Elementary School Teachers’ Openness to Cultural Diversity and Professional Satisfaction

Abstract

Teachers’ professional satisfaction promotes students’ educational success. Studies have shown that teaching in a context of high cultural diversity may affect teachers’ level of satisfaction (e.g., satisfaction with students, perceived warmth in the teacher–student relationship, sense of efficacy). This longitudinal study conducted among 69 Canadian elementary school teachers found that those who reported more openness to their students’ cultural diversity presented a more positive perception of students and reported greater warmth in their relationships with students but experienced a lower sense of professional efficacy. This study highlights the importance of teachers’ openness to cultural diversity, an understudied variable.

Keywords

professional satisfaction cultural diversity elementary school immigration teaching

Introduction

In many countries, the dropout rate from the teaching profession is extremely high, especially in urban environments (Gaikhorst et al., 2017; Morettini, 2016; Sutcher et al., 2016). Of all the variables associated with this phenomenon, teachers’ professional satisfaction—that is, their work enjoyment—most directly influences the quality of their teaching, their psychological well-being, and ultimately their persistence in the teaching profession (Bennett, 2004). The contribution of professional satisfaction to teachers’ daily lives is direct and significant. Low satisfaction can create stress and psychological distress while negatively affecting self-esteem (Demirtas, 2010). When teachers experience low levels of professional satisfaction, they may be more prone to burnout and to perceiving their students negatively, which in turn can undermine students’ performance and motivation (Arens & Morin, 2016; Caprara et al., 2006).

Among students’ characteristics that can influence teachers’ professional satisfaction is their cultural diversity. Indeed, many teachers report feeling ill-equipped to teach in a multicultural context and may, in such settings, feel less effective professionally (Larochelle-Audet et al., 2013). Studies have also shown that teachers find it easier to bond with students from cultural backgrounds similar to their own and that they tend to perceive these students more favorably (Gay & Howard, 2000; Kumar & Hamer, 2012; Santoro, 2009).

In Western countries, while cultural diversity in schools is increasing, teachers typically are part of the majority culture (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2018). Thus, teachers very often find themselves teaching students from a culture that differs from their own. In such a context, teachers with certain characteristics, such as openness to cultural diversity, may be more comfortable teaching in a multicultural context and would experience greater professional satisfaction (Bryan & Atwater, 2002; Hachfeld et al., 2015; Pohan & Aguilar, 2001). Openness is defined by attitudes and practices adopted by teachers to deal with cultural diversity in their classroom (Deardorff, 2006). It is a core component of teacher training programs, but its contribution to teachers’ professional satisfaction has not yet been studied (Alismail, 2016; Barrett, 1993; Kaur, 2012). Consequently, our aim in this longitudinal study was to examine the association between openness to cultural diversity and elementary school teachers’ professional satisfaction. To achieve this, a new instrument measuring openness to cultural diversity was created and partially validated. Ultimately, the goal of this study was to identify effective ways to improve teachers’ training and contribute to their professional satisfaction in order to foster professional retention.

Brief Literature Review

Teachers’ Professional Satisfaction

Teachers’ professional satisfaction is generally defined by their levels of pleasure and confidence at work (Bennett, 2004). Concretely, teachers with high professional satisfaction are more likely to experience a positive emotional state regarding their work. Three significant parameters can be considered for a multidimensional and rich definition of teachers’ professional satisfaction (Perrachione et al., 2008; Shann, 2010; Spilt et al., 2011). First, warmth in teacher–student relationships is defined by positive interactions (Demirtas, 2010; Kamanzi, Lessard et al., 2019; Kamanzi, Tardif et al., 2015; Klassen et al., 2012; Pianta, 1999). Teachers who have warm relationships with their students feel close to them and find it easy to understand how they feel. Second, satisfaction with students’ behavior and learning achievements is a critical component of teacher’s professional satisfaction (Locke, 1976). Professionally satisfied teachers have a more positive perception of their students’ motivation and academic commitment (Martin, 2006). A third parameter is teachers’ sense of professional efficacy, defined as their belief that they are competent and successful in their professional tasks (Chapman & Lowther, 1982). Teachers with a high sense of efficacy feel empowered to help all students improve, believe they are making a difference in their students’ lives, and feel they can handle most problems (Midgley et al., 2000). Teachers who perceive they are doing a great job have more pleasure and positive feelings about their profession (Brouwers & Tomic, 2000; Dellinger et al., 2008; Evans, 2000; Liu & Ramsey, 2008; Moè et al., 2010). Teachers experiencing high professional satisfaction are more satisfied with their students’ behavior and learning achievements, develop closer and warmer relationships with them, and feel more efficacious at work.

Certain teacher characteristics influence their level of professional satisfaction. For example, women generally experience more satisfaction in teaching and report less work stress than men, but feel less efficient and less satisfied with their students’ behaviors (Chaplain, 1995; Chapman & Lowther, 1982; Klassen & Chiu, 2010). Years of teaching experience also contribute to their satisfaction, with some studies suggesting that mid-career teachers are the most satisfied of all, more than those starting in the profession or nearing retirement (Demirtas, 2010; Fraser et al., 1998).

As well, student characteristics can play a role in teachers’ professional satisfaction. It is well documented that student behaviors and outcomes influence teachers’ stress levels, which in turn affect their professional satisfaction. Certain disruptive student behaviors or difficulties cause the teaching process to be interrupted, such that it may be more difficult for teachers to establish a warm relationship with disruptive students. These behaviors occur frequently, and teachers find them challenging (Sullivan et al., 2014). In fact, student misbehavior is one of the factors most strongly related to teacher work dissatisfaction; it negatively affects the teacher–student relationship and reduces teachers’ sense of professional efficacy (Aloe et al., 2014; Martin et al., 2012). Elementary school teachers also perceive students with ADHD symptoms as more stressful to teach and more reluctant to bond (Greene et al., 2002; Rogers et al., 2015). Students’ disengagement is also negatively associated with teachers’ professional satisfaction (Collie et al., 2012; Martin, 2006). Teachers whose classrooms have a higher prevalence of these student behaviors may experience lower job satisfaction (DuPaul et al., 2014; Ferguson et al., 2012). Of the many student characteristics playing a role in teacher satisfaction, students’ cultural diversity is among the least studied.

The Challenges of Teaching in the Context of Cultural Diversity

In most Western countries, schools are seeing a steady increase in the number of immigrant students, such that teachers, who are mainly from the majority culture, find themselves teaching in a context of cultural diversity. Culture can be defined by values and beliefs that guide people in assigning meaning to the world and to their lives, and is determined partly by the physical and social contexts in which an individual develops (Hofstede, 1980; Lane et al., 2009). Cultural diversity is defined as the existence of a variety of cultural or ethnic groups that differ from the dominant culture, namely the culture of the majority. These differences can be manifested as visible characteristics, as well as less visible elements such as attitudes and beliefs. As measuring culture and cultural differences objectively is a complex undertaking, in this study we used the birth countries of teachers, students, and students’ parents as a proxy for cultural diversity, since the context in which people grow and develop determines their culture (Ottaviano & Peri, 2006; Weinstein et al., 2004). The challenges of teaching in a context of cultural diversity are such that some authors speak of diversity-related burnout, resulting from the stress and adaptation efforts that teachers must deploy to respond to students’ needs (Swartz, 2003; Tatar & Horenczyk, 2003). Other studies have shown that when teachers from the majority culture teach a class with a high multicultural density, they may experience a form of culture shock (Mueller et al., 1999; Stearns et al., 2014). We also know that teacher turnover is higher in schools with more student cultural diversity, a worrying reality for many inner-city schools, which already experience teacher shortages and high rates of abandonment during the first five years of a teaching career (Burns & Shadoian-Gersing, 2010; Fairchild et al., 2012; Gay & Howard, 2000; Kumar & Hamer, 2012; Mukamurera & Balleux, 2013; Santoro, 2009). Among school personnel, elementary school teachers are those who have closer relationships with students, since they spend a lot of time with them. Therefore, they are the ones most affected by students’ cultural diversity, as their respective values are more likely to collide, given the deeper teacher–student relationships created in such a context (Fortuin et al., 2014).

