Novice Teachers Knowledge of Racial Literacies

Literacy Research and Instruction
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/ulri20
Novice Teachers’ Knowledge of Racial Literacies
Xiufang Chen, Amy Tondreau, Catherine Lammert, Rhonda Hylton, Pallavi

Chhabra, Marla R. Goins, Shuling Yang, Lisa O’Brien, Poonam Arya & Carin
Appleget
To cite this article: Xiufang Chen, Amy Tondreau, Catherine Lammert, Rhonda Hylton, Pallavi
Chhabra, Marla R. Goins, Shuling Yang, Lisa O’Brien, Poonam Arya & Carin Appleget (17 Apr
2024): Novice Teachers’ Knowledge of Racial Literacies, Literacy Research and Instruction, DOI:
10.1080/19388071.2024.2329884
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2024.2329884
© 2024 The Author(s). Published with

license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
View supplementary material
Published online: 17 Apr 2024.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 577
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ulri20
LITERACY RESEARCH AND INSTRUCTION
https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2024.2329884
Novice Teachers’ Knowledge of Racial Literacies

Xiufang Chen a, Amy Tondreaub, Catherine Lammertc, Rhonda Hyltonh,
Pallavi Chhabrad, Marla R. Goinse, Shuling Yangf, Lisa O’Brieng, Poonam Aryai,
and Carin Applegetj
a
Department of Critical Literacy, Technology and Multilingual Education, Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ;
b
Department of Education, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD; cCollege of Educatiton, Texas Tech
University, Lubbock, TX; dHuman-Computer Interaction Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Madison, WI;
e
College of Education, University of Nevada-Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV; fDepartment of Curriculum & Instruction,
East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, TN; gSchool of Education and Social Policy, Merrimack College,
North Andover, MA; hSchool of Teaching, Learning and Curriculum Studies, Kent State University, Kent, OH;
i
College of Education, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI; jDepartment of Education, Creighton University,
Omaha, NE
ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Grounded in Goodwin and Darity’s domains of knowledge for social Racial literacies; novice
justice educators, this study examines novice teachers’ (NTs) racial lit teachers; mixed-methods;
eracies. Specifically, this research integrates a framework for teacher domains of knowledge
knowledge with the construct of racial literacies to examine the struc
ture 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 ana
lyzed to improve the measure and reveal how participants’ racial litera
cies 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 parti
cipants 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.
Introduction
For decades and generations, activists have been fighting against racism and promoting anti
racist work (e.g., Aptheker, 1943; Du Bois, 1936/1999; James, 1985). Recently, increased atten
tion 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 long
standing 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
CONTACT Xiufang Chen [email protected] Department of Critical Literacy, Technology and Multilingual Education,
Rowan University, 201 Mullica Hill Road, Glassboro, NJ 08028-1701
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2024.2329884
© 2024 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided
the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. The terms on which this article has been published
allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
2 X. CHEN ET AL.
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 instru
ment 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?
LITERACY RESEARCH AND INSTRUCTION 3
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 con
ceptualized 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 educa
tional 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 indivi
duals 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 com
prise racism and anti-racism” (p. 110). Racial literacies require both problematizing and
4 X. CHEN ET AL.
refuting racism, discrimination, and prejudice, and advancing equity and justice. In educa
tion, 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 oper
ationalizing 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., knowl
edge 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 experi
ence” (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 ped
agogical 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 inequi
ties) 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 discrimina
tion. 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.
6 X. CHEN ET AL.
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 demo
graphics 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 multi
culturalism but avoiding power dynamics of racial hierarchy (Shah & Coles, 2020).
While there are many complexities and challenges in understanding NTs’ racial litera
cies, 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 interrup
tion; 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 conscious
ness 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 cri
tical reflection that counteracts dominant narratives and honors marginalized litera
cies (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 litera
cies. 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 aggres
sion and violence (Harrelson, 2021; Skerrett, 2011); and developing critical socio
cultural 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 pre
pare 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 develop
ment 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 educa
tion initiatives, mixed methods addressed this gap while retaining attention to the indivi
duality 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
8 X. CHEN ET AL.
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
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 pseu
donyms, and Table 1 illustrates their backgrounds.
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, pedagogi
cal, 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 instru
ment. 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 indivi
duals 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
10 X. CHEN ET AL.
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.
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.
