International Journal of Educational Research 105 (2021) 101711

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Educational Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedures

Teacher autonomy for improving teacher self-efficacy in

multicultural classrooms: A cross-national study of professional
development in multicultural education
Soobin Choi *, Xinyi Mao
Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis, University of Missouri-Columbia, 202 Hill Hall, Columbia, MO, 65201, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: With the increasing diversity in classrooms, teachers are called upon to have the efficacy of
Teacher self-efficacy teaching students in multicultural classrooms. Professional development in multicultural educa­
Professional development tion (PDME) has been implemented across the world for equipping teachers with the efficacy that
Multicultural education
meets the educational needs of diverse students. Using data from 47 countries in the Teaching and
Teacher autonomy
Diversity
Learning International Survey 2018, this study shows that PDME helps teachers develop teacher
self-efficacy in multicultural classrooms (TSMC). We further find that teacher classroom auton­
omy strengthens the positive relationship between PDME and TSMC. Acknowledging that di­
versity in schools will continue to grow, this study provides implications for teacher learning and
development, multicultural education, and the school organization.

1. Introduction

While an increase in international migration has brought demographic changes to school-aged populations, classrooms are
increasingly diverse around the world (McAuliffe & Khadria, 2019). Teachers are called upon to respond to the increase in diversity of
students, arising from differences in culture, race/ethnicity, language, class, and nationality in classrooms (den Brok & Levy, 2005;
Irvine, 2003). Accordingly, preparing teachers for teaching students in multicultural classrooms has been recognized as a key element
of success in teacher training (Howard & Rodriguez-Minkoff, 2017). Through such training, teachers are expected to improve teacher
self-efficacy in multicultural classrooms (TSMC), which refers to their beliefs in their ability “to organize and execute the courses of
action required to” enhance teaching and learning in multicultural classrooms (Bandura, 1997, p. 3; Choi & Lee, 2020) . In this case,
the work of teachers is not only about teaching their subject matter but also about teaching students in a culturally relevant and
responsive way while adapting their instruction to student diversity (Banks et al., 2001; Gay, 2002; Ladson-Billings, 1995, 2009).
However, it has been reported that not all teachers are equipped with TSMC to meet the educational needs of diverse students
across the world (Chang, 2012; Henfield & Washington, 2012; Hyland, 2009). Meanwhile, teacher education programs have been
criticized for not successfully preparing teachers for multicultural classrooms (Allen, Hancock, Starker-Glass, & Lewis, 2017; Gorski,
2009; Sleeter, 2008). To compensate for the lack of training, professional development programs in multicultural education (PDME)
for in-service teachers have been developed and implemented to “contribute to teachers’ self-efficacy and success” in teaching students
in multicultural classrooms across the world (Parkhouse, Lu, & Massaro, 2019, p. 416). Such programs mainly aim to help teachers

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: soobin.choi@mail.missouri.edu (S. Choi), xinyi.mao@mail.missouri.edu (X. Mao).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101711
Received 30 September 2020; Received in revised form 15 November 2020; Accepted 16 November 2020
Available online 3 December 2020
0883-0355/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Choi and X. Mao International Journal of Educational Research 105 (2021) 101711

understand the diversity of students, employ students’ diverse backgrounds and experiences as a learning resource, and create an
inclusive learning environment in classrooms (Parkhouse et al., 2019).
Nonetheless, providing teachers with PDME may not necessarily guarantee the development of TSMC, as Wilson (1993) noted,
“learning and knowing are integrally and inherently situated in the everyday world of human activity” (p. 71). Teachers’ beliefs in
adapting learning through PDME to their teaching practices may depend on the extent to which they have the autonomy to alter what
and how they teach in their classrooms. In other words, even though teachers acquire knowledge, skills, and perspectives associated
with multicultural education by participating in PDME, they may not be able to fully develop TSMC if they have limited autonomy on
course contents, teaching methods, discipline, and evaluations of students’ learning (Friedman, 1999; Ingersoll & May, 2012; Scribner,
1999).
Despite the emerging implementation of PDME worldwide, the crucial roles of teachers in multicultural classrooms, and the
importance of teacher classroom autonomy in their teaching, to our best knowledge, no study has examined the effects of teachers’
participation in PDME on TSMC and how teacher classroom autonomy plays a role in this relationship from a cross-national lens. To fill
the research gap, our study aims to explore the following research questions by using the cross-national data from the Teaching and
Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2018:
Research Question 1: What is the relationship between teachers’ participation in PDME and TSMC?
Research Question 2: To what extent does teacher autonomy in classrooms moderate the relationship between teachers’ partici­
pation in PDME and TSMC?
With this aim, our study provides a practical insight into how to successfully prepare teachers for multicultural classrooms. This
investigation is timely and important, given the lack of preparation of teachers to deal with diversity in classrooms and the conflicts
framed around race/ethnicity, culture, language, and nationality across the world, which demand continuing teacher development
(Choi & Lee, 2021; Forrest, Lean, & Dunn, 2015; Lee, 2019). Our study also advances the literature on teacher self-efficacy and au­
tonomy and provides practical implications for school leaders and policymakers to support teachers’ learning and development by
examining whether teacher autonomy allows teachers to apply what they have learned from PDME to their teaching within classrooms.

2. Literature review

2.1. TSMC and PDME

Based on social cognitive theory, teacher self-efficacy reflects teachers’ beliefs in their ability to excuse a series of actions to yield a
desired outcome (Bandura, 1986, 1997). However, because teachers may not feel efficacious equally across all areas, teacher
self-efficacy is seen as content-specific skills rather than being regarded as a general approach across the domains (Goddard, Hoy, &
Woolfolk Hoy, 2000, Goddard, Hoy, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2004). From this perspective, TSMC refers to teachers’ beliefs in their ability to
employ an array of actions to produce a desired outcome in multicultural classrooms (Choi & Lee, 2020) . In particular, TSMC involves
teachers’ beliefs in their ability to connect experiences, knowledge, and perspectives of diverse students with teaching and learning, to
build a classroom where students cooperate with peers while crossing the social categorization lines (e.g., race/ethnicity, language,
and nationality), and to help students raise awareness for diversity (Banks et al., 2001; Gay, 2002; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Siwatu,
2007). Research has confirmed that teachers equipped with the efficacy and practices help students to increase academic achievement
(Dee & Penner, 2017), improve academic self-efficacy (Garcia & Chun, 2016), and promote cultural competence and sociopolitical
consciousness (Leonard & Leonard, 2010; Mette, Nieuwenhuizen, & Hvidston, 2016).
PDME has been institutionalized and implemented to develop TSMC and deal with student diversity in classrooms across the world
(Miled, 2019; Parkhouse et al., 2019). Although the features of PDME programs vary, PDME mainly provides teachers with a learning
opportunity for helping to understand the diversity of students, reduce deficit perspectives, bridge between school and home cultures,
and build positive relationships with students (Parkhouse et al., 2019). Research has shown that teachers who participated in PDME
report high competence in connecting the cultural diversity of students to teaching and learning (Lee, Luykx, Buxton, & Shaver, 2007;
Schniedewind, 2001) and are likely to dismantle deficit thinking in classrooms (Irvine, 2003). A comparative study by Choi and Lee
(2020), using TALIS 2018 focusing on the samples from the United States and South Korea, found that PDME helps teachers develop
TSMC in both countries.
PDME has been confirmed by scholars as an essential tool for preparing teachers to teach students in a multicultural classroom and
as an effective way for developing TSMC (Banks et al., 2001; Choi & Lee, 2020; Lee et al., 2007). While the literature has provided
valuable insights on understanding TSMC and PDME, there still exists a lack of evidence on the relationship between PDME and TSMC
with cross-national data, although a number of countries have adopted PDME as a key policy initiative for responding to the increase in
diversity in schools (Parkhouse et al., 2019). Furthermore, after rigorously reviewing previous work, we conclude that no study has
examined whether this relationship depends on school contexts (teacher autonomy in this study) even though Day and Gu (2007)
noted “it [teacher professional development] will contribute to their sense as a person and a professional. However, the reality is that
the conditions in which teachers work do not always promote their learning” (p. 425). Given that teachers’ acquisition of knowledge,
skills, and attitudes through professional development inherently is situated within the school contexts (Borko, 2007; Desimone, 2009;
Liou & Canrinus, 2020), such a research gap limits our understanding of what and how specific school contexts facilitate or inhibit the
extent in which teachers adapt their learning through PDME to the teaching practices in classrooms.

