Novice Teachers’ Knowledge of Racial Literacies

ABSTRACT

Grounded in Goodwin and Darity’s domains of knowledge for social justice educators, this study examines novice teachers’ (NTs) racial literacies. Specifically, this research integrates a framework for teacher knowledge with the construct of racial literacies to examine the structure of racially literate teachers’ knowledge and practices. Drawing on this framework, this research entailed designing, piloting, and validating a measure- the teachers’ Knowledge of Racial Literacies survey- of racial literacies. Semi-structured interviews of survey respondents were analyzed to improve the measure and reveal how participants’ racial literacies were developed. Findings indicate that NTs’ racial literacies exist on a continuum; participants demonstrated knowledge in individual domains, but not equally across domains. Additionally, nearly all participants reported few opportunities in teacher education programs to examine race and racism. Findings suggest the continued need for teacher education programs to develop connections between the five domains of knowledge to develop NTs as racially literate educators.

KEYWORDS:

• Racial literacies
• novice teachers
• mixed-methods
• domains of knowledge

Introduction

For decades and generations, activists have been fighting against racism and promoting antiracist work (e.g., Aptheker, 1943; Du Bois, 1936/1999; James, 1985). Recently, increased attention to anti-Black violence, such as the public assassination of George Floyd in 2020, has highlighted the urgent need to research, advocate for, and support institutional antiracist efforts. As a racially and culturally diverse group of literacy teacher educators working in different contexts, we recognize the importance of teacher education as a tool supporting the longstanding effort to disrupt racism in U.S schools. To effectuate educational justice, it is critical to prepare teachers to nurture and sustain racially diverse students (Paris & Alim, 2017). This is particularly vital in the current political climate, in which racism is a contentious topic, book bans are on the rise, and some states restrict curriculum related to race, LGBTQ+ identities, and even social emotional learning. In order to prepare novice teachers (NTs) to navigate this climate and meet the needs of their students, we must reckon with the overwhelming presence of whiteness in teacher education and K-12 schools (Sleeter, 2001; Taie & Goldring, 2020). While “students of color are expected to make up 56% of the student population by 2024, the elementary and secondary educator workforce is still overwhelmingly white” (US Department of Education, 2016, p. 1). Research has found that white preservice teachers lack awareness of discrimination, especially racism (Buchanan, 2015; Milner, 2017), and that teachers often do not discuss race (e.g., Bonilla-Silva, 2018; Picower, 2009; Pollock, 2004). This omission perpetuates racism and impedes social justice efforts.

In the past two decades, race and racism have been conceptualized in increasingly expansive ways across multiple fields (Laughter et al., 2021). Croom (2020) calls for a racial turn in literacy research specifically for the following three reasons:

(a) Consequential racialization is ongoing in human societies; (b) racial meaning involves multiple modes and situated processes that routinely transpire unstated, unexamined, or unaccounted for; and (c) a growing body of scholarship uses the term racial literacy in various ways. (p. 533)

In a recent summative content analysis of education scholarship on racial literacies, Laughter et al. (2021) note that contemporary realities require that our approaches to understanding racial literacies be “reimagined and updated” (p. 1). However, in teacher education, a lack of shared measures of teachers’ racial literacies is disabling these aims (Brownell et al., 2020). Further, the lack of concrete definitions of how racial literacies are embodied inside teacher knowledge limits the potential for these measures to be created.

We, ten east and south Asian, Black, and white women literacy teacher educators from different institutions in ten states in New England, Great Lakes, South East, South, Southwestern, and Midwest regions of the United States, came together in 2020 at the Literacy Research Association’s annual conference to collaborate in response to racism, violence, and sociopolitical unrest. We sought a shared space to excavate ways that NTs develop racial literacies in order to disrupt the racism too often perpetuated in school spaces. In each of our programs, we aimed to help NTs understand the importance of interrogating their beliefs about Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) and expand their visions of social justice-driven practice.

This study examines NTs’ conceptions of racial literacies, and how they learn about them, through an exploratory sequential mixed-methods approach using a survey instrument and semi-structured interviews. The development of a survey allowed us to engage in cross-institutional dialogue about trends in NTs’ racial literacies, while the interviews enabled us to ensure that we were conceptualizing racial literacies in experiential and contextualized ways. These questions guided this study:

1. What personal, contextual, pedagogical, sociological, and social knowledge do a sample of NTs hold about racial literacies?

2. What experiences informed a sample of NTs knowledge of racial literacies?

3. What do a sample of NTs seek to learn about racial literacies?

This research makes two specific contributions. First, we provide an instrument to examine the individual racial literacies of NTs in order to teach responsively and help teacher preparation programs identify opportunities to improve. Second, we also provide a more nuanced definition of racial literacies rather than racial literacy to honor previous scholars (e.g. Croom, 2020; Sealey-Ruiz, 2021b ; Skerrett, 2011), and suggest that Goodwin and Darity’s (2019) domains of knowledge offer a framework for understanding and analyzing NTs’ conceptions of racial literacies. We hope that our work will support the development of courses and programs that build teacher capacity to interrogate, explain, and counter racist practices. In turn, this helps NTs to cultivate and maintain classrooms that are rooted in social justice.

In the following sections, we engage existing conceptualizations of racial literacies and merge those understandings with Goodwin and Darity’s (2019) domains of knowledge for social justice teaching. Next, we review literature on teacher candidates’ racial literacies and the role of teacher education programs in the development of racial literacies. Subsequently, we describe our mixed-methods analytic approach and place the survey and interview data in conversation to highlight patterns and nuances in participants’ racial literacies across the domains of knowledge. We conclude with implications for teacher education and research.

Theoretical framework

In this study, we utilize racial literacies as both a framework for the content and practices teacher education must center, and as an analytic tool for examining participants’ existing knowledge of antiracist teaching and learning.

Conceptualizing racial literacies

Racial literacies are broadly derived from Critical Race Theory, literacy studies, and anti-racist pedagogies. In law, Guinier (2004) presented racial literacies in the context of Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and its impact, as a shift away from racial liberalism (an approach that positioned Black people as victims and allowed white people to be color evasive). Around the same time, Twine (2004) introduced the concept in anthropology. While scholars have conceptualized the term differently, there is agreement that racial literacies involve the interrogation of racism in our language, beliefs, practices, and systems. Racial literacies help us to understand the powerful and complex ways that race influences the social, economic, political, and educational experiences of individuals and groups (Skerrett, 2011) and to dispel the myth that systems and society are colorblind (Bonilla-Silva, 2018). They give us “the capacity to decipher the durable racial grammar that structures racialized hierarchies” (Guinier, 2004, p. 100) and to demand systemic shifts toward racial justice.