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, pedago
gical, 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 partici
pants 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
Table 2. KoRaL Survey Items Measuring the five Domains of Knowledge about racial literacies.
Factor One: Applied Knowledge of Racial Literacies
Agree
Mean Range Neutral Disagree
Contextual Knowledge Domain N (SD) (%) (%) Range (%)
1. I know how to communicate with families to learn about my 38 3.18 89.47 7.89 2.63
students. (0.69)
2. I know the ways systemic racism impacts literacy instruction. 38 2.84 71.05 21.05 7.89
(0.86)
3. I know the ways systemic racism impacts students’ literacy 38 2.92 68.42 18.42 13.16
development. (1.05)
4. I know how the cultural and racial backgrounds of my students play 38 3.18 81.58 15.79 2.63
an important part in my literacy instruction. (0.80)
5. I know how my students’ various identities (e.g. family, community, 36 3.14 83.33 11.11 5.56
gender) play a role in their literacy development. (0.83)
6. I know how students’ classroom behaviors during literacy learning 38 2.97 76.32 18.42 5.26
convey their needs, interests, and knowledge (0.82)
7. Media (social media, television, film, books, websites, news outlets) 36 2.78 8.33 22.22 69.44
accurately portray race. (0.93)
8. Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) express racism in the 35 2.97 2.86 31.43 65.72
same way. (0.89)
9. I know how to incorporate students’ language varieties in my 36 2.50 61.11 19.44 19.44
literacy instruction. (0.91)
10. The same literacy instruction satisfies the learning needs of all 35 2.80 14.29 22.86 62.86
students who identify as BIPOC. (1.13)
Pedagogical Knowledge Domain N Mean Agree Neutral Disagree
(SD) Range (%) Range (%)
(%)
11. I know how to make my literacy instruction responsive to students 38 2.74 63.15 23.68 13.16
of linguistically diverse backgrounds. (0.98)
12. I know how to teach my students how to advocate for their literacy 38 2.68 71.05 18.42 10.53
learning needs. (0.77)
13. I know how to teach my students how to advocate for fairness, 38 2.97 81.58 15.79 2.63
equity, and justice in the world. (0.68)
14. I know how to model critical self-reflection about differing por 36 2.72 58.33 36.11 5.56
trayals of race for my students. (0.85)
15.I know how to design a lesson that engages students in critical 36 2.44 52.78 27.78 19.44
examination of differing portrayals of race in text and media. (1.03)
16. It is respectful to be color blind (i.e. not acknowledge race) when 36 2.50 16.67 30.56 52.78
providing literacy instruction. (1.03)
17. I know how to examine past and present racism with my students 36 2.64 55.56 38.89 5.56
in literacy instruction. (0.80)
18. I know how to make my literacy instruction responsive to students 38 2.87 71.05 23.68 5.26
of culturally diverse backgrounds. (0.81)
Social Knowledge Domain N Mean Agree Neutral Disagree
(%)
19. I know how to create a literacy learning environment in which all of 38 2.89 73.68 18.42 7.89
my students of diverse backgrounds collaborate and work (0.86)
toward common goals.
20. I know how to create a literacy learning environment that conveys 38 3.11 86.84 10.53 2.63
respect for the cultures of all students in my classroom. (0.69)
21. I know how to create a literacy learning environment that conveys 38 3.13 86.85 13.16 0
respect for the language varieties of students in my classroom. (0.62)
22. I know how to create a literacy learning environment in which I can 38 2.92 71.05 26.32 2.63
talk about race with my students (0.78)
23. I know how to approach conversations about race with my peers in 36 2.67 63.88 19.44 16.67
teacher education (0.99)
24. I know how to approach conversations about race with parents/ 36 2.31 47.23 22.22 30.56
caregivers of students in my classroom. (1.14)
Factor Two: Conceptual Knowledge of Racial Literacies
(Continued)
12 X. CHEN ET AL.
Table 2. (Continued).
Factor One: Applied Knowledge of Racial Literacies
Agree
Mean Range Neutral Disagree
Contextual Knowledge Domain N (SD) (%) (%) Range (%)
Sociological Knowledge Domain N Mean Agree Neutral Disagree
(%)
25. Being color blind (i.e. not acknowledge race) fosters equitable 38 2.76 18.42 23.68 57.89
literacy instruction. (1.22)
26. It is necessary to talk about racism as we examine power and 38 3.47 89.47 10.53 0
privilege with students. (0.69)
27. I know how to modify curriculum to teach my students to recog 38 3.13 92.1 7.89 0
nize and value multiple viewpoints. (0.53)
28. I know how to design assessments that capture students’ progress 36 2.25 38.89 36.11 25.00
toward critical examination of differing portrayals of race in text (1.05)
and media.
Personal Knowledge Domain N Mean Agree Neutral Disagree
(%)
29. Race is important to examine during my literacy instruction. 38 3.55 94.74 5.26 0
(0.60)
30. My views of race were influenced by my previous experiences. 38 2.97 71.05 21.05 7.89
(0.94)
31. Some students, no matter what I do, will not succeed in developing 38 2.89 10.53 18.42 71.05
literacy skills and knowledge. (1.03)
32. Every student I encounter can develop literacy skills and 38 3.42 89.48 7.89 2.63
knowledge. (0.86)
33. My students’ identities are central to my literacy instruction. 36 3.19 77.78 22.22 0
(0.79)
34. Race is difficult to explore with my students in my literacy 36 2.00 38.89 25 36.11
instruction. (1.17)
35. My knowledge of my students’ racial and cultural backgrounds is 36 3.50 91.66 8.33 0
important to create culturally responsive literacy instruction. (0.65)
36. It is important to examine my racial identity and history as I engage 36 3.33 86.11 13.89 0
in literacy instruction. (0.72)
37. I can connect with people from races different from my own in 36 3.14 83.34 16.67 0
a literacy context. (0.68)
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.
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
14 X. CHEN ET AL.
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 uncer
tainty 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 color
blind . . . 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 educa
tion 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 experi
ences, 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, col
legial conversations with other NTs and teacher educators, self-selected readings and
reflections, conversations with friends and family, and their own racial identities. These
16 X. CHEN ET AL.
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 simulta