2
S. Choi and X. Mao International Journal of Educational Research 105 (2021) 101711

2.2. Conceptualizing teacher autonomy

Teacher autonomy has been given attention across nations as a key element that supports teachers’ practices in classrooms (Collie,
Granziera, & Martin, 2018; Hanushek, Link, & Woessmann, 2013; Nguyen & Walkinshaw, 2018). Though the meaning of teacher
autonomy may vary in different countries (Palfreyman et al., 2003; Pearson & Moomaw, 2005; Sonaiya, 2002), it is widely concep­
tualized as comprising two main elements.
The first element is professional freedom, which refers to how much independence and control a teacher has concerning key aspects
of classroom matters, such as lesson planning, teaching materials, curriculum planning, and student assessment (Ingersoll & May,
2012; Nguyen & Walkinshaw, 2018). The second element is the internal capacity that is built upon teachers’ abilities to operate within
contextual constraints, such as school culture and policy context (Benson, 2010). Although the two elements have some commonalities
in terms of empowering teachers in schools, research, including the current study, that examines teaching practices in classrooms
mainly focuses on teacher autonomy as teachers’ freedom and control over the classroom activities, such as course content, teaching
methods, and assessing students’ learnings aligning with the first element (Benson, 2007; Öztürk, 2012).

2.3. Teacher autonomy in support of the development of teacher learning and self-efficacy

Intuitively, the idea that providing PDME improves TSMC makes sense, but whether teachers can sufficiently apply what they have
learned from PDME to classrooms depends on the degree of autonomy they have within classrooms (Benson, 2010). Scholars rein­
forced that teacher autonomy is essential when teachers attempt to apply learning from professional development to classrooms
(James & McCormick, 2009; Sales, Traver, & García, 2011; Wermke, Olason Rick, & Salokangas, 2019). James and McCormick (2009)
demonstrated that teachers should be given enough classroom autonomy that allows teachers to be empowered to employ teaching
practices acquired by professional development. Research also showed that, when having sufficient classroom autonomy, teachers
were likely to develop self-efficacy in meeting the educational needs of students and to adjust teaching practices to address the dy­
namics of classrooms (Collie et al., 2018; Mausethagen & Mølstad, 2015). Similarly, Wermke et al. (2019) found that teachers who had
more classroom autonomy were more likely to be motivated to improve their teaching practices and participate in professional
development. They also concluded that teacher autonomy was a key ingredient for teacher development and improving teaching
practices.
However, with an emphasis on accountability and standardization in education across the world, teachers often reported limited
autonomy in classrooms (Hanushek et al., 2013; Webb, 2002; You, 2017). Specifically, teachers tend to steer away from incorporating
the approaches of multicultural education into their classrooms when they are under strong pressure for conformity to standardized
curriculum and assessment instead of having classroom autonomy (Morrison, Robbins, & Rose, 2008; Sleeter, 2012). In other words,
teachers’ beliefs in their ability to implement the multicultural approaches in classrooms may be undermined by rigid external control
which limits instructional elasticity (Day, 2002; Howard & Rodriguez-Minkoff, 2017; Picower, 2012). In this case, even though PDME
provides an opportunity for changes in the teaching practices, teachers may not have enough room to develop TSMC due to their
limited autonomy over classrooms.
As Wilches (2009) noted “although teacher autonomy has been connected to a number of theories including professional devel­
opment, teacher decision-making, teacher efficiency, and empowerment, this relationship still remains unclear” (p. 246), we know
little about how teacher autonomy relates to the association between PDME and TSMC. Therefore, empirical research is needed to
understand the role of teacher autonomy in teacher professional development and their self-efficacy in teaching students in multi­
cultural classrooms. Based on the literature, we developed a conceptual framework that guides our study. As shown in Fig. 1, the
framework aims to describe how teachers’ learning and teaching are situated within contextual factors while focusing on three pillars:

Fig. 1. Conceptual Framework of PDME, TSMC, and Teacher Autonomy in Classrooms.

3
S. Choi and X. Mao International Journal of Educational Research 105 (2021) 101711

teacher classroom autonomy, PDME, and TSMC. This study focuses on examining whether there exists a positive relationship between
PDME and TSMC, and how teacher classroom autonomy moderates the relationship.

3. Methods

3.1. Data and sample

This study used cross-national data from TALIS 2018, coordinated by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD), where 48 countries/economies participated in the core survey in lower secondary school. TALIS 2018 mainly focused on
teachers’ learning and working environment and included new topics of diversity and equity, as well as how teachers teach in a
multicultural classroom (OECD, 2019c). The sampling strategy of TALIS 2018 was a stratified two-stage probability sampling design,
indicating that schools are randomly selected within a country, and within one school, teachers were randomly selected for the survey.
This study used 47 countries in TALIS 2018 because the data from Iceland were not publicly available at the country’s request
(OECD, 2019c). TALIS 2018 asked teachers to describe their teaching in a culturally diverse classroom, which involved students from
more than one cultural, ethnic, and linguistic backgrounds (OECD, 2019b). This approach of TALIS aligned with the idea of multi­
cultural education that all students should have the opportunity to learn regardless of their backgrounds (Banks et al., 2015). However,
this survey question from TALIS only applies to teachers who had experience in teaching classes with students from culturally diverse
backgrounds. Due to the survey approach of TALIS, the sample in this study represented those who teach and/or had taught in a
culturally diverse classroom instead of the entire population in the participating countries. In other words, the approach of the survey
reduced the sample of teachers by roughly 66,000 and thus restricted our analytic sample to 86,750. Overall, approximately 56 % of
teachers in TALIS 2018 had taught in a multicultural classroom. Although the sample of this study cannot represent all teachers in the
47 countries, it allowed us to provide evidence among the teachers who are most in need of developing TSMC.
Among the analytic sample, the missing data ranged from almost none (e.g., gender, teaching experience, and working status) to
about 14 % for the items relating to subjects. The result of Little’s (1988) missing completely at random test indicated that the missing
data in this study were not completely random (χ 2 = 15,136, p < .05). To handle the missing data, this study created 15 imputed
datasets and combined results following Rubin’s rule (Graham, Olchowski, & Gilreath, 2007; Little & Rubin, 1989; Rubin, 1987).