Sealey-Ruiz (2021a) explains that “racial literacy is a skill and practice by which individuals can probe the existence of racism and examine the effects of race and institutionalized systems on their experiences and representation in US society” (p. 2). Racial literacies are also a “critical, human cultural toolkit” which enable us to read, critique, and rewrite racism (Croom, 2020, p. 24) in our language, beliefs, and structures (Winans, 2010). Rogers and Mosley (2008) remind us that we access that toolkit in the “psychological, conceptual, discursive, [and] material” spheres and use it to “describe, interpret, explain and act on the constellation of practices (e.g. historical, economic, psychological, interactional) that comprise racism and anti-racism” (p. 110). Racial literacies require both problematizing and refuting racism, discrimination, and prejudice, and advancing equity and justice. In education, racial literacies can be used to challenge racism perpetuated through curricular whiteness, the school to prison pipeline, and the achievement gap/education debt.

Because racial literacies can be conceived and utilized in pluralistic ways, we follow Croom’s (2020) conceptualization of racial literacies as plural rather than singular (i.e., racial literacy). We do so to honor the previous scholarship and how it informs this work. To extend the work of the scholars on whose shoulders we stand, we propose drawing on Goodwin and Darity’s (2019) domains of knowledge for social justice educators as a framework to unpack the structural and personal nuances of racial literacies and to operationalize them. Connecting the prior definitions to these domains, we define racial literacies as the personal, contextual, pedagogical, sociological, and social lenses that educators use to examine the harmful effects of racial stereotyping and systematic racism in literacy instruction contexts.

Racial literacies and domains of knowledge

Racial literacies are complex, individual, and contextual. This can result in racial literacies scholarship that is theoretical in nature and presents reflections or suggestions for practice, rather than empirical research. Racial literacies do not often lend themselves to concrete examples of application, what individuals can or should do in specific situations or contexts. Those that do have been criticized for being short-term, focused on individual assignments or courses, or individual experiences in the field or community (Enterline et al., 2008). This concern is echoed by scholars who have criticized teacher education for rhetoric about social justice that is not substantiated by action (e.g., Cochran-Smith et al., 2015; Mills & Ballantyne, 2016). We know that racism is not simply the product of individual bad actors, it is systemic. Yet, we study racism and racial literacies primarily at the individual level, which locates the responsibility on individuals to address or mitigate them. We propose that Goodwin and Darity’s (2019) domains of knowledge are a promising structure for operationalizing these more theoretical conceptions and disrupting the “complex practices that further White supremacy” (Wetzel et al., 2021, p. 542). Additionally, they emphasize that racial literacies are not just a stance (which teachers may or may not take up); rather, there is a knowledge component that NTs can learn and develop.

Goodwin and Darity (2019) conducted a literature review to understand how teacher educators were preparing NTs for social justice teaching. In exploring pieces authored by teacher educators, their review illuminates what is likely in place in teacher education programs, and what may be needed or missing. The authors categorized studies by their attention to five domains of knowledge: (1) personal (i.e., knowledge about students and education informed by personal experiences), (2) contextual (i.e., knowledge of classroom and family communities and how they are situated in various contexts), (3) pedagogical (i.e., knowledge of how to apply appropriate responsive instructional practices), (4) sociological (i.e., knowledge of how to teach students given that schools contribute to systemic racial inequities), and (5) social (i.e., knowledge of how to effectively communicate with students, families, and colleagues) (Goodwin, 2010; Goodwin & Darity, 2019). The development of these domains was “informed by the significant body of literature on teaching and teacher education … and personal and professional experience” (Goodwin & Darity, 2019, p. 65).

Goodwin and Darity (2019) observed a dearth of research on preparing teachers to enact racially literate teaching; in their review, only four articles attended to race specifically. While personal and contextual knowledge were represented, social, sociological, and pedagogical knowledge were “hardly visible” (p. 72). The near absence of race in three domains of knowledge suggests gaps in teacher preparation and “provides compelling evidence that teacher educators … need to develop their understanding, research, and practices further around social justice education” (p. 73). A significant implication was:

the need for collaborative research so that understandings around social justice teacher education work can develop … larger scale studies that can speak across contexts, countries and disciplinary boundaries … collaborating around similar questions can be a strategy for putting more weight behind our findings through collective work … many [teacher educators] are asking similar questions and wrestling with similar problems, and yet they are doing so in isolation, rather than in conversation with one another … Finding a space for collective work would enable teacher educators to speak together with a louder voice … such that social justice content and practices can become a core theme throughout teacher preparation programmes, rather than an isolated course or activity. (p. 73–74)

This study responds to the authors’ call; integrating the domains into racial literacies offers a structure for organizing and assessing the racial literacies of NTs.

Review of literature

Review of the literature indicates that teacher education can develop PSTs racial literacies. Teacher education and professional development can support the evolution of antiracist beliefs and NTs’ capacities to challenge racism (e.g., Brown, 2017; Gorski & Dalton, 2020; Harrelson, 2021; King, 2019). Teacher educators have used a variety of approaches and heuristics to foster the capacities of NTs, with particular attention to the differing needs of white and BIPOC NTs. However, the lack of a common definition or understanding of racial literacies and the difficulty NTs face in transferring learning from their teacher education coursework into their school contexts (shaped by pervasive and systemic inequities) remain significant challenges that require further research.

NTs’ racial literacies knowledge

Previous studies have emphasized that antiracist beliefs correlate with racial literacies, which build capacities for teachers to challenge racism and other forms of discrimination. For example, Milner (2010) used narrative inquiry and self-study to examine his own curriculum decisions while teaching race in a course with mostly white teacher candidates. He found that teachers’ pedagogical practices are inextricably linked to their knowledge and beliefs, which are developed through experience and influenced by their sociopolitical contexts. Buchanan (2015) examined NTs experiences and beliefs about discussing race in K-12 classrooms through participants’ written reflections, online discussions, and a questionnaire. Participants expressed fear of offending students and disregarded race as socially constructed and performed in curricula and classroom practice, ignoring the function of their own whiteness. Milner’s (2017) national Teacher Race Talk Survey found that teachers considered race-centered conversations important, but did not feel prepared by their teacher education programs to lead those conversations.

Research also indicates the difficulty of transfer from teacher education coursework to the early years of teaching (e.g. Zeichner, 2010). Shah and Coles (2020) used the term “racial noticing” to conceptualize how three PSTs attended to, interpreted, and responded to racial phenomena in teaching through a comparative case study. They found that contextual factors including PSTs’ perceptions of how their schools address race and their schools’ racial demographics influenced shifts in racial noticing from their methods courses to their student teaching experiences. PSTs narrowed the range of racial phenomena they attended to, embracing multiculturalism but avoiding power dynamics of racial hierarchy (Shah & Coles, 2020).