Studies have shown that it may be more difficult for students from immigrant backgrounds to connect with a teacher from the majority culture, which is worrisome because these students in particular need support from their teacher to overcome challenges they may face (Dee, 2005; Garcia-Reid et al., 2005; Roffman et al., 2003; Steele, 1997; Suárez-Orozco et al., 2009). For instance, the cultural gap between a student and a teacher can impact the teacher’s attitude toward that student. Some American studies have shown that teachers tend to give more positive ratings to students with whom they share an ethnic background and to have lower academic expectations of visible minority students (Sleeter, 2008; Williams & Naremore, 1974). Moreover, teachers in culturally homogeneous classes tend to report a higher sense of efficacy (Dejaeghere & Zhang, 2008; Gutentag et al., 2018; Guyton & Wesche, 2005; Siwatu, 2007). Regarding the level of warmth in the teacher–student relationship, it has been documented that conflicts are more frequent when the student and the teacher come from different cultures (Gay, 2018; Sheets, 1996; Weinstein et al., 2004). Conversely, teachers establish relationships more naturally with students with whom they share a similar cultural background, due largely to the fact that expectations and behaviors are influenced by culture (Coleman, 1968; Gay & Howard, 2000; Kumar & Hamer, 2012; Santoro, 2009; Weinstein et al., 2004). For example, in some cultures, a child who maintains eye contact with an adult is committing an affront, while in others, lack of eye contact is seen as a sign of dishonesty.

Moreover, there are gaps in cultural diversity-related teacher training, such that most teachers report being ill-prepared to teach in such a context (Larochelle-Audet et al., 2013). Most teachers are, in fact, from the majority culture and were generally educated in monocultural institutions (Easter et al., 1999). They must therefore demonstrate high adaptability in order to teach all their students effectively (Banks & Banks, 2019; Fairchild et al., 2012; Gay, 2018; Moule, 2012; Rosen & Abt-Perkins, 2000; Swartz, 2003).

Cultural diversity within schools is not a problem in itself. It can undoubtedly be a challenge, but the way school actors respond to this diversity can positively or negatively affect students’ self-esteem and educational success, as well as determine whether teachers flourish professionally (Archambault et al., 2018; Brown, 2007; Prater & Devereaux, 2012). The sometimes-negative impacts of the cultural gap between students and teachers are therefore not systematic, and certain characteristics, such as openness to cultural diversity, can enhance teachers’ ability to teach in a multicultural context (Milner et al., 2003). Such openness promotes greater motivation at work and potentially higher satisfaction (Hachfeld et al., 2015).

Openness to Students’ Cultural Diversity: Teachers’ Practices, Attitudes, and Professional Satisfaction

Several attitudes toward cultural diversity are expressed in the literature. According to the liberal multiculturalist perspective, teachers should be open to diversity; that is to say, they should accept, celebrate, and promote their students’ cultural differences to foster a positive school climate and equality of opportunity among students, regardless of cultural background (Grant & Sleeter, 2008). Cultural diversity is, in this view, seen as an advantage within the school and valued through school actors’ attitudes and practices. However, according to Deardorff (2006), in the classroom, it is above all the teacher’s attitudes and practices that are central to intercultural competence. That author sees intercultural competence as a pyramid, at the base of which are attitudes (e.g., respect, openness, and curiosity) as prerequisites for practices. In line with the liberal multiculturalist perspective and Deardorff’s theory, openness to cultural diversity is therefore defined by attitudes and practices, two intrinsically linked elements reflecting a positive evaluation of cultural diversity in the classroom (Ritchhart, 2001; Wilkerson & Lang, 2007). According to Gay (2002), five practices characterize culturally responsive teachers: 1) acquiring knowledge about cultural diversity; 2) including cultural diversity content in the curriculum; 3) taking cultural diversity into account in delivering instruction; 4) fostering learning communities; and 5) communicating with ethnically diverse students. This is manifested concretely by: the interest that teachers take in their students’ origins; their use of teaching materials, books, and activities reflecting students’ cultural realities; their enjoyment of working in a multicultural context; and an active pursuit of exposure to cultural diversity in their personal life (Grant & Sleeter, 2008; Harding et al., 2017; Pohan & Aguilar, 2001; Stanley, 1996). Culturally responsive teachers also use the characteristics and perspectives of ethnically diverse students to situate the teaching within their frames of reference, in order to provide meaningful instruction (Gay, 2002). This openness plays a central role in teaching students with an immigrant background and promotes their motivation and achievement (Bryan & Atwater, 2002; Hachfeld et al., 2015; Kimberly & Mumford, 2007; Pohan & Aguilar, 2001; Terrill & Mark, 2000).

Teachers’ openness to cultural diversity is associated not only with students’ educational success but possibly also with teachers’ job satisfaction. Very few studies have explicitly looked at teachers’ openness to cultural diversity in relation to their professional satisfaction.

To our knowledge, no studies have documented the link between teachers’ openness to cultural diversity and their job satisfaction. Certain studies on related variables, such as the culture gap between teachers and their students, may suggest a link between students’ cultural diversity and teachers’ professional satisfaction. In fact, we postulate that it is not the gap itself that plays a role in teacher satisfaction, but how teachers respond to cultural diversity and how open they are to it. We might expect that teachers who show more openness will have a more positive view of their students, regardless of their origins, and will consequently feel greater job satisfaction (Chen & Goldring, 1994). Along the same lines, it is conceivable that teachers who show greater openness to cultural diversity can more easily establish warm relationships with students who exhibit behaviors and beliefs different from their own (Betoret, 2009; Gay & Howard, 2000; Kumar & Hamer, 2012; Santoro, 2009; Weinstein et al., 2004).

From this examination of current knowledge, we may conclude that professional satisfaction is crucial not only for students’ success and well-being, but also for teachers’ well-being and professional retention. In many schools there are cultural differences between teachers and students, and many teachers report feeling ill-prepared to teach in a context of cultural diversity. To limit staff turnover and burnout, which are more frequent in urban and highly culturally diverse schools, it is very relevant to focus on professional satisfaction and the variables favoring this satisfaction. The fact that students’ cultural diversity significantly influences the quality of teacher–student relationships and perceptions of professional efficacy suggests that teachers who are more open to this diversity are more satisfied with their work and thus less inclined to give up the profession. Therefore, it is likely that teachers’ openness to cultural diversity, a variable that can be altered by training and intervention, is an essential condition for their professional satisfaction when teaching in a multicultural school environment.

This longitudinal study’s main objective was to assess the relationship between elementary school teachers’ openness to cultural diversity and their professional satisfaction. We hypothesized that teachers reporting greater openness to cultural diversity would experience higher job satisfaction, manifested by more warmth in their relationships with students, satisfaction with students’ behaviors and learning, and a greater sense of professional efficacy. These associations were evaluated by controlling for the effect of other variables that influence teachers’ professional satisfaction, namely their sex and number of years of teaching experience (in the profession, in the current school, and in a multicultural context), as well as their previous level of professional satisfaction. Some variables characterizing the group of students under the teacher’s responsibility were also controlled, namely, their hyperactivity-inattention symptoms, behavior problems, and school disengagement. This study also pursued a secondary objective of exploring the validation of a self-reported instrument completed by teachers, which was created to capture their level of openness to the students’ cultural diversity.

