Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Helping preservice teachers (PSTs) understand the realities of poverty: innovative curriculum modules

  • Development Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to develop an innovative addition to the curriculum to help preservice teachers cultivate an understanding of poverty. Using technology, an interdisciplinary team created two online learning modules entitled Teacher as Learning Facilitator and Teacher as Anthropologist. Preservice teachers valued the newly developed modules and the activities that accompanied them. In addition, preservice teachers demonstrated their knowledge and awareness of poverty as it relates to teaching and learning practices. Some preservice teachers viewed poverty as an asset but others viewed it as a deficit. A discussion of lessons learned about collaboration and curriculum development concludes the paper.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Child poverty rate is  % of children living in households with equivalent income lower than 50 % of national median.

  2. Poverty is defined using the U.S Census Bureau’s official measure. Children under 18 years in families with income less than 100 % of the poverty threshold are considered poor, and children under 18 years in families with income less than 200 % of the poverty threshold are considered low income. These figures are issued annually by the U.S. Census Bureau. The poverty threshold for four people with no children in a family is $23,021; however, if they have one or two children under 18 years these poverty thresholds are changed to $23,581 and $22,811, respectively. See http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/11poverty.shtml for the 2011 poverty thresholds.

  3. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading achievement level was used to determine students’ reading proficiency. According to the NAEP reading achievement level fourth-grade students’ cut-off scores for “basic level,” “proficient,” and “advanced” are 208, 238, and 268, respectively. Cut-off scores indicate the lower end of the score range for each level. NAEP achievement levels are cumulative; therefore, student performance at the proficient level includes the competencies associated with the basic level, and the advanced level also includes the competencies associated with both the basic and the proficient levels. See more information at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/achieveall.asp#2009ald.

References

  • Adamson, P. (2012). Measuring child poverty: New league tables of child poverty in the world’s rich countries. Florence, Italy: UNICEF Innocenti Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc10_eng.pdf. Accessed 17 Nov 2014.

  • Addy, S., & Wight, V. R. (2012). Basic facts about low-income children, 2010: Children under age 18. New York, NY: National Center for Children in Poverty, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health. Retrieved from http://www.nccp.org/publications/pdf/text_1049.pdf. Accessed 17 Nov 2014.

  • Bennett, M. M. (2008). Understanding the students we teach: Poverty in the classroom. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, 81(6), 251–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, M. -H. (2012). Online student orientation in higher education: A developmental study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(6), 1051–1069.

  • Convertino, C., Levinson, B. A. & Gonzaléz, N. (2013). Culture, learning and schooling. In J. Banks & C. Banks (Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (8th ed., pp. 25–41). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

  • Cox, B. J., Watts, C., & Horton, M. (2012). Poverty perceptions of pre-service teachers and social work candidates. Journal of Studies in Education, 2(1), 131–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cushner, K., McClelland, A., & Safford, P. (2011). Human diversity in education: An intercultural approach. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1996). The systematic design of instruction (4th ed.). New York, NY: Harper-Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dill, V. S. (2010). Students without homes. Educational Leadership, 68(3), 43–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feister, L., & Smith, R. (2010). Early warning! Why reading by the end of third grade matters. Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • First Author. Information removed for blind review.

  • Frank, C. (1999). Ethnographic eyes: A teacher’s guide to classroom observations. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • González, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (Eds.). (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, can classrooms. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorski, P. C. (2012). Perceiving the problem of poverty and schooling: Deconstructing the class stereotypes that mis-shape education practice and policy. Equity & Excellence in Education, 45(2), 302–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guajardo, M., Guarjardo, F., & Del Carmen Casaperalta, E. (2008). Transformative education: Chronicling a pedagogy for social change. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 39(1), 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henze, R. C., & Hauser, M. E. (1999). Personalizing culture through anthropological and educational perspectives. Berkley, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, T., Dresser, S. G., & Dunklee, D. R. (2009). Poverty is NOT a learning disability: Equalizing opportunities for low SES students. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchison, B. (2011). The influence of perceived poverty and academic achievement on school counselor conceptualization. Equity & Excellence in Education, 44(2), 203–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, E. (2009). Teaching with poverty in mind: What being poor does to kids’ brains and what schools can do about it?. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kretzmann, J., & McKnight, J. P. (1996). Assets-based community development. National Civic Review, 85(4), 23–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubin, I. A., & Ge, X. (2012). Investigating the influences of a LEAPS model on preservice teachers’ problem solving, metacognition, and motivation in an educational technology course. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(2), 1042–1629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Hara, R. J. (2006). The social psychology of education: Adults matter. Retrieved from http://collegiateway.org/news/2006-what-it-takes-to-make-a-student. Accessed 17 Nov 2014.

  • Payne, R. K. (1996). A framework for understanding poverty. Highlands, TX: Aha! Process Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossett, A., & Gautier-Downes, J. H. (1991). A handbook of job aids. San Diego: Pfeiffer & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santoro, N. (2009). Teaching in culturally diverse contexts: What knowledge about self and others do teachers need? Journal of Education for Teaching, 35(1), 33–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Second Author. Information removed for blind review.

  • Valencia, R. (2010). Dismantling contemporary deficit thinking: Educational thought and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2007). The culturally responsive teacher. Educational Leadership., 64(6), 28–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman, S. (1994). Using cases to study teaching. The Phi Delta Kappan, 95, 602–611.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, S. A., & Crockett, D. P. (2013). Institutional barriers: Poverty and education. In D. Shriberg, S. Y. Song, A. H. Miranda, & K. M. Radliff (Eds.), School psychology and social justice: Conceptual foundations and tools for practice (pp. 137–154). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Moon-Heum Cho.

Appendix

Appendix

Focus Group Questions

  1. 1.

    What is your definition of poverty?

  2. 2.

    What does poverty look like?

  3. 3.

    What percentage of your students fit this definition?

Please think about a particular student living in poverty and answer the following questions with him or her in mind.

  1. 4.

    How do you know this student lives in poverty?

  2. 5.

    How would you describe the relationship between this student’s family and the school? (If there is no relationship, why do you think this is the case?)

  3. 6.

    Please share a story when being in poverty led to a school-based problem for a student.

  4. 7.

    What should teacher preparation programs do to prepare new teachers to recognize and effectively address issues of poverty?

Below are the initial questions and should be used to guide a teacher who may be struggling with the above questions.

  1. 8.

    Do you think poverty affects academic performance?

  2. 9.

    Do you think poverty affects social interactions?

  3. 10.

    Do you think poverty affects behavior?

  4. 11.

    Do you think poverty affects attendance?

  5. 12.

    Do you think poverty affects classroom participation?

  6. 13.

    Do you think poverty affects involvement in extracurricular activities.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cho, MH., Convertino, C. & Khourey-Bowers, C. Helping preservice teachers (PSTs) understand the realities of poverty: innovative curriculum modules. Education Tech Research Dev 63, 303–324 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9366-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9366-9

Keywords

Navigation