3.2. Measures

3.2.1. Dependent variable

TALIS 2018 asked teachers “in teaching a culturally diverse classroom, to what extent can you do the following?” by using 4 Likert scale
(from 1= not at all to 4= a lot) and named it self-efficacy in multicultural classrooms. We constructed a composite variable by using the
five items (e.g., adapt my teaching to the cultural diversity of students, raise awareness for cultural differences amongst students, and reduce
ethnic stereotyping amongst students). We used principal components analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation to maximize the amount of
the variability in the items. On average, the result of PCA indicated that the items loaded on a single factor—the eigenvalue of the first
component was 3.06 and the second one was 0.73—accounting for 61 % of the variance. The reliability of the composite was 0.84. All
eigenvectors were positive and similar (from 0.42 to 0.47), indicating that the items of TSMC explained approximately the same
amount of variation in the first component (Mooi et al., 2018). The composite was standardized to have a mean of zero and a standard
deviation (SD) of one by each country, which allowed for comparability of the results across the countries and interpretations of the
results as an effect size.

3.2.2. Main independent variable

The main independent variable, PDME, is a dichotomous variable indicating whether teachers had received professional devel­
opment in a multicultural setting during the last 12 months (0= no; 1= yes).

3.2.3. Moderating variable

This study created a composite variable of five items related to teacher autonomy in classrooms for each country by using PCA with
varimax rotation. The items indicated how much teachers have control over the specific areas (e.g., course content, selecting teaching
methods, and assessing students’ learning). The result of PCA revealed that the items loaded on a single factor—the eigenvalue of the first
component was 2.96 and the second one was 0.72—accounting for 59 % of the variance. The reliability of the composite was 0.84. All
eigenvectors were positive and similar (from 0.40 to 0.49), indicating that the items of teacher autonomy explained approximately the
same amount of variation in the first component (Mooi et al., 2018). The composite was standardized to have a mean of zero and a SD
of one for each country for the same reason as those of TSMC.

3.2.4. Covariates
To account for potential confounders, this study included a series of teacher- and school-level characteristics in the analyses based
on the previous studies (e.g., Bennison & Goos, 2010; Desimone, Smith, & Phillips, 2007; Parkhouse et al., 2019). At the teacher-level,
this study controlled for gender, working status (part-time or full-time), an advanced degree earned, years of experience of teaching,
and teaching subjects. At the school-level, this study controlled for the school type (public or private), the percentage of
low-socioeconomic status (SES) and second-language students, school location, and school size. All school-level variables came from
the principal survey. The descriptions of the variables in this study are documented in Table 1.

4
S. Choi and X. Mao International Journal of Educational Research 105 (2021) 101711

Table 1
Description of the Variables.
Variable Name Description

Dependent variable
Teacher self-efficacy in multicultural Composite variable using 5 items with four-Likert scales (from not at all to a lot) to reflect the extent to which teachers
classrooms can employ the following practices, a) cope with the challenges of a multicultural classroom; b) adapt my teaching to
the cultural diversity of students; c) ensure that students with and without a migrant background work together; d)
raise awareness for cultural differences amongst students; e) reduce ethnic stereotyping amongst students
Main independent variable
Professional development in Binary variable indicating whether a teacher participated in professional development in multicultural education
multicultural education during the last 12 months, 0= no, 1= yes
Moderating variable
Teacher autonomy Composite variable using 5 items with four-Likert scales (from strongly disagree to strongly agree) to indicate how much
teachers have control over the specific areas, a) determining course content; b) selecting teaching methods; c)
assessing students’ learning; d) disciplining students e) determining the amount of homework to be assigned
Covariates
Gender Dummy variable, 0= male, 1= female
Working status Dummy variable, 0= part-time, 1= full-time
Advanced degree Dummy variable, 0= less, 1= master or doctoral
Years of experience teaching Ordinal variable indicating years of experience in teaching, 1 = 0–9, 2 = 10–19, 3 = 20–29, 4 = 30 or more
Subjects Series of dummy variables for each subject (reading, math, science, social studies, and foreign languages), the
reference group includes Ancient Greek and/or Latin, technology, arts, physical education, religion, and vocational
skills
School type Dummy variable, 0= private, 1= public
Percentage of low-SES students Series of dummy variables indicating the percentage of low-SES students (11–30 %, 31–60 %, and more than 60%)
lacking basic necessities or advantage of life, the reference group = less than or equal to 10%
Percentage of second-language students Series of dummy variables indicating the percentage of second-language students (11–30 %, 31–60 %, and more than
60%), the reference group = less than or equal to 10%
School location Dummy variable, 0= rural or town (up to 100,000 people), 1= city (more than 100,000 people)
School size Number of enrolled students, from 0= under 250 to 4= above 1000

3.3. Empirical model

To examine the relationship between PDME and TSMC, as well as the moderation effect of teacher autonomy in the classrooms on
the relationship, this study used the following specifications:
yijk = α + β1 PDMEijk + β2 TSMCijk + β3 TeacherAutonomyijk + β4 Tijk + β5 Sjk + λc + εijk (1)

yijk = α + β1 PDMEijk + β2 TSMCijk + β3 TeacherAutonomyijk + β4 PDMEijk × TeacherAutonomyijk + β5 Tijk + β6 Sjk + λc + εijk (2)

In (1) and (2), where yijk represents the ith teacher’s TSMC in school j and country k; PDMEijk is a dummy variable indicating
whether a teacher participated in PDME; TeacherAutonomyijk represents the level of teacher autonomy in the classrooms; PDMEijk ×
TeacherAutonomyijk is an interaction term between PDMD and teacher autonomy; Tijk is a vector of the teacher characteristics such as
years of experience; Sjk is a vector of the school characteristics such as school location; λc is a country fixed effects; and εijk represents
the random error term. Unobserved country-specific heterogeneity such as the population of immigrants and immigration policy is
eliminated by including country fixed effects in the model.1 Thus, the estimates of this study come from within-country variation
(Hanushek et al., 2013). Robust standard errors (SE) were computed at the country-level to account for the non-independence of
observations within the country.
To check the robustness of the results of this study, this study also ran the same empirical model by using data from OECD countries.
Though this study employed country fixed effects to account for unobserved country-specific confounders, the robustness check aimed
to see if the results do not depend on the inclusion or exclusion of certain countries and economies (Bergbauer, Hanushek, &
Woessmann, 2018).