Method

Sample

The project was presented to two school boards, who communicated the information to their school administrators. To be selected, administrators had to manifest their interest in participating and the schools had to have at least 70% of students with immigrant backgrounds. Five elementary schools in disadvantaged and multicultural areas of Montreal (Quebec, Canada) met these criteria, and 69 teachers from grades 3 to 6 participated and provided information on the behaviors of 709 students (M = 9.80 years of age, SD = 1.28). The proportions of students with immigrant backgrounds in these schools varied between 70% and 89%. A significant proportion of the students evaluated by the teachers in the study were born abroad (37%) or had at least one parent born abroad (46%). These students’ countries of origin were diverse, but Haiti, Algeria, and Morocco were the most commonly represented. The participating teachers, mostly females (68%), were between the ages of 31 and 40 years (35%), born in Canada (96%), with a range of 7 to 15 years of teaching experience (35%). Among teachers born outside of Canada (4%), the most common birth country was Algeria. Additionally, 31% of the teachers had at least one parent born outside of Canada, primarily Haiti, Algeria, and Peru. Of note, 83% of students were of immigrant backgrounds, as were only 35% of teachers, which could indicate a possible cultural gap between students and teachers.

Research Design

First, the research team presented the project to the school administrators. Once they approved the project, Institutional Review Board-approved consent forms were sent to the teachers, and 100% of teachers in each of the five participating schools provided positive written consent. The research design included two measurement times conducted during the same school year (fall 2012 (T₁) and spring 2013 (T₂)). Trained research assistants took care of the students for one hour to facilitate teachers’ participation. Teachers completed a one-hour written questionnaire that included questions about their job satisfaction, openness to students’ cultural diversity, and sociodemographic characteristics. In addition, teachers were asked questions about each student’s engagement and behaviors. Teachers completed the same questionnaire twice (T₁ and T₂).

Instrumentation

Note that all Cronbach’s alphas presented in this section were calculated with this study’s sample.

Teachers’ openness to cultural diversity

Sixteen self-reported items created for this study were used to measure teachers’ openness to cultural diversity (T₁) (Table 1). These items were developed to reflect teachers’ attitudes and practices regarding cultural diversity. Because attitudes are difficult to measure quantitatively, we also included proxies for these attitudes that demonstrate an active pursuit of exposure to cultural diversity in personal life (e.g., living in a multicultural neighborhood). Each item was developed based on the definitions of openness to cultural diversity or items from existing instruments proposed by the authors cited in Table 1. Teachers’ dispositions were assessed using nine items (e.g., I feel comfortable working with young people from different ethnic origins), while their practices were reported using seven items (e.g., In my class, there are books addressing ethnic and cultural differences). Teachers responded to these items using a five-point Likert scale (1 = Completely disagree, to 5 = Completely agree).

Table 1.

Items Measuring Teachers’ Openness to Cultural Diversity (Initial Version).

	Item	References
Items: Teachers’ attitudes toward cultural diversity
1	I live in a multicultural neighborhood.	Dee and Henkin (2002); Pohan (1996); Smith et al. (1997)
2	I have previously worked in another country.	Pohan (1996); Smith et al. (1997)
3	Outside of my working hours, I have opportunities to be in contact with people of other ethnic origins.	Dedeoglu and Lamme (2011); Dee and Henkin (2002); Stanley (1996)
4	I find it important to be aware of the ethnic backgrounds of my students.	Grant and Sleeter (2008)
5	I ask my students questions about their cultures of origin.	Grant and Sleeter (2008)
6	I am easily able to establish a collaborative relationship with my immigrant students’ parents.	Akkari and Chamgkakoti (2009); Hachfeld et al. (2011)
7	I find it enriching to work with young people from different ethnic origins.	Stanley (1996); Pohan and Aguilar (2001)
8	I feel comfortable working with young people from different ethnic backgrounds.	Hachfeld et al. (2011)
9	I consider that my training has prepared me well to teach in a multicultural context.	Barry and Lechner (1995)
Items: Teachers’ practices relating to cultural diversity
10	In my class, diversity (cultural or religious) is displayed in different ways.	Barry and Lechner (1995); Pohan & Aguilar (2001); Santoro (2009)
11	In my class, there are books addressing ethnic and cultural differences.	Barry and Lechner (1995); Guyton and Wesche (2005)
12	I offer my students activities (work, projects, etc.) to help them get to know the cultural reality of the other students in the class.	Stanley (1996); Guyton and Wesche (2005); Pohan and Aguilar (2001)
13	The teaching materials I have reflect the students’ cultural realities.	Barry and Lechner (1995); Stanley (1996); Pohan and Aguilar (2001)
14	When I explain concepts or ideas to my students, I sometimes use examples from other cultures.	Stanley (1996)
15	It is not part of my teaching task to talk about the traditions and customs that exist in different cultures (inv.).	Barry and Lechner (1995); Pohan and Aguilar (2001)
16	I find that there is too much emphasis on the importance of taking into account the cultural diversity of the students in our classes (inv.).	Barry and Lechner (1995); Hachfeld et al. (2011); Pohan and Aguilar (2001)

Teacher–student relationship warmth

A French adaptation of the Student–Teacher Relationship Scale (Pianta, 1999) was used to capture teachers’ perceptions of the level of warmth in their relationship with each student in the class (T₂). This validated scale included four items (e.g., I share a close and warm relationship with this student) and was answered using a five-point Likert scale (1 = Absolutely not, to 5 = Totally) (α =.86). An average score was calculated for each teacher.

Teachers’ satisfaction with students

Three items developed for this study were used to account for the teachers’ satisfaction with their students (T₂). Teachers were asked “How satisfied are you with: The relationships you have with your students? The quality of the learning done by your students? The general behavior of your students?” Teachers answered these questions using a five-point Likert scale (1 = Very dissatisfied, to 5 = Very satisfied) (α = .82).

Teachers’ sense of professional efficacy

A French adaptation of the Personal Teaching Efficacy subscale of the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scale (PALS) was used to assess the teachers’ sense of professional efficacy (T₂) (Midgley et al., 2000). Items in this instrument related to teachers’ ability to influence and help their students’ learning. This seven-item scale (e.g., I am sure I am making a difference in the lives of my students) was answered using a five-point Likert scale (1 = Completely disagree, to 5 = Completely agree) (α = .68).

Students’ disengagement, behavior problems, and hyperactivity-inattention symptoms

Two scales of the French version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) (Goodman & Goodman, 2009), as well as a Behavioral Disengagement scale (Fitzpatrick & Pagani, 2013), were used to account for the characteristics of each teacher’s group of students (T₁). The Misbehavior Scale drawn from the SDQ has five items (e.g., This student often fights with other children or bullies them) (α = .75) (Goodman & Goodman, 2009). The SDQ Hyperactivity-Inattention Symptoms scale included five items (e.g., This student is agitated, hyperactive, does not sit still) (α = .85). Both SDQ scales were answered using a three-point Likert scale (1 = Not true, to 3 = Certainly true). Scores were added up and then compared to a norm to determine whether there were difficulties. The nine-item Behavioral Disengagement scale (α = .71) (e.g., This student disturbs the class on purpose) was answered using a three-point Likert scale (1 = Never, to 3 = Often). A mean score was calculated on the three variables for each student and an aggregated score was then produced for each classroom.

Teachers’ sociodemographics

Teachers answered questions about their sex (What sex are you?) (0 = Female, 1 = Male) (T₁); their number of years of teaching experience (How long have you been working as a teacher?); in the current school (How long have you been working in this school?); and in a multicultural context (How long have you been teaching in a multicultural context?) using Likert response scales varying according to the question (e.g., 0 = Less than a year, to 7 = More than 25 years) (T₁).