While there are many complexities and challenges in understanding NTs’ racial literacies, several scholars have offered frameworks for describing racial literacies development. Sealey-Ruiz’s (2021a) racial literacy development model has six components: critical love, critical humility, critical reflection, historical literacy, the archeology of self, and interruption; beginning with an ethical commitment to one’s communities and an openness to the limitations of our worldview, these skills build up to the ability to disrupt racism at both personal and systemic levels.

Arguing that all literate practices are conveyors of racial literacies, Chávez-Moreno (2022) presented the concept of “a continuum of racial literacies.” (p. 481); at one end are hegemonic racial literacies, or “literacy practices that support making meaning of race and racism through oppressive ideologies and that preserve inequity by maintaining a racial hierarchical structure,” and at the other end are counter-hegemonic racial literacies, or practices that “oppose hegemonic logics of power, language, race, imperialism, and/or colonialisms,” such as antiracism or critical racial literacies (p. 485). Chávez-Moreno contends that people develop critical race consciousness over time. It is not a fixed state that develops in stages; rather, it is “a continuous journey of making meaning about race that at times displays both racist and antiracist ideologies” (p. 486). Sealey-Ruiz (2021b) echoes this idea, arguing that components of racial literacies are not experienced hierarchically; rather, they can be “developed simultaneously or at different times and must be revisited often” (p. 287).

Developing NTs’ racial literacies

Empirical studies have found that teacher education and professional development can support the development of racial literacy knowledge. In prior studies, this has predominantly occurred through teacher educators providing opportunities for critical reflection that counteracts dominant narratives and honors marginalized literacies (Gorski & Dalton, 2020; Grant & Sleeter, 2010; Winans, 2010). One analysis (Lammert, 2022) of 89 studies on NTs’ involvement in action research suggested four design principles to promote racial literacies: collaboration between K-12 partners and universities; selective teacher educator scaffolding; engagement with diverse communities; and extensive time spent as the pathway toward racial literacies. Other approaches to improving racial literacies curriculum and instruction in teacher education include utilizing a diverse range of texts and genres (King, 2019; Kosnik et al., 2017); critical reflective engagement with narratives of racial aggression and violence (Harrelson, 2021; Skerrett, 2011); and developing critical sociocultural knowledge of race for teaching and curriculum (Brown, 2017; Wetzel & Rogers, 2015).

To guide the design of these efforts and to examine gains made toward increasing teachers’ racial literacy, several heuristics have also been used. For example, King et al. (2018) presented the LETS ACT Framework to guide teachers to foster racial literacies when discussing race in classrooms: (1) Love and Listen, (2) Enlighten and Educate, (3) Talk, (4) Scribe, (5) Analyze Systems, (6) Conclude Through Deliberation, and (7) Take Action. Brown’s (2017) framework comprises three key elements: knowledge and understanding about racism; strategies to read and interpret race analytically; and care in both aesthetic and authentic ways.

Teacher education programs have historically privileged whiteness and predominantly prepare a white middle-class teacher population. In this context, BIPOC teachers may experience various racial microaggressions (e.g., Cochran-Smith et al., 2015; Kohli, 2018). Kohli (2018) argues for explicit focus on the development of teachers’ racial literacies to better guide and sustain teachers of color as they navigate and respond to racial inequities within p-16 settings. A community of supportive peers can build confidence in teachers of color to resist the internalization of racism through one’s personal and institutional histories. Collectively, studies suggest that teacher education programs play a significant but not exclusive role in the development of racial literacies for both white NTs and NTs of color.

However, across studies, racial literacies has been operationalized in a variety of ways, ranging from a classroom focus where PSTs’ knowledge of race and racism is built alongside their pedagogical knowledge (King et al., 2018) to more conceptually-driven models (e.g., Harrelson, 2021). While teacher educators are making efforts toward improving PSTs racial literacy, the absence of a universal definition of racial literacy may be restricting the field’s progress. Further, most of the studies reviewed employed qualitative or case study methods. As a multi-institutional team, we recognized the need for an instrument that could provide valid information about racial literacies across programs, as has been called for elsewhere (Brownell et al., 2020). Our research adds to the field’s understanding of NTs’ racial literacies by providing a measure that could be used across contexts and programs.

Methodology

This study employed a mixed-methods design (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2006). Since Laughter et al. (2021) noted in their literature review that no prior studies have “explore[d] racial literacy from a quantitative lens” (p. 9), and Lomax (2004) has emphasized the importance of literacy researchers developing quantitative tools to support teacher education initiatives, mixed methods addressed this gap while retaining attention to the individuality of racial literacies (Brownell et al., 2020).

Participants

Pre- and in-service teachers within their first five years enrolled in a teacher education program (graduate or undergraduate) from two northeastern U.S. universities (n = 123) were invited to participate. These participants taught in urban and suburban classrooms in kindergarten through high school. This was a convenience sample. Participation was voluntary. Thirty-eight NTs agreed to participate and began the survey, and 36 completed all survey items; seven agreed to an additional 30-minute individual semi-structured interview. Of 38 participants, 31 identified as women and 7 as men. Racial identities included 32 white, 2 Black or African Americans, 2 Asians, 1 Latina or Hispanic, and 1 multiracial. Participants also varied in age; 30 were between 20–29 years, 7 between 30–39 years, and 1 between 50–59 years. Interviewees were given pseudonyms, and Table 1 illustrates their backgrounds.

Table 1. Interviewees’ backgrounds.

Interviewee	Education	Teacher Education Context	Race/Ethnicity	Age Range
Felicita	Undergraduate Degree	Suburban	Latino/Hispanic	30–39
Renee	Master’s Degree	Suburban	white	30–39
Cameryn	Undergraduate Degree	Suburban	white	20–29
Danna	Undergraduate Degree	Suburban	Asian (Chinese)	30–39
Carrie	Undergraduate Degree	Urban	white	20–29
Leanna	Undergraduate Degree	Urban	Black	20–29
Jonathan	Undergraduate Degree	Suburban	white	20–29

Procedures

We utilized two data sources: the Knowledge of Racial Literacies (KoRaL) survey and semi-structured interviews. Data collection and analysis followed a three-phase sequential exploratory mixed-methods process (Creswell & Poth, 2017) beginning with KoRaL results.

Phase one: data collection for survey validation and analysis

We have reported on the development and validation of the survey in full elsewhere (O’Brien et al., 2022). To summarize, the KoRaL survey contains 37 items on a 5-point Likert scale from “Strongly Agree” to “Strongly Disagree.” The items were designed following a literature review, drafting of items, and expert review (Haladyna & Rodriguez, 2013). Items were drafted by applying the definition of racial literacies across the five domains of teacher knowledge (Goodwin & Darity, 2019): personal, contextual, pedagogical, sociological, and social. In writing these items, we viewed racial literacy as a single construct that requires knowledge in these five domains. Reverse-coding was used to support validity; three-fourths of the items were positively directed and one fourth were negatively directed. To reduce semantic order effects, we positioned the demographic items first then randomized the remaining items (Krosnick & Presser, 2010). The KoRaL survey was administered via Qualtrics, which minimized social desirability bias by eliminating the need for face-to-face contact (Fowler, 2014).