3.4. Descriptive statistics

Descriptive statistics of the variables used in this study are presented in Appendix A. Fig. 2 summarizes the descriptive statistics of
the main interests of this study (i.e., PDME, TSMC, and teacher autonomy) by country. The composite variables of TSMC and teacher
autonomy were standardized to have a mean of zero and a SD of 1 across the countries to provide a comparative picture of the main

1
Alternatively, a three-level modeling could be used for the analysis. However, we decided to use country fixed effect because there may exist a
number of country-specific confounders with multilevel modeling even after controlling for available country-level characteristics, which can be
addressed with country fixed effect and our main interest was not in the country-level. To check the robustness of the results, we conducted a
supplementary analysis by using a three-level modeling and the results showed the same trend and direction. The detailed results are available upon
request.

5
S. Choi and X. Mao International Journal of Educational Research 105 (2021) 101711

Fig. 2. Bar Graph Representing the Key Variables in the Study.

Note. This figure presents the key variables in this study: (1) national percentage of PDME; (2) national mean of TSMC; (3) national mean of teacher
autonomy in classrooms. The standardized scores to have a mean 0 and SD of 1 across the countries are used in (2) and (3).
The following countries are included: ABA(Argentina), ARE(United Arab Emirates), AUS(Australia), AUT(Austria), BEL(Belgium), BGR(Bulgaria),
BRA(Brazil), CAB(Canada), CHL(Chile), COL(Columbia), CSH(China), CYP(Cyprus), CZE(Czech Republic), DNK(Denmark) ENG(United Kingdom),
ESP(Spain), EST(Estonia), FIN(Finland), FRA(France), GEO(Georgia), HRV(Croatia), HUN(Hungary), ISR(Israel), ITA(Italy), JPN(Japan), KAZ
(Kazakhstan), KOR(South Korea), LTU(Lithuania), LVA(Latvia), MEX(Mexico), MLT(Malta), NLD(Netherlands), NOR(Norway), NZL(New Zealand),
PRT(Portugal), ROU(Romania), RUS(Russian Federation), SAU(Saudi Arabia), SGP(Singapore), SVK(Slovak Republic), SVN(Slovenia), SWE(Swe­
den), TUR(Turkey), TWN(Chinese Taipei), USA(United States), VNM(Viet Nam), ZAF(South Africa).

variables although the main analyses of this study used standardized values within the countries. The results of the descriptive statistics
should be interpreted as a rough indicator rather than statistical inference.
Fig. 2 shows that the country means of PDME, TSMC, and teacher autonomy considerably vary across the countries: from roughly
-1.2 to 0.9 for TSMC and from roughly -0.4 to 0.4 for teacher autonomy. More specifically, as seen in section (1), the average proportion
of teachers who participated in PDME was roughly 34 %. In Viet Nam, more than 80 % of teachers participated in PDME. According to
the OECD report, the data from Viet Nam were not nationally representative and validated due to the issue of sampling procedure
(OECD, 2019a). This study, therefore, conducted a supplementary analysis excluding the data from Viet Nam and it showed the same
result as those of the main analysis. As shown in section (2), the top three countries and economies ranked in the national average of
TSMC were Columbia, United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia. In contrast, the three lowest countries and economies were Japan,
Chinese Taipei, and South Korea. The former group has been identified as a highly multicultural and ethnically diverse society due to
immigration, diverse indigenous peoples, and a colonial history whereas the latter group had remained homogenous until recently
(Ariel de Vidas & Hoffmann, 2012; McAuliffe & Khadria, 2019). In terms of the national average of teacher autonomy, it was relatively
high in Nordic countries including Sweden, Denmark, and Finland, as shown in section (3). Notably, on average, teachers in the United
Kingdom perceived their classroom autonomy as relatively low. A possible explanation is that teacher classroom autonomy is con­
strained by sponsors and chains of academies, which have been introduced to address low academic performance (Salokangas &
Chapman, 2014).

6
S. Choi and X. Mao International Journal of Educational Research 105 (2021) 101711

4. Results

Overall, the results of this study showed that there was a significant positive relationship between PDME and TSMC. The results
further suggested that teacher autonomy in the classrooms positively moderated this relationship. Table 2 presented the results of this
study.
In terms of Research Question 1, the findings of this study showed that PDME was positively associated with the extent of TSMC
(0.276 SD, p < 0.001) when the teacher- and school-level variables were controlled for (see Model 1). It indicated that the difference in
TSMC between a teacher who participated in PDME and those who did not was 0.276 SD, which was slightly larger than a small effect
size and not negligible (Kotrlik & Williams, 2003). Our results aligned with the previous study from Choi and Lee (2020) and
DeJaeghere and Cao (2009). Although their results were limited to teachers in the United States and South Korea and those in a few U.S
regions, respectively, our results included teachers in the 47 countries while providing more generalizable evidence to the varied
countries of our analysis.
In terms of Research Question 2, this study further found that teacher autonomy in the classrooms positively moderated the
relationship between PDME and TSMC (0.034 SD, p < 0.001) when other predictors held constant. As shown in Fig. 3, it indicated that
the positive relationship between PDME and TSMC increased as teacher autonomy increased. For instance, at the point where teacher
autonomy was zero, the difference between a teacher who participated in PDME and their counterparts was 0.276 SD. However, as
teacher autonomy increases by one SD, this difference increased from 0.276 SD to 0.31 SD. In a similar vein, the margin of an increase
in one SD of teacher autonomy in TSMC was 0.142 SD for a teacher who did not participate in PDME whereas it was 0.176 SD for a
teacher who did participate in PDME.
When covariates were included in the analyses, as shown in Table 2 Model 2, at the teacher-level, this study found that, on average,
female (0.034 SD, p < 0.010) and full-time (0.058 SD, p < 0.001) teachers had a higher level of TSMC compared to male and part-time
teachers. In terms of teaching subjects, reading (0.056 SD, p < 0.01), social studies (0.134 SD, p < 0.001), and foreign languages (0.050
SD, p < 0.05) teachers were more likely to have a higher level of TSMC compared to the other subject teachers (i.e., Ancient Greek and/

Table 2
Country Fixed Effects Estimation Predicting Teacher Self-Efficacy in Multicultural classrooms.
Model 1 Model 2

Participation in PDME 0.276*** (0.013) 0.276*** (0.013)

Teacher autonomya 0.154*** (0.009) 0.142*** (0.010)
Interaction effect
PDME × Teacher autonomy 0.034*** (0.009)
Teacher level
Female 0.034† (0.018) 0.034† (0.018)
Full-time 0.058*** (0.012) 0.058*** (0.012)
Years of experience teaching − 0.004 (0.009) − 0.004 (0.009)
Advanced degree 0.015 (0.022) 0.015 (0.022)
Subjects (ref. other subjectsb)
Reading 0.056** (0.019) 0.056** (0.019)
Math − 0.197*** (0.021) − 0.197*** (0.021)
Science − 0.154*** (0.019) − 0.154*** (0.019)
Social studies 0.135*** (0.016) 0.134*** (0.016)
Foreign languages 0.050* (0.022) 0.050* (0.022)
School level
Public school 0.012 (0.040) 0.011 (0.040)
City 0.078*** (0.016) 0.078*** (0.016)
School size − 0.011† (0.006) − 0.011† (0.006)
Percentage of low-SES students (ref. less than or equal to 10 %)
11 %− 30 % 0.004 (0.012) 0.004 (0.012)
31 %− 60 % 0.035† (0.018) 0.035† (0.018)
More than 60 % 0.105*** (0.020) 0.105*** (0.020)
Percentage of second-language students (ref. less than or equal to 10 %)
11 %− 30 % 0.031 (0.019) 0.031 (0.019)
31 %− 60 % 0.082** (0.028) 0.082** (0.028)
More than 60 % 0.106† (0.059) 0.106† (0.059)
Country fixed effects Yes Yes
Observations
Students 86,750
Countries 47

Note. Robust standard errors clustered at the country-level are in parentheses. The outcome is standardized.
a
Denotes standardized variables.
b
Other subjects include Ancient Greek and/or Latin, technology, arts, physical education, religion, and vocational skills.
†
p < .10.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
***
p < .001.