Data Analysis

The analytic strategy consisted of four stages. First, descriptive analyses were performed: mean, standard deviation, and correlations of each of the variables were computed. Second, the 16 items of the questionnaire measuring openness to cultural diversity were introduced into exploratory factor analyses with Oblimin-type rotation to carry out exploratory validation of the scale (SPSS, version 27). The different models of exploratory analyses were compared using statistical and theoretical criteria. The eigenvalue graph was consulted, then communalities and saturation weights were considered. The Kaiser criterion guided the choice of model, and models with eigenvalues lower than 1 were not considered (Braeken & van Assen, 2017). In addition, only items with factor loadings higher than .50 and saturation weights greater than .45 were kept in the final model (Comrey & Lee, 1992; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2019). Third, to answer the research question, the score of the selected factor was used as a latent construct in a predictive structural equation model (Mplus, version 7). The longitudinal association between teachers’ openness to cultural diversity and professional satisfaction (satisfaction with students, sense of professional efficacy, and warmth in their relationships with students) was tested while controlling for these same variables at T₁, teacher’s sex, and years of teaching experience. Fourth, student-related variables were aggregated for each classroom and included as control variables for predictive analyses: behavioral disengagement, misbehavior, and hyperactivity-inattention symptoms.

Results

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Correlations and descriptive statistics are presented in Table 2. According to Cohen (1988), a correlation coefficient of r ≤ .30 is considered low, r = .50 is moderate, and r ≥ .70 is high. Openness to cultural diversity was significantly but weakly correlated with the level of warmth in the teacher–student relationship but not correlated with other dimensions of job satisfaction. Moderate significant correlations were observed for students’ disengagement, behavioral problems, and symptoms of hyperactivity. Significant low to moderate correlations were also observed between these student variables and teachers’ satisfaction with students. The correlations, means, and standard deviations of each of the items measuring openness to cultural diversity are shown in Table 3. The majority of items were significantly inter-correlated, and several correlation coefficients were higher than .30, which suggests a common structure between the items.

Table 2.

Correlations between the variables.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14
1. Students’ disengagement (T1)
2. Students’ behavior problems (T1)	.58***
3. Students’ hyperactivity-inattention symptoms (T1)	.64***	.52***
4. Teachers’ sex (T1)	−.02	−.08*	−.08*
5. Teachers’ experience (multicultural schools) (T1)	−.17***	−.21***	−.38***	.06
6. Teachers’ experience (general) (T1)	−.18***	−.23***	−.42***	-.05	.86***
7. Teachers’ experience (current school) (T1)	−.04	−.09*	−.27***	.07	.68***	.65***
8. Teachers’ openness to cultural diversity (T1)	.10**	−.09*	.26***	.02	−.08*	−.11**	-.08*
9. Teachers’ perception of relationship warmth (T1)	−.23***	−.14***	−.11**	−.07	.08*	.05	.01	.12**
10. Teachers’ satisfaction toward students (T1)	−.51***	−.41***	−.24***	.04	.33***	.35***	.21***	.02	.13***
11. Teachers’ sense of professional efficacy (T1)	−.38***	−.36***	−.22***	.20***	−.15***	−.05	−.20***	.04	.16***	.29***
12. Teachers’ perception of relationship warmth (T2)	−.23***	−.14***	−.11**	−.07	.08*	.05	.01	.12**	.64***	.80*	.13**
13. Teachers’ satisfaction toward students (T2)	−.51***	−.50***	−.24***	.04	.33***	.35***	.21***	.02	.16***	.59***	.21***	.08*
14. Teachers’ sense of professional efficacy (T2)	−.38***	−.36***	−.15***	.20***	−.15***	−.05	−.20***	.04	.04	.19***	−.51***	.13**	.30***
M	1.41	1.15	1.43	—	3.03	3.47	1.93	4.03	3.79	3.88	3.53	3.82	3.91	3.48
SD	.17	.11	.19	—	1.74	1.86	1.66	.62	.94	.68	.55	.88	.67	.52
Min	1.06	1.00	1.09-	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	2.50	1.25	2.00	2.43	1.00	2.00	2.00
Max	2.01	1.47	1.93	1.00	7.00	7.00	5.00	5.00	5.00	5.00	4.71	5.00	5.00	4.43

Note. *p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001.

Table 3.

Correlations and Descriptive Statistics—Items Measuring Teachers’ Openness to Cultural Diversity.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16
1
2	.23***
3	.54***	.34***
4	.13***	.06	.27***
5	.23***	.19***	.32***	.50***
6	.25***	−.03	.15***	−.18***	−.11**
7	.10**	−.02	.15***	.18***	.17***	.13***
8	.19***	.03	.29***	.29***	.24***	.32***	.22***
9	.15***	.28***	.19***	.18***	−.01	.14***	.03	−.10**
10	.09*	.30***	.24***	.39***	.54***	−.09*	.13***	.32***	.14***
11	.24***	.26***	.38***	.34***	.38***	.09*	.14***	.22***	.03	.50***
12	.28***	.15***	.38***	.37***	.33***	.09	.11**	.29***	−.10**	.45***	.39***
13	.08*	.21***	.21***	.24***	.06	.13***	.07	.22***	.40***	.21***	.19***	.19***
14	.24***	.12***	.38***	.21***	.36***	.20***	.18***	.42***	.05	.48***	.29***	.43***	.13***
15	.08*	.12***	.11**	.10**	.03	−.11**	.27***	.07*	.15***	−.06	−.13***	−.03	.02	.11**
16	−.02	−.01	−.02	.17***	.31***	.08*	.20***	.15***	−.12***	.23***	−.09*	.04	−.13***	.28***	.23***
M	3.19	2.06	3.93	4.70	4.45	4.00	4.85	4.90	2.39	3.68	2.97	3.88	2.97	3.70	4.66	4.63
SD	1.55	1.74	1.37	.62	.79	1.04	.42	.30	1.22	1.12	1.31	.92	1.08	.95	.77	.60

Note. *p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001.

Exploratory Factor Analyses

Exploratory factor analyses (EFAs) were first carried out using the 16 items aimed at measuring teachers’ openness to cultural diversity. Models constrained to two, three, and four factors were tested. However, these three models were not retained due to their statistical shortcomings (e.g., redundancy of items on several factors, weak representation of several items). Items 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 13, 15, and 16 were removed because they showed weak communalities, which led to the final model, detailed in Table 4. This model had a single factor explaining 34.2% of the variance and included eight items. The communalities varied between .46 and .68, and the saturation weights between .60 and .74, which suggests a satisfactory representation of the items in the factor structure. The factor of this final model had good internal consistency, as indicated by a Cronbach’s alpha of .79. Since the exploratory analyses suggested the existence of only one factor, we did not perform confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) (Mueller & Hancock, 2019). Among the items retained in the final version of the instrument, three had means greater than 4 in 5 (items 4, 5, and 8) and a standard deviation lower than 1, which suggests that most teachers responded affirmatively to these questions.

Table 4.

Items Measuring Teachers’ Openness to Cultural Diversity—Final Version.

Items	Communalities	Factor Loadings	Scale a
3. Outside of my working hours, I have opportunities to be in contact with people of other ethnic origins.	.46	.61	.79
4. I find it important to be aware of the ethnic backgrounds of my students.	.58	.63
5. I ask my students questions about their cultures of origin.	.62	.68
8. I feel comfortable working with young people from different ethnic backgrounds.	.68	.60
10. In my class, diversity (cultural or religious) is displayed in different ways.	.62	.74
11. In my class, there are books addressing ethnic and cultural differences.	.51	.66
12. I offer my students activities (work, projects, etc.) to help them get to know the cultural reality of the other students in the class.	.53	.69
14. When I explain concepts or ideas to my students, I sometimes use examples from other cultures.	.51	.67

Structural Equation Model

The longitudinal associations between teachers’ openness to cultural diversity and the three indicators of their professional satisfaction (satisfaction with students, warmth in teacher–student relationships, sense of professional efficacy) were tested using a structural equation model (SEM) while controlling for the variables mentioned above. As shown in Figure 1, openness to cultural diversity was significantly and positively associated with satisfaction with students and warmth in the teacher–student relationship. Furthermore, openness to cultural diversity was significantly and negatively associated with teachers’ sense of professional efficacy.