neously, 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 school
ing. 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 read
ings.” 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 . . . immigra
tion, 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.
18 X. CHEN ET AL.
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 instruc
tion 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 pro
grams 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 conversa
tions 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 develop
ment 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 representa
tive of the domains of teacher knowledge. Examining the instrument’s external validity
(i.e., examining whether observable teaching practices related to racially literate teach
ing 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
20 X. CHEN ET AL.
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 edu
cators 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 knowl
edge. A second direction is observing participants’ day-to-day racial literacies peda
gogy 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).
ORCID
Xiufang Chen http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3789-2124
References
Aptheker, H. (1943). American negro slave revolts. International Publishers.
Bonilla-Silva, E. (2018). Feeling race: Theorizing the racial economy of emotions. American
Sociological Review, 84(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122418816958
Brown, K. D. (2017). Why we can’t wait: Advancing racial literacy and a critical sociocultural
knowledge of race for teaching and curriculum. Race, Gender & Class, 24(1–2), 81–96.
Brownell, M. T., Jones, N. D., Sohn, H., & Stark, L. (2020). Improving teaching quality for students
with disabilities: Establishing a warrant for teacher education practice. Teacher Education and
Special Education, 43(1), 28–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406419880351
Buchanan, L. B. (2015). “We make it controversial”: Elementary preservice teachers’ beliefs about
race. Teacher Education Quarterly, 42(1), 3–26. https://www.jstor.org/stable/teaceducquar.42.1.3
Chávez-Moreno, L. C. (2022). Critiquing racial literacy: Presenting a continuum of racial literacies.
Educational Researcher, 51(7), 481–488. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X221093365
Cochran-Smith, M., Villegas, A. M., Abrams, L., Chavez-Moreno, L., Mills, T., & Stern, R. (2015).
Critiquing teacher preparation research: An overview of the field, part II. Journal of Teacher
Education, 66(2), 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114558268
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches (4th ed.). Sage publications.
Croom, M. (2020). If “black lives matter in literacy research,” then take this racial turn: Developing racial
literacies. Journal of Literacy Research, 52(4), 530–552. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X20967396
Du Bois, W. E. B. (1936/1999). Black Reconstruction in America. Free Press.
Enterline, S., Cochran-Smith, M., Ludlow, L., & Mitescu, E. (2008). Learning to teach for social
justice: Measuring changes in the beliefs of teacher candidates. The New Educator, 4(4), 267–290.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15476880802430361
Fowler, F. (2014). Survey research methods. Sage.
Goodwin, A. L. (2010). Globalization and the preparation of quality teachers: Rethinking knowledge
domains for teaching. Teaching Education, 21(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210903466901
Goodwin, A. L., & Chen, C. (2016). New knowledges for ‘teacher educating’? Perspectives from practicing
teacher educators. In C. Kosnik, S. White, C. Beck, B. Marshall, A. L. Goodwin, & J. Murray (Eds.),
Building bridges: Rethinking literacy teacher education in a digital era (pp. 149–162). Sense.
Goodwin, A. L., & Darity, K. (2019). Social justice teacher educators: What kind of knowing is needed?
Journal of Education for Teaching, 45(1), 63–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2019.1550606
Gorski, P. C., & Dalton, K. (2020). Striving for critical reflection in multicultural and social justice
teacher education: Introducing a typology of reflection approaches. Journal of Teacher Education,
71(3), 357–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487119883545
Grant, C. A., & Sleeter, C. E. (2010). Race, class, gender, and disability in the classroom. In J. A. Banks & C.
A. M. Banks (Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (7th ed., pp. 59–78). Wiley.
Guinier, L. (2004). From racial liberalism to racial literacy: Brown v. Board of Education and the
interest-divergence dilemma. The Journal of American History, 91(1), 92–118. https://doi.org/10.
2307/3659616
Haladyna, T. M., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2013). Developing and validating test items. Routledge.
Harrelson, K. J. (2021). White racial literacy and racial dexterity. Educational Theory, 71(2), 203–221.
https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12473
Holmes, A. G. D. (2020). Researcher positionality–a consideration of its influence and place in
qualitative research–A new researcher guide. Shanlax International Journal of Education, 8(4),
1–10. https://doi.org/10.34293/education.v8i2.1477
James, C. L. R. (1985). A history of negro revolt. Race Today Publications.
Kane, M. T. (2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational
Measurement, 50(1), 1–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12000
King, L. J. (2019). Interpreting black history: Toward a black history framework for teacher education.
Urban Education, 54(3), 368–396. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085918756716
King, L. J., Vickery, A. E., & Caffrey, G. (2018). A pathway to racial literacy: Using the LETS ACT
framework to teach controversial issues. Social Education, 82(6), 316–322.
Kohli, R. (2018). Behind school doors: The impact of hostile racial climates on urban teachers of
color. Urban Education, 53(3), 307–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916636653
Kosnik, C., Menna, L., Dharamshi, P., & Miyata, C. (2017). So how do you teach literacy in teacher
education? literacy/English teacher educators’ goals and pedagogies. Australian Journal of
Language & Literacy, 40(1), 59–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03651984
22 X. CHEN ET AL.
