A Mixed-Methods Study Examining Teacher Education Faculty\u27s Culturally Responsive Teaching Self-Efficacy and Outcome Expectancy Beliefs

This study examined the culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy (CRTSE) and outcome expectancy beliefs (CRTOE) of university-based teacher educators’ in the state of Georgia using an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design. Research involving culturally responsive teaching practices has historically focused on teacher candidates’ self-efficacy and views about diversity, but has neglected to investigate the teachers responsible for their development. Two theoretical frameworks, Gay’s culturally responsive theory and Bandura’s social cognitive theory, informed the tools used for data collection and data analysis. During the quantitative phase, teacher educator’s (N= 123) perspectives were explored using descriptive statistics from two scales CRTSE and CRTOE. Additionally, hierarchical multiple regression was used to examine significant relationships between fifteen independent variables (demographic, teaching background, and institutional) and CRTSE and CRTOE scales. The qualitative phase examined the lived experiences, professional development opportunities, and culturally responsive teaching practices of eight teacher educators, selected from the quantitative phase, with varying characteristics and CRTSE/CRTOE scores (HH,HL,LH,LL). The quantitative results revealed that variables associated with race, initial certification program, K-12 teaching environment, department, and years teaching in higher education significantly predicted CRTSE and CRTOE scores. The qualitative results emphasized that teacher educators with lived experiences intersecting with exclusion and discrimination were more confident in their ability to employ culturally responsive teaching practices and believed that this way of teaching leads to positive student outcomes. Teacher educators with high CRTOE and CRTOE scores also reported having positive views of racially and culturally diverse students when compared to faculty with low scores. Study limitations, future directions, and implications are discussed