Figure 1.

Structural equation model predicting teachers’ professional satisfaction.

Discussion

This study aimed to assess the relationship between elementary school teachers’ openness to cultural diversity and their job satisfaction (satisfaction with students’ behavior and learning achievements, warmth in relationships with students, sense of professional efficacy). A secondary objective of exploring the validation of a new instrument measuring openness to cultural diversity was also pursued. Teachers’ openness to cultural diversity was positively associated with satisfaction with students and perception of warmth in teacher–student relationships, but negatively associated with teachers’ sense of professional efficacy. The impact of these results and the results of the exploratory validation of the scale measuring teachers’ openness will be discussed.

This study highlighted the relationship between elementary school teachers’ openness to cultural diversity and their job satisfaction. Likewise, while the literature on cultural gaps between teachers and students suggests that teachers’ job satisfaction is partly associated with such cultural gaps, the present study showed that openness to cultural diversity was also related to job satisfaction (Chen & Goldring, 1994; Coleman, 1968; Gay & Howard, 2000; Kumar & Hamer, 2012; Ordu, 2016; Santoro, 2009; Weinstein et al., 2004). Teachers who reported greater openness to cultural diversity were more professionally satisfied, as manifested by the fact that they perceived more warmth in their relationships with students and were generally more satisfied with students’ behaviors and learning achievements. Teachers’ responses on the scale measuring teacher–student relationship warmth suggested that those reporting higher levels of openness to cultural diversity found it easier to understand how their students felt and perceived that students shared their experiences more spontaneously with them. This result is relevant, considering the direct and positive impacts of relationship warmth on students’ academic success and engagement, suggesting that teachers’ openness to cultural diversity could contribute, at least indirectly, to students’ educational flourishing (Archambault et al., 2017; Hughes & Kwok, 2007). This attitude is all the more crucial for teachers in a multicultural environment, given that the quality of the teacher–student relationship plays an even more crucial role for students with immigrant backgrounds by providing them with a safe context within which to learn their new country’s cultural standards (Garcia-Reid et al., 2005; Roffman et al., 2003; Suárez-Orozco et al., 2009). The fact that the more culturally open teachers perceived their students’ behaviors and learning achievements more positively was also highly relevant considering the Pygmalion effect, in that these expectations and attitudes directly (positively or negatively) influence the achievements of the targeted students. This effect is more pronounced for students belonging to minority groups (den Brok et al., 2005; Katz, 1999; Payne, 1994; Reeves, 2006; Sadker et al., 2022). This finding suggests that teachers who are open to cultural diversity could indirectly promote their students’ educational flourishing.

It is, however, surprising that the teachers’ openness to cultural diversity was associated with a lower sense of professional efficacy. Concretely, according to teachers’ responses on the sense of professional efficacy scale, this meant that teachers who asked their students about their culture and who valued diversity in their classroom perceived that they were less able to make a difference in their students’ lives and to help them progress. This result may seem counter-intuitive, especially since some important students’ characteristics were controlled. It may be that teachers who reported openness and sensitivity to their students’ culture were more cognizant of the challenges presented by a culturally diverse context and the heterogeneity of their students’ profiles. It is important to note that studies have found that many teachers report not feeling sufficiently equipped to adopt culturally sensitive practices and being more comfortable teaching students of their own cultural group (Coleman, 1968; Gay & Howard, 2000; Kumar & Hamer, 2012; Santoro, 2009). In line with those findings, the teachers in our study may have felt less efficacious at work precisely because they were more aware of their students’ diverse characteristics and needs and felt less able to support them. This may relate to the Dunning–Kruger effect, which posits the existence of cognitive bias in self-assessment of skills (Dunning, 2011). This effect has also been observed among teachers (Ghaith & Yaghi, 1997; Wolters & Daugherty, 2007; Hoy & Spero, 2005). Individuals who demonstrate a lower level of competence tend to assess and perceive themselves more favorably, while the converse is observed among individuals with higher skills. Such bias may be operating here, in that being open to cultural diversity and adapting teaching practices accordingly are indicators of professional competence, and such competent teachers may tend to be more aware of the limits of their ability to influence their students concretely. In other words, even if their sense of efficacy is weaker, those teachers who adapt their practices to the diverse needs of their students are probably more competent and efficient than those who do not. More studies will be needed to deepen our understanding of this result.

As a secondary objective, this study explored the validity of a new instrument. The exploratory validation results informed on teachers’ openness to cultural diversity, a concept that has been little studied. While it was expected that the items would divide into two factors, teacher’s attitudes and practices, the results instead revealed the existence of a single factor. Although contrary to our initial hypothesis, this distribution was consistent with the work of Deardorff (2006), showing that these two aspects of openness to cultural diversity are closely associated. That author suggested that the more positive teachers’ thoughts or attitudes are toward students’ cultural diversity, the more culturally sensitive their teaching practices will be. It is thus likely that in a classroom context, where teachers’ attitudes and practices are constantly interacting and overlapping, the importance they attach to students’ origins and their positive attitude toward working in a multicultural context are expressed concretely and consistently through such behaviors as asking students about their origins, valuing diversity in the classroom, and using books that address cultural differences (Harding et al., 2017). This overlapping might mean that acting on beliefs could have an impact on practices and vice versa. While it was not our primary objective, the present study explored the validity of this new promising instrument. Further validity assessments will be needed to use this instrument in other contexts, such as research or training.

Strengths and Limitations

One strength of this study is that it sheds light on a subject that has to date received little research attention, namely openness to cultural diversity among teachers. Moreover, this study was based on robust statistical analyses considering the contribution of aggregated student characteristics. Having a majority of women in the sample could be seen as a limitation, but this ratio is similar to that found in the teaching population at large.

However, the study also has some limitations that should be taken into account. First, the sample size was not sufficient to proceed with complete validation of the instrument, which remains exploratory but nevertheless useful for the advancement of knowledge in the field. Future studies should complete the validation of the instrument, in particular by confirming its structure and testing its construct validity. Another significant limitation is that initial professional satisfaction level was not controlled due to a lack of statistical power. As mentioned earlier, most teachers responded affirmatively to three items of the instrument’s final version, which could indicate that this bias was involved in the present study. Since it may be socially uncomfortable for teachers to admit they are not interested in their students’ cultural background, it would have been relevant to control for social desirability (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960). Another limitation is that the data used for this study were based exclusively on teachers’ perceptions. On the one hand, this was necessary to capture thinking that would be difficult to glean from the outside. On the other hand, it would also have been germane, for example, to assess the level of warmth in the teacher–student relationship from the students’ standpoint, as their perceptions may be different, which could inform on any differential treatment they may be subject to because of their cultural status (Veldman et al., 2013).