Krosnick, J. A., & Presser, S. (2010). Question and questionnaire design. In P. V. Marsden &
J. D. Wright (Eds.), Handbook of survey research (2nd ed., pp. 263–214). Emerald Group.
Lammert, C. (2022). Three decades of literacy preservice teachers’ engagement in research:
Operationalizing critical reflexivity to explore possibilities for increasing racial literacy. Journal
of Language & Literacy Education, 18(1), 1–29.
Laughter, J., Pellegrino, A., Waters, S., & Smith, M. (2021). Toward a framework for critical racial literacy.
Race Ethnicity and Education, 26(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2021.1924130
Lomax, R. G. (2004). Whither the future of quantitative literacy research? Reading Research Quarterly,
39(1), 107–112.
Mayer, D., Mitchell, J., Santoro, N., & White, S. (2011). Teacher educators and ‘accidental’ careers in
academe: An Australian perspective. Journal of Education for Teaching, 37(3), 247–260. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02607476.2011.588011
Merryfield, M. M. (2000). Why aren’t teachers being prepared to teach for diversity, equity, and global
interconnectedness? A study of lived experiences in the making of multicultural and global educators.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(4), 429–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(00)00004-4
Mills, C., & Ballantyne, J. (2016). Social justice and teacher education: A systematic review of
empirical work in the field. Journal of Teacher Education, 67(4), 263–276. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0022487116660152
Milner, H. R., IV. (2010). Race, narrative inquiry, and self-study in curriculum and teacher education.
In H. R. Milner (Ed.), Culture, curriculum, and identity in education (pp. 181–206). Palgrave
Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230105669_9
Milner, H. R., IV. (2017). Race, talk, opportunity gaps, and curriculum shifts in (teacher) education.
Literacy Research: Theory, Method, & Practice, 66(1), 73–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/2381336917718804
O’Brien, L., Arya, P., Chhabra, P., & Lammert, C. (2022, November 30, December 2). Capturing
teachers’ racial literacy: An instrument development study. 2022 Literacy Research Association
Annual Meeting, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (Eds.). (2017). Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for
justice in a changing world. Teachers College Press.
Picower, B. (2009). The unexamined whiteness of teaching: How white teachers maintain and enact
dominant racial ideologies. Race Ethnicity and Education, 12(2), 197–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13613320902995475
Pollock, M. (2004). Race wrestling: Struggling strategically with race in educational practice and
research. American Journal of Education, 111(1), 25–67. https://doi.org/10.1086/424719
Rogers, R., & Mosley, M. (2008). A critical discourse analysis of racial literacy in teacher education.
Linguistics and Education, 19(2), 107–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2008.02.002
Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. SAGE.
Sealey-Ruiz, Y. (2021a). Racial literacy: A policy research brief. https://ncte.org/wp-content/uploads/
2021/04/SquireOfficePolicyBrief_RacialLiteracy_April2021.pdf
Sealey-Ruiz, Y. (2021b). The critical literacy of race: Toward racial literacy in urban teacher education. In
H. R. Milner IV & K. Lomotey (Eds.), Handbook of urban education (2nd ed., pp. 281–295). Routledge.
Sealey-Ruiz, Y. (2022). An archaeology of self for our times: Another talk to teachers. The English
Journal, 111(5), 21–26. https://doi.org/10.58680/ej202231819
Shah, N., & Coles, J. A. (2020). Preparing teachers to notice race in classrooms: Contextualizing the
competencies of preservice teachers with antiracist inclinations. Journal of Teacher Education, 71
(5), 584–599. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487119900204
Skerrett, A. (2011). English teachers’ racial literacy knowledge and practice. Race Ethnicity and
Education, 14(3), 313–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2010.543391
Sleeter, C. E. (2001). Preparing teachers for culturally diverse schools: Research and the overwhelm
ing presence of whiteness. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(2), 94–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0022487101052002002
Taie, S., & Goldring, R. (2020). Characteristics of public and private elementary and secondary school
teachers in the United States: Results from the 2017–18 National teacher and principal survey first
look (NCES 2020- 142rev). National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pub
search/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2020142rev
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research.
SAGE.
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2006). A general typology of research designs featuring mixed
methods. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 12–28.
Twine, F. W. (2004). A white side of Black Britain: The concept of racial literacy. Ethnic and Racial
Studies, 27(6), 878–907. https://doi.org/10.1080/0141987042000268512
US Department of Education. (2016). The State of racial diversity in the educator workforce. https://
www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/highered/racial-diversity/state-racial-diversity-workforce.
Welkowitz, J., Cohen, B. H., & Ewen, R. B. (2006). Introductory statistics for the behavioral sciences
(6th ed.). Wiley.
Wetzel, M. M., Daly, A., LeeKeenan, K., & Svrcek, N. S. (2021). Coaching using racial literacy in
preservice teacher education. Journal of Literacy Research, 53(4), 539–562. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1086296X211052246
Wetzel, M. M., & Rogers, R. (2015). Constructing racial literacy through critical language awareness:
A case study of a beginning literacy teacher. Linguistics and Education, 32, 27–40. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.linged.2015.03.014
Winans, A. E. (2010). Cultivating racial literacy in white, segregated settings: Emotions as site of
ethical engagement and inquiry. Curriculum Inquiry, 40(3), 475–491. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1467-873X.2010.00494.x
Zeichner, K. M. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in
college- and university-based Teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 89–99.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109347671