7
S. Choi and X. Mao International Journal of Educational Research 105 (2021) 101711

Fig. 3. Interaction Between PDME and Teacher Autonomy Predicting TSMC.

Note. This figure represents the interaction effect of teacher autonomy in the classrooms on the relationship between PDME and TSMC. CI denotes
the 95 % confidence intervals. The upper line is for those who particiated in PDME and the lower line is for those who did not particiate in PDME.

or Latin, technology, arts, physical education, religion, and vocational skills). However, math (− 0.197 SD, p < 0.001) and science
(− 0.154 SD, p < 0.001) teachers tended to have a lower level of TSMC compared to the other subject teachers. The findings were
consistent with some evidence from qualitative studies where mathematics and science education was perceived as a universal and
objective matter and cultural diversity of students was less emphasized in the areas (Charity & Mallinson, 2017; Gutiérrez, 2002;
Young, 2010).
At the school-level, on average, a teacher who worked for a school located in a city had a higher level of TSMC (0.078, p < 0.001)
compared to those in a rural or town. In terms of the percentage of low-SES students, a teacher who worked for a school where the
proportion of low-SES students was larger, on average, had a higher level of TSMC (0.035 SD, p < 0.10; 0.105 SD, p < 0.001,
respectively for 31–60 % and more than 60 %) compared to those worked for a school that had less than or equal to 10 % of low-SES
students in a school. Additionally, a teacher who worked for a school with a higher percentage of second-language students was more
likely to have a higher level of TSMC (0.082 SD, p < 0.01; 0.106 SD, p < 0.10, respectively for 31–60 % and more than 60 %) compared
to their counterparts. Findings in this regard were aligned with previous research where researchers found that teachers in rural
schools (O’Neal, Ringler, & Rodriguez, 2008) and schools with homogenous student groups, in terms of SES and language, were less
prepared to address cultural diversity in teaching (Bonner, Warren, & Jiang, 2018; Sliwka, 2010). Teachers who work in less diverse
schools, as mentioned in previous literature, may be less aware of the positive outcomes that teaching practices based on TSMC can
generate on students, and thus, less prepared in the related area than teachers serving students in highly diverse schools or regions
(Bonner et al., 2018).
As seen in Appendix B, the supplementary analysis with the data from the OECD countries showed the same trends and narrative as
those of the main analysis. It suggested that our results were robust to the inclusion or exclusion of the different countries and
economies.

5. Discussions and implications

We found that participation in PDME helps teachers develop their self-efficacy in teaching students in multicultural classrooms by
using cross-national data. Further, teacher classroom autonomy strengthens the positive relationship between PDME and TSMC. This
study provides implications for practice and policy in teacher professional development, multicultural education, and the school
organization (i.e., teacher classroom autonomy).
First of all, aligned with the previous studies (Choi & Lee, 2020; DeJaeghere & Cao, 2009), the current study suggests that PDME
helps to equip teachers with TSMC. Yet, to the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to examine the relationship between PDME
and TSMC while providing cross-national evidence on it. By doing so, the current study extends the existing literature on the effec­
tiveness of PDME on TSMC, and filled the research gap mentioned by Parkhouse et al. (2019) that there is a lack of large-scale studies
that investigate the effects of PDME on teacher development. Acknowledging that, across nations, many teachers are not well prepared
to respond to the diversity of students, our study has significant contributions to the practice of and directions for teacher development
in teaching students in a multicultural classroom. For instance, one U.S. teacher noted, “I was unable to fully recognize the cultural
strengths the students brought with them to the learning environment” until she participated in PDME (Williams, 2013, pp. 28-29).
Such an insufficient preparedness of teachers for embracing cultural diversity of students may serve as barriers to the educational
success of diverse students (Kwon, Suh, Bang, Jung, & Moon, 2010; Schussler, Bercaw, & Stooksberry, 2008). Our findings suggest that
providing PDME for an in-service teacher could serve as a useful tool for equipping teachers with TSMC. School leaders and policy­
makers may benefit from our findings by developing and providing teachers with PDME programs to promote teaching and learning in
a multicultural classroom. Given that our results also indicated that, on average, a teacher who works for a school located in a rural or
town and with a lower proportion of low-SES and second-language students tends to have a lower TSMC compared to their

8
S. Choi and X. Mao International Journal of Educational Research 105 (2021) 101711

counterparts, school leaders who are in those categories may consider providing more in-service training or support teachers in
improving TSMC by means of PDME. Future research is encouraged to specifically explore schools in rural areas or schools with less
diverse student bodies to provide insights on how all teachers can be equipped with TSMC.
Given the issues of racism, xenophobia, and discrimination around the world (Crush & Ramachandran, 2010; Forrest et al., 2015),
the role teachers play in encouraging students to become aware of their own bias, recognizing the cultural and racial differences, and
understanding the issues of social injustice and inequities is getting more important (Will, 2020). Findings from our study suggest that
providing teachers with PDME can be a way to develop teachers’ TSMC that may promote such competence and consciousness of
students, which are necessary for living in a multicultural society (Ladson-Billings, 1995). In particular, our results show that teachers
who participated in PDME develop TSMC that adapts their teaching to cultural diversity of students, helps students cooperate with
diverse peers, raises awareness of the differences coming from cultural, racial, and national backgrounds, and reduces stereotypes
about racial groups. As the need for equipping teachers with TSMC will continue to rise in the next few decades, carefully designed
professional development programs in multicultural education can serve as a promising avenue for preparing teachers for a multi­
cultural classroom.
Moreover, aligned with previous literature that reinforces the role of school context in teacher learning through professional
development (Day & Gu, 2007; Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001; Scribner, 1999), this study reveals that the effect of
PDME on TSMC depends on the extent to which teachers have autonomy in classrooms. Specifically, the results indicate that when
teachers have more classroom autonomy in terms of contents, teaching methods, discipline, and evaluations, they benefit more from
PDME in developing TSMC, implying that teachers need room for adapting what they have learned from PDME to improving TSMC.
Our findings suggest that simply providing teachers with PDME may not be sufficient enough to make meaningful changes in TSMC;
rather, allowing teachers to have autonomy over their classrooms alongside participation in PDME may serve as a key factor for
helping teachers to effectively teach students in a multicultural classroom.
However, we are aware that teachers’ efforts for making teaching and learning more relevant to diverse students have been
undermined by standardized curricula and political backlash against multicultural education across the world (Sleeter, 2012). Given
that teaching practices are not entirely isolated from the macro and political system of a country, teachers, especially in a country
where there is a lack of teacher autonomy and/or retreat from multiculturalism, may have difficulties in teaching students with
sufficient TSMC even though they developed it through PDME. Our study sheds light on how a low level of classroom autonomy serves
as an obstacle for teachers to teach students in a culturally relevant/responsive way and why it is necessary for educational leaders and
policymakers to ensure sufficient classroom autonomy for teachers. Our study implies that school leaders play an important role in
teaching and learning––within school contexts, they strongly influence the level of autonomy teachers perceive (Dou, Devos, & Valcke,
2017); and outside school contexts, they buffer teachers from the policy environments and distractions, which reduce teacher class­
room autonomy (Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Weick, 1976). Such a buffer of school leaders may allow teachers to feel confident in applying
TSMC that is acquired from PDME to their classrooms.
From a theoretical perspective, our study provides a theoretical implication of teacher self-efficacy by examining whether TSMC is
developed by PDME and whether the relationship is associated with teacher classroom autonomy. While a body of research ac­
knowledges that teacher self-efficacy is not a constant across the domains but rather specific to each particular domain (Bandura, 1997;
Goddard et al., 2000, 2004), little attention has been paid to teacher self-efficacy in terms of multicultural classrooms. The current
study contributes to extending the domains of teacher self-efficacy while providing evidence that TSMC is a construct that is available
to be developed by teacher professional development and that is situated within the school context like the other domains of
self-efficacy (Day & Gu, 2007).