Conclusion

As shown above, openness to cultural diversity among teachers merits a closer look, given its potential impact on teachers’ attitudes toward students and on the quality of teacher–student relationships. Although this was not measured, we may hypothesize that teachers’ positive attitudes and practices regarding their students’ cultural diversity may foster a more salutary relational climate within schools, especially where there is significant cultural diversity. In this sense, openness to cultural diversity could be seen as a professional obligation for teachers rather than a choice or a personal quality (Sirin et al., 2010). However, lack of openness is more often due to a lack of knowledge and training than to bad intentions. The fact remains that teachers’ ability to show such openness in their teaching is not based solely on their own beliefs and practices; it also depends on the school climate and the support teachers derive from colleagues and school administrators to better understand students’ needs (Brown, 2007). This means it is incumbent upon all stakeholders—including administrators, decision-makers, and researchers—to identify means of supporting teachers’ development of cultural knowledge and skills. The instrument developed for this study could be useful, after a complete validation, for this purpose, as it targets elements for which teachers show more openness and those for which they need support.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) (n˚410-2011-1013) and the Fonds de Recherche Société et Culture du Québec (FQRSC) (n˚012-RP-145548) for their financial support.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) (n˚410-2011-1013) and the Fonds de Recherche Société et Culture du Québec (FQRSC) (n˚012-RP-145548)

ORCID iD

Kristel Tardif-Grenier

References

Akkari

A.,

Chamgkakoti

(2009). Les relations entre parents et enseignants: Bilan des recherches récentes. La revue internationale de l’éducation familiale, 25(1), 103−130. https://doi.org/10.3917/rief.025.0103

Alismail

H. A.

(2016). Multicultural education: Teachers’ perceptions and preparation. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(11), 139−146.

Aloe

A. M.

Shisler

S. M.

Norris

B. D.

Nickerson

A. B.

Rinker

T. W.

(2014). A multivariate meta-analysis of student misbehavior and teacher burnout. Educational Research Review, 12, 30−44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.05.003

Archambault

McAndrew

Audet

Borri-Anadon

Hirsh

Amiraux

Tardif-Grenier

(2018). Vers une conception théorique multidimensionnelle du climat scolaire interculturel. Alsterstice Revue internationale de la recherche interculturelle, 8(2), 117−132. https://doi.org/10.7202/1066957ar

Archambault

Vandenbossche-Makombo

Fraser

S. L.

(2017). Students’ oppositional behaviors and engagement in school: The differential role of the student-teacher relationship. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26(6), 1702−1712. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-017-0691-y

Arens

A. K.,

Morin

A. J.

(2016). Relations between teachers’ emotional exhaustion and students’ educational outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(6), 800−813. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000105

Banks

J.,

Banks

C. A. M.

(2019). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (10th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

Barrett

M. B.

(1993). Preparation for cultural diversity: Experiential strategies for educators. Equity & Excellence in Education, 26(1), 19−26. https://doi.org/10.1080/1066568930260104

Barry

N. H.,

Lechner

J. V.

(1995). Preservice teachers’ attitudes about and awareness of multicultural teaching and learning. Teaching & Teacher Education, 11(2), 149−161. https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(94)00018-2

10.

Bennett

M. J.

(2004). Becoming interculturally competent. In Wurzel

J. S.

(Ed.), Toward multiculturalism: A reader in multicultural education (pp. 6−77). Intercultural Resource Corporation.

11.

Betoret

F. D.

(2009). Self-efficacy, school resources, job stressors and burnout among Spanish primary and secondary school teachers: A structural equation approach. Educational Psychology, 29(1), 45−68. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410802459234

12.

Braeken

J.,

van Assen

M. A. L. M.

(2017). An empirical Kaiser criterion. Psychological Methods, 22(3), 450−466. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000074

13.

Brouwers

A.,

Tomic

(2000). A longitudinal study of teacher burnout and perceived self-efficacy in classroom management. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(2), 239−253. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(99)00057-8

14.

Brown

M. R.

(2007). Educating all students: Creating culturally responsive teachers, classrooms, and schools. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43(1), 57−62. https://doi.org/10.1177/10534512070430010801

15.

Bryan

L. A.,

Atwater

M. M.

(2002). Teacher beliefs and cultural models: A challenge for science teacher preparation programs. Science Education, 86(6), 821−839. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10043

16.

Burns

T.,

Shadoian-Gersing

(2010). The importance of effective teacher education for diversity. In Educating teachers for diversity: Meeting the challenge (pp. 19−40). OECD Editions. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264079731-en

17.

Caprara

G. V.

Barbaranelli

Steca

Malone

P. S.

(2006). Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of job satisfaction and students’ academic achievement: A study at the school level. Journal of School Psychology, 44(6), 473−490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.09.001

18.

Chaplain

R. P.

(1995). Stress and job satisfaction: A study of English primary school teachers. Educational Psychology, 15(4), 473−489. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341950150409

19.

Chapman

D.-W.,

Lowther

(1982). Teachers’ satisfaction with teaching. Journal of Educational Research, 75(4), 241−247. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1982.10885388

20.

Chen

M.,

Goldring

(1994). Classroom diversity and teachers’ perspectives of their workplace. The Urban Review, 26(2), 57−73. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02354459

21.

Cohen

(1988). Set correlation and contingency tables. Applied Psychological Measurement, 12(4), 425−434. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662168801200410

22.

Coleman

J. S.

(1968). Equality of educational opportunity. Integrated Education, 6(5), 19−28. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020486680060504

23.

Collie

R. J.

Shapka

J. D.

Perry

N. E.

(2012). School climate and social–emotional learning: Predicting teacher stress, job satisfaction, and teaching efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 1189−1204. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029356

24.

Comrey

A. L.,

Lee

H. B.

(1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.

25.

Crowne

D. P.,

Marlowe

(1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24(4), 349−354. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047358

26.

Deardorff

(2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 241−266. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315306287002

27.

Dedeoglu

H.,

Lamme

L. L.

(2011). Selected demographics, attitudes, and beliefs about diversity of preservice teachers. Education and Urban Society, 43(4), 468−485. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124510380718

28.

Dee

J. R.,

Henkin

A. B.

(2002). Assessing dispositions toward cultural diversity among preservice teachers. Urban Education, 37(1), 22−40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085902371003

29.

Dee

T. S.

(2005). A teacher like me: Does race, ethnicity, or gender matter? American Economic Review, 95(2), 158−165. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282805774670446

30.

Dejaeghere

J. G.,

Zhang

(2008). Development of intercultural competence among US American teachers: Professional development factors that enhance competence. Intercultural Education, 19(3), 255−268. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675980802078624

31.

Dellinger

A. B.

Bobbett

J. J.

Olivier

D. F.

Ellett

C. D.

(2008). Measuring teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs: Development and use of the TEBS-Self. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(3), 751−766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.02.010

32.

Demirtas

(2010). Teachers’ job satisfaction levels. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 1069−1073. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.287

33.

den Brok

Levy

Brekelmans

Wubbels

(2005). The effect of teacher interpersonal behaviour on students’ subject-specific motivation. The Journal of Classroom Interaction, 40(2), 20−33. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23870661

34.

Dunning

(2011). The Dunning–Kruger effect: On being ignorant of one’s own ignorance. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 247−296. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385522-0.00005-6

35.

DuPaul

G. J.

Reid

Anastopoulos

A. D.

Power

T. J.

(2014). Assessing ADHD symptomatic behaviors and functional impairment in school settings: Impact of student and teacher characteristics. School Psychology Quarterly, 29(4), 409−421. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000095

36.

Easter

L. M.

Shultz

E. L.

Neyhart

T. K.

Reck

U. M.

(1999). Weighty perceptions: A study of the attitudes and beliefs of preservice teacher education students regarding diversity and urban education. The Urban Review, 31(2), 205−220. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023287608741

37.

Evans

(2000). The effects of educational change on morale, job satisfaction, and motivation. Journal of Educational Change, 1(2), 173−192. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010020008141

38.

Fairchild

Tobias

Corcoran

Djukic

Kovner

Noguera

(2012). White and black teachers’ job satisfaction: Does relational demography matter? Urban Education, 47(1), 170−197. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085911429582

39.