Novice Teachers Knowledge of Racial Literacies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Novice Teachers Knowledge of Racial Literacies

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Novice Teachers Knowledge of Racial Literacies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Literacy Research and Instruction

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/ulri20

Novice Teachers’ Knowledge of Racial Literacies

Xiufang Chen, Amy Tondreau, Catherine Lammert, Rhonda Hylton, Pallavi

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2024.2329884

© 2024 The Author(s). Published with

View supplementary material

Published online: 17 Apr 2024.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 577

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Novice Teachers’ Knowledge of Racial Literacies

In a recent summative content analysis of education scholarship on racial literacies,

(1) What personal, contextual, pedagogical, sociological, and social knowledge do

Conceptualizing racial literacies

Racial literacies and domains of knowledge

NTs’ racial literacies knowledge

Developing NTs’ racial literacies

Table 1. Interviewees’ backgrounds.

Phase one: data collection for survey validation and analysis

Phase two: qualitative data collection and analysis

Phase three: Integrated Analysis

Racial literacies knowledge domains

Factor one: contextual, pedagogical, and social domains

Contextual knowledge. Contextual knowledge is related to the role of contextual influence

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

Social knowledge. Social knowledge is knowledge of how to effectively communicate and

Factor two: sociological and personal domains

Sociological knowledge. Sociological knowledge is knowledge of how to teach all students

Experiences informing racial literacies

Areas for further learning about racial literacies

Support for racial literacies

You might also like