods that should be used to train teachers of this discipline. The authors all stress the need for preservice teachers and teachers and also teacher educators to engage in a process of continuous reflection and application of theories to the teaching situation. It is clear that the majority of teaching and research in the field of multicultural civilization in the United States is still being conducted by white people and that engagement with some of the issues at a deep level is not taking place in many training programs. Greater familiarity with international scholarship, and a willingness to try new methods are two recommendations which would go a long way to remedying the narrow focus of these American studies.