Ferguson

Frost

Hall

(2012). Predicting teacher anxiety, depression, and job satisfaction. Journal of Teaching and Learning, 8(1), 27−42. https://doi.org/10.22329/jtl.v8i1.2896

40.

Fitzpatrick

C.,

Pagani

L. S.

(2013). Task-oriented kindergarten behavior pays off in later childhood. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 34(2), 94−101. https://doi.org/10.1097/DBP.0b013e31827a3779

41.

Fortuin

Van Geel

Ziberna

Vedder

(2014). Ethnic preferences in friendships and casual contacts between majority and minority children in the Netherlands. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 41, 57−65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2014.05.005

42.

Fraser

Draper

Taylor

(1998). The quality of teachers’ professional lives: Teachers and job satisfaction. Evaluation & Research in Education, 12(2), 61−71. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500799808666932

43.

Gaikhorst

Beishuizen

Roosenboom

Volman

(2017). The challenges of beginning teachers in urban primary schools. European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(1), 46−61. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2016.1251900

44.

Garcia-Reid

Reid

R. J.

Peterson

N. A.

(2005). School engagement among Latino youth in an urban middle school context: Valuing the role of social support. Education and Urban Society, 37(3), 257−275. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124505275534

45.

Gay

(2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 106−116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487102053002003

46.

Gay

(2018). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research and practice (3rd ed.). Teachers College Press.

47.

Gay

G.,

Howard

T. C.

(2000). Multicultural teacher education for the 21st century. The Teacher Educator, 36(1), 1−16. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730009555246

48.

Ghaith

G.,

Yaghi

(1997). Relationships among experience, teacher efficacy, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(4), 451−458. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(96)00045-5.

49.

Goodman

(2009). Strengths and difficulties questionnaire as a dimensional measure of child mental health. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 48(4), 400−403. https://doi.org/10.1097/CHI.0b013e3181985068

50.

Grant

C. A.,

Sleeter

C. E.

(2008). Turning on learning: Five approaches to multicultural teaching plans for race, class, gender, and disability (5th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

51.

Greene

R. W.

Beszterczey

S. K.

Katzenstein

Park

Goring

(2002). Are students with ADHD more stressful to teach? Patterns of teacher stress in an elementary school sample. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 10(2), 79−89. https://doi.org/10.1177/10634266020100020201

52.

Gutentag

Horenczyk

Tatar

(2018). Teachers’ approaches toward cultural diversity predict diversity-related burnout and self-efficacy. Journal of Teacher Education, 69(4), 408−419. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117714244

53.

Guyton

E.,

Wesche

(2005). The multicultural efficacy scale: Development, item selection, and reliability. Multicultural Perspectives, 7(4), 21−29. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327892mcp0704_4

54.

Hachfeld

Hahn

Schroeder

Anders

Kunter

(2015). Should teachers be colorblind? How multicultural and egalitarian beliefs differentially relate to aspects of teachers’ professional competence for teaching in diverse classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 48, 44−55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.02.001

55.

Hachfeld

Hahn

Schroeder

Anders

Stanat

Kunter

(2011). Assessing teachers’ multicultural and egalitarian beliefs: The teacher cultural beliefs scale. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(6), 986−996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.04.006

56.

Harding

J. L.

Hbaci

Loyd

Hamilton

(2017). Integrating multicultural children’s math books into kindergarten through sixth-grade classrooms: Preservice teachers’ reflections. The Teacher Educator, 52(4), 386−407. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2017.1358784

57.

Hofstede

(1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Sage.

58.

Hughes

J.,

Kwok

O. M.

(2007). Influence of student-teacher and parent-teacher relationships on lower achieving readers’ engagement and achievement in the primary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 39−51. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.39

59.

Kamanzi

Tardif

Lessard

(2015). Les enseignants canadiens à risque de décrochage: Portrait général et comparaison entre les régions. Mesure et évaluation en éducation, 38(1), 57−88. https://doi.org/10.7202/1036551ar

60.

Kamanzi

P. C.

Lessard

Maurice

(2019). La satisfaction au travail des enseignants canadiens. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue canadienne de l'éducation, 42(4), 1121−1153. https://journals.sfu.ca/cje/index.php/cje-rce/article/view/3823

61.

Katz

S. R.

(1999). Teaching in tensions: Latino immigrant youth, their teachers, and the structures of schooling. The Teachers College Record, 100(4), 809−842. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146819910000405

62.

Kaur

(2012). Equity and social justice in teaching and teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(4), 485−492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.01.012

63.

Kimberly

S.,

Mumford

V. E.

(2007). Critical thoughts: Re-examining teacher training, cultural awareness, and school reform. Journal of National Association for Multicultural Education, 9(4), 54−58. https://doi.org/10.1080/15210960701569732

64.

Klassen

R. M.,

Chiu

M. M.

(2010). Effects on teachers’ self-efficacy and job satisfaction: Teacher gender, years of experience, and job stress. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 741−756. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019237

65.

Klassen

R. M.

Perry

N. E.

Frenzel

A. C.

(2012). Teachers' relatedness with students: An underemphasized component of teachers' basic psychological needs. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 150−165. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026253

66.

Kumar

R.,

Hamer

(2012). Preservice teachers’ attitudes and beliefs toward student diversity and proposed instructional practices: A sequential design study. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(2), 162−177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487112466899

67.

Lane

H. W.

Maznevski

M. L.

DiStefano

J. J.

Dietz

(2009). International management behavior: Leading with a global mindset (6th ed.). Blackwell Publishers.

68.

Larochelle-Audet

Borri-Anadon

Mc Andrew

Potvin

(2013). La formation initiale du personnel scolaire sur la diversité ethnoculturelle, religieuse et linguistique dans les universités québécoises : Portrait quantitatif et qualitatif (report). Université du Québec à Montréal et Université de Montréal. http://www.chereum.umontreal.ca/publications_pdf/Publications2013/Laformationinitialedesmaitres2013v31janv.pdf

69.

Liu

X. S.,

Ramsey

(2008). Teachers’ job satisfaction: Analyses of the teacher follow-up survey in the United States for 2000–2001. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(5), 1173−1184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.010

70.

Locke

E.- A.

(1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In Dunette

M. D.

(Ed), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 22−38). Rand McNally.

71.

Martin

A. J.

(2006). The relationship between teachers’ perceptions of student motivation and engagement and teachers’ enjoyment of and confidence in teaching. Asia‐Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 34(1), 73−93. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598660500480100

72.

Martin

N. K.

Sass

D. A.

Schmitt

T. A.

(2012). Teacher efficacy in student engagement, instructional management, student stressors, and burnout: A theoretical model using in-class variables to predict teachers’ intent-to-leave. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(4), 546−559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.12.003

73.

Midgley

Maehr

M. L.

Hruda

L. Z.

Anderman

Freeman

K. E.

Gheen

Kaplan

Kumar

Middleton

M. J.

Nelson

Roeser

Urdan

(2000). Manual for the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS). University of Michigan.

74.

Milner

Flowers

Moore

Flowers

(2003). Preservice teachers’ awareness of multiculturalism and diversity. The High School Journal, 87(1), 63−70. https://doi.org/10.1353/hsj.2003.0018

75.

Moè

Pazzaglia

Ronconi

(2010). When being able is not enough. The combined value of positive affect and self-efficacy for job satisfaction in teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(5), 1145−1153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.02.010

76.

Morettini

(2016). Mentoring to support teacher retention in urban schools: Reenvisioning the mentoring services offered to new teachers. Teacher Education and Practice, 29(2), 259−275. https://go.gale.com/ps/anonymous?id=GALE%7CA552850208&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=08906459&p=AONE&sw=w

77.

Moule

(2012). Cultural competence: A primer for educators (2nd ed.). Thomson/Wadsworth.