Kane (2013) has argued that interpretations of scores can be made based on plausibility as determined through specific arguments. The validation of KoRaL was based on two arguments: A, the items were answerable to early-career teachers and preservice, including those who do not yet have their own autonomous teaching context, and B, that the items were consistent with the theoretical framework of racial literacy and representative of the domains of teacher knowledge. We tested these arguments in phases. Phase one analysis focused on examining the (A) internal reliability and (B) construct validity of the instrument. Survey data were analyzed in IMB’s SPSS Statistics. At this initial stage, to address reliability, we calculated Chronbach’s Alpha, which was acceptable at 0.85. Then, we conducted Exploratory Factor Analysis (Welkowitz et al., 2006) to assess validity. A two-factor model best fit the data, accounting for 64.63% of the cumulative variance. Factor one included items indicating NTs’ applied knowledge of racial literacies (e.g., ability to teach and act in racially literate ways) and included items from the Contextual, Pedagogical, and Social domains. Factor two included items indicating NTs’ conceptual knowledge of racial literacies (e.g., understanding that BIPOC individuals can have different experiences from one another) and included items from the Sociological and Personal domains. The highest factor loading was .783, indicating there was no singularity between items.

Factor loading was negative for nine items and did not fit the two-factor model for four others. Consistent with the approach to item development recommended by Haladyna and Rodriguez (2013), these 13 items became the focal point of cognitive interviews; participants were provided with the items and asked to verbalize their thinking when they read them. From this process, it was determined that five terms required additional clarification when used within survey items: equitable literacy instruction, color blindness, racism, responsive literacy instruction, and diversity.

Phase two: qualitative data collection and analysis

Individual interviews (n = 7) were held via videoconference. We recognize that interviews are interactional spaces where participants’ statements are shaped, in part, by the individuals present (Creswell & Poth, 2017). As such, the interview questions were asked by the NTs’ former course instructor (a researcher) while two other research team members joined to collect field notes and ask follow-up questions. We intentionally included research team members of color in the interviews to ensure that the respondents understood the diversity in our research team, and also gave participants a “lived familiarity” with researchers as “insiders” (Holmes, 2020, p. 6).

The content of the interviews was based on a dialectic approach (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2003) to mixed-methods research where the KoRaL results informed the questions that were asked while still being permeable to topics outside of the survey. One third of the questions were designed to illustrate results to survey items that fell in the neutral range, which possibly indicated respondents’ confusion or ambiguity toward a question. Another third of the questions focused on problematic items identified through EFA (Welkowitz et al., 2006). The remaining interview questions were broad and designed to suggest item topics that we had omitted (e.g., “What else comes to mind when you think about racial literacies?”). After rewording items based on phase two analysis, our two-part validity argument focused on internal reliability and construct validity met acceptability standards (Kane, 2013).

Phase three: Integrated Analysis

To answer the first research question, we calculated descriptive statistics to determine mean responses and percentages of responses that were within the agree range (i.e., response of strongly agree or agree), neutral range (i.e., neither agree nor disagree), and disagree range (response of strongly disagree or disagree). Descriptive statistics were appropriate given the sample size (n = 36).

To answer the second and third research questions, interviews were transcribed and analyzed through inductive coding (Saldaña, 2021). Six stages of inductive analysis guided the process: familiarizing oneself with the data, generating initial codes, identifying and reviewing themes, defining and naming the themes, and producing the report (Saldaña, 2021). Consistent with the conceptual framework for racial literacies as situated and experiential knowledge, we avoided data reduction and we did not re-unitize participants’ responses from the verbal turns they took during the interviews. First, members of the research team open-coded the interview transcripts based on a priori codes consistent with the research questions (e.g., home experiences, school experiences). Then, a second round of coding identified grounded themes within each domain (e.g., noticing socioeconomic inequity, noticing intersectionality of race and gender). All coding disagreements were resolved through discussion amongst the research team.

Results

Results are organized following the research questions. Since EFA suggests a two-factor model is the best fit, results for research question two are presented for each knowledge domain and are grouped by factor. Qualitative themes for research questions two and three are presented.

Racial literacies knowledge domains

NTs (n = 38) expressed their racial literacies as conceptualized through the domains of knowledge for teaching as represented in Table 2.

Table 2. KoRaL Survey Items Measuring the five Domains of Knowledge about racial literacies.

