A mixed methods examination of teachers' use of bias‐reduction strategies to increase relational equity and the role of the implementation context

IF 1.8 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL
Larissa M. Gaias, Mylien T. Duong, Catherine M. Corbin, Clayton R. Cook, Mark Deveau, Priscilla Kyoyetera, Olivia Wood
{"title":"A mixed methods examination of teachers' use of bias‐reduction strategies to increase relational equity and the role of the implementation context","authors":"Larissa M. Gaias, Mylien T. Duong, Catherine M. Corbin, Clayton R. Cook, Mark Deveau, Priscilla Kyoyetera, Olivia Wood","doi":"10.1002/pits.23251","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Teachers' racial biases can impact disparities in their perceptions and expectations of students and contribute to inequitable student outcomes. Therefore, interventions that train teachers on strategies for reducing racial biases may hold promise for mitigating inequities. However, research on bias‐reduction interventions in applied contexts is limited and has not focused on examining the implementation of specific strategies or the implementation context. In this study, we used mixed methodology to examine the extent to which teachers (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 43) use four bias‐reduction strategies, called equity levers (i.e., seeking commonalities, gaining perspective, gathering facts to disprove assumptions, and knowing your vulnerabilities), which are embedded into a student–teacher relationship intervention called Equity‐Explicit Establish‐Maintain‐Restore. In addition, we explored whether any features of the school context support or hinder their implementation of these strategies. We found that teachers implemented the four equity levers and reported increased implementation of these strategies over time. We found quantitative and qualitative evidence of the importance of a strong implementation climate for supporting teachers' use of the equity levers, where teachers collectively value implementing the program and collaborating with one another. This study has implications for both the promise of four specific strategies that can be incorporated into other teacher training to reduce racial bias as well as the importance of establishing strong contextual supports to ensure the successful implementation of equity‐focused strategies.","PeriodicalId":48182,"journal":{"name":"Psychology in the Schools","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology in the Schools","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.23251","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Teachers' racial biases can impact disparities in their perceptions and expectations of students and contribute to inequitable student outcomes. Therefore, interventions that train teachers on strategies for reducing racial biases may hold promise for mitigating inequities. However, research on bias‐reduction interventions in applied contexts is limited and has not focused on examining the implementation of specific strategies or the implementation context. In this study, we used mixed methodology to examine the extent to which teachers (n = 43) use four bias‐reduction strategies, called equity levers (i.e., seeking commonalities, gaining perspective, gathering facts to disprove assumptions, and knowing your vulnerabilities), which are embedded into a student–teacher relationship intervention called Equity‐Explicit Establish‐Maintain‐Restore. In addition, we explored whether any features of the school context support or hinder their implementation of these strategies. We found that teachers implemented the four equity levers and reported increased implementation of these strategies over time. We found quantitative and qualitative evidence of the importance of a strong implementation climate for supporting teachers' use of the equity levers, where teachers collectively value implementing the program and collaborating with one another. This study has implications for both the promise of four specific strategies that can be incorporated into other teacher training to reduce racial bias as well as the importance of establishing strong contextual supports to ensure the successful implementation of equity‐focused strategies.
以混合方法研究教师使用减少偏见的策略来增进关系公平以及实施环境的作用
教师的种族偏见会影响他们对学生看法和期望的差异,造成学生成绩的不公平。因此,对教师进行减少种族偏见策略培训的干预措施可能有望缓解不公平现象。然而,关于在应用环境中减少偏见的干预措施的研究非常有限,而且没有重点研究具体策略的实施或实施环境。在本研究中,我们采用混合方法,考察了教师(n = 43)使用四种减少偏见策略的程度,这四种策略被称为 "公平杠杆"(即寻求共性、获得视角、收集事实以推翻假设,以及了解自己的弱点),这些策略被嵌入到一种名为 "公平-明确建立-维护-恢复 "的师生关系干预中。此外,我们还探究了学校环境中是否有支持或阻碍教师实施这些策略的因素。我们发现,教师们实施了四种公平杠杆,并报告说随着时间的推移,这些策略的实施率有所提高。我们在定量和定性方面都发现了强有力的实施氛围对支持教师使用公平杠杆的重要性,在这种氛围下,教师们都非常重视计划的实施和相互协作。这项研究的意义在于,四种具体策略可以被纳入其他教师培训中,以减少种族偏见,同时,建立强有力的环境支持以确保成功实施以公平为重点的策略也很重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Psychology in the Schools
Psychology in the Schools PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL-
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.00%
发文量
200
期刊介绍: Psychology in the Schools, which is published eight times per year, is a peer-reviewed journal devoted to research, opinion, and practice. The journal welcomes theoretical and applied manuscripts, focusing on the issues confronting school psychologists, teachers, counselors, administrators, and other personnel workers in schools and colleges, public and private organizations. Preferences will be given to manuscripts that clearly describe implications for the practitioner in the schools.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信