Pilot study of an anti-racist professional development: effects on educators’ multicultural attitudes and efficacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to understand the impact of a pilot of the actions against racism (AAR) intervention, aimed at enhancing educators’ multicultural efficacy and attitudes in a mid-Atlantic K-8 charter school. Design/methodology/approach AAR included eight sessions delivered over one school year. Experienced facilitators led these sessions, focusing on combating racism, prejudice and discrimination. Of the 84 school staff, 56 completed a baseline survey and 33 completed a postintervention survey. Findings Paired sample t-tests revealed a significant increase in multicultural attitudes, t(29) = 2.55, p = 0.016, whereas the increase in multicultural efficacy was not significant, t(28) = 1.93, p = 0.063. The authors examined cultural and emotional intelligence as moderators of the intervention’s impact. Higher baseline cognitive reappraisal scores (an indicator of emotional intelligence) were linked to a larger increase in multicultural efficacy from pre- to postintervention, B = −0.59, t (27) = −2.20, p = 0.037. The number of sessions attended was unrelated to the intervention’s impact. Research limitations/implications This study was a single-site, uncontrolled pilot of AAR with a small sample size. Further research in additional settings with appropriately powered samples is needed to validate these results and extend findings to examine the impact of AAR on the student experience. Originality/value The study demonstrates the promising potential of AAR in improving teachers' multicultural attitudes and efficacy. Exploratory findings highlight the role of cognitive reappraisal in enhancing multicultural efficacy, contributing valuable insights for designing effective teacher training programs. This research supports the implementation of critical, identity-centered and asset-based pedagogies in education.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".