Factor One: Applied Knowledge of Racial Literacies
Contextual Knowledge Domain	N	Mean (SD)	Agree Range (%)	Neutral (%)	Disagree Range (%)
1. I know how to communicate with families to learn about my students.	38	3.18 (0.69)	89.47	7.89	2.63
2. I know the ways systemic racism impacts literacy instruction.	38	2.84 (0.86)	71.05	21.05	7.89
3. I know the ways systemic racism impacts students’ literacy development.	38	2.92 (1.05)	68.42	18.42	13.16
4. I know how the cultural and racial backgrounds of my students play an important part in my literacy instruction.	38	3.18 (0.80)	81.58	15.79	2.63
5. I know how my students’ various identities (e.g. family, community, gender) play a role in their literacy development.	36	3.14 (0.83)	83.33	11.11	5.56
6. I know how students’ classroom behaviors during literacy learning convey their needs, interests, and knowledge	38	2.97 (0.82)	76.32	18.42	5.26
7. Media (social media, television, film, books, websites, news outlets) accurately portray race.	36	2.78 (0.93)	8.33	22.22	69.44
8. Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) express racism in the same way.	35	2.97 (0.89)	2.86	31.43	65.72
9. I know how to incorporate students’ language varieties in my literacy instruction.	36	2.50 (0.91)	61.11	19.44	19.44
10. The same literacy instruction satisfies the learning needs of all students who identify as BIPOC.	35	2.80 (1.13)	14.29	22.86	62.86
Pedagogical Knowledge Domain	N	Mean (SD)	Agree Range (%)	Neutral (%)	Disagree Range (%)
11. I know how to make my literacy instruction responsive to students of linguistically diverse backgrounds.	38	2.74 (0.98)	63.15	23.68	13.16
12. I know how to teach my students how to advocate for their literacy learning needs.	38	2.68 (0.77)	71.05	18.42	10.53
13. I know how to teach my students how to advocate for fairness, equity, and justice in the world.	38	2.97 (0.68)	81.58	15.79	2.63
14. I know how to model critical self-reflection about differing portrayals of race for my students.	36	2.72 (0.85)	58.33	36.11	5.56
15.I know how to design a lesson that engages students in critical examination of differing portrayals of race in text and media.	36	2.44 (1.03)	52.78	27.78	19.44
16. It is respectful to be color blind (i.e. not acknowledge race) when providing literacy instruction.	36	2.50 (1.03)	16.67	30.56	52.78
17. I know how to examine past and present racism with my students in literacy instruction.	36	2.64 (0.80)	55.56	38.89	5.56
18. I know how to make my literacy instruction responsive to students of culturally diverse backgrounds.	38	2.87 (0.81)	71.05	23.68	5.26
Social Knowledge Domain	N	Mean (SD)	Agree Range (%)	Neutral (%)	Disagree Range (%)
19. I know how to create a literacy learning environment in which all of my students of diverse backgrounds collaborate and work toward common goals.	38	2.89 (0.86)	73.68	18.42	7.89
20. I know how to create a literacy learning environment that conveys respect for the cultures of all students in my classroom.	38	3.11 (0.69)	86.84	10.53	2.63
21. I know how to create a literacy learning environment that conveys respect for the language varieties of students in my classroom.	38	3.13 (0.62)	86.85	13.16	0
22. I know how to create a literacy learning environment in which I can talk about race with my students	38	2.92 (0.78)	71.05	26.32	2.63
23. I know how to approach conversations about race with my peers in teacher education	36	2.67 (0.99)	63.88	19.44	16.67
24. I know how to approach conversations about race with parents/caregivers of students in my classroom.	36	2.31 (1.14)	47.23	22.22	30.56
Factor Two: Conceptual Knowledge of Racial Literacies
Sociological Knowledge Domain	N	Mean (SD)	Agree Range (%)	Neutral (%)	Disagree Range (%)
25. Being color blind (i.e. not acknowledge race) fosters equitable literacy instruction.	38	2.76 (1.22)	18.42	23.68	57.89
26. It is necessary to talk about racism as we examine power and privilege with students.	38	3.47 (0.69)	89.47	10.53	0
27. I know how to modify curriculum to teach my students to recognize and value multiple viewpoints.	38	3.13 (0.53)	92.1	7.89	0
28. I know how to design assessments that capture students’ progress toward critical examination of differing portrayals of race in text and media.	36	2.25 (1.05)	38.89	36.11	25.00
Personal Knowledge Domain	N	Mean (SD)	Agree Range (%)	Neutral (%)	Disagree Range (%)
29. Race is important to examine during my literacy instruction.	38	3.55 (0.60)	94.74	5.26	0
30. My views of race were influenced by my previous experiences.	38	2.97 (0.94)	71.05	21.05	7.89
31. Some students, no matter what I do, will not succeed in developing literacy skills and knowledge.	38	2.89 (1.03)	10.53	18.42	71.05
32. Every student I encounter can develop literacy skills and knowledge.	38	3.42 (0.86)	89.48	7.89	2.63
33. My students’ identities are central to my literacy instruction.	36	3.19 (0.79)	77.78	22.22	0
34. Race is difficult to explore with my students in my literacy instruction.	36	2.00 (1.17)	38.89	25	36.11
35. My knowledge of my students’ racial and cultural backgrounds is important to create culturally responsive literacy instruction.	36	3.50 (0.65)	91.66	8.33	0
36. It is important to examine my racial identity and history as I engage in literacy instruction.	36	3.33 (0.72)	86.11	13.89	0
37. I can connect with people from races different from my own in a literacy context.	36	3.14 (0.68)	83.34	16.67	0

Individual respondents’ KoRaL scores can be represented as a mean ranging from 5 (high racial literacies knowledge) to 1 (low racial literacies knowledge). Our participants’ scores ranged from 4.81 to 3.23, with a mean score of 3.89 and a Standard Deviation of 0.39.

Table 3 includes the seven interviewees’ mean scores by domain. The Personal Domain scores were the highest, suggesting that participants demonstrated strong knowledge about students and education informed by personal experiences, echoing Goodwin and Darity’s analysis of the research on preparing teachers to enact racially literate teaching (Goodwin & Darity, 2019). Personal was the highest for Renee, Jonathan, Leanna, Felicita, and Carrie. Danna’s highest domain was Social, and Cameryn’s highest was Contextual.

Table 3. Mean scores by domain: interview participants only.

Participant	Contextual	Pedagogical	Social	Sociological	Personal	Overall
Renee	4.8	4.88	4.83	4.5	4.88	4.81*
Danna	4	3.88	4.5	3.75	4.33	4.1
Jonathan	3.9	3.88	3.83	3.75	4.77	4.07
Leanna	3.7	3.66	3.5	4	4.44	3.86
Felicita	3.9	3.88	3.66	3.25	4	3.81
Carrie	3.9	3.44	3.33	4	4.33	3.81
Cameryn	4	3.55	3.66	3.75	3.66	3.73
Mean	4.02	3.88	3.90	3.85	4.34	4.03

*Organized from highest overall mean to lowest overall mean.

Factor one: contextual, pedagogical, and social domains

Factor one included items indicating NTs’ applied knowledge of racial literacies (e.g., ability to teach and act in racially literate ways) and included items from the contextual, pedagogical, and social domains.

Contextual knowledge

Contextual knowledge is related to the role of contextual influence (e.g., school, families, communities) in teaching and learning (Goodwin & Darity, 2019). Overall, NTs reported confidence in their contextual knowledge. Interestingly, NTs reported relatively high knowledge of communicating with their students’ families (Item 1, 89.47% agree). However, fewer participants reported confidence incorporating language varieties in literacy instruction (Item 9, 61.11% agree). These trends indicate that participants generally understand the importance of contextual factors but their capacity to apply this knowledge varies.

In follow-up interviews, we sought to better understand participants’ interpretations of Items 7, 8, and 10. For Item 7, regarding the accuracy of the media’s portrayal of race, approximately 22% of respondents selected a neutral response and 69.44% disagreed. In discussing this item, participants cited texts and related discussions that impacted their views. For example, Cameryn referenced children’s books such as Skippy John Jones and stated that “people are bias(ed) on social media, within books and films … I don’t think you can ever really fully trust anything on social media.” Carrie reflected on the film Black Panther, an exception to most media, where “the Black character is the underdog…posed in a world that was entirely white.” Several participants stated they approach all media with skepticism and criticality.

For Item 8, regarding the expression of racism by BIPOC, most participants disagreed, while almost a third selected a neutral response. Interviewees indicated differing views on two parts of the item: first, whether BIPOC could express racism, and second, (if they could) whether that would be expressed identically. Leanna, for example, believed that “everyone can have some sort of prejudice” and that people of color need to examine their biases. In contrast, Felicita did not think that BIPOC could be racist because of their history as “victims.” Renee shared an example of an interaction she had on social media, explaining that a friend “was given much higher expectations than his peers simply because he was Asian … he was made to feel like he wasn’t good enough.” However, her Black friends “responded that they always faced lower expectations … from their teachers.” NTs’ responses demonstrated different interpretations in relation to this question, with their experiences led to differing perceptions.