6. Limitations and future directions

Despite the contributions, our study has some limitations and thus suggests future directions for research which would further
advance our knowledge about PDME, TSMC, and teacher classroom autonomy.
First, the different features of PDME such as duration, contents, and formats may lead to a heterogenous effect on TSMC. Due to the
limited information on the details of PDME in each country provided by TALIS 2018, this study was not able to investigate whether
there exist any differences in the features of PDME and how this relates to TSMC. Future research may build on this study by inves­
tigating whether the possible different features of PDME result in any heterogeneous effect on TSMC. We also suggest that national
and/or international surveys include the detailed items of the features of PDME, which will allow for a close examination of the effect
of PDME on TSMC.
Second, social contexts at the country-level, such as immigration policy and cultural dimensions, may influence the relationship
between PDME, TSMC, and teacher autonomy. While this is outside the scope of our study, we focused on examining whether PDME
contributed to developing TSMC and how teacher autonomy was associated with this relationship by utilizing country fixed effects to
deal with any country-specific heterogeneity. However, a future study may explore what and how contextual factors at the country-
level affect the relationship between PDME, TSMC, and teacher autonomy.
Lastly, due to the nature of our data, we cautioned readers with interpreting our findings as having a strong causal inference.
Although we controlled for possible confounders and utilized country fixed effects to reduce biased estimations, there might still exist
an issue such as selection bias in terms of participation in PDME. Future research may investigate the causal relationship between
PDME, TSMC, and teacher autonomy by using various analytic strategies such as longitudinal data or random experimental design.

9
S. Choi and X. Mao International Journal of Educational Research 105 (2021) 101711

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors report no declarations of interest.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Professor Sarah Diem for insightful comments and suggestions on an earlier version of this manuscript.

Appendix A. Descriptive Statistics of Variables in This Study

Mean SD Min Max

TSMC 0.00 1.00 − 4.96 3.46

Participation in PDME (%) 0.34 – 0.00 1.00
Teacher autonomya 0.00 1.00 − 5.57 4.00
Female (%) 0.69 – 0.00 1.00
Full-time (%) 0.81 – 0.00 1.00
Years of experience teaching 2.19 1.03 1.00 4.00
Advanced degree (%) 0.44 – 0.00 1.00
Subjects
Reading (%) 0.20 – 0.00 1.00
Math (%) 0.13 – 0.00 1.00
Science (%) 0.12 – 0.00 1.00
Social studies (%) 0.12 – 0.00 1.00
Foreign languages 0.13 – 0.00 1.00
Public school (%) 0.13 – 0.00 1.00
City (%) 0.44 – 0.00 1.00
School size (%) 3.08 1.37 1.00 5.00
Percentage of low-SES students
11 %− 30 % (%) 0.29 – 0.00 1.00
31 %− 60 % (a%) 0.12 – 0.00 1.00
More than 60 % (%) 0.06 – 0.00 1.00
Percentage of second-language students
11 %− 30 % (%) 0.15 – 0.00 1.00
31 %− 60 % (%) 0.07 – 0.00 1.00
More than 60 % (%) 0.08 – 0.00 1.00
a
Denotes standardized variables.

Appendix B. Country Fixed Effects Estimation of the OECD Countries Predicting Teacher Self-Efficacy in Multicultural
Classrooms

Model 1 Model 2

Participation in PDME 0.280*** (0.016) 0.280*** (0.016)

Teacher autonomya 0.141*** (0.011) 0.131*** (0.011)
Interaction effect
PDME*Teacher autonomy 0.035** (0.012)
Teacher level
Female 0.050** (0.017) 0.050** (0.017)
Full-time 0.055** (0.015) 0.055** (0.015)
Years of experience teaching − 0.011 (0.009) − 0.011 (0.009)
Advanced degree 0.037* (0.015) 0.037* (0.015)
b
Subjects (ref. other subjects )
Reading 0.071** (0.020) 0.071** (0.020)
Math − 0.234*** (0.028) − 0.234*** (0.028)
Science − 0.176*** (0.024) − 0.175*** (0.024)
Social studies 0.144*** (0.022) 0.144*** (0.022)
Foreign languages 0.067* (0.025) 0.067* (0.025)
School level
Public school − 0.007 (0.053) − 0.008 (0.052)
City 0.082*** (0.020) 0.082*** (0.020)
School size − 0.001 (0.005) − 0.001 (0.005)
Percentage of low-SES students (ref. less than or equal to 10 %)
11 %− 30 % 0.004 (0.015) 0.005 (0.015)
31 %− 60 % 0.034 (0.021) 0.034 (0.021)
More than 60 % 0.093*** (0.023) 0.093*** (0.023)
(continued on next page)

10
S. Choi and X. Mao International Journal of Educational Research 105 (2021) 101711

(continued )
Model 1 Model 2

Percentage of second-language students (ref. less than or equal to 10 %)

11 %− 30 % 0.045* (0.022) 0.045* (0.021)
31 %− 60 % 0.124*** (0.028) 0.124*** (0.028)
More than 60 % 0.199*** (0.041) 0.199*** (0.041)
Country fixed effects Yes Yes
Observations
Students 54,304
Countries 30
Note. Robust standard errors clustered at the country-level are in parentheses. The outcome is standardized.
a
Denotes standardized variables.
b
Other subjects include Ancient Greek and/or Latin, technology, arts, physical education, religion, and vocational skills.
†
p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