78.

Mueller

C. W.

Finley

Iverson

R. D.

Price

J. L.

(1999). The effects of group racial composition on job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and career commitment: The case of teachers. Work and Occupations, 26(2), 187−219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888499026002003

79.

Mueller

R. O.,

Hancock

G. R.

(2019). Structural equation modeling. In Hancock

G. R.

Stapleton

L. M.

Mueller

R. O.

(Eds.), The reviewer’s guide to quantitative methods in the social sciences (pp. 445−456). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

80.

Mukamurera

Balleux

(2013). Malaise dans la profession enseignante et identité professionnelle en mutation: Le cas du Québec. Recherche et formation, 74(3), 57−70. https://doi.org/10.4000/rechercheformation.2129

81.

Ordu

(2016). The effects of diversity management on job satisfaction and individual performance of teachers. Educational Research and Reviews, 11(3), 105−112. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2015.2573

82.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2018). The resilience of students with an immigrant background: Factors that shape well-being. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264292093-en

83.

Ottaviano

G. I. P.,

Peri

(2006). The economic value of cultural diversity: Evidence from US cities. Journal of Economic Geography, 6(1), 9−44. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbi002

84.

Payne

R. S.

(1994). The relationship between teachers’ beliefs and sense of efficacy and their significance to urban LSES minority students. The Journal of Negro Education, 63(2), 181−196. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2967382

85.

Perrachione

B. A.

Rosser

V. J.

Petersen

G. J.

(2008). Why do they stay? Elementary teachers' perceptions of job satisfaction and retention. Professional Educator, 32(2), 1−17. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ862759.pdf

86.

Pianta

R. C.

(1999). Enhancing relationships between children and teachers. American Psychological Association.

87.

Pohan

C. A.

(1996). Preservice teachers’ beliefs about diversity: Uncovering factors leading to multicultural responsiveness. Equity & Excellence in Education, 29(3), 62−69. https://doi.org/10.1080/1066568960290310

88.

Pohan

C. A.,

Aguilar

T. E.

(2001). Measuring educators’ beliefs about diversity in personal and professional contexts. American Educational Research Journal, 38(1), 159−182. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038001159

89.

Prater

M A.,

Devereaux

T. H.

(2012). Culturally responsive training of teacher educators. Action in Teacher Education, 31(3), 19−27. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2009.10463525

90.

Reeves

J. R.

(2006). Secondary teacher attitudes toward including English language learners in mainstream classrooms. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(3), 131−142. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.99.3.131-143

91.

Ritchhart

(2001). From IQ to IC: A dispositional view of intelligence. Roeper Review, 23(3), 143−150. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190109554086

92.

Roffman

Suárez-Orozco

Rhodes

(2003). Facilitating positive development in immigrant youth: The role of mentors and community organizations. In Perkins

Borden

L. M.

Keith

J. G.

Villarreal

F. A.

(Eds), Positive youth development: Creating a positive tomorrow (pp. 90−117). Kluwer Press.

93.

Rogers

Bélanger-Lejars

Toste

J. R.

Heath

N. L.

(2015). Mismatched: ADHD symptomatology and the teacher–student relationship. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 20(4), 333−348. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632752.2014.972039

94.

Rosen

L. M.,

Abt-Perkins

(2000). Preparing English teachers to teach diverse student populations: Belief, challenges, proposals for change. English Education, 32(4), 251−266. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40173036

95.

Sadker

D. M.

Zittleman

K. R.

Koch

(2022). Teachers, schools, and society: A brief introduction to education (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

96.

Santoro

(2009). Teaching in culturally diverse contexts: What knowledge about ‘self’ and ‘others’ do teachers need? Journal for Education for Teaching, 35(1), 33−45. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607470802587111

97.

Shann

M. H.

(2010). Professional commitment and satisfaction among teachers in urban middle schools. The Journal of Educational Research, 92(2), 67−73. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220679809597578

98.

Sheets

R. H.

(1996). Urban classroom conflict: Student-teacher perception: Ethnic integrity, solidarity, and resistance. The Urban Review, 28(2), 165−183. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02354383

99.

Sirin

S. R.

Rogers-Sirin

Collins

B. A.

(2010). A measure of cultural competence as an ethical responsibility: Quick-Racial and Ethical Sensitivity Test. Journal of Moral Education, 39(1), 49−64. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240903528675

100.

Siwatu

K. O.

(2007). Preservice teachers’ culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy and outcome expectancy beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(7), 1086−1101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.07.011

101.

Sleeter

C. E.

(2008). Preparing White teachers for diverse students. In Cochran-Smith

Feiman-Nemser

McIntyre

D. J.

Demers

K. E.

(Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts (3rd ed., pp. 559−582). Routledge and Association of Teacher Educators.

102.

Smith

Moallem

Sherrill

(1997). How preservice teachers think about cultural diversity: A closer look at factors which influence their beliefs towards equality. Educational Foundations, 11(2), 41−61.

103.

Spilt

J. L.

Koomen

H. M.

Thijs

J. T.

(2011). Teacher wellbeing: The importance of teacher–student relationships. Educational Psychology Review, 23(4), 457−477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9170-y

104.

Stanley

(1996). The development and validation of an instrument to assess attitudes toward cultural diversity and pluralism among preservice physical educators. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56(5), 891−897. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164496056005017

105.

Stearns

Banerjee

Mickelson

Moller

(2014). Collective pedagogical teacher culture, teacher–student ethno-racial mismatch, and teacher job satisfaction. Social Science Research, 45, 56−72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.12.011

106.

Steele

C. M.

(1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52(6), 613−629. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.6.613

107.

Suárez-Orozco

Rhodes

Milburn

(2009). Unraveling the immigrant paradox: Academic engagement and disengagement among recently arrived immigrant youth. Youth & Society, 41(2), 151−185. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X09333647

108.

Sullivan

A. M.

Johnson

Owens

Conway

(2014). Punish them or engage them? Teachers’ views of unproductive student behaviours in the classroom. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(6), 43−56. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2014v39n6.6

109.

Sutcher

Darling-Hammond

Carver-Thomas

(2016). A coming crisis in teaching? Teacher supply, demand, and shortages in the U.S. Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/coming-crisis-teaching-brief

110.

Swartz

(2003). Teaching White preservice teachers: Pedagogy for change. Urban Education, 38(3), 255−278. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085903038003001

111.

Tabachnick

B. G.,

Fidell

L. S.

(2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Pearson Education.

112.

Tatar

M.,

Horenczyk

(2003). Diversity-related burnout among teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(4), 397−408. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(03)00024-6

113.

Terrill

M. M.,

Mark

D. L.

(2000). Preservice teachers' expectations for schools with children of color and second-language learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(2), 149−155. https://doi.org/10.1177/002248710005100209

114.

Veldman

van Tartwijk

Brekelmans

Wubbels

(2013). Job satisfaction and teacher–student relationships across the teaching career: Four case studies. Teaching and Teacher Education, 32, 55−65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.01.005

115.

Weinstein

Tomlinson-Clarke

Curran

(2004). Toward a conception of culturally responsive classroom management. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(1), 25−38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487103259812

116.

Wilkerson

J. R.,

Lang

W. S.

(2007). Assessing teacher dispositions: Five standards-based steps to valid measurement using the DAATS model. Corwin Press.

117.

Williams

F.,

Naremore

R. C.

(1974). Language attitudes: An analysis of teacher differences. Speech Monographs, 41(4), 391−396. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487103259812

118.

Wolters

C. A.,

Daugherty

S. G.

(2007). Goal structures and teachers’ sense of efficacy: Their relation and association to teaching experience and academic level. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 181−193. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.181

119.

Hoy

A. W.,

Spero

R. B.

(2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(4), 343−356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.01.007