Most participants disagreed with Item 10 regarding the identical nature of literacy instruction meeting the needs of BIPOC students. For example, Cameryn explained, “[the item]’s the same thing as saying, like every white kid has the same needs; every Black kid likes… No, that’s not how it works…this seems clearly over-simplified.” Interviewees indicated thoughtful consideration of the ways to meet students’ individual literacy based on their identities, incorporating children’s literature and knowledge from college courses.

Pedagogical knowledge

Pedagogical knowledge includes both content knowledge and the ability to develop and implement responsive instructional practices (Goodwin & Darity, 2019). Participants’ responses regarding this domain varied (See Table 2). Most participants reported agreement with items related to advocacy (Item 12, 71.05%; Item 13, 81.58%) or culturally responsive instruction (Item 18, 71.05%). However, fewer participants reported holding knowledge related to critical examination of issues related to race specifically (Item 14, 58.33%, Item 15, 52.78%; Item 17, 55.56%) and language (Item 11, 63.15%). For many participants, this indicated a need for more preparation to feel confident enacting practices that address race and racism with their students.

When responding to Item 17, which asked about NTs’ ability to examine past and present racism with students, almost half of the respondents did not feel confident enacting this instruction. Carrie believed past racism is easier to examine because “it’s easier to kind of separate yourself from it. But recognizing it in the present is a little bit harder.” Leanna, on the other hand, found present racism easier to talk about because “the past, in terms of racism, is so dark. [Students] don’t want to feel uncomfortable.” The age of students also impacted NT’s perception of what was appropriate to discuss in the classroom. Danna worked with toddlers, so she reported that it was hard for her to understand their ideas about racism.

Item 18 asked about literacy instruction that is responsive to students of culturally diverse backgrounds, and 23.68% of the respondents were in the neutral range. Discussion of this item indicated a general lack of pedagogical understanding of how to adapt materials and practices for diverse students. Jonathan explained, “You want to be able to have inclusion for everyone, but … I feel like, a textbook or something, is kind of tough to differentiate.” Danna, who identified as Asian American, shared her own challenges saying, “The whole community right here is different from mine. So, it’s super hard for me to do this part actually. It might take double or triple the time than other teachers.” In her comments, Danna indicated that the degree of complexity of engaging in racially literate pedagogy was partly due to the distance between the teacher and her student(s) racial positions. Leanna believed that teachers of color like herself were more prepared to deliver culturally responsive instruction because they “have seen ways that curriculum and instruction were not culturally diverse” and could “use that knowledge to improve their curriculum.” Although, Leanna added, “someone who is not a person of color may not have the tools to do so.”

Responses to Item 15 demonstrate that nearly half of NTs were not confident in engaging their students in critically examining racism in texts. Some interviewees expressed their uncertainty or lack of knowledge about how to engage students on this topic. Jonathan was not confident “due to (his) lack of experience,” and Carrie explained, “I want to begin to design a lesson that engages students in that critical examination, but I don’t necessarily know if I have all the steps that I need in order to do that.” Leanna admitted this was a “hard question” because “teachers are not taught how to talk about or examine race in not only text and media, but textbooks, in conversations … ” Leanna believed that “one area where teacher preparation is lacking is helping teachers talk about critical topics and race;” consequently, “it really ends up being on teachers of color to have to teach other people how to do this.”

Interviewee’s responses make it clear that NTs grapple with wanting to enact teaching practices that are critical and responsive to their students’ identities, but not having explicit models and opportunities to practice enacting these types of lessons, especially with younger students. They indicated feeling underprepared and desiring more support from their teacher educator preparation programs.

Social knowledge

Social knowledge is knowledge of how to effectively communicate and work with students, families, and colleagues to create equitable and inclusive environments (Goodwin & Darity, 2019). For this domain, most participants reported knowledge related to creating classroom settings with democratic norms that are responsive to student diversity (71.05–86.85%). In general, they believed that they knew how to create a literacy learning environment that was respectful of the cultures and language varieties of all students (Items 20 and 21). However, only 47.23% of the respondents “know how to approach conversations about race with parents/caregivers of students in my classroom” (Item 24). The data indicates two important challenges for NTs: first, explicit conversations specifically about race, and second, conversations about race with other adults (colleagues and caregivers) in comparison to students. The EFA did not reveal any items in this category to be problematic; thus, little was discussed about this domain in the interviews.

Factor two: sociological and personal domains

Factor two included items indicating NTs’ conceptual knowledge of racial literacies (e.g., understanding that BIPOC individuals can have different experiences from one another) and included items from the sociological and personal domains.

Sociological knowledge

Sociological knowledge is knowledge of how to teach all students and how schools contribute to systemic racial and economic inequities (Goodwin & Darity, 2019). For this domain, participants reported their understanding of instruction that disrupts inequalities related to race and culture (Items 26 and 27). In this domain, participants varied in their understanding of assessment practices (Item 28). While 38.89% of respondents reported some understanding, nearly half of the respondents were not confident in assessing students’ progress toward critical examination of racism in text and media. During the interviews, participants highlighted the importance for both their own and their students’ need to critically examine portrayals of race in text and media, but explained that they had little understanding of how to do so.

Item 25 stated, “Being color blind (i.e., not acknowledging race) fosters equitable literacy instruction,” and 18.42% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed. Just one interview participant indicated strong disagreement with this statement; Danna stated that as an early childhood educator, she encouraged all children to treat others as equals, perhaps indicating that the view of child development guiding her teaching was more aligned with colorblindness than the interrogation of racism. Other interview participants strongly disagreed. For example, Carrie, a white educator teaching predominantly Black and Brown students, strongly believed that “being colorblind is just being ignorant and ignoring the perspectives that are brought to you.” Felicita shared her own experiences speaking Spanish as an example: “I can speak two languages. Isn’t it amazing!…Trying to see the richness of it.” She realized that “being colorblind is like the opposite of what I’ve been learning about.” Renee eloquently elaborated this connection, stating that “being colorblind … will really harm your ability to reach the student and see them as an individual.” Besides Danna, interviewees were clearly able to define and discuss the harm colorblind attitudes could perpetuate in classrooms.

Personal knowledge

Personal knowledge refers to beliefs held about students and education informed by personal experiences (Goodwin & Darity, 2019). Within this domain, all participants acknowledged the importance of race and identity in literacy instruction (Items 29, 33, 35, and 36). In all, 83–95% of participants reported knowledge of race (their own and their students’) as an important part of literacy instruction, while 77.8% reported students’ identities were important. However, though participants knew the importance of centering race and identity in their instruction, results indicated that exploring race with students still posed challenges; 38.89% of participants agreed with the statement “Race is difficult to explore with my students in my literacy instruction,” and 25% of participants were neutral. This indicates that, while participants felt it was critical to explore race with their students, many of them did not have the preparation, skills, or confidence to do so in practice.