References

Allen, A., Hancock, S. D., Starker-Glass, T., & Lewis, C. W. (2017). Mapping culturally relevant pedagogy into teacher education programs: A critical framework.
Teachers College Record, 119(1), 1–26.
Ariel de Vidas, A., & Hoffmann, O. (2012). Beyond reified categories: Multidimensional identifications among ‘black’ and ‘Indian’ groups in Columbia and Mexico.
Ethnic and Racial Studies, 35(9), 1596–1614.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.
Banks, J. A. (2015). Multicultural education: Characteristics and goals. In J. A. Banks, & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (9th ed.,
pp. 2–23). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Banks, J. A., Cookson, P., Gay, G., Hawley, W. D., Irvine, J. J., Nieto, S., et al. (2001). Diversity within unity: Essential principles for teaching and learning in a
multicultural society. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(3), 196–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170108300309.
Bennison, A., & Goos, M. (2010). Learning to teach mathematics with technology: A survey of professional development needs, experiences and impacts. Mathematics
Education Research Journal, 22(1), 31–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217558.
Benson, P. (2007). Autonomy in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 40(1), 21.
Benson, P. (2010). Teacher education and teacher autonomy: Creating spaces for experimentation in secondary school English language teaching. Language Teaching
Research, 14(3), 259–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810365236.
Bergbauer, A. B., Hanushek, E. A., & Woessmann, L. (2018). Testing (NBER working paper No. 24836). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Bonner, P. J., Warren, S. R., & Jiang, Y. H. (2018). Voices from urban classrooms: Teachers’ perceptions on instructing diverse students and using culturally responsive
teaching. Education and Urban Society, 50(8), 697–726. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124517713820.
Borko, H. (2007). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.3102/
0013189x033008003.
Chang, I. (2012). Multicultural education in Korea: Its origin, status, and direction. Multicultural Education Review, 4(2), 60–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/
2005615X.2011.11102894.
Charity, A. H., & Mallinson, C. (2017). “It’s worth our time”: A model of culturally and linguistically supportive professional development for K-12 STEM educators.
Cultural Studies of Science Education, 12(3), 637–660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-016-9743-7.
Choi, S., & Lee, S. W. (2020). Enhancing teacher self-efficacy in multicultural classrooms and school climate: The role of professional development in multicultural
education in the United States and South Korea. AERA Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420973574.
Choi, S., & Lee, M. (2021). Diversity as an opportunity or a challenge? A cross-national study of ethnic diversity and students’ generalized trust. International Journal of
Educational Development, 80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2020.102301.
Collie, R. J., Granziera, H., & Martin, A. J. (2018). Teachers’ perceived autonomy support and adaptability: An investigation employing the job demands-resources
model as relevant to workplace exhaustion, disengagement, and commitment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 74, 125–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tate.2018.04.015.
Crush, J., & Ramachandran, S. (2010). Xenophobia, international migration and development. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 11(2), 209–228. https://
doi.org/10.1080/19452821003677327.
Day, C. (2002). School reform and transitions in teacher professionalism and identity. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 677–692. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00065-X.
Day, C., & Gu, Q. (2007). Variations in the conditions for teachers’ professional learning and development: Sustaining commitment and effectiveness over a career.
Oxford Review of Education, 33(4), 423–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980701450746.
Dee, T. S., & Penner, E. K. (2017). The causal effects of cultural relevance: Evidence from an ethnic studies curriculum. American Educational Research Journal, 54(1),
127–166. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216677002.
DeJaeghere, J. G., & Cao, Y. (2009). Developing U.S. teachers’ intercultural competence: Does professional development matter? International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 33(5), 437–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2009.06.004.
den Brok, P., & Levy, J. (2005). Teacher–student relationships in multicultural classes: Reviewing the past, preparing the future. International Journal of Educational
Research, 43, 72–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2006.03.007.
Desimone, L. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3),
181–199. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x08331140.
Desimone, L., Smith, T. M., & Phillips, K. J. R. (2007). Does policy influence mathematics and science teachers’ participation in professional development? Teachers
College Record, 109(5), 1086–1122.
Dou, D., Devos, G., & Valcke, M. (2017). The relationships between school autonomy gap, principal leadership, teachers’ job satisfaction and organizational
commitment. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 45(6), 959–977. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143216653975.
Forrest, J., Lean, G., & Dunn, K. (2015). Challenging racism through schools: Teacher attitudes to cultural diversity and multicultural education in Sydney, Australia.
Race, Ethnicity and Education, 19(3), 618–638. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2015.1095170.
Friedman, I. A. (1999). Teacher-perceived work autonomy: The concept and its measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59(1), 58–76. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0013164499591005.
Garcia, C., & Chun, H. (2016). Culturally responsive teaching and teacher expectations for Latino middle school students. Journal of Latina/o Psychology, 4(3),
173–187. https://doi.org/10.1037/lat0000061.