In interviews, we sought clarity around NTs’ responses to Item 31, “Some students, no matter what I do, will not succeed in developing literacy skills and knowledge.” Cameryn, who strongly disagreed, explained, “No matter what you do, a student is going to learn something” (emphasis added). With the same asset perspective, Carrie added, “everyone can always develop skills and knowledge … everyone has the ability to learn.” However, Felicita stated “I agree with ‘not all of them will succeed,’ which is so sad.” She went on to explain how race, social status, and economic factors lead to some students not being successful in education settings.

As these examples show, participants held significantly varying beliefs about their students’ literacy learning, as well as their own abilities to make an impact. While Felicita reflected on the limitations of school schedules and indicated a deficit view of students’ out-of-school experiences, Carrie sought to define success as something that all her students could access.

Experiences informing racial literacies

The analysis of interviews (n=7) revealed that various factors influenced NTs’ literacies, including their educational and teaching backgrounds, student teaching/coursework, collegial conversations with other NTs and teacher educators, self-selected readings and reflections, conversations with friends and family, and their own racial identities. These influences are largely consistent with prior research (e.g., Rogers & Mosley, 2008; Shah & Coles, 2020).

The three NTs of color, all women, expressed their racial literacies in intersectional ways. Also, all three reported that they became teachers in part because of racialized negative prior experiences in educational settings. For example, Leanna, a Black woman, taught high school Biology and was drawn to the content area due to lack of representation. She shared, “what really led me into teaching was the lack of representation, not only seeing a woman as a teacher, but a person of color.” One NT, Felicita, had lived in Latin America. In addition to mentioning her gender identity, she also discussed the intersectionality of economic status and skin color as she advocated for a change in her home country:

It’s a very classist country … It doesn’t matter where you get your money from, but … it’s better if you have more money. Or it’s better if you’re blonde … it doesn’t matter if you say, “I have a lot of academic degrees.” So all those experiences I think made you realize that it’s not okay … and what are we teaching our kids?

In descriptions such as this, NTs of color explained how they viewed and critiqued the world around them as they developed racial literacies. Meanwhile, it is important to note that participants’ domains of racial literacies knowledge do not develop equally or simultaneously, and be mindful of their strengths and gaps within and across each domain; in other words, they indicated both developed and underdeveloped racial literacies simultaneously. For example, while Felicita’s highest score was in Personal Knowledge, she demonstrated a deficit view of BIPOC students’ out-of-school experiences, suggesting that not all will succeed. Additionally, when she highlighted race, social, and economic status as factors that lead to some students’ failure in education settings and success in society, she showed important sophisticated sociological insights.

The four NTs who were white expressed more positive associations with school and schooling. For example, Cameryn shared that as a child, she played school with her dolls, and her mom always told her that she “was going to be a teacher.” These participants tended to describe their racial literacies as a product of their field-based teacher education experiences and interactions with BIPOC. Renee, a white woman with teaching experience in a juvenile detention center, expressed that her racial literacies have come from interactions with other people. She shared that personal relationships with people of different races have helped her realize “how important it was that they had somebody who gave them confidence when they were a kid.” Renee also identified influence from her coursework, student teaching, her “own thoughts and own readings.” Similarly, Cameryn described learning about culturally relevant pedagogy and social justice through teacher education. She explained, “the teaching space that I’m in is prioritizing equity and learning … making sure that everybody has opportunities to learn and to be supported in their learning.” Comments such as this from white NTs indicate the variety of their sources of knowledge on racial literacies.

Areas for further learning about racial literacies

All interviewees (n = 7) expressed the desire to learn more about racial literacies associated that learning with becoming a better teacher. Analysis led to two themes describing the knowledge NTs sought: Support for Racial literacies and Pedagogical Strategies.

Support for racial literacies

Many NTs expressed that they wanted to build their knowledge of where to locate racial literacies resources and supports. For example, Cameryn stated that she was “always willing to learn new things.” However, she was not confident in her ability to center race in her teaching practice. She explained, “I just wasn’t sure … especially being a new educator … also not being in the position to have to do that.” Cameryn explained that she sought support for the goal of teaching in racially literate ways.

Renee exhibited strong racial literacies knowledge. However, she felt that the critical examination of race or racism was “not necessarily something that (she) was very explicitly taught.” While some NTs stated that they had heard the term racial literacies few attempted to define it. This suggests that racial literacies is a term that is not often or thoroughly enough discussed in teacher education coursework.

Felicita advocated firmly for discussing “sexual diversity … racial diversity … immigration, and all those topics that are very factual but probably nobody’s talking about in the school.” She explained that she knew discussions of race may “make a lot of people uncomfortable” but she felt confident that they needed to be centered in curriculum.

Pedagogical strategies

When asked about what they wanted to learn related to racial literacies NTs consistently communicated a desire to learn more pedagogical strategies. Some NTs shared awareness of culturally relevant practices such as using texts that students could relate to but sought additional and more specific examples. Carrie wondered about the implementation in different grades, asking “How would you determine what racial literacies would look like in a classroom for, like, fifth graders, or for a classroom of twelfth graders? … how does it grow or change across the spectrum of time?”

Renee was the only NT seeking a master’s degree in the sample, making her the NT who had spent the most time in teacher education coursework. However, Renee had more questions, not fewer, about pedagogy than other NTs, indicating her constant critical reflection on practice and desire to become a better teacher, which is critical for racial literacies development (Sealey-Ruiz, 2022). Renee wanted to know “more direct strategies of teaching and validating – like building on the language skills that students do come to school with.” She also indicated a desire for community involvement, and stated that her overall goal was “reaching students, and even reaching their families, to help encourage more literacy development.” Overall, NTs expressed a need to connect their conceptual knowledge about race and racism with their personal commitments to equitable teaching through improved pedagogical knowledge.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine NTs’ conceptions of racial literacies, and how they learn about them through a mixed-methods approach. Three questions guided this study: (1) What personal, contextual, pedagogical, sociological, and social knowledge do a sample of NTs hold about racial literacies? (2) What experiences informed a sample of NTs knowledge of racial literacies? (3) What do a sample of NTs seek to learn about racial literacies? We utilize Goodwin and Darrity’s domains of knowledge as a framework for understanding and analyzing NTs’ racial literacies, along with an instrument for this purpose, with the goal of producing knowledge to help teacher preparation more responsively prepare racially literate teachers.

Conceptual contributions

Findings from this study point to three key areas of discussion. First, most of our participants struggled with defining racial literacies and related terms even as they indicated specific areas in which they wanted to grow. This aligned with previous research suggesting a need for deeper learning (Buchanan, 2015; Milner, 2017; Sleeter, 2001). As evidenced by the variation in individual respondents’ scores, participants’ racial literacies existed on a continuum. We suspect that teacher educators occupy a similarly complex spectrum of racial literacies when it comes to their own capacity to engage in anti-racist work. Thus, the current study reaffirms the situated and continually evolving nature of racial literacies (Milner, 2017) while contributing the KoRaL measure that can be used to track individuals’ growth across time.

Second, our findings suggest that NTs can build knowledge in individual domains, but their knowledge does not develop equally across domains, nor can it be attributed to a single experience. We caution that KoRaL provides insights about NTs’ change in racial literacies over time, but it should not be interpreted to suggest a rigid causal relationship between specific events and racial literacies growth. A few participants engaged in self-reflection to examine their assumptions and biases, and a smaller number of participants identified culturally relevant pedagogies they might implement with diverse student populations. Sealey-Ruiz (2022) states that engaging in “self- work and reflection on their practice” allows teachers including NTs to “interrupt the status quo of inequity in our schools” (p. 21). We can argue that NTs who constantly engage in critical self-reflection develop stronger racial literacies knowledge over time.

Some participants shared that their knowledge came from sources such as books and social media, however most were unsure how they had become racially literate (or if they had at all). Echoing previous findings (e.g., Pollock, 2004; Sleeter, 2001), not all participants had personal experiences with racism or were comfortable talking about race. Our findings suggest that participants relied on particular elements of racial literacies-informed instruction that they deemed important in teaching, but each participant’s evaluation of what was important stemmed from their own educational and life experiences. These findings reinforce the need for teacher education programs to build connections between and among the domains of knowledge to develop NTs as racially literate educators. Furthermore, this development should be built on NTs’ previous experiences and need all teacher educators’ collaboration across the program.

Finally, participants identified a lack of opportunities in their teacher education programs to examine race and racism, or to design classroom environments where students from minoritized backgrounds feel empowered. Our interview participants desired to become more racially literate teachers who can engage their students in critical conversations around topics such as race, discrimination, and inclusion, but were unsure how to do so. This illustrates the importance of connecting theory and practice for NTs; if we want NTs to engage in racially literate practices in classrooms, teacher educators must be more explicit to ensure that NTs not only understand the concept of racial literacies through class activities such as readings and discussions, but have opportunities to apply racial literacies in classroom contexts. This reinforces Sealey-Ruiz’s (2021b) call for “healthy conversations” about race to build racial literacies in teacher education, interrupting the dominant “passive approach” in favor of “practicing racial literacy” through taking action, reflecting on it, and reporting to an accountability partner (p. 290).

Methodological contributions

While we acknowledge that these findings primarily reinforce prior literature, we argue that our mixed methods approach, and our ability to scale it up as we refine and validate the KoRAL tool, contribute to the existing landscape of racial literacies research. As Brownell et al. (2020) have noted, “one of the most significant barriers to advancing research in teacher education is that we have few shared measures that are employed across preparation or PD programs” (p. 38). While the KoRaL measure does not solve the issue of novice teachers’ racial literacies, this measure does have the potential to help teacher educators learn about their students’ self-perceptions and examine racial literacies growth across time and contexts, considering, for example, trends by region or institution type. These findings could offer direction to teacher education programs striving to better support the development of NTs’ racial literacies.

We aim to position teacher education as a space to challenge rather than acquiesce to school norms that continue to reify and privilege whiteness. As a team of ten racially diverse, multi-institutional literacy teacher educators, we view KoRaL and the infusion of teacher knowledge domains into racial literacies as a key tool enabling us to create much-needed cross-program dialogue. As Goodwin and Darity (2019) argue, our ten voices speaking together with a collective voice has the potential to carry more weight and amplify the impact of racial literacies research on teacher preparation programs. While individual scholarship is prized by the academy and its individualistic culture, we fear that our individual scholarship may not be taken as seriously due to conceptions of expertise that are gendered, racialized, and ableist. Our collective work prioritizes community while furthering our impact.

Limitations

The KoRaL instrument was designed following an exploratory sequential mixed-methods process. Following the argument-based validation approach proposed by Kane (2013), sufficient evidence of internal reliability and construct validity exists to suggest the items were answerable to preservice and early career teachers, and the items are consistent with the theoretical framework of racial literacy and representative of the domains of teacher knowledge. Examining the instrument’s external validity (i.e., examining whether observable teaching practices related to racially literate teaching have a correlation to respondents’ KoRaL scores) or the consequential validity of KoRaL scores (i.e., if a 4.5, for example, is “enough” to ensure a NT acts in racially literate ways) would support the ongoing development of the tool.

Implications

Researchers should continue to explore the meaning-making process that NTs undergo when they engage in self-examination to build a racial grammar that can dispel the myth of colorblind systems and society (Bonilla-Silva, 2018; Guinier, 2004). As Mayer et al. (2011) have offered the critique that teacher education is an “accidental profession” (p. 73) with little standardization in preparation for the role, particularly on topics of social justice and equity (Goodwin & Chen, 2016; Merryfield, 2000). We admit that teacher educators have knowledge gaps, but also, that we are capable of developing racial literacies. While teacher educators need support, teacher education programs should make efforts to support NTs’ racial literacies development through collaboration with K-12 partners, teacher educator scaffolding, engagement with diverse communities, and abundant experience discussing, writing, and reflecting (Lammert, 2022). Teacher educators need to understand there is a continuum of racial literacies (Chávez-Moreno, 2022) when supporting NTs to become racially literate. Therefore, time, scaffolding, and collaboration are the keys.

There are several directions for further work. The research team has revised the survey instrument based on the results of this study and plans to survey NTs across the U.S. to develop a more comprehensive understanding of NTs’ racial literacies knowledge. A second direction is observing participants’ day-to-day racial literacies pedagogy alongside interviews to examine how their perceptions align with their practice. Results could help teacher educators close the gap between theory and practice. A third direction for future studies is to examine seasoned p-12 teachers’ racial literacies knowledge and practice with the aim of shaping ongoing professional development. Finally, teacher educators’ racial literacies knowledge and skills deserve examination so that we can model self-reflective practice, lifelong learning, and racially literate pedagogy.

Conclusion

As educators, we are called to challenge the social inequities we see in the world and in our classrooms. Racial literacies and the personal, contextual, pedagogical, sociological, and social knowledges that educators use to examine the harmful effects of systematic racism in literacy instruction contexts have not yet been sufficiently addressed in teacher education programs. We understand educators’ racial literacies as ever-changing, therefore, ongoing work and self-reflection are critical in interrupting racism, discrimination, and prejudice, and advancing equity and justice. This study calls for educators in p-12 and teacher education programs to work together to build an equitable, just, and inclusive society for this and future generations.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2024.2329884