11
S. Choi and X. Mao International Journal of Educational Research 105 (2021) 101711

Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of
teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038004915.
Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 106–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487102053002003.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational
Research Journal, 37(2), 479–507. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312037002479.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2004). Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational
Researcher, 33(3), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033003003.
Gorski, P. C. (2009). What we’re teaching teachers: An analysis of multicultural teacher education coursework syllabi. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(2),
309–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.07.008.
Graham, J. W., Olchowski, A. E., & Gilreath, T. D. (2007). How many imputations are really needed? Some practical clarifications of multiple imputation theory.
Prevention Science, 8(3), 206–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-007-0070-9.
Gutiérrez, R. (2002). Beyond essentialism: The complexity of language in teaching mathematics to Latina/o students. American Educational Research Journal, 39(4),
1047–1088. https://doi.org/10.3102/000283120390041047.
Hanushek, E. A., Link, S., & Woessmann, L. (2013). Does school autonomy make sense everywhere? Panel estimates from PISA. Journal of Development Economics, 104,
212–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2012.08.002.
Henfield, M. S., & Washington, A. R. (2012). “I want to do the right thing but what is it?”: White teachers’ experiences with African American students. The Journal of
Negro Education, 81(2), 148–161. https://doi.org/10.7709/jnegroeducation.81.2.0148.
Howard, T. C., & Rodriguez-Minkoff, A. C. (2017). Culturally relevant pedagogy 20 years later: Progress or pontificating? What have we learned and where do we go?
Teachers College Record, 119(1), 1–32.
Hyland, N. E. (2009). One white teacher’s struggle for culturally relevant pedagogy: The problem of the community. The New Educator, 5(2), 95–112. https://doi.org/
10.1080/1547688X.2009.10399567.
Ingersoll, R., & May, H. (2012). The magnitude, destinations, and determinants of mathematics and science teacher turnover. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 34(4), 435–464.
Irvine, J. J. (2003). Educating teachers for diversity: Seeing with a cultural eye (Vol. 15). Teachers College Press.
James, M., & McCormick, R. (2009). Teachers learning how to learn. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(7), 973–982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.02.023.
Kotrlik, J. W., & Williams, H. A. (2003). The incorporation of effect size in information technology, learning, information technology, learning, and performance
research and performance research. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 21(1), 1–7.
Kwon, K. Y., Suh, Y., Bang, Y., Jung, J., & Moon, S. (2010). The note of discord: Examining educational perspectives between teachers and Korean parents in the U. S.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 497–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.06.008.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2009). The dream keepers: Successful teachers of African American children (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Lee, J. C. K. (2019). Teachers’ work, change and learning: Roles, contexts and engagement. Teachers and Teaching, 25(4), 399–403.
Lee, O., Luykx, A., Buxton, C., & Shaver, A. (2007). The challenge of altering elementary school teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding linguistic and cultural
diversity in science instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(9), 1269–1291. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20198.
Leonard, P., & Leonard, L. (2010). Teachers and tolerance: Discriminating diversity dispositions. The Teacher Educator, 42(1), 30–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/
08878730609555392.
Liou, Y., & Canrinus, E. T. (2020). A capital framework for professional learning and practice. International Journal of Educational Research, 100. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijer.2019.101527.
Little, R. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83(404), 1198–1202.
Little, R. J., & Rubin, D. B. (1989). The analysis of social science data with missing values. Sociological Methods & Research, 18, 293–326.
Mausethagen, S., & Mølstad, C. E. (2015). Shifts in curriculum control: Contesting ideas of teacher autonomy. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 2015(2),
Article 28520. https://doi.org/10.3402/nstep.v1.28520.
McAuliffe, M., & Khadria, B. (2019) World migration report 2020. International Organization for Migration. https://publications.iom.int/books/world-migration-
report-2020.
Mette, I. M., Nieuwenhuizen, L., & Hvidston, D. J. (2016). Teachers’ perceptions of culturally responsive pedagogy and the impact on leadership preparation: Lessons
for future reform efforts. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 11(1). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1103652.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. The American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.
Miled, N. (2019). Educational leaders’ perceptions of multicultural education in teachers’ professional development: A case study from a Canadian school district.
Multicultural Education Review, 11(2), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/2005615X.2019.1615249.
Principal component and factor analysis. In Mooi, E., Sarstedt, M., & Mooi-Reci, I. (Eds.), Market research, (pp. 265–311). (2018) (pp. 265–311). Springer. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-981-10-5218-7_8.
Morrison, K. A., Robbins, H. H., & Rose, D. G. (2008). Operationalizing culturally relevant pedagogy: A synthesis of classroom-based research. Equity & Excellence in
Education, 41(4), 433–452.
Nguyen, X. N. C. M., & Walkinshaw, I. (2018). Autonomy in teaching practice: Insights from Vietnamese English language teachers trained in Inner-Circle countries.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 69, 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.08.015.
O’Neal, D. D., Ringler, M., & Rodriguez, D. (2008). Teachers’ perceptions of their preparation for teaching linguistically and culturally diverse learners in rural eastern
North Carolina. The Rural Educator, 30(1), 5–13.
OECD. (2019a). PISA 2018 results (Volume I): What students know and can do. PISA, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en.
OECD. (2019b). How education systems respond to cultural diversity in schools: New measures in TALIS 2018. Teaching in Focus, No. 25. OECD Publishing. https://doi.
org/10.1787/1baa285c-en.
OECD. (2019c). TALIS starting strong 2018 technical report. OECD Publishing. http://www.oecd.org/education/school/oecd-starting-strong-teaching-and-learning-
international-survey.htm.
Öztürk, İ. H. (2012). Teacher’s role and autonomy in instructional planning: The case of secondary school history teachers with regard to the reparation and
implementation of annual instructional plans. Educational Sciences Theory & Practice, 12(1), 295–299.
Palfreyman, D. (2003). Introduction: Culture and learner autonomy. In D. Palfreyman, & R. C. Smith (Eds.), Learner autonomy across cultures: Language education
perspectives (pp. 1–19). UK: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230504684_1.
Parkhouse, H., Lu, C. Y., & Massaro, V. R. (2019). Multicultural education professional development: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 89(3),
416–458. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319840359.
Pearson, L. C., & Moomaw, W. (2005). The relationship between teacher autonomy and stress, work satisfaction, empowerment, and professionalism. Educational
Research Quarterly, 29(1), 38–54.
Picower, B. (2012). Teacher activism: Enacting a vision for social justice. Equity & Excellence in Education, 45(4), 561–574. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10665684.2012.717848.
Rubin, D. B. (1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. John Wiley and Sons.
Sales, A., Traver, J. A., & García, R. (2011). Action research as a school-based strategy in intercultural professional development for teachers. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 27(5), 911–919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.03.002.
Salokangas, M., & Chapman, C. (2014). Exploring governance in two chains of academy schools: A comparative case study. Educational Management Administration &
Leadership, 42(3), 372–386.
Schniedewind, N. (2001). Embracing the rainbow: An integrated approach to diversity education. Multicultural Perspectives, 3(1), 23–27. https://doi.org/10.1207/
S15327892MCP0301_5.

12
S. Choi and X. Mao International Journal of Educational Research 105 (2021) 101711

Schussler, D. L., Bercaw, L. A., & Stooksberry, L. M. (2008). Using case studies to explore teacher candidates’ intellectual, cultural, and moral dispositions. Teacher
Education Quarterly, 35(2), 105–122.
Scribner, J. P. (1999). Professional development: Untangling the influence of work context on teacher learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(2), 238–266.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x99352004.
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.
Sleeter, C. E. (2008). Preparing White teachers for diverse students. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, & J. McIntyre (Eds.), Handbook of research in teacher
education: Enduring issues in changing contexts (3rd ed, pp. 559–582). Lawrence Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.04.003.
Sleeter, C. E. (2012). Confronting the marginalization of culturally responsive pedagogy. Urban Education, 47(3), 562–584. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0042085911431472.
Sliwka, A. (2010). From homogeneity to diversity in German education. Educating teachers for diversity: Meeting the challenge. OECD Publishing.
Sonaiya, R. (2002). Autonomous language learning in Africa: A mismatch of cultural assumptions. Language Culture and Curriculum, 15(2), 106–116. https://doi.org/
10.1080/07908310208666637.
Webb, P. T. (2002). Teacher power: The exercise of professional autonomy in an era of strict accountability. Teacher Development, 6(1), 47–62. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13664530200200156.
Weick, K. D. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1–19.
Wermke, W., Olason Rick, S., & Salokangas, M. (2019). Decision-making and control: Perceived autonomy of teachers in Germany and Sweden. Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 51(3), 306–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2018.1482960.
Wilches, J. U. (2009). Teacher autonomy: A critical review of the research and concept beyond applied linguistics. Íkala, 12(18), 245–275.
Will, M. (2020, June 1). Teachers cannot be silent”: How educators are showing up for Black students following protests. Education Week: Teacher. https://blogs.
edweek.org/teachers/teaching_now/2020/06/as_protests_erupt_after_george_floyds_death_teachers_grieve_with_students_from_a_distance.html.
Williams, S. V. (2013). Outsider teacher/insider knowledge: Fostering Mohawk cultural competency for non-native teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 40(1),
25–43.
Wilson, A. L. (1993). The promise of situated cognition. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 57, 71–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.36719935709.
You, Y. (2017). Comparing school accountability in England and its East Asian sources of ‘borrowing’. Comparative Education, 53(2), 224–244. https://doi.org/
10.1080/03050068.2017.1294652.
Young, E. (2010). Challenges to conceptualizing and actualizing culturally relevant pedagogy: How viable is the theory in classroom practice? Journal of Teacher
Education, 61(3), 248–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